US16/17-15: Student Misconduct and Teaching Evaluations policy proposal

Date of Notice: January 18, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Sponsor: Huaxin Lin (Math)


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS academic honesty is an integral for maintaining an effective learning environment; and

1.2 WHEREAS to maintain an academically honest environment instructors must report academic misconduct to Student Conduct and Community Standards; and

1.3 WHEREAS accurate student course evaluations play a vital role in departmental governance and university hiring, retention, and promotion policies; and

1.4 WHEREAS a student who has been been accused of academic misconduct has an inherent conflict of interest regarding course evaluations; and

1.5 WHEREAS concerns about student course evaluations may deter faculty members from reporting academic misconduct, and thereby create a conflict of interest where none otherwise would exist; and

1.6 WHEREAS the current course evaluation system does not allow the university to retroactively remove student course evaluations after reports on those evaluations have been prepared;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that if a student has been accused of misconduct related to a class WITHIN ONE WEEK of the end of the final exam period shall have his/her numerical and narrative course evaluations for that class STRUCK FROM THE RECORD and from all averages of student evaluations; and

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Registrar’s Office shall take all necessary actions to enforce this policy; and

2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Registrar’s Office shall enforce this policy beginning in the Fall Quarter of 2017;

2.4 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that when the Registrar’s Office considers recontracting the course evaluation system, the ability to remove student evaluations retroactively, for a period of at least one quarter, shall be a priority.


 

President Schill drops policy proposal for TPM restrictions on free speech

2/14/2017:

From: Mike Schill <mschill@uoregon.edu>

Subject: Time, Place and Manner rules

Date: February 14, 2017 at 5:51:47 AM PST

To: Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, William Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>

Hi Bill and Chris,

After discussing the matter with you two, Kevin Reed and other senior staff, I have decided to withdraw our proposal for time, place and manner rules.  While I still believe that these rules are advisable to protect content neutrality, I am also convinced that we need to do more work in educating the community and building consensus around them.  The UO has no shortage of pressing issues, difficult problems and wonderful opportunities for us to work on together now.  Therefore, I am putting the time, place and manner proposal on hold for the foreseeable future.

Best,

Mike

12/07/2016: For informational purposes and background, please see previous senate motion:

This policy contains elements related to free speech activities on campus.

11/27/2016 update: After weeks of of not responding to Senate requests for an updated draft of the TPM free speech restrictions policy, General Counsel Kevin Reed has now submitted one to the administration’s Policy Advisory Council.

Continue reading President Schill drops policy proposal for TPM restrictions on free speech

Submit your name for UO Board Faculty Trustee by Feb 28

From: UO Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>

Subject: DEADLINE Feb 28: Nomination and review process for the new faculty member of the UO Board of Trustees

Date: February 13, 2017 at 2:24:35 PM PST

Dear UO Statutory Faculty Members – 

The current Faculty Trustee on the UO Board of Trustees – Susan Gary (Law) – will be completing her term of office on June 30. Sometime between now and then Governor Kate Brown will appoint another member of the statutory faculty to take her place. The Oregon Senate then confirms (almost always) the appointment. The Faculty Trustee is a voting member of the UO Board, by the Governor’s decision, and we expect that to continue given the Governor’s support for shared governance. 

The Faculty Trustee is not appointed to promote the faculty’s interests, rather they share the fiduciary responsibility to act in the broad best interests of the University that all our Trustees have. We believe that this requires that the faculty trustee be well informed about the university at large and the opinions of the faculty on important matters that come before the board, be able to effectively inform the rest of the board about those opinions, be able and willing to keep the faculty informed about the thinking and plans of the Board, and be selected with input and buy-in from the faculty – something that has not been done in the past.

So we’re writing to all UO Statutory Faculty to suggest that you learn more about the Board and consider submitting an application to the governor’s office and encourage colleagues who you think would do a good job for UO to also apply. The deadline to apply to the Governor’s office is Feb 28th, and as explained below the Board would prefer that the Faculty Trustee be from CAS, since the last one was from a professional school.

The rest of this email gives some info about university boards and the UO Board, explains how faculty can self-nominate for the Faculty Trustee position, and explains how the Senate will review nominations and make a recommendation to the Governor’s office. 

Information on the Board:

The party line on the UO Board can be found at their website here http://trustees.uoregon.edu/ along with contact information. The Association of Governing Boards has a lot of information at https://www.agb.org/reports/topic/faculty-and-shared-governance.  One recent AGB report, for example, is “Shared Governance: Is OK good enough?” at http://agb.org/sites/default/files/survey_2016_shared_governance.pdf You might also want to contact Susan Gary sgary@uoregon.edu or Board Secretary Angela Wilhelms at wilhelms@uoregon.edu

Information on how to apply to the Governor’s Office:

As the Governor’s website says, “Applying for a Board is Easy!” Unfortunately their website is a bit slow: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/admin/Pages/How_To_Apply.aspx

You will need to complete this form: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/admin/Documents/Interest%20Form%20.pdf and include a c.v., bio, and statement of interest. The application form is here: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/admin/Documents/Interest%20Form.pdf

The Board has posted this statement on the process: https://trustees.uoregon.edu/sites/trustees2.uoregon.edu/files/board_membership_considerations.pdf. It clarifies that the Board will not prohibit the Senate or other organizations from recommending candidates – which we appreciate – and will not make its own recommendation or allow individual trustees to advocate for or against prospective candidates. However they do reserve the right to: 

“Provide information to the Governor’s executive appointments office about what demographics, skills and experiences will help maintain a well-rounded board in whole • Advocate for alternation between constituency types (e.g. classified/OA; professional school/CAS)”

Which we take to mean they would prefer this new trustee be from CAS, since Prof. Gary is from Law.

Information on how the Senate will provide input to the Governor:

We have contacted the governor’s office and they want input from the University Senate and the faculty about who would be a good Faculty Trustee. 

After the deadline for applications closes on February 28th, they will send us a list of all applicants and their application materials. We will post these on the Senate website, and ask the nominees if they would like to provide any additional information, or answer emailed questions from faculty. We will then ask the statutory faculty members of the Senate to rank the nominees (with a Qualtrics poll) and we will provide the aggregate rankings to the Governor’s office. The Senate President and Vice President will consult with the Senate Executive Committee and provide the Governor’s office with our evaluation of the nominees – just as any other citizen may do.

Thanks very much for your assistance in helping ensure that we have a strong set of faculty applicants for the governor to consider when she fills the upcoming vacancy on our UO Board of Trustees!

Bill Harbaugh, Senate President & Professor of Economics

Chris Sinclair, Senate President Elect and Associate Professor of Mathematics

University of Oregon

http://senate.uoregon.edu

Search committee for new AAEO Director announced

AAEO Director search committee:

  • Chair: Bill Brady, Assistant VP Employee & Labor Relations
  • Nicole Commissiong, Assist Dean of Student Affairs, Law School
  • Gordon Hall, Professor, Psychology Department
  • Darci Heroy,  Associate Vice President and Title IX coordinator
  • Emily Huang, Student, ASUO
  • Mariann Hyland, Assistant Vice Provost, Academic Affairs
  • Theodora Ko Thompson, Admissions Evaluator; SEIU
  • Brian McWhorter, Associate Professor, Music
  • Genevieve Perdue, Graduate Student, GTFF
  • Heather Quarles, Senior Instructor, Romance Languages; UA
  • Leslie Wolgamott, Director, Financial Services, University Advancement; OA Council

Here is a link to the posting for the position: http://careers.uoregon.edu/cw/en-us/job/519619/director-office-of-affirmative-action-and-equal-opportunity-aaeo

New UO Provost Announced

Dear University of Oregon colleagues and students,

It is my great pleasure to announce that distinguished physicist Jayanth R. Banavar will join the University of Oregon as our next provost and senior vice president. The hiring of Jayanth as the UO’s next chief academic officer is the culmination of a nationwide recruitment that started in August. 

Jayanth comes to the UO from the University of Maryland, where he has served as dean of the College of Computer, Mathematical, and Natural Sciences since 2011. He was far and away our first choice out of a talented pool of nationally prominent academic leaders. The search committee, vice presidents, faculty members, and others who met with Jayanth were impressed with his stellar academic credentials, interdisciplinary track record, strategic mindset, creativity, and ability to make tough decisions with a touch of humor and personal warmth. Jayanth will begin his duties here in Eugene in July, and I cannot wait to welcome him to campus.

This is a critical appointment for the UO. The provost is responsible for working with me, the deans, and the faculty to set the academic priorities for campus and for managing the human and capital resources to support those priorities. In the coming years, the provost will lead efforts to continue our recruitment of new faculty members, retain the talented faculty already here, realize our aggressive student success goals, and oversee the implementation of a new academic budget system. The provost is the guardian of our academic excellence, working with faculty and staff members, students, and other stakeholders across campus to ensure that we maintain the highest-possible quality of scholarly activity and educational programs. I am confident that Jayanth has the experience, vision, wisdom, and leadership skills to work collaboratively with constituencies across this campus to deliver on those ambitious expectations. There are numerous people I would like to thank. The first is our current provost, Scott Coltrane, who last June announced his plans to retire this summer. Scott has served as a valuable counselor and trusted resource throughout this process. We are grateful that he will work closely with Jayanth over the coming months to ensure a smooth transition in the Office of the Provost and Academic Affairs.

I also want to thank Geri Richmond, who carved out time from her busy research responsibilities to lead the 17-member provost search committee. The committee, under Geri’s leadership and with the assistance of the search firm Russell Reynolds, did an amazing job of helping me identify, evaluate, and vet an outstanding pool of highly qualified candidates, working on an accelerated timeline with representatives from various stakeholders across campus. I thank each of them for their service and commitment to the UO. I am also grateful to the University Senate leadership and the Faculty Advisory Council for understanding our need to balance a competitive search process with our desire to receive input from appropriate campus constituencies. The culture of trust and partnership we continue to build played a significant role in delivering a successful outcome. 

Finally, I want to thank all the members of the UO community for your support through this process and the last 18 months. In that time we have hired three new vice presidents, four deans, and a variety of other campus leaders. In naming Jayanth to the role of provost, we have successfully put in place a foundation of leadership that will guide this campus in our pursuit of excellence and will change the trajectory of our school for decades to come.


A transition e-mail account has been created for Jayanth at provosttransition@uoregon.edu. Please join me in welcoming Jayanth and his wife, Suchitra, to the University of Oregon.


Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
 

President Schill to recommend a 10.6% tuition increase for in-state students.

To University of Oregon community members,

Pursuant to university policy, the provost and I have received the recommendations of the Tuition and Fee Advisory Board (TFAB), a body containing students, administrators, and members of the faculty and staff. Among the recommendations is an increase in tuition of $21 per credit hour—or $945 per year—for in-state undergraduate students. The TFAB recommends the same increase for out-of-state undergraduates students of $21 per credit hour, or $945 annually. For the 2017–18 academic year, this equates to a 10.6 percent increase in undergraduate tuition for in-state students and a 3 percent increase for out-of-state students. The TFAB also recommended various tuition increases for graduate tuition and a new technology fee of $50 per term.

I regret that I have little choice but to accept the TFAB recommendations on tuition and fees for next year. Pursuant to university policy, I am posting the TFAB recommendations together with this memorandum for public comment. After receiving public input, I will forward my final tuition recommendation to the UO Board of Trustees for consideration at its next regular meeting on March 2–3.

I wish it were not necessary for us to increase tuition by these significant amounts. Although the vast majority of our lowest-income students will be spared from this increase by the PathwayOregon scholarship program, for some students a $945 increase will make attending the UO difficult or impossible. Yet the state’s fiscal problems leave us no choice. Oregon’s disinvestment in higher education over more than two decades has shifted the burden of paying for college from the state to our students and families. In 2015, the state made some positive moves toward addressing this trend with an increase in funding, which was greatly appreciated. The governor’s recommended budget, however, keeping funding flat over the next biennium in the face of rapidly rising costs, returns us to the previous status quo of disinvestment.  

Only four other states in the nation provide less funding per student for higher education than Oregon. That is simply unacceptable. Public universities in Oregon have calculated that it would take at least an additional $100 million in state support for public higher education to preserve core student services and financial aid. If we received this amount we would voluntarily limit tuition increases to about 5 percent.
Flat funding may not sound like a reduction, but the university is forecasting very large cost increases over the next couple of years—largely created by salary increases from collective bargaining agreements and unfunded retirement costs. These increased costs amount to roughly $25 million. 

Even with the substantial tuition increases recommended by the TFAB, the university will still need to close an $8.8 million recurring gap in our budget for next year. We have already begun a process, aided by faculty members, administrators, and students, to identify how we can create new revenue streams and/or cut expenses. Roughly 80 percent of our educational budget pays the salaries of our faculty, staff, and administrators. Therefore, any efforts to cut the budget will inevitably lead to a loss of jobs and pain to our community. 

As we move forward, we will strive to protect the academic and research programs of the university. Our goal will be to continue and accelerate the progress we have seen over the past couple of years in enhancing excellence in teaching and research, including investments in faculty hiring, research infrastructure, and support for student access and success programs. Budget challenges will make this harder and may require difficult choices, but we cannot and will not take our eyes off the pursuit of excellence in all that we do at the UO. 

As I have already noted, we will do everything we can to shield our most vulnerable students from the impact of this proposed tuition increase. The PathwayOregon program continues to provide full tuition and fees to about 2,000 Pell Grant–eligible resident students on our campus, including more than a third of our first-year resident students. We have also made significant progress toward achieving the goals set when we announced the Oregon Commitment in 2015, which provides advising, planning, and academic resources to help every student at the university graduate in a timely fashion. To every extent possible, we intend to maintain the integrity of those important efforts.

It is my hope that we can still avoid raising tuition by more than 10 percent and reducing our budget through layoffs and attrition. I call on all of our constituents—students, faculty and staff members, alumni, and friends—to join me in requesting that the legislature and governor prioritize higher education and stop shifting the cost of educating our future workforce to our students and their families. Over the next several months I will be in Salem urging our lawmakers to remember that the future of our state is being shaped in places like Eugene, Corvallis, and Portland. Please join me in that effort. 

If, collectively, we are successful, we can reduce the tuition increase. The TFAB recommendation estimates that each $20 million increment in increased state funding for public higher education would allow the UO to reduce the proposed resident undergraduate tuition increase by roughly 1 percentage point. The full $100 million in state support for higher education would result in a 5.1 percent recommended tuition increase at the UO. Increases of state support would also reduce the operating cuts that would be needed in the coming year. This would significantly help our students, their families, and our employees.

Ultimately, we likely will not know how state funding for higher education will shake out until June or July of this year, which is when state lawmakers historically approve the budget for the next biennium. I will continue to keep the UO campus community abreast of changes to our budget situation and the potential impact on the UO campus as information becomes available. 

I invite you to comment on the tuition proposal prior to my making a final recommendation to the UO Board of Trustees. Please provide input using this form by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, February 17, 2017. 

Thank you.
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

UO postpones plan to impose unacceptable Acceptable Use Policy

Dear Senators –

At last week’s meeting I discussed the problems with the computing resources “Acceptable Use Policy” that the administration was proposing to implement. This policy governs everything we do when we use a UO computer, a computer bought with grant money, or when we connect our own computer or phone to the UO network. It applies to students, faculty, librarians, staff, and OA’s.

Greg Bryant, John Bonine, and Colin Koopman – a.k.a. the Senate’s Info Tech Task Force – had identified a host of problems with this policy. The administration addressed some issues, but would not respond to simple questions about other problems.  On Wednesday,  after I brought up this issue in the Senate, the Board of Trustees Secretary emailed me to propose a meeting between a few UO faculty and the relevant Assistant General Counsel. I responded by asking for a meeting with the Senate Executive Committee, because of the importance of this policy. The BOT Secretary did not respond to that request.

Today I met with the Provost’s Chief of Staff. She told me that she would yank the AUP proposal from the policy process, agreeing that the policy as put forward needed some work that would best be done when we have a new CIO, and she thanked the ITTF for their edits and comments, without of course committing to accept them.

Meanwhile the current AUP remains in effect. It is at https://it.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/UO_Acceptable_Use_of_Computing_Resources_Policy_13Nov2015.pdf  It is a bit dated, but seems far preferable in terms of its protections. For example, here is the Prohibited Conduct section:

Current language: “The University Conduct Code, OAR 571-21-030, also applies to electronic forums. The code prohibits, among other things, lewd or indecent conduct, threat of imminent physical harm, sexual or other harassment, stalking, forgery, intentional disruption of university services, and damaging or destroying university property. Similarly, the code’s prohibitions against illegal discrimination, including discriminatory harassment and sexual harassment, also apply to electronic forums.”

The University Conduct Code is actually the Student Conduct Code, at https://policies.uoregon.edu/vol-3-administration-student-affairs/ch-1-conduct/student-conduct-code. It only applies to students. It is also very specific:

16. “Harassment” means:

a. Intentionally subjecting a person to offensive physical contact;

b. Unreasonable insults, gestures, or abusive words, in the immediate presence, and directed to, another person that may reasonably cause emotional distress or provoke a violent response (including but not limited to electronic mail, conventional mail, social media and telephone) except to the extent such insults, gestures or abusive words are protected expression; or

c. Other types of prohibited discrimination, discriminatory harassment, and sexual harassment as defined by law.

In contrast, the administration’s proposed new policy language was vague and expansive and included no language about protected expression:

“6.6 Shall not use UO IT resources to transmit any communications that reasonably could be considered obscene, harassing, threatening or discriminatory by the recipient or another viewer.  For more information on UO policies in this area, see the Office of Affirmative Action & Equal Opportunity web site.”

While the old policy prohibited physical threats with the specific language from free-speech case law,

“threat of imminent physical harm”,

the proposed new policy would apply threats of any kind, apparently including the familiar “If you miss one more class I will lower your grade” email threat. And they wanted to apply this broad policy language to all users, not just students. How would our General Counsel’s office find the time to deal with all these prohibited emails? Why would they want to try?

This new policy will come back to the Senate for approval someday. My explanation above covers just one of the many problems with it. Read more in the pdf below from the ITTF, which will continue to monitor the situation.

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh, Senate Pres, Econ Prof

Draft UO Acceptable Use Policy – with Senate Task Force changes, Feb 1-1yoj5hr

US16/17-14: Repeal of US12/13-38: Term Limits for Senate Committees

Date of Notice: 01/18/2017

Current Status: Approved 02/15/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Committee on Committees


Motion

Section I:

1.1 WHEREAS, the Committee on Committees has difficulty filling seats on committees; and

1.2 WHEREAS, some committees require multiple years for members to become proficient with the policies and procedures germane to the operation of those committees;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED, that the University Senate hereby repeals US12/13-38: Term Limits for Senate Committees


Related Documents:

Senate Committees with Term Limits – 02/08/17

This legislation would repeal the ‘umbrella’ term limits that were passed under motion 12/13-38.  Several committees have term limits specified in their charge/enabling legislation.  Were the repeal to pass, the following committees would still have the term limits.

 

Update: US16/17-09: Declaring UO a Sanctuary Campus

1/30/2017: The administration will host a town hall Monday at 6PM, EMU Ballroom, on the Trump Travel Ban and the Sanctuary resolution implementation. http://around.uoregon.edu/content/campus-town-hall-address-questions-immigration

1/28/2017: I’ve asked President Schill and VP Alex-Assensoh for an update on the administration’s implementation of the recommendations in this resolution and how President Trump’s “extreme vetting” order will affect UO. We expect to have more information this week and a full report by the end of the quarter.

Passed 11/16/2017: Senate Resolution: “University of Oregon as Sanctuary Campus”

Continue reading Update: US16/17-09: Declaring UO a Sanctuary Campus

President Schill: Keep Deady name, add Black Cultural Center

Dear University of Oregon community,

Like many universities throughout the nation, the University of Oregon is actively engaging in issues of diversity and inclusion on campus and using them as an opportunity for debate, learning, and community-building. Some well-publicized incidents this academic year have underlined the importance of our efforts to ensure that each and every student, faculty, and staff member feels included and comfortable learning and contributing here. 

In this message, I want to focus on two decisions—I will not recommend to the Board of Trustees that it dename Deady Hall, and we will move forward with efforts to build a new Black cultural center at the UO. I am announcing these decisions now because our campus needs clarity about the status of Deady Hall and a clear path forward to focus on tangible actions we can take to improve the climate at the UO for students of color, specifically those who identify as Black or African American. 

In the fall of 2015, the Black Students Task Force presented UO leadership with a set of 13 demands. One demand requested the following: “Change the names of all of the KKK-related buildings on campus. Deady Hall will be the first building to be renamed.” In February 2016, I empaneled a committee, chaired by Associate Professor Charise Cheney, to provide me with advice on a set of criteria that could be utilized in decisions for denaming buildings on campus. After receiving the committee recommendations, I appointed three historians to research the historical record of Dunn Hall and Deady Hall’s namesakes and answer a set of questions based upon these criteria.

On August 9, 2016, we released the historians’ 34-page report. More than 1,000 people—faculty and staff members, students, alumni, and community members—provided input on the report and numerous editorials, letters to the editor, and commentaries have appeared in the media.

On September 1, 2016, in a letter to the community, I established a set of principles that would guide my decision about whether to recommend the denaming of a building on campus to the Board of Trustees. They are as follows:

  • Bigotry and racism have no place in our society or our university. Each of us must value each other based on individual merit and not the color of our skin, the social status of our parents, our gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, or physical or mental ability.
  • It is vital that all students at the University of Oregon feel valued and included as part of this institution. This is true for every member of our community, but particular attention needs to be paid to members of groups who often feel isolated and alienated as a result of their chronic underrepresentation on campus and the legacy of racism in this state and nation.
  • We must be careful not to obscure our history regardless of whether we like what we find when we study it. The only way we can understand our present and prevent injustice from repeating itself is to study our history and learn from our past.
  • The process of naming or denaming a building has symbolic value. But symbols are less important than actions that affect the material circumstances of members of our community.
  • Naming a building and denaming a building are not identical actions and should be governed by separate decision-making processes and considerations.
  • Naming a building honors an individual either for exceptional contributions to the university and our society or for exceptional generosity. While extremely meaningful, naming a building occurs regularly and is usually done contemporaneously with, or shortly after, the life of the person for whom a building is named. The very purpose of naming is to establish a durable honor that stands the test of time.
  • Denaming a building, on the other hand, is an extraordinary event and should only occur in very limited circumstances. Many decades may have passed since the person whose name is on a building was alive, and information will typically be less complete than in a naming decision. Contemporary decision-makers will often be limited in their ability to evaluate the behavior of people who lived in circumstances and with cultural mores very different from our own. Denaming is also an act associated with ignominy and the destruction of reputation. We should normally be careful when we do this, particularly because the person involved will seldom be available to defend himself or herself.
  • Finally, denaming threatens to obscure history and hide the ugliness of our past, which is contrary to our institution’s values of promoting lifelong learning and sharing knowledge. Therefore, the presumption should be against denaming a building except in extraordinarily egregious circumstances.

In that letter, I announced my decision to recommend to the Board of Trustees that they dename Dunn Hall, a building that commemorated a former professor of classics at the University of Oregon who also served as the Grand Cyclops of the Lane County Ku Klux Klan. The Board of Trustees unanimously adopted this recommendation on September 9, 2016. Dunn Hall was temporarily renamed Cedar Hall.

Because the issue of potentially denaming Deady Hall was more contested, I decided to delay a decision until UO students returned from their summer vacations so we could continue the conversation. Throughout the fall term I have continued to solicit the opinions of community members on the question of denaming Deady Hall.  

In applying the principles for denaming to Dunn Hall, I found that the presumption against denaming was outweighed by the facts set forth in the historian’s report—namely that Frederick Dunn was the head of a hate group that supported racism and violence against African Americans, Catholics, and Jews, and was not a man for whom a building should be named on the University of Oregon campus. Matthew Deady, however, presents a more complicated case, the detailed facts of which are recounted my September 1, 2016, letter to campus and in the historians’ report.

In my view, the facts set forth in the historian’s report do not support overturning the presumption against denaming Deady Hall. Many of Deady’s historical accomplishments were exceptional. He was an active and respected legislator and political figure in the state. He was appointed by President Buchanan to be the first federal judge for the State of Oregon. He, more than any single person in the University of Oregon’s history, played a formative role in its creation and early years as a regent. It was his work in persuading Northern Pacific Railroad president Henry Villard to donate to the university that kept its doors open in the 1880s.

Of course, Deady was also a deeply flawed man. He held racist views which I find abhorrent and contrary to the principles of our university. His support of slavery prior to the Civil War cannot be excused, even if it was based upon his understanding of the “letter of the law” of property. Nor can his support for the 1849 exclusion act be ignored. The fact that Deady’s views and actions were shared by many Oregonians at the time he lived does not excuse them, although it does explain them. 

Although Deady’s racist views did not abate after the Civil War, he fully embraced the new constitutional order. The historians characterize his change as a “metamorphosis.” Deady supported the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which guarantee to all equal protection under the US Constitution. While he never had the opportunity to issue an opinion involving African American civil rights, he was a protector of Chinese immigrants.

Deady does not represent an example of an egregious case justifying overturning the presumption against denaming. Unlike Dunn, he was not the head of an organization which espoused violence against vulnerable populations. Also unlike Dunn, his positive acts and importance to the nation, state, and university were noteworthy and of historical distinction. For all of these reasons, I will not recommend that the Board of Trustees dename Deady Hall.

The fact that Deady Hall will remain a symbol of racial intolerance for many of our students is troubling. Many students associate this past and our continuing to honor a man who was racially intolerant as evidence that the university does not take their concerns about diversity and inclusion seriously. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As I have stated previously, bigotry and racism have no place in our society or in our university. It is vital that all students at the University of Oregon feel valued and included as part of this institution. While the process of naming or denaming a building has symbolic value, symbols are less important than actions that affect the material circumstances of members of our community. It is these actions that we now must focus on.

We have already implemented half of the demands of the Black Student Task Force, including the creation of the Umoja Academic Residential Center, the creation of an African American Opportunities Program and accelerated efforts to recruit African American students to the university, and the hiring of African American faculty members including the launching of a new African American Studies cluster in the College of Art and Sciences. Once these faculty join the university we will work with them and our existing faculty to explore the feasibility of creating a Black studies minor and/or program. In addition, I will continue to advocate that the faculty consider and develop innovative changes to incorporate issues of race more broadly into our curriculum. We will also continue to finalize our fundraising strategies for diversity scholarships by the end of this academic year.

Today, I would like to announce my commitment to build a new Black cultural center at the UO. I have been convinced that, particularly in light of their small numbers, African American students need a place that will provide them with an opportunity to gather, reinforce their academic pursuits, enhance connective bonds that support recruitment and retention, and discuss their shared experiences and needs. We will work with our students to plan a structure that will provide them with a place of respite with programming that will promote their success. Fundraising for this project has already begun with a generous $250,000 gift from our alumnus and campaign chair Dave Petrone and his wife Nancy. The planning phase for design and construction will begin immediately.

We will also commence this spring with the renaming of Cedar Hall. We will solicit from our community nominations of names of individuals who have distinguished themselves in the fight for racial justice and equity. Our students will be involved from start to finish as we identify criteria and select someone who will embody the values of achievement, tolerance, and equity. It is my hope and expectation to bring this renaming decision to the Board of Trustees in June.

We will also move forward with plans to work with our students and faculty to ensure that the lessons we have learned about ourselves and our history are not lost. We will plan installations in both Deady and Cedar Halls that remind all visitors of their histories and of the continuing project of inclusion and diversity.

The work of making the University of Oregon a more diverse and inclusive university is important work and will not happen overnight. It will not be complete when we cut the ribbon on the Black cultural center. Nor will it be complete when we recruit more African American students and faculty members to Eugene. While I am grateful to the Black Students Task Force for placing racial equity squarely on our agenda, it will take all of our efforts—faculty and staff members, students, administrators, alumni, and community members—to make this university the inclusive place we want it to be. I am eager to get on with this work.

Sincerely,

Michael H. Schill

President and Professor of Law

 

US16/17-13: Amendment to the Credit-Bearing General Limitations to the Bachelor’s Requirements

Date of Notice: 12/15/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Sponsor: Academic Council


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS, classes that focus on student engagement opportunities such as career, professional and personal development, and opportunities for community and social involvement can be valuable learning experiences; and

1.2 WHEREAS, these classes cannot be regularized as credit-bearing under the current class review process; and

1.3 WHEREAS, an amendment to the credit-bearing general limitations to the bachelor’s requirements will create a new category for these types of courses and set limits on their bearing credit towards the bachelor’s degree;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED, the University Senate approves to amend the credit-bearing general limitations to the bachelor’s requirements to create a new addition of category “d” of Point 4 of the “General Limitations” as follows:

Point 4. A maximum of 24 credits may be earned or accepted as transfer credits in the following areas (a, b, c, and d) with not more than 12 credits in any one area.

a) Lower-division professional-technical courses

b) Physical education and dance activity courses

c) Performance in music (MUP), except for majors in music

d)Applied and/or experiential courses, courses focusing on academic support skills or career/professional development courses; and

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED, for clarity, Point 7 of the “General Limitations” will be revised as follows:

Point 7. A maximum of 12 credits in TLC (University Teaching and Learning Center) courses and a maximum of 12 credits in FE (field experience) courses, whether earned or transferred, may be counted towards the bachelor’s degree. These limits (12 credits in TLC; 12 credits in FE) are independent of the limits of category 4(d).


Related Documents:

Amendment to the Credit-Bearing General Limitations to the Bachelor’s Requirements

Senate Pres asks “Faculty” Athletics Representative for hospital report

Dear Professor Gleason – 

I’m writing as UO Senate President, to you in your capacity as “Faculty Athletics Representative”. 

As noted in your appointment notice from Mike Gottfredson at “https://president.uoregon.edu/content/tim-gleason-appointed-faculty-athletic-representative

The FAR is responsible for ensuring the academic integrity of the intercollegiate athletic program, promoting the well-being of student athletes, and supporting institutional oversight of athletics compliance and student eligibility.

I’m sure you’ve read the stories in the Oregonian and the Washington Post regarding the hospitalization of at least 3 UO students after football workouts.

I am asking you to investigate this situation, provide a preliminary written report to the Senate Executive Committee by Jan 24th, and appear at the Feb 1 Senate meeting to answer questions. 

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh

Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon

Chief Information Officer finalists to visit campus

From this story on Around the O:

Finalist candidates for the position of vice provost and chief information officer will visit campus through the month of January.

Each of the three candidates will meet with information services staff and administrative representatives. In addition, a session will be held for faculty members with each finalist.

Candidate information will be released on the Office of the Provost website in advance of each visit.

Candidate A – Jan. 18 and 19
Faculty Session: Jan. 19, 10–10:45 a.m., EMU Cedar Room (231)

Candidate B – Jan. 23 and 24
Faculty Session: Jan. 24, 4–4:45 p.m., EMU Spruce Room (232)

Candidate C – Jan. 30 and 31
Faculty Session: Jan. 31, 9:15–10:00 a.m., Ford Alumni Center 403

The VP/CIO reports to the provost and is responsible for leading Information Services and campus-wide critical technology responsibilities. More information about the posting is available on the Office of the Provost website.

Free Speech for student-athletes and the student press

1/23/2017 followup:

Dear GC Reed – 

I’m writing as Senate President, to ask you for an update on your investigation of the Duck AD for potential violations of UO’s free speech and academic freedom policies.

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon

On MondayJan 23, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Kevin S Reed <ksreed@uoregon.edu> wrote:

I’m in deep interview mode.  Coming along swimmingly.

Kevin S. Reed | Vice President and General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

219 Johnson Hall | Eugene, OR 97403-1226

(541) 346-3082 | ksreed@uoregon.edu

1/12/2017 update:

Register Guard reporter Austin Meek has a report on General Counsel Kevin Reed’s investigation of the Athletic Department here: http://registerguard.com/rg/sports/football/35172801-69/oregon-general-counsel-opens-review-into-athletic-department-media-policies.html.csp

12/1/2016 update: 

Yesterday I received an email from President Schill saying that he would instruct GC Reed to investigate these athletic department free-speech issues, and report to him. I assume that the Senate will also be given this report.

I’ve already talked with several current and former Duck sports reporters, who told me about many other potential similar violations of UO free speech policies by the Athletic Department in recent years, with respect to both student-athletes and student and professional reporters.

One noted the #blacklivesmatter protest by Dana Altman’s student-athletes during the National Anthem, reported by Tyson Alger in the Oregonian here:  http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2014/12/oregon_coach_dana_altman_says.html

screen-shot-2016-12-01-at-9-31-26-am

Altman chewed out his players and wouldn’t let them talk to the press afterwards.

The Senate will continue to look into these free speech issues.

From: UO Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>

Subject: Free Speech for students and the student press

Date: November 27, 2016 at 10:13:14 PM PST

To: Kevin Reed <ksreed@uoregon.edu>

Dear General Counsel Kevin Reed:

We are writing you as President and Vice President of the Senate, regarding media reports that UO Athletic Department AAD Dave Williford told Oregon Daily Emerald sports editor Kenny Jacoby and other UO student-journalists that he would take away their Athletic Department issued press credentials, if the Emerald went ahead with their story on alleged assaults by UO football players. The news reports also say that the UO Athletic Department has a policy requiring that student-athletes not talk to the press without the Athletic Department’s permission.

The story is published here, https://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/11/17/oregon-tight-end-pharaoh-brown-accused-three-acts-violence-since-october-2014/ and the interview in which Mr. Jacoby explains the threat to take away his and other UO student reporters’s press credentials is here: http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2016/11/oregon_daily_emerald_story_dem.html.

This apparent threat from Mr. Williford, and these Athletic Department policies, procedures, or practices preventing UO students from talking to reporters may be in violation of the UO policies on Freedom and Speech and Inquiry, and on Academic Freedom. The former policy states:

The University of Oregon values and supports free and open inquiry. The commitment to free speech and freedom of inquiry described in this policy extends to all members of the UO community: Faculty, staff, and students. It also extends to all others who visit or participate in activities held on the UO campus.

Free speech is central to the academic mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic society. The University encourages and supports open, vigorous, and challenging debate across the full spectrum of human issues as they present themselves to this community. Further, as a public institution, the University will sustain a higher and more open standard for freedom of inquiry and free speech than may be expected or preferred in private settings.

Free inquiry and free speech are the cornerstones of an academic institution committed to the creation and transfer of knowledge. 

(at https://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/01-administration-and-governance/freedom-inquiry-and-free-speech)

The latter policy states:

The University’s responsibility to help students to think critically and independently requires that members of the university community have the right to investigate and discuss matters, including those that are controversial, inside and outside of class, without fear of institutional restraint.

(at https://policies.uoregon.edu/content/academic-freedom-0)

We are asking that you investigate this incident, and the relevant UO Athletic Department policies, practices, and procedures, and give a report to the Senate giving your interpretation of whether or not the UO policy on Free Speech and Inquiry and the policy on Academic Freedom, or relevant State or Federal laws, have been violated. 

In particular, We ask you to address the following questions:

1) Is requiring student-athletes not to speak to the press without Athletic Department approval in conflict with UO free speech policies and law?

2) Is taking, or threatening to take, the press credentials of UO student journalists if they publish a story in conflict with UO free speech policies and law?

3) Were Mr. Williford’s actions – i.e. apparently attempting to discourage student-athletes from talking to the press, and threatening to take away the press credentials of these reporters, consistent with current UO policy?

We would appreciate it if you would send this report to the Senate by January 10, 2017. Please let us know if you have any questions. 

Bill Harbaugh, Economics Prof., Senate Pres

Chris Sinclair, Assoc. Prof. Math, Senate VP

Closed search for new provost

Dear members of the University of Oregon community,

As many of you may know, the Provost Search Committee has been hard at work for the past five months. The 17-member committee, which includes representatives from virtually all of the UO’s constituencies, has created a position description, built a pool of candidates, and conducted interviews with a wide variety of potential candidates. We are now at the stage of the process where we plan to bring some of them back to Eugene for more intensive interviews and recruitment.

The Provost Search Committee, in conversation with members of the search firm Russell Reynolds Associates and some of our candidates, has concluded that the successful completion of the search requires that we follow what is increasingly becoming the national practice: avoiding the sort of open search that we have previously employed for decanal candidates. If we were to follow past practice, a number of candidates would drop out of the process rather than compromise their leadership positions at their current universities.

We have consulted with University Senate leadership and the Faculty Advisory Council on how to move forward with the next step in the process in a way that carefully balances our need to conduct a competitive search with our desire to receive input from appropriate campus stakeholders. We have agreed that over the next few months, finalists will come to Eugene to be interviewed again by the search committee and by deans, vice presidents, the provost and his chief of staff, the senate president, and the president of United Academics. Following this process, the search committee will present their final recommendations to the president, who will ultimately make the hiring decision. 

We are excited by the pool of candidates; they are an accomplished set of academic leaders capable of leading our university. We are also very grateful for the generous amount of work and dedication of members of the Provost Search Committee who are committed to finding our university the best person to be our next provost. While our process for selecting the next provost will be different than it has been in the past, in light of the inclusive nature of our search committee and our desire to hire the very best provost we can, we are comfortable with the process set forth above. 

We look forward to providing you with more information in late February or early March.

Sincerely,

Michael H. Schill

President and Professor of Law

Geraldine Richmond, Provost Search Committee Chair

Presidential Chair and Professor of Chemistry

Open Mike: Balancing principles

From: “President Michael H. Schill” <pres>

Subject: Open Mike: Balancing principles

Date: January 9, 2017 at 11:55:25 AM PST

Dear Colleagues,

Over the past couple of months, the University of Oregon’s handling of events associated with Professor Nancy Shurtz’s decision to wear a controversial Halloween costume has garnered significant media attention, both locally and nationally. A number of editorials, letters to the editor, and blog posts have engaged in discussions on the topic. Some of the coverage has been, in my opinion, thoughtful but some has, perhaps not surprisingly, sensationalized and caricatured what is a very serious incident that deeply affected our students and, by extension, our entire university community. A number of colleagues have asked me for my own views on the matter. I hesitate to burden you with this personal reflection, but because this incident has polarized our community I have decided that it would be useful for me to share some of my own thoughts about the matter.

At the outset, I should state that, under university policies, the provost, not the president, is the figure whose job it is to respond to complaints against faculty members. Therefore, I have not played a formal role in responding to the incident. I write this to clarify my institutional role and not to decline responsibility. To the contrary, as president, I am ultimately responsible for everything on our campus.

When Professor Shurtz invited her two classes to her home for a Halloween party on October 31 and dressed up wearing blackface, she created a conundrum that is the stuff of a very difficult law school examination question. Two very important principles were potentially in conflict—the right of students to be free from racial harassment and the right of faculty members to exercise free speech. A law firm that the university hired to do an impartial investigation of the matter interviewed students and faculty members who were at the party and made a factual finding that at least some of the students felt compelled to attend their professor’s party and that they would potentially suffer negative consequences if they left early, despite being deeply offended and affronted by Professor Shurtz’s costume and its strong connotations of racism. The investigators made a factual finding that the behavior by Professor Shurtz constituted racial harassment under university policy V.11.02.

Of course, this is only part of the story. Professor Shurtz told the investigators that she didn’t intend to act in a racist manner. Instead, she said she was dressed “as a book” she had recently read that highlighted the shortage of black doctors in the medical profession. She also told the investigators that she was making a statement about the paucity of African American doctors. The law firm weighed the harms from the harassment against the value of her conduct and determined that, according to the balancing test prescribed by Pickering v. Board of Education, the former outweighed the latter, rendering her conduct unprotected. The provost accepted the findings of the investigation and, pursuant to university policy, took appropriate actions to make sure that Professor Shurtz understood the gravity of the incident and would not behave in a similar fashion in the future. I am not able to divulge the nature of these actions because university policy mandates confidentiality.

As I consider the case of Professor Shurtz, I have to admit I am torn. I believe that freedom of speech is thecore value of any university. When faculty members pursue their avocation—teaching students and conducting research—they must be able to say or write what they think without fear of retribution, even if their views are controversial, and even if their research and their views risk causing offense to others. Otherwise, advances in learning will be stunted. This freedom of speech includes the freedom to share political views, academic theories, good ideas, and even bad ones, too. It includes speech that offends others. Without academic freedom we could scarcely call the UO a university.

For me, stating that principle in the abstract is easy and uncomplicated. But here is the problem—figuring out when and whether there are legitimate limits on freedom of expression actually is complicated. In general, it is not acceptable for someone to use her rights to deprive another of her rights. I should not be able to use my speech to deny others of their right to be free from racial or sexual harassment. I can hold—and share—controversial views. But that does not give me the right to harass specific individuals or to speak in any way I wish to, in any place, or any point in time.

But, when exactly does offending someone turn into proscribed harassment? Only a small number of legal commentators would say that faculty members should be immune from all harassment charges on academic freedom grounds. Instead, most of us recognize that speech rights are extremely important, but they also fall on a continuum. For whatever it is worth, I personally am fairly close to the end of the spectrum that believes speech should be maximally protected. But even I believe that there are cases when speech or conduct is of relatively minimal value compared to the great harm that it may do to our students—particularly to students who already struggle with isolation and lack of representation. For example, imagine a required class in which a professor repeatedly uses the “N” word for no apparent reason except to elicit a reaction. Could African American students forced to sit through this class have a claim of harassment? I think so. Similarly, imagine a class in which a professor makes repeated, sexually explicit remarks to a student or students for no educational purpose. Free speech principles should not, in my view, prevent the university from taking appropriate actions to make sure these actions stop and do not recur in the future.

To be sure, the case of Professor Shurtz is not quite as clear-cut. The events took place in her home, not in the classroom. Her stated intention ex post was not to offend, but to draw attention to systemic racism. Still, some of her students felt that they were in a similar situation to students in a classroom being subjected to harassing speech, as they felt pressure to attend and to remain at the event. They felt that they could not leave without jeopardizing their standing in the class, and they also felt that the offensive nature of the blackface was the equivalent of hearing the “N” word. In these circumstances, should the university have ignored the event or should it have taken action proportionate to the offense? What lesson would we be teaching our students if we let the incident end without even an official letter of reprimand? These were the very difficult questions that Provost Coltrane had to grapple with, and I am supportive of the process he used and the fairness he displayed in making his decision.

Some commentators have taken to the barricades, and suggested that any finding or action taken with respect to Professor Shurtz will ultimately open the door to firing professors for expressing their political views. Really? In law, we call this the “slippery slope” argument or “the parade of horribles.” While I have tossed and turned for nights over the fact that the university found that a professor’s expressive conduct constituted harassment, I think the reaction of those commentators is overly dramatic and not supported by anything that took place in this case. Go online and you will find that Professor Shurtz remains a member of the law school faculty. Name a single faculty member who has been punished by the provost for his or her political views. This has not happened and you have my vow it won’t happen as long as I occupy my office in Johnson Hall.

The blackface incident has been a painful one for everyone in our UO community. It came at a time of heightened emotions with respect to the treatment of African Americans on our campus and on campuses throughout the nation. It also came at a time of turmoil and recrimination in our national politics. In my opinion, each of us should be uncomfortable with the harassment that our students experienced at the home of a senior faculty member. Each of us should also be uncomfortable with the fact that the provost felt it necessary to take remedial actions with respect to a faculty member in connection with her expressive conduct. Maybe I am just being a Pollyanna, but ultimately I hope that this discomfort will serve a good purpose. I hope that we come out of this experience with a greater understanding both of the value of free speech and the ways in which our speech can harm each other.

Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

 

US16/17-12: New Program Proposal: M.A. in Language Teaching Studies

Date of Notice: 12/21/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor:
Graduate School; Scott L. Pratt, Dean
Graduate Council; Lara Bovilsky, Chair
Graduate School; Sara Hodges, Associate Dean


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council is charged by the University Senate to “advise the Dean of the Graduate School on matters pertaining to graduate study at the University of Oregon”; and

1.2 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council has responsibility for “providing for the maintenance of high standards of graduate instruction”; and

1.3 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council and the Graduate School have fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Master of Arts program in Language Teaching Studies and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provosts’ Council, and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission for approval;

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the recommendation of the Graduate Council and the Graduate School.


Financial Impact:


Related Documents:

M.A. in Language Teaching Studies (LTS) program proposal

LTS Syllabi

LTS Faculty

External Review

President Schill to work with Senate Budget Committee on new budget

This announcement was sent out 12/6/2016. The administration’s unelected Budget Advisory Group will not meet this year, and the administration will form a joint Budget Advisory Task Force with the Senate Budget Committee. The BATF will start meeting in January.

More information on how the Governor’s budget proposal will affect higher education is available on OSU’s excellent government affairs blog. UO’s website is here.

Dear University of Oregon community,

Last Thursday, Oregon Governor Kate Brown released her budget for the FY 2017–19 biennium and proposed flat funding for all seven public universities. This is good news only in the sense that it could have been a lot worse due to the state’s estimated $1.7 billion budget deficit for the next biennium. The bad news is that flat funding from the state creates significant financial challenges for the UO.

You may recall that the UO joined with all of the other Oregon public universities in signing a letter this fall stating that we needed a combined $100 million in additional state funding to keep next year’s tuition increase below 5 percent. This proposed budget obviously falls well short of that goal. Oregon has still not returned to the levels of state support delivered to the UO before the economic downturn—about $80 million in 2008. The UO currently receives about $66 million in state operating support. Also bear in mind that over the last 20 years, both in Oregon and nationally, cuts to public support for higher education have shifted the burden of paying for a college degree to students and families. We will work tirelessly to seek additional funding from the state—and we call on students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders to join with us in this effort.

We project that the UO’s educational and general operating expenses will increase approximately $25 million next year largely due to salary increases contained in our faculty and staff labor contracts, rising health-care costs, and the extraordinary increase in our required contribution to the state’s unfunded pension (PERS) liability. The way the state distributes funds over the two years will result in another $2.5 million reduction. When you add everything up, it means next year, if our funding from the state remains constant as proposed, the UO will face at least a $27.5 million shortfall. We must find, in some combination, additional revenues (e.g., tuition and fees) or expense reductions as a result.

Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the current governor’s budget proposal of “constant funding” is premised on the assumption that the state will generate nearly $900 million in new revenue from a variety of sources. If lawmakers are not able to agree on a revenue plan, the overall state budget will need to be cut further to bring it into balance.  

Also, the university’s revenue shortfall for next year should not be confused with efforts by several of our schools and colleges to bring their budget into balance. This work is ongoing and will proceed along a parallel track.

As we plan for these uncertainties, our top priority is to protect our access and academic programs. Indeed, with the incredible opportunities presented by the gift of Phil and Penny Knight, our initiative to increase the number of tenure-related faculty by 80 to 100 members over five years, investments in student success, and planned initiatives around diversity and inclusion, the school is poised to make historic strides in building the sort of academic excellence that only a few years ago seemed out of our reach. Despite the very real financial challenges we may face, we will protect these efforts and keep our march toward excellence on track.

While we will not know the final state budget for many months, perhaps as late as July, we need to move ahead now in our planning. The Tuition and Fees Advisory Board began meeting last month to consider the budget situation and potential tuition and fee increases. The current budget realities mean it will be nearly impossible to keep the tuition increase below 5 percent, and in fact the percentage could rise much higher. We will join with our students in helping state lawmakers understand how this proposed budget affects higher-education affordability at the UO and across the state of Oregon.

In addition, we will need to look creatively at other options. Within the next few weeks, the president will appoint an ad hoc budget advisory task force to provide advice and ideas for raising additional revenues and reducing expenses. The task force will include members of the Senate Budget Committee as well as administrators, faculty and staff members, and students. It will begin meeting in early January. The traditional Budget Advisory Group, which works to make recommendations on strategic investments, will not be convened this year.

We also ask that all departments proceed carefully with any new hiring of administrative staff and non-tenure-track faculty over the remainder of this fiscal year. Existing searches and requests for hiring approval should be reevaluated with an eye toward whether the personnel are absolutely essential and whether the hiring could be delayed until July 2017, when we will have a better understanding of the overall budget. Ultimately, it is very likely that many of our units will see reductions to their budgets next year. In many instances, it will be better to handle these expense reductions through attrition rather than through layoffs or contract nonrenewals. 

The governor’s budget is a starting place and nothing is set in stone. Over the next several months, we will work with counterparts at the other state universities to make the case to increase state funds for higher education. We invite all members of our community, including our alumni, the ASUO, and labor unions, to join us in this effort.

Sincerely,

Michael H. Schill                          

President and Professor of Law   

Scott Coltrane

Provost and Senior Vice President        

US16/17-04: Revise Charge and Name of IAC Committee

Complete Motion

Update 11/30/2016:

Yesterday the Senate voted down an amendment which would have kept the IAC as the Senate watchdog over athletics, and voted overwhelmingly to dissolve the IAC immediately, and replace it with a Presidential Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee.

Continue reading US16/17-04: Revise Charge and Name of IAC Committee

US16/17-11: Clarify and Codify the University Committee on Sexual Orientation, Attraction, Gender Identity and Expression

Date of Notice: 11/28/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Committee on Committees


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS, the Senate recently updated their bylaws to revise the membership, charge, and name of the University Committee on Sexual Orientation, Attraction, Gender Identity and Expression; and

1.2 WHEREAS, there has been significant confusion about the official and finalized version of the name, reporting structure/classification, membership, and charge of this committee;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED, the Senate hereby confirms the name of the committee as the University Committee on Sexual Orientation, Attraction, Gender Identity and Expression; the committee’s charge and responsibilities, membership structure and appointment of new members; and

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED, the Senate hereby confirms this committee will report to the University Senate; and

2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED, the Senate hereby confirms the committee’s charge and responsibilities, membership, meeting structure, and appointment/confirmation of new members, as outlined in the revised 17 pt. chart (please see Related Documents);


Related Documents:

Updated 17 pt. chart for University Committee on Sexual Orientation, Attraction, Gender Identity and Expression (SOAGIE)

Revised 17 pt. chart for SOAGIE_Jan. 31, 2017

Wabash Center of Inquiry Visits UO Senate

On November 28, 29, 30, the Office of the Provost and Academic Affairs and the Division of Undergraduate Studies will host Charles Blaich and Kathy Wise from the Wabash Center of Inquiry. The Center of Inquiry is dedicated to using evidence to strengthen liberal arts education for all students at all institutions. Charles and Kathy are the principle researchers on the Wabash National Study 2006-2012, a large-scale, longitudinal study to investigate critical factors that affect the outcomes of liberal arts education. Their research was designed to help colleges and universities improve student learning and enhance the educational impact of their programs. To that end, the study had two fundamental goals:

• To learn what teaching practices, programs, and institutional structures support liberal arts education
• To develop methods of assessing liberal arts education

Slides from the Wabash Center presentation to the UO Senate

Continue reading Wabash Center of Inquiry Visits UO Senate

Adminstration’s investigation of the halloween party Black doctor incident

 

(Updated)

Dear Colleagues –

On Monday I sent UO General Counsel Kevin Reed this request:

11/13/16, 3:18 AM, “UO Senate President” <senatepres@uoregon.edu> wrote:

Dear GC Reed –

I’m writing as UO Senate President, to request that you provide the Senate with the details of the charge you’ve given the AAEO office and/or outside counsel to investigate the Halloween blackface incident. The Senate and its Executive Committee is particularly interested in knowing what laws, regulations, or UO policies the investigation may involve.

We would like to have the information before the Senate meeting this Wednesday.

Continue reading Adminstration’s investigation of the halloween party Black doctor incident

US16/17-08: Proposed Senate Resolution: “Reaffirming our Shared Values of Respect for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”

Complete Motion

Continue reading US16/17-08: Proposed Senate Resolution: “Reaffirming our Shared Values of Respect for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”

US16/17-07: Student Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Violence Complaint and Response policy proposal

Complete Motion

Continue reading US16/17-07: Student Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Violence Complaint and Response policy proposal

Volokh comments on TPM free speech constraints proposal

Below is an exchange between UO GC Kevin Reed and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, a well known free-speech advocate and blogger, regarding Reed’s proposed policy  regarding restrictions on the time, place and manner of campus free-speech.

From: Kevin Reed [mailto:ksreed@uoregon.edu]

Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 10:58 AM

To: Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu>

Subject: Any chance you’d be willing to comment on these?

Continue reading Volokh comments on TPM free speech constraints proposal

Thinking about the Role of the UO Senate, by Craig Parsons

 

I am proud to be serving as a new UO Senator this year. Given some controversy over the Senate’s role in recent years, I want to think deliberately about how I see this body. I am writing this memo to clarify my views for myself, but I will share it to seek reactions that could sharpen (or change) my thinking.

Continue reading Thinking about the Role of the UO Senate, by Craig Parsons

You’re invited to the new UO Faculty Club

From: “President Michael H. Schill” <pres>

Subject: You’re invited to the new UO Faculty Club

Date: November 1, 2016 at 10:27:05 AM PDT

Colleagues,

We are pleased to let you know that at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, we will open the new University of Oregon Faculty Club in a new designated space in the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. This idea has been in the works for a number of years, and is meant to provide a place where statutory faculty and their guests can gather in a welcoming and collegial space.

Continue reading You’re invited to the new UO Faculty Club

US16/17-06: Confirm Revised Committee on Committees Membership

Date of Notice: 10/01/2016

Current Status: Approved 11/02/2016

Motion type: Legislation

Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Chair of CoC


Motion

Section I

1.1   WHEREAS, the Senate recently updated their bylaws  to revise the membership of the Committee on Committees to include Classified Staff members and Officers of Administration;

Section II

2.1  BE IT THEREFORE MOVED, the Senate hereby confirms the appointment of the following new members to the Committee on Committees:

Chuck Theobald, Lewis Center for Neuroimaging
Ben Brinkley, CASIT
Holly Syljuberget, Business Affairs


Financial Impact: Cost Neutral

Announcing the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact

Colleagues and Students,

I have the immense pleasure of announcing that our dear friends Penny and Phil Knight have made an extraordinarily generous $500 million gift—the largest ever to a public flagship university—that will launch an initiative to rethink and reshape research at the University of Oregon. The Phil and Penny Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact will fast-track scientific discoveries into innovations, products, and cures that solve problems and improve our quality of life.

Continue reading Announcing the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact

US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 08/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Notice Given

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Motion

BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the “Interim Policy” — Review of Academic Administrators — as presented (see Related Documents) and its redlined version (see Related Documents), which will now be converted from temporary to permanent status.


Continue reading US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators

US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 07/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Postponed until 01/13/2016

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Motion

BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the “Interim Policy” — Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators — as presented in the following document (see Related Documents) and its redlined version (see Related Documents), which subsequently, will be converted from temporary to permanent status.


Continue reading US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators

US16/17-05: Policy on Graduate Online & Hybrid Courses: Student Engagement

Date of Notice: 10/07/2016

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Approved 11/16/2016

Sponsor: Graduate Council

Continue reading US16/17-05: Policy on Graduate Online & Hybrid Courses: Student Engagement

US16/17-03: New Program Proposal: Spatial Data Science & Technology (Geography)

Date of Notice: 08/30/2016

Motion type: Legislation

Current Status: Approved 11/02/2016

Sponsor: Alison Schmitke (Education), Chair of the Undergraduate Council


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Council is charged by the University Senate with “reviewing, evaluating, and enhancing the quality of the University’s academic programs;” and

1.2 WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Council has the responsibility to “monitor, help shape, and approve new undergraduate programs (majors, minors, certificates) and changes to existing programs;” and

1.3 WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Council has fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Bachelor’s degree in Spatial Data Science & Technology (Department of Geography) and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provost’s Council, and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission for approval;

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the BA and BS degrees in Spatial Data Science & Technology


Related Documents:

Spatial Data Science & Technology Proposal

Spatial Data Science & Technology Exec Summary

US16/17-02: Change to the Senate Bylaws regarding the Committee on Committees membership

Date of Notice: 09/21/2016

Motion type: Legislation

Current Status: Approved 10/19/2016

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS, many committees are staffed by persons from all Senate constituencies; and

1.2 WHEREAS, Classified Staff and Officers of Administration have knowledge about members of their respective constituencies, which is useful in filling committee vacancies;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED, that section 5.5 of the senate bylaws be amended as follows:

The Committee on Committees shall generally have 10-12 members from the Statutory Faculty as defined in the University of Oregon Constitution Section 2.2. Senate constituencies, with a majority coming from the Statutory Faculty as defined in the University of Oregon Constitution Section 2.2. To facilitate its work, the Committee membership should represent the broadest possible cross-section of campus academic units including CAS and the professional schools. The Senate Vice President is the chair of the Committee on Committees.


 

 

US16/17-01: Change to the Senate Bylaws for the order of Senate meeting agendas

Date of Notice: 09/21/2016

Motion type: Legislation

Current Status: Approved by the Senate 10/19/2016

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Motion:

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS The Senate Bylaws requires that “The Order of Business” be conducted in a specific sequence, and;

1.2 WHEREAS changes requires a ⅔ vote of the Senate at the start of the meeting any time there is a need to re-order the agenda, such as when accommodating the schedule of a presenter, and;

1.3 WHEREAS Taking such votes is cumbersome and changing an already-posted agenda can be misleading to those who are attending part of the meeting for particular agenda items, and;

1.4 WHEREAS Allowing for prior modification of the order listed in the Bylaws, at the discretion of the President in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee, will be more efficient and transparent by allowing the the published agenda to show the actual order of business.

Section II

THEREFORE: The Senate modifies Article 3.3 of the Senate Bylaws as follows:

3.3 Senate Agenda. The Senate President shall set the agenda for each University Senate meeting in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. The Senate agenda must be made public and available to the Senate at least 7 6 days prior to the Senate meeting. The Order of Business follows the sequence listed below. Senate meetings will include all items in the Order of Business listed below, however the sequence may be modified by the Senate President in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. Section 3.3 shall be a Special Rule of Order as defined by Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.


Background:

Current bylaws, Article 3, from

ARTICLE 3: RULES AND PROCEDURES

3.1 The Senate shall adopt its own rules and procedures. The Senate is free to adopt its own internal rules and procedures (i.e., Senate by-laws) except as explicitly stipulated in the University of Oregon Constitution Section 8.1. These exceptions are noted throughout this document.

3.2 The Senate shall follow Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the University Senate in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are consistent with these bylaws, the University of Oregon Constitution, and any special rules of order the University Senate may adopt. Senate rules must also adhere to all local, state and national laws.

3.2.1 Deviations from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. The Senate may choose to adopt rules that do not conform to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. Any deviations from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be presented to the Senate in the form of a motion and shall require a two-thirds affirmative vote to be adopted.

3.3 Senate Agenda. The Senate President shall set the agenda for each University Senate meeting in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. The Senate agenda must be made public and available to the Senate at least 7 days prior to the Senate meeting. The Order of Business follows the sequence listed below. Section 3.3 shall be a Special Rule of Order as defined by Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.

3.3.1 Call to Order.

3.3.2 Approval of the Minutes. The minutes from the previous meeting shall be brought before the Senate for discussion, revision if necessary, and formal approval by vote.

3.3.3 State of the University. The President of the University or his/her designee shall be granted this period at each Senate meeting to make a presentation.

3.3.4 New Business. New Business is the section of the Senate meeting where motions shall be brought to the Senate floor for discussion, consideration and action. Other action items, such as formal acceptance of the Curriculum Report from the Committee on Courses and motions from prior meetings that were tabled or sent back for revision shall also be presented in this part of the meeting.

3.3.5 Open Discussion. The Senate shall have the opportunity to discuss a topical issue of campus-wide concern during this part of the meeting. No formal action shall occur during the Open Discussion period and motions shall not be brought to the floor for consideration.

3.3.6 Reports. This shall be the section of the meeting when reports from University Standing or ad hoc Committees, Administrative Advisory Groups, Externally- Mandated Boards and other campus constituencies are presented.

3.3.7 Notice(s) of Motion. Notice shall be given for all motions to be discussed and acted upon by the Senate at a future meeting (See Article 3.7 for more information concerning Legislation and Resolutions).

3.3.8 Other Business.

3.3.9 Adjournment.

Administration writes a “Statement of Principle Regarding Academic Policies”

 

Under the 2011 UO Constitution, the faculty has authority over “all academic matters as commonly understood in higher education”:

1.2 The University of Oregon is governed by the President and the Professors in accordance with the 1876 University of Oregon Charter. ORS 352.010. 1.3 Sole faculty governance authority at the University of Oregon resides in the Statutory Faculty. This authority extends to all academic matters as commonly understood in higher education. The Statutory Faculty may delegate its authority but must retain oversight responsibility.

This summer President Schill and Provost Coltrane made an attempt to be more specific:

From: Scott Coltrane
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 9:48 PM
To: harbaugh@uorego.edu; Chris Sinclair
Cc: Mike Schill
Subject: Fw: Academic principles

Bill and Chris,
I wanted to share with you the attached Statement of Principle Regarding Academic Policies that Mike and I have approved to help us determine if a policy is academic or not. The Policy on Policies uses language from the Constitution (see citations on the attachment), but there is still the question of what “commonly understood” means. Based on research from AAU peers, AAUP, etc., this seemed like an appropriate baseline. We do feel it is important to have an articulated standard to help guide us through the policies process. We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

SCOTT COLTRANE | Provost and Senior Vice President
provost@uoregon.edu | 541-346-3186
202 Johnson Hall
1258 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403

Statement of Principle Regarding Academic Policies

Primarily, we see academic policies as those addressing curriculum, academic standards, academic standards of admission, academic freedom, tenure and promotion, major changes to academic programs, grading standards, and student life as it relates to the educational process. Additionally, academic policies are more likely than not going to include policies relating to faculty status; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decision not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure and denial.  See AAUP’s Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities Section 5.[1]

Policies which have broad applicability to university employees but do not differentially treat faculty are not considered academic.  For example, key control to buildings, parking, purchasing regulations, or information technology matters relevant to all users, such as training, security and email use.

Regardless of whether a policy or proposal is deemed “academic” and thus proceeds through the academic policy process, the input of the senate or individual faculty members is always welcome through the public comment process for interested stakeholders.

Approved by President Michael Schill and Provost Scott Coltrane

August 2016

                                                                                                                                               

Miscellaneous Policy References and Citations

A “University Policy” (Policy) is a policy that

  • Has broad application or impact throughout the University community
  • Must be implemented to ensure compliance with state or federal law
  • Is necessary to enhance the University’s mission, to ensure institutional consistency and operational efficiency, or to mitigate institutional risks
  • Is otherwise designated by the Board or the [University] President as a University Policy.

Excluded from the definition of a University Policy are things such as, but not limited to, implementation guides, operating guidelines, internal procedures, and similar management controls and tools.[2]

An academic policy is one that addresses curriculum, academic standards, academic standards of admission, academic freedom, tenure and promotion, major changes to academic programs, grading standards, student life that relates to the educational process, or other matters of an academic nature as commonly understood in higher education.[3]

Proposals regarding majors, programs, minors, certificates, courses, and degree requirements are not considered policies for process purposes.[4]

[1] https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities

[2] University of Oregon Policy I.03.01, Section 3.1

[3] University of Oregon Policy I.03.01, Section 3.2; University of Oregon Constitution, Section 1.3 (emphasis added)

[4] University of Oregon Policy I.03.01, Section 5.3

Changes proposed for college teaching release policies

CAS and, I believe the other colleges are currently revising their teaching release  policies. I’ve asked the deans for the current drafts, and will add them below as I receive them.

Info request:

From: UO Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>

Subject: course release policy
Date: October 1, 2016 at 2:31:09 AM PDT
To: Andrew Marcus <marcus@uoregon.edu>, Bruce Blonigen <bruceb@uoregon.edu>, bfoley@uoregon.edu, Terry Hunt <tlhunt@uoregon.edu>, randyk@uoregon.edu, Adriene Lim <alim@uoregon.edu>, cpl@uoregon.edu, lawdean@uoregon.edu, jmolleda@uoregon.edu
Cc: Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, Senate Executive Coordinator <senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu>, Office of the Provost <provost@uoregon.edu>, Mariann Hyland <hylandm@uoregon.edu>

Dear Deans –

I’m writing as Senate Pres, to ask that you provide the Senate with a copy of the current draft of your college’s course release policy, so that I can distribute it to the Senate before our October 5 meeting.

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
Senate President
Economics Professor
University of Oregon

CAS response:

From: Karen Ford <fordk@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Fwd: course release policy
Date: October 1, 2016 at 3:57:50 PM PDT
To: William Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>

Dear Bill,

I’m responding to your request below for college course release policies. Attached are our proposed methodology and metrics in CAS, which we’ve drafted after discussions among the CAS deans and with the Wise Heads. We will be discussing the proposal with Academic Affairs and United Academics before it’s final.

All the best,
Karen

AAA response:

From: Christoph Lindner <cpl@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: course release policy
Date: October 1, 2016 at 11:48:25 AM PDT
To: Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>
Cc: Senate Executive Coordinator <senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu>

Dear Bill,

I’m sorry to say that A&AA does not currently have a draft school policy on course releases. We are currently working on developing/drafting such a policy, which will be available to share and circulate in due course.

best wishes,
Christoph

Christoph Lindner
Dean and Professor
School of Architecture and Allied Arts
University of Oregon
cpl@uoregon.edu
aaa.uoregon.edu

Sexual Assault Reporting Forum

Sponsored by the Senate Responsible Reporting Work Group

Friday, September 30 from 1-2:30 pm in 150 Columbia

Purpose: to gather student input to help the work group develop a university policy about supporting survivors and reporting sexual assaults

Come to the forum.  Learn what the work group is discussing. Share your perspective directly or anonymously. Join the conversation on this blog.

Agenda:

  1. Introduction of the work group
  2. Review of the key issues and how we’ve gotten to this point

Who on campus should be required to notify our Title IX Coordinator when they learn of a sexual assault?

If you tell an administrator, faculty member, or staff person about a sexual assault, what do you expect them to do?

Do we have enough confidential resources on campus where a sexual assault survivor can get help without having to formally report the incident?

If you experienced sexual assault and someone reported it confidentially, would you  want that confidential person to contact you and offer support resources?

3.           Student comments to the work group.

Information about support resources on campus will be available.

 

 

SENATE MEETING AGENDA – OCTOBER 19, 2016

Location: EMU Crater Lake Rooms; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

1.1      Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

2.1      October 5, 2016

3:05 pm    3.   State of the University

3.1 Remarks by Patrick Phillips, Interim Director of CASI

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

3:15 pm           4.1       Discussion: US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators; Senate Executive Committee

3:25 pm           4.2       Discussion: US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators; Senate Executive Committee

3:35 pm           4.3       Vote: US16/17-01: Change to the Senate bylaws regarding the order of Senate meeting agendas; Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate Vice President

3:45 pm           4.4      Vote: US16/17-02: Change to the Senate bylaws regarding the Committee on Committees membership; Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate Vice President

3:55 pm           4.5       US16/17-04: Revise charge and name of IAC committee; Andy Karduna (Human Physiology)

4:10 pm           4.6       Discussion: US16/17-03: New Program Proposal: Spatial Data Science & Technology (Geography); Alison Schmitke (Education), Chair of the Undergraduate Council

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm           5.1        New Chief of Police

4:35                   5.2        IT Reorganization, Provost Coltrane (Power Point pdf), Interim CIO Chris Krabiel, Dean of Libraries Adriene Lim,Greg Bryant (Discussion points, Outline), Q&A

4:55 pm    6.   Reports

4:55 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:55 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

SENATE MEETING AGENDA – OCTOBER 5, 2016

DRAFT

Senate Meeting Agenda – Oct 5, 2016

Location: Gerlinger Lounge; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

          1.1      Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

 2.1      May 25, 2016

3:05 pm    3.   State of the University

3.1      Welcome, President Michael Schill

3.2      Introductory Remarks, Senate VP Chris Sinclair

3:55 pm    4.   New Business

4.1      Discussion of Senate procedures and Handbook, Substitute Senator policy, new Executive Coordinator for the Statutory Faculty (Angela Wilhelms);  Bill Harbaugh, Senate President

4.2      Introduce Bylaws change: CoC membership; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP

4.3      Introduce motion to allow for the reordering of the Senate Agenda; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm    6.   Reports

6.1      Update from the Task Force on the Bias Response Team; Chris Chavez (Journalism), Co-Chair

6.2      Update from Responsible Reporting Work Group and recap of Student Forum (Sept. 30, 2016); Merle Weiner (Law), Chair

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

7.1      New Program Proposal: Spatial Data Science & Technology (Department of Geography); Undergrad Council

7.2      IAC/IAPAC & transition; Andy Karduna (Human Physiology) & Intercollegiate Athletics Committee

7.3      Introduce motion to allow for the reordering of the Senate Agenda; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP

7.4      Notice of motion on Bylaws change: CoC membership; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP

7.5.      New motions?

4:50 pm    8.   Other Business

8.1      Recruitment of a new COIA representative; Bill Harbaugh, Senate President

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Deady and Dunn Hall denaming and renaming?

 

President Schill’s decision to dename Dunn Hall has been confirmed by the UO Board, as has his decision to delay a decision on Deady until the students are back on campus and can participate.

President Schill’s message to the University community on this subject is here: http://president.uoregon.edu/content/deady-and-dunn-halls-next-steps

We are  opening this part of the Senate blog as a place for discussion on the potential denaming and renaming, so please add your comments.

Board of Trustees to meet Sept 8,9 in Ford Alumni Center

The BOT website is here.

We’ve posted a more convenient version of their agenda below, and have opened up the comments for those with a UO email address.

Academic and Student Affairs Committee —8:30 am – September 8, 2016, Ford Alumni Center, Giustina Ballroom [Materials]

Convene – Call to order, roll call – Introductory comments and agenda review – Approval of June 2016 ASAC minutes (Action) – Public comment

1. Academic Program Review: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost; Susan Anderson, Senior Vice Provost

2. Student Success Initiatives: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost; Lisa Freinkel, Dean of Undergraduate Studies; Ron Bramhall, Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Affairs; Doneka Scott, Associate Vice Provost for Student Success

Finance and Facilities Committee — September 8, 2016 [Materials] 10:00 am – September 8, 2016

Convene – Call to order and roll call – Approval of June 2016 FFC minutes (Action) – Public comment

1. Quarterly and Year‐End Finance Report: Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and
Administration/CFO

2. Auxiliary Budget Review: Athletics: Rob Mullens, Director of Intercollegiate Athletics; Eric Roedl, Deputy Athletic Director

3. Capital Construction & Planning
‐‐Oregon Hall Renovation (Action): Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration/CFO
‐‐Pacific Hall Renovation (Action): David Conover, Vice President for Research and Innovation; Bill Cresko, Professor and Associate Vice President for Research

4. UO Buildings – Energy Policies and Programs: Michael Harwood, Associate VP for Campus Planning and Facilities Management

Executive and Audit Committee —1:15 pm – September 8, 2016 Ford Alumni Center, Giustina Ballroom [Materials]

Convene – Call to order, roll call – Approval of June 2016 EAC minutes (Action)

1. Quarterly Audit Report and Amendment to Internal Audit Charter (Action): Trisha Burnett, Chief Auditor

2. University IT and Computing Priorities Update: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost; Chris Krabiel, Interim CIO; Adriene Lim, Dean of Libraries

Meeting Adjourns

Meeting of the Board — September 8-9, 2016 [Materials]

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8 – 2:00 pm – Convene Public Meeting
– Call to order, roll call, verification of quorum – Approval of June 2016 minutes (Action) – Public comment
Those wishing to provide comment must sign up advance and review the public comment guidelines either online (http://trustees.uoregon.edu/meetings) or at the check-in table at the meeting.

1. Recommendation re Dunn Hall (Action): Michael Schill, President

2. Seconded Motions and Resolutions (Actions)
–Seconded Motion from FFC: Pacific Hall Renovation (pending September 8 committee action)
–Seconded Motion from FFC: Oregon Hall Renovation (pending September 8 committee action)

3. New Administrator Introductions: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost

4. President’s Report: Michael Schill, President

Meeting Recessed

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 – 9:30 am – Reconvene Public Meeting

5. Presidential Assessment Report: Chuck Lillis, Chair; Ginevra Ralph, Vice Chair

6. AY16-17 Tuition and Fee Setting-Process: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost

7. Clusters in Focus
–Center for Genome Function: Eric Selker, Professor of Biology and Member of the Institute for Molecular Biology; Diana Libuda, Assistant Professor of Biology; Jeffrey McKnight, Assistant Professor of Biology
–Health Promotion, Obesity Prevention & Human Development: Beth Stormshak, Professor of Counseling Psychology and Human Services and Director of the Prevention Science Institute

8. Federal Funding at the UO: David Conover, Vice President for Research and Innovation; Jim
Brooks, Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management and Director of Financial Aid and Scholarships

9. UO Portland – Update: Jane Gordon, Vice Provost for UO Portland

Meeting Adjourned

Board agrees to give 5 minutes to ASUO and UO Senate Presidents

10/6/2016:

From: Angela Wilhelms <wilhelms@uoregon.edu>

Subject: Standing Meeting Reports

Date: October 6, 2016 at 2:08:43 PM PDT

To: Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>, Quinn Haaga <qhaaga@uoregon.edu>

Cc: Amanda Hatch <ahatch@uoregon.edu>, Jennifer LaBelle <jlabelle@uoregon.edu>

Bill and Quinn, 

I hope this email finds you both well and enjoying the start of another busy academic year! 

Chair Lillis asked me to extend an invitation to both of you to present a standing report at the Board of Trustees meetings, beginning with the next meeting in December. 

ASUO and University Senate standing reports were a part of board meetings during the first several meetings.  However, they were removed from the agenda in favor of written reports when some presenters used the time to speak to the audience and rally crowds, rather than update the board on the progress and goings-on within the respective organization.  

The Chair believes that we are past some of those practices, and he trusts that trustees can resume receiving updates from you (or your designees if you cannot attend) that are informative and insightful. 

We ask that you still provide a written version of your report so that trustees can read it in advance and come prepared with any questions.  The oral reports are scheduled for 5 minutes each, so you could easily include more detailed information in the written material. These are not intended to be two different reports. 

Amanda will be in touch prior to each meeting with the time, and she’ll be your point of contact on logistics and details. Barring some reason to adjust the schedule, these will almost always take place near the very beginning of the meeting after public comment. 

Let me know if you have any question!

Angela

 P.S.  Since the December meeting is in Portland, we will have a live teleconference feed to a room on campus so that the two of you, as well as people interested in making public comment, don’t have to travel to Portland.  Amanda will have those details closer to time as well so that you can share it with your respective groups. 

Angela Wilhelms

University Secretary

University of Oregon

wilhelms@uoregon.edu

O: 541.346.5561 | C: 503.931.5426

9/6/2016: Senate Pres Harbaugh letter to Board Chair Lillis

Dear UO Board Chair Lillis, and UO Trustees:

I am writing to you as UO Senate President. Last week the Board Secretary asked me to submit written comments to you for this week’s meeting, and then to answer questions at some point during the time you have set aside on your next agenda “for public comments”.

I refused, because I believe, as have all previous UO Senate presidents since UO independence, that our Board of Trustees should be willing to give the Senate some specific time on their agenda for discussing academic matters with them. I see that the UO student leadership also does not appear on your agenda. Apparently they have also been put in the public comment period.

This is not normal. The boards of governors of other AAU universities regularly set aside scheduled time on their agendas for the representatives of the faculty and the students – and what else is a university about? – to speak, ask questions of the board, and answer the board’s questions. (Besides, the comments from the public are often among the more interesting parts of the board meetings, and I hate the idea that the Senate’s time will take away from the public’s.)

The UO Senate has in past years scheduled time for both Chair Lillis and Trustee Ballmer to speak to us. The Senate made sure these presentations were well promoted, and that everyone understood their importance. Turnout was large and these interactions helped the faculty and the university understand the board, and built some trust in it. As Senate President I welcome requests from any trustee to speak, and I will treat them with the same respect that the Senate has done in the past.

In that spirit, I hope that your next agenda will explicitly schedule time for the Senate leadership to address the board and to ask and answer questions about academic matters. I promise to bring plenty to the table.

Yours,

Bill Harbaugh

Economics Professor & Senate President

University of Oregon

Navigating the New Senate Pages

Welcome to the new University of Oregon Senate pages! We have archived the old Senate pages in their totality, and additional  archived information can be found on the Senate Archives page.

We had two goals in mind for the new page:

First was to organize the overwhelming amount of data on committees, meetings, motions and the individuals who make the Senate work.  We did this by building a new database—basically a spreadsheet with a number of tables and links recording relationships between the entries in the various tables.  This database exists not only to keep Senate leadership, staff and committees organized, but also to serve that data to the public via these pages.  Currently there are four main pages which access the database:

  • Committees A-Z: This page has a list of Senate standing committees as well as ad hoc Senate committees, Administrative Advisory Groups and other committees which impact the governance of the University of Oregon.  You can expand each committee entry to see the committee charge, who is currently on that committee as well as upcoming meetings and attachments.
  • Committee Members: Here you will find a list of all members of the University community that are serving on committees.  You can expand each record to see a complete list of the committee service being performed by the member.
  • Calendar: We store events in the database along with, when applicable, links to associated committees and/or attachments.  Clicking on an event in the calendar will give you additional information for that event.
  • Motions: Currently the motions table in the database (and hence on the Motions page) contains the complete text and associated documents for motions discussed in the Senate for the last couple of years.  We will be adding older motions (and new ones too!) as time progresses.  In the meantime, old motions can be found via links on the Senate Archives page.

Most data displayed from the database can be starred by clicking on the bullet next to the entry.  Starred entries can be viewed by clicking on the star in the main menu from almost any page.  You can also find your starred entries (if you have any) on the Starred page.

The second major goal for the new web pages was to provide a platform where members of the University of Oregon community can comment on the work of the Senate, or engage in topical conversation about our university.  This page was built using WordPress as a content management system.  This system is basically a blogging platform, and we have the ability to enable comments for almost any content visible on the site.  For the most part, we expect the conversation to be accessible either from the featured content on the front page (the six major tiles you see when you land on the page) and under the Blog tab.  To make comments you will log in with your DuckID, and your name will displayed with any comments you make.  Please be respectful.

If you have any questions or suggestions for improvement (or simply notice a mistake in the data served from the database) you can leave a comment on the Suggestions post.

Input sought on IT report and process

Begin forwarded message:

From: “Office of the Provost and Academic Affairs” <provost>

Subject: Input sought on IT report and process

Date: August 26, 2016 at 10:48:30 AM PDT

 

Dear Colleagues,

The University of Oregon has been engaged in an ongoing conversation about improving information technology (IT) across campus. Having a robust, efficient, and secure IT system and structure is essential to the UO’s academic and research success and critical to serving students, faculty, and staff.

Over the last year we have conducted a series of assessments, begun developing an IT strategic plan, and started updating our policies. This work shows the UO must transform its IT system so that we have the appropriate infrastructure and staffing model to support our vital academic and research mission.

As part of these assessments, the UO commissioned a report by IT consultant Harvey Blustain, which is available on the provost’s webpage. The report suggests the best way to improve the IT support and operations is to consolidate the university’s fragmented technology resources and put in place consistent policies, procedures, and practices to increase efficiency and decrease institutional risk. Interim Chief Information Officer Chris Krabiel, Dean of Libraries Adriene Lim, and I have reviewed the report and believe it is a promising path forward for improving the UO’s IT systems and utilizing the skills of our many talented IT professionals.

I invite the campus community to read the report and offer feedback using this input form by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 30. Interim CIO Krabiel and Dean Lim will be engaging faculty and staff across campus in direct conversations to solicit more input. Additionally, in the coming weeks, interim CIO Krabiel will continue to meet with IT staff to review the report findings, answer questions, take input, and consider next steps. Additional information about the process, timeline, and proposed next steps is available here.

The input received from these discussions and from the comments form will be evaluated and used to finalize a recommendation to President Schill regarding next steps in improving services and further smoothing the transition process.

I thank the many people across campus who are working on this important IT transformation that will help position the UO for academic and research excellence. And I thank you in advance for your input and support of moving the university forward.

Sincerely,

Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President

Provost search committee named

President Schill’s 8/19 email.

From: “President Michael H. Schill” <pres>
Subject: Provost search committee named
Date: August 19, 2016 at 2:27:57 PM PDT

Dear Colleagues,

Choosing a provost is among the most important decisions a president will make for a university. The provost is the chief academic officer of the institution and, as such, the guardian of our most important functions—education and scholarship. We are fortunate that Scott Coltrane will have served in that role for more than three years, in addition to serving as interim president and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences since arriving at the UO in 2008. Now that he has announced he will retire in June 2017, it is vital that I select a worthy successor who will be my partner in advancing the University of Oregon.

I am pleased to announce that 17 people have been selected to serve on the Provost Search Committee, led by Professor Geri Richmond, to assist me in recruiting our next provost. I reached out to a broad representation of campus constituencies to develop the committee membership, which includes members of faculty, staff, students, and administration. I am grateful that everyone I asked to serve agreed to devote their time and expertise to this effort.

The names of the committee members are listed here on my website. Further updates will be posted on this site as we progress through the search process.

I thank Professor Richmond for taking on the task of leading this very important committee, and thank each member of the committee for their service to our university.

Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

Discussion on the denaming of Deady and Dunn Halls

President Schill sent this message to the campus community regarding the potential denaming of Deady and/or Dunn Hall.  We will collate and share any opinions expressed here with President Schill regarding this decision or the process to arrive at it.

Dear Campus Community,

The University of Oregon is undergoing a self-examination of its policies and practices with respect to race and inclusion, similar to many other universities throughout the nation. Last year, a group of students under the banner of the Black Student Task Force (BSTF) presented me with a set of 13 demands that ranged from creating new programs and increasing African American enrollment to construction of a Black cultural center on or near campus.  We continue to make progress on these issues as outlined in a letter to campus in spring. Today, I am providing new information and asking for input regarding the BSTF’s call to change the names of Deady and Dunn Halls because of the racist views and actions of the men for whom the buildings were named.

Earlier this year, I charged a committee—chaired by Associate Professor Charise Cheney and composed of faculty members, administrators, and students—to provide me with a set of criteria that would guide a decision to dename campus buildings.  I considered the committee’s recommendations and, in a letter to the campus dated May 6, announced a set of criteria and processes. I asked three prominent historians to carefully review and investigate the historical records of both Deady and Dunn in relation to these criteria.

These three historians provided me with their report on August 5, which is available here on my website. As I requested, the report does not make recommendations about denaming either building. Instead, it carefully considers each criterion through a painstaking analysis of historical records and archives as well as relevant court cases.

The historians’ report is a sobering account of a tumultuous and difficult period in Oregon’s history. I encourage you to read the report and invite you to provide me with your views on whether one or both of the buildings should be denamed.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide me with your comments using this form by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 24. Following this comment period, I will carefully consider the report and all the comments before announcing next steps, including the possibility of taking a denaming proposal for one or both buildings to the UO Board of Trustees at some point in the future.

I would like to thank the three historians for their expertise, time, and attention to this important issue. I also would like to acknowledge that the ultimate decision about whether to dename a building is exceedingly difficult and that the historical record in this case is a complicated one.  Reasonable people, ethical people, well-meaning people will disagree about the right course of action.  One of the things I have been most proud of during my first year as your president is that our community—led by our students—has approached some of the most painful issues facing our society with a tremendous level of commitment, care, and good sense.  I am confident that as we move toward a decision on Deady and Dunn Halls, that level of wisdom and sense of community will continue to be in evidence.

Sincerely,

Mike


See also:

Article in the R-G

Guest Viewpoint in the R-G


Letter to President Schill from the Executive Council of United Academics

Another Guest Viewpoint in the R-G

A note from Senate President Harbaugh

Welcome to the new academic year and the Senate’s new website.

The Senate’s first meeting will be 3-5PM Wednesday October 5th, and we will meet every two weeks for fall quarter. Our normal meeting place will be in the EMU’s new Crater Lake Room, though the place for our first meeting is TBA.

The website is the work of Senate VP Chris Sinclair, Senate Executive Coordinator Betina Lynn, and Senate Program Assistant Kurt Wilcox. Past websites are archived here. We have designed the new website to increase transparency by making it easier to see what the Senate and our committees are doing, and to increase communication by adding blog comments that will allow for input and discussion by faculty, staff, OA’s, and students. It’s a work in progress and we welcome input – please try adding your suggestions about the website here.

The UO Senate has constitutional responsibility for academic matters, which derives from the Oregon legislation that chartered the University in 1853, as reaffirmed by President Lariviere in UO’s 2011 constitution, and more recently by President Schill. As Senate President I’m committed to working with the UO administration and the UO community to focus the Senate’s energy on improving academic excellence at UO.

To that end the Senate oversees the work of an extensive system of committees. This year I am hoping we can simplify some of this system, revise some Senate by-laws to make the Senate’s work proceed more smoothly, and better coordinate the work the Senate and its committees is doing with the system of advisory groups that the administration has set up outside the Senate.

In addition to the usual work of approving new courses and programs and hashing through the revision of still more university policies – we’re hoping fewer than last year! – I want to begin discussions about important academic matters such as potential changes to our general education requirements, and our strategy and policies for on-line and hybrid courses.

This year UO is revising its responsibility centered budget model, which has had and will have significant academic consequences. I am working to ensure that the Senate, working through the Senate Budget Committee, is fully consulted on these changes.

I welcome other suggestions for academic matters that the Senate should take up. You can add these as comments to this post, or reach me at senatepres@uoregon.edu (this is a new email address that will pass to future presidents and increase continuity) or at harbaugh@uoregon.edu.

A note from Senate Vice President Sinclair

[updated 12/23/2016]

The fallout from the black face halloween incident (BFHI) has divided our community at a time when it is least welcome. Higher education is, or soon will be, under an unprecedented assault from our own government. At this moment the BFHI-divided campus is in no position to present unified resistance to this threat.

Regarding the BFHI, I would suggest to the free speech folks (FSF) that sometimes words and actions are as terrifying and damaging as threats of physical harm. I would say this doubly so to FSF who, due to no fault of their own, have not had the experience of living outside the comfort of a social majority. To the social justice folks (SJF) I would suggest that sometimes damage inflicted is inflicted out of ignorance, and in such situations isn’t forgiveness (together with a liberal dose of education) warranted? I say this doubly to those SJF who do not understand that the no-prisoners response to the BFHI has many on campus afraid that one day they too may be run out of town on a rail for some ignorant, but well-meaning act.

To the FSF who demand that speech be without consequences, I cannot stand with you. The BFHI has clearly damaged our campus and each of us must be held responsible for our actions, well-intended or otherwise.

To the SJF who say there can be no forgiveness for this act, I cannot stand with you. If you believe the perpetrator here is irredeemable then you are as guilty of dividing our community as she is.

To those who know that this situation lies on the complicated boundary between competing ideals, I stand with you. I stand with you ready to find a path forward.

Finally, to the administration (JH), I’d like to introduce you to the Kobayashi Maru. Do I think your reactions to the BFHI have been stellar? No. However, I doubt that I could have done any better (at least without the benefit of hindsight). I will offer a few critiques. Hiding in the bunker of Johnson Hall and waiting for this to blow over (ahem, denaming Deady Hall) is not leadership. Releasing a public report on the BFHI three days before Christmas, may be smart, but it is not leadership. Leadership is putting forth a plan that addresses both the fears of the FSF and of the SJF, and secures us as an institution that is known both for our stalwart support of free speech, but also for our inclusion and compassion towards others of different backgrounds and narratives.

Here is what I hope. I hope that JH can address both the fear that minorities on campus harbor (especially given the recent election), but also the fear that pitchforks await the next unwitting purveyor of social ignorance. I hope that JH can find a way to reassure campus that they are strong supporters of both free speech and campus inclusion. Finally, I hope that JH together with the SJF can orchestrate a path forward for the perpetrator of the BFHI to be brought back into the fold of the university. This would be real, unifying leadership, of the sort we are going to need over the next few years.

If I can help in some regard, please let me know.
Chris

[old stuff below]

Welcome back for fall!  As I write this I am in the last throws of teaching an 8-week calculus course.  Teaching this summer has been a bit of a mixed bag.  On one hand, my students have been great and being on campus everyday has been good for planning the various projects and initiatives that are in front of the Senate.  On the other hand, stepping into the Senate VP role has been plenty of work on its own without the additional time in the classroom.  Regardless, it’s been a productive summer, and I’m glad to be able to elaborate on some of the things I’ve been working on.

First and foremost, is this new website.  While I didn’t mean for it to be as all encompassing as it turned out, the obvious solution to the mountains of human-generated data produced by and for the Senate was a relational database: basically a spreadsheet with recorded relationships between rows in different tables.  This database is still evolving and growing as we update past and future information about committees, those who serve on them, the reports they produce as well the motions and legislation moved in the Senate.  The goal of this database is to keep this information in one central repository from which we can query and serve on these web pages.  There will undoubtedly be hiccups in the delivery of this information, and the information itself may not yet be the most up-to-date.  If you see any errors, please let me know so that I can address it.

Several lives ago, during a brief stint as a graduate student drop out, I was a web developer for a government research lab.  Technology has changed a lot in the intervening 20 years, and it has been nice to revisit and update those skills.

Besides teaching and web development, I have also spent the summer meeting with Senate President Harbaugh, Senate Executive Coordinator Betina Lynn and Senate Program Assistant Kurt Willcox. They have helped get me up to speed on the ins and outs of the business of running the Senate, and in particular the constellation of committees, advisory groups and task forces where so much of the work of the University is done.  One of my overarching goals for the upcoming year is to build an organized view of the committees, what they do, and who serves on them.  I hope to make it easy for people to see what the committees are doing and provide mechanisms by which people can share their thoughts about this work in a constructive manner.

In order for this to be successful, I will need your help.  Please let me know what sorts of information are useful for you as a constituent of the Senate or as a member of a committee.  Visit this site often, and share your opinions on topics of interest.  If you are on the Senate, I implore you share your ideas and debate the issues of the day so that we can fully vet all policy proposals, legislation and resolutions in a thorough manner.

As particular issues arise, I’ll add my thoughts to this thread.  Until then, I’m going to enjoy the prospect of a few weeks of Eugene summer before the whirlwind of fall quarter begins.

Thanks for reading this far, and here’s to a productive upcoming academic year!

Chris

The Senate Task Force on the Bias Response Team

The Senate has formed the Task Force on the Bias Response Team.  There are available seats for representatives chosen by ASUO and the GTFF.

Read co–chair Chris Chavez’s letter:
Dear Senators-

I want to give you an update on the BRT task force. The charge of the Senate’s Task Force on the Bias Response Team is this:

National coverage of UO’s Bias Response Team (BRT) and similar efforts aimed at reducing campus bias have raised some concerns regarding the potential for negative effects on free and open classroom discussions. This task force is to assess the material and perceived impact of the BRT on faculty, student, and staff interactions, with a focus on the impact of the BRT on academic matters. The task force will first gather information about the BRT’s operations, including record-keeping. Then, based on the findings of this research and input from the Senate and the University community, the task force will work with the UO administration to ensure that the BRT functions so as to encourage both academic freedom and inclusivity.

The Task Force is chaired by Chris Chavez (Journalism) and Chris Sinclair (Math and Senate VP). The membership includes Rich Margerum (PPPM), Ofer Raban (Law) and Theodora Thompson (Classified staff in Admissions, and SEIU local President). There will be a few other members, including a student, who have yet to be appointed. The committee is advisory to the Senate, and will follow the Senate’s open meetings rules.

At the J-School town hall earlier this month VP Robin Holmes announced that she was reviewing the BRT and expected to make some changes. However I think it’s important that the Senate take the lead on this, and that we should do so with full knowledge of what the BRT does.
It’s to the credit of BRT coordinator Maure Smith-Benanti that her 2014-15 report on how the BRT tries to reduce biased behavior and language is one of the more transparent documents I’ve seen come out of the UO administration, and I’m optimistic that the BRT and VP Holmes’s office will share more with us. (See the BRT website and report at https://uodos.uoregon.edu/Programs/Bias-Response-Team/Annual-Reports.)
I expect that the task force will be able to collect some information over the summer and update the Senate on that information by early fall. If you have any information on the BRT I encourage you to email Chris Chavez and Chris Sinclair, at csinclai@uoregon.edu and cchavez4@uoregon.edu.

The Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group

We’ve set up a working group to rewrite the Responsible Employees Policy, as follows. It is a small group, but it will consult with all Senate constituents.

Charge:

The Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group is tasked with drafting a new Responsible Employees Policy for the Senate and Administration to consider as a replacement for the current emergency policy. The working group will follow the Senate’s normal open meetings rules, and will solicit input broadly from the Administration, the Senate, and the university community, and will hold at least one town hall type meeting for this purpose. The working group may seek outside advice, particularly on considerations involving compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The draft policy sent to the Senate will be accompanied by a document explaining the rationale for the recommended rules and procedures.

Membership:

  1. Merle Weiner, Professor, Law (Chair)
  2. Phyllis Barkhurst, OA, Director of 90by30, Co-Director of the UO Center for the Prevention of Abuse and Neglect
  3. Jennifer Freyd, Professor, Psychology
  4. Bill Harbaugh, Professor, Economics
  5. Darci Heroy, OA, Interim Title IX Coordinator
  6. A student member, TBA.

General Council Kevin Reed’s 8/19 email:

Dear Colleagues,

President Schill has approved emergency policy V.11.02 and associated changes to UO’s grievance policy and discrimination policy relating to the prohibition of discrimination and the process for responding to reports of prohibited discrimination. These temporary changes will be in effect for 180 days and provide needed clarification of who is a “responsible employee” and therefore required to report prohibited discrimination, including sexual harassment.

In summary, the emergency policy:

  • Reinforces the expectation that all employees are required to communicate reports of prohibited discrimination, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, to:
    • The Title IX Coordinator;
    • The Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services; or
    • The Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity.
  • Clarifies that the following offices are “confidential resources” that can help connect students and employees with support services and help them navigate their options, without being required to report the alleged misconduct:
    • The Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services;
    • The University Health Center;
    • Ombudsperson; and
    • The University Counseling Center.
  • Provides clarification regarding when a report made in a privileged context does not trigger a duty to report, including:
    • Reports made to an attorney in the context of providing legal counsel (such as student legal services);
    • Reports made by unit members to a steward of their union;
    • Information shared in a public awareness event (such as “Take Back the Night”);
    • Information received during an IRB approved research project; and
    • Reports made by students in the context of an academic assignment.
  • Provides a pathway for certain faculty or staff to receive training and authorization from the Title IX Coordinator to be exempt from the reporting requirement.This emergency policy reflects the input of the University Senate’s Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, and incorporates many thoughtful suggestions made by stakeholders in three separate meetings of the senate as it debated, but was unable to enact a permanent policy this past spring.

    President Schill and I have asked the senate to return to the task and make modifications that reflect sound policy and remain compliant with our legal obligations under Title IX. To that end, University Senate leadership have appointed a working group, led by Knight Professor of Law, Merle Weiner, to seek broader consensus on a legally sufficient policy.

    It is my hope that the senate can run an open and transparent process, one that relies on subject-matter experts and finds a careful balance between supporting a student’s control of whether to initiate a formal response to an incident of sexual harassment or prohibited discrimination and the university’s need to receive information necessary to stop and prevent discrimination. If the senate once again is unable to pass a policy, or if the policy it crafts does not meet minimum legal requirements, the president will be prepared to act at the end of the 180-day life of this emergency policy.

    Sincerely,

    Kevin Reed
    Vice President and General Counsel

Shared governance at the University of Oregon

Skip to toolbar