President and Professor of Law
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.
Bill Harbaugh, Senate Pres, Econ Prof
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:20 P.M. Approval of Minutes, January 18, 2017
3:25 P.M. New Business
4:00 P.M. Open Discussion
4:20 P.M. Reports
4:58 P.M. Notices(s) of Motion
“Condemnation of the university’s findings regarding political expression by faculty members.” Ofer Raban (Law)
4:59 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
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”
A message from Professor of Advertising Deb Morrison:
Greetings during Week 2 and all it brings!
I wanted to share with some leaders of our campus the work being done by our student agency, Allen Hall Advertising.
Their initiative to bring civility to discussions, social media, conversations during tumultuous times is bringing visibility to our SOJC program as well as the University. The project is described here http://resetthecode.uoregon.edu/ and in installations at the EMU. Our students have worked tirelessly to make this happen, working last term and over break.
Our mission: we want discussion and disagreement to happen without name-calling or derision but based on facts and mutual respect. Real conversation. Let’s leave the toxicity and “comments section” approach of most social forums behind. We need your help to ensure civility and to model this approach.
We’ve had over 10,000 hits on the site from 25+ countries. I’ve just received two requests from other universities for use of the initiative and conceptual thinking. We’ll be sharing that material with Boston University and others soon.
Tom McDonnell, UO manager of creative services and the advisor for the agency, has arranged for our student leadership to present to OSU later in the term. He has done a tremendous job in mentoring these students.
Local news stations have covered it and we’re talking with Communication Arts, Adweek who will then help spread the word to large outlets like The New York Times and Washington Post. We’ll be working with our alum who work in those media organizations to get coverage.
Here’s the request: in our interviews with media, I’d like to be able to state that our administration and campus leaders actively support the project and concept. This can be done through social media or in statements and conversations. Support from Johnson Hall administration and University Senate leaders would be appreciated and make a statement. Thanks to you who have already done so.
Thanks for listening.
By the way, we are exceptionally proud of our advertising students. This is what they will continue to bring to the world as they enter the profession.
Deborah Morrison PhD
Carolyn Chambers Distinguished Professor of Advertising
Director of Advertising
University of Oregon | School of Journalism and Communication
Advertising + Brand Development
331 Allen Hall Eugene, Or 97403
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.
Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon
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.
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.
Bill Harbaugh Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon
On MondayJan 23, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Kevin S Reed <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 | email@example.com
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
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
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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Free Speech for students and the student press
Date: November 27, 2016 at 10:13:14 PM PST
To: Kevin Reed <email@example.com>
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.
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.
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
I’m writing to you as the faculty member on the UO Board of Trustees. At previous board meetings, the trustees have met in small groups with faculty to talk about opportunities and challenges the university faces and ways the faculty can be involved in improving and strengthening the university (and, of course, ways the faculty already works to strengthen the university). The trustees have been enthusiastic about these discussions, and we are planning another one for the March board meeting – and you’re invited.
Each meeting will include 2-3 trustees and 8-12 faculty members depending on how many people sign up. These discussion sessions are planned for 12:00 – 1:00 pm on Thursday, March 2. Lunch will be provided. If you cannot attend this time, there will be future opportunities.
These will not be public meetings (there will not be a quorum present), so faculty members and trustees should feel able to share their thoughts and concerns about the university more directly.
If you are interested in participating in the March 2 discussions, email Amanda Hatch in the board’s office (firstname.lastname@example.org) no later than February 17. Please include your name, phone number, department or program, and years of service. My goal is to create groups representing a wide array of experience and fields of study, and consisting of faculty who have perhaps not yet been exposed to the board. Amanda will compile RSVPs for me, and we will follow up directly with individuals about participation and logistics. If we get more than we can accommodate this time, we’ll keep all names for future opportunities.
Thanks so much. I have been impressed with the enthusiasm of all of the trustees and their desire to help strengthen the university. I think these discussions will continue to be a great way for the trustees and faculty members to learn more about each other and share ideas about the university.
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.
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
Geraldine Richmond, Provost Search Committee Chair
Presidential Chair and Professor of Chemistry
From: “President Michael H. Schill” <pres>
Subject: Open Mike: Balancing principles
Date: January 9, 2017 at 11:55:25 AM PST
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.
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
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.
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.
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
Provost and Senior Vice President
Date of Notice: 11/28/2016
Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Committee on Committees
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;
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);
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
Introductory Remarks: Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Senate President
3:10 P.M. New Business
4:20 P.M. Reports
4:58 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
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
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
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.
Date of Notice: 10/01/2016
Current Status: Approved 11/02/2016
Motion type: Legislation
Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Chair of CoC
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;
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
From: Theodora K Ko Thompson <email@example.com>
EQUITY AND INCLUSION IN SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON
Dear President Schill, Members of the Senate
I respectfully seek reconsideration that classified staff representation be included in the new IAAC structure. I thank members of the senate who have expressed speaking on our behalf, sharing concerns about not having a classified staff member on the new committee in advocating for the continued inclusion of our membership.
It is my hope that the experiences I share will lend context to the value of classified staff voice, participation and inclusion in roles we have the interest to step forward, and to serve.
Public speaking does not come easy for me. As I’d expressed to a past Director of Employee Relations, “I am much more fluent in writing than when I speak. Writing is my forte given that I was raised to be “seen not heard.” It takes a lot out of me to speak publicly and with my stepping into leadership roles, it’s a challenge I take on to compel myself to work at expressing myself verbally. The level of comfort at public speaking and in verbal expression remains a professional development effort, if you will.”
When President Schill and I met the first time, I was not prepared for the question to express my thoughts about what makes the University of Oregon great. I would like to offer the following in answer to that question, to lend context to the value of classified staff service and representation on committee, why we seek to be dignified and respected for the opportunities that are offered to serve and why equity and inclusion in out classified representation matters.
MENS AGITAT MOLEM
MENS AGITAT MOLEM the words inscribed in the University of Oregon’s Great Seal “Mind move mountain” are words of the university’s motto that is “a reminder of the power of learning and of the university’s commitment to the life of the mind.
In our new mission statement, are these words we state as our values:
“We value the passions, aspirations, individuality, and success of the students, faculty, and staff who work and learn here. We value academic freedom, creative expression, and intellectual discourse. …”
Mens Agitat Molem – I believe – speaks for ALL of us – irrespective of our roles at the University of Oregon. The “life of mind” speaks to the intellectual discourse that ensues when we proudly serve as representatives when meetings convene, where the diversity of thought is shared, valuing equity and inclusion in a learning environment, regardless of classification. I have been inspired with Mens Agitat Molem, and many classified leaders have worked over the years with the strive that the University of Oregon remain faithful to the commitment in “the life of the mind” for which it stands for, and for the values in our mission statement not only to be meaningful and true in the experiences of classified staff who step forward to serve on committee, and in leadership roles the individual undertakes – but that the University of Oregon is as committed and faithful in the demonstration of fostering a campus climate and culture that upholds these in our policy on Community Standards Affirmation: https://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/01-administration-and-governance/community-standards-affirmation
We further affirm our commitment to:
· Respect the dignity and essential worth of all individuals.
· Promote a culture of respect throughout the University community.
· Respect the privacy, property, and freedom of others.
· Reject bigotry, discrimination, violence, or intimidation of any kind.
· Practice personal and academic integrity and expect it from others.
· Promote the diversity of opinions, ideas and backgrounds which is the lifeblood of the university.
As I’d expressed in correspondence related to the new title of the UO Senate Community Values Committee:
“…The new title of UO Senate Respect and Communities Values Committee reflects and shows relevance upon the historical significance that came about from student action of values for a campus climate of a learning organization such as the UO should be about, and be not only for the present, but importantly, inherent values of leadership for the greater community at large as well. These values cannot remain simply on a plaque, but that they are a set of values we carry with ourselves in the work we do…”
Classified employees who desire to serve, take on leadership roles, aspire to learn, receive training, earn a degree – should not only be denied these opportunities to be engaged in the learning environment at the University, but to be respected no less differently or less deserving of the dignity and respect of their service and leadership. The “inconvenient truths” of classified staff experiences in expressing interest to step forward include:
· In my first term as an elected senate representative I shared with Senate President Nathan Tublitz that a former senator was being discouraged from serving again. This was when serving on the Senate was two hours of meeting time in a month.
I recently provided feedback that I was glad to serve on the Ombuds Search Committee where I learned to better understand the processes of Affirmative Action in the hiring and search processes, notwithstanding that after twenty two years of service, this first opportunity to serve on a search committee was not with the department I’d dedicated years of service.
Against the tide, the pool of these experiences are these redeeming points of our experiences to the question what makes the University of Oregon great:
IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE, thanks to the leadership Ed Singer, the classified represntative on the Senate that the three senate representatives for classified representatives are not token representatives on the Senate, that the Senate passed the motion to dignify and respect classified representatives as equal members with voting rights in our shared governance.
“In 1995, the University of Oregon’s governance was restructured and the University Senate was created. Note the term “University Senate.” The University Senate was to be inclusive. Faculty, Officers of Instruction, Librarians, Officers of Administration and Students were included in the membership. For some reason, Classified Staff was not included. We suspect that this was an oversight.
This omission was partially correct in 2002 when three Classified Staff were added to the Senate membership. They were added, however, without voting privileges”
IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE, thanks to the leadership of Senate President Nathan Tublitz, that the UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award was created on February 9, 2011 with the following words http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/content/uo-senate-leadership-award-classified-staff
It is a point of pride that we are reportedly the only university in higher education that has a shared governance system which includes representatives from all of the stakeholders on campus including faculty, non-tenured track instructors, officers of administration, librarians, students, and classified staff. Leadership, in the framework of a dynamic and evolving organization, is complex and multifaceted. What lies dormant within each of us is our potential to make a difference, make change, and impact the lives of others. That which lies within each of us is our capability and potential to become a change agent.
“Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.” Helen Keller
Note: You will note that there is much thought behind the issues we share of our experiences of the campus climate and culture that we strive and seek for in the acceptance speeches: http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/content/uo-senate-classified-staff-leadership-award
IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE, thanks to the leadership of Senate President Kyr who showed he valued the voices of staff who fear to speak or fear to step forward in the hostile work environments they work, in the plea conveyed in Dr Carla McNelly’s acceptance speech, that :
“…in the summer of 2010 the UO Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace was formed. The committee included all campus stakeholders, to make recommendations to the UO Senate regarding a campus wide cultural shift for a respectful workplace. The committee reviewed UO policies, Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA), state and federal laws, and policies at other institutions of higher education. In the Spring of 2014 an Ombuds Program was established.
It is the inclusion of our participation that has served to benefit the campus community, that we take pride in the collaborative effort that brought about the Ombuds office and the Ombuds program for the safe place and resource for the campus community.
IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE that Kurt Krueger, a classified staff on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, who served six years on committee, served successfully as Chair of the committee.
THESE POINTS OF PRIDE – to be heard, to be respected, that we are included – the dignity and pride that comes with stepping forward – are roles that are meaningful demonstrations of OUR faith that the University will value these words:
“We value the passions, aspirations, individuality, and success of the students, faculty, and staff who work and learn here”
We take our appointed and elected roles seriously; we value these opportunities to be included. There is dignity and pride that comes with the classified staff’s desire to serve, to step forward to serve the University of Oregon – to bring that which is unique of our individuality to the intellectual discourse on any issue.
Learning that our elected representative roles are excluded from the new restructure of IAAC comes yet as another disappointment. Johnny Earl, who is an elected representative on the IAC, is a past MLK award recipient who has served as a representative on the University’s Diversity Committee. In 2015, Senate representative John Ahlen, in his introduction of Johnny Earl as the Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award recipient, shared that Johnny worked the evening or graveyard shift – yet he continues to step forward into these leadership roles on his off time during the day because he values and truly cares about the University of Oregon and that for many classified staff, it takes resilience and courage to continue to work at making the University a great place to work – notwithstanding what we continue to encounter expressed in Dr Carla McNelly’s acceptance speech (http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/files/CarlaClassifiedStaffAwardSpeech2011_0.pdf)
The disinvestment in education – the tug and pull between academics and athletics – has contributed to the tension within the IAC over the years that it is sad that there is today this revised motion that speaks of a compromise for a functional committee with some representation arrived at, at the expense of excluding classified staff representation.
I respectfully submit Stephanie Prentiss’s testimony that she sent to Lois Yoshishige to be shared with Johnny and I when she learned of the motion to exclude our representation. I respectfully submit that there is value to see meaningful worth in classified staff representatives’ ability and capacity to serve on the IAAC, that our perspective and input will lend to the rich intellectual discourse toward academic excellence.
Theodora Ko Thompson, UO BA ’04, MS ’07
Office of Admissions
University of Oregon
240 Oregon Hall
1217 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1217
Telephone: (541) 346-1301
UO Admissions toll-free number:
Fax: (541) 346-5815
Go, Go Yonder. Further. Farther.
“Learn a new language and get a new soul.” Chinese proverb
“Le monde est un livre dont chaque pas nous ouvre une page“…”The world is a book; each step opens a page for us” – Alphonse de Lamartine, Voyage en Orient VIII
“One’s destination is never a place but rather a new way of looking at things” -Henry Miller
Location: EMU 145 & 146 CRATER LAKE Rooms
3:00 PM Call to Order
Bill Harbaugh (Economics & Senate President)
Approval of Minutes for Nov 16, 2016 – (postpone until Jan 18)
3:10 PM New Business
3:40 PM Reports
3:55 Open Discussion
A “facilitated conversation” on General Education; Charles Blaich and Kathy Wise from the Wabash Center of Inquiry (http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/). They have conducted empirical research designed to learn what teaching practices, programs, and institutional structures support liberal arts education, and develop methods of assessing liberal arts education. Sponsored by Lisa Freinkel and Ron Bramhall.
4:55PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:57PM Other Business
DRAFT (revised Wednesday 11/16/2016)
Location: EMU 214 (REDWOOD Auditorium); 3:00-5:00 pm
Call to Order (3:00 PM)
Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh
New Business (3:15 PM)
1. Vote: US16/17-05: Graduate Online & Hybrid Courses policy proposal; Scott Pratt (Philosophy & Graduate Council)
2. Vote: US16/17-07: Student Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Violence Complaint and Response policy proposal; Merle Weiner (Law) & the Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group
State of the University update (3:40 – 4:00)
Mike Schill (UO President)
More New Business
Motion to suspend the rules and allow debate and vote on both:
3. US16/17-08: Reaffirming our Shared Values of Respect for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Senator Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages) et al.
4: US16/17-09: Declaring UO a Sanctuary Campus; Lynn Stephen (Anthropology) et al.
Reports (4:45 PM)
1. Update on Accreditation update: Ron Bramhall (AVP for Academic Excellence).
2. IFS & PAC12-ALC: Robert Kyr (Music)
3. Governor’s Campus Safety Workup Report; Robert Kyr (Music)
4:55 pm 7. Notice(s) of Motion
4:57 pm 8. Other Business
5:00 pm 9. Adjournment
Location: Gerlinger Lounge; 3:00-5:00 pm
3:00 pm Call to Order
1.1 Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh
3:05 pm Approval of Minutes
2.1 Oct 19, 2016
3:10 State of the University
3.1 A brief update from President Schill
3:30 pm Reports
Update on UO Board of Trustees: Susan Gary, Kurt Willcox, and Will Paustian
3:45 pm New Business
4.1 Vote: US16/17-06: Approve Revised Committee on Committees Membership; Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate Vice President
4.2 Vote: US16/17-04: Revise Charge and Name of IAC committee; Andy Karduna (Human Physiology), immediate past chair of IAC
4.3 Vote: US16/17-03: New Program Proposal: Spatial Data Science and Technology (Geography); Allison Schmitke (Education), Chair of Undergraduate Council and Chris Bone (Geography)
4.4 Discussion: US16/17-07: Student Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Violence Complaint and Response policy proposal; Merle Weiner (Law), Chair of Senate Responsible Reporting Work Group
4.5 Discussion: US16/17-05: Graduate Hybrid and Online Courses policy; (Graduate Council)
4:50 pm Open Discussion
5.1 Gen Ed Reform introduction
4:57 pm Notice(s) of Motion
4:58 pm Other Business
4:59 pm Adjournment
Sent on behalf of Lynn Stearney, Director, Research Development Services, Office of the Vice President for Research & Innovation
Please distribute this announcement to your faculty.
The Vice President for Research & Innovation invites faculty from all academic disciplines to apply for 2017 Faculty Research Awards.
The purpose of the Faculty Research Awards program is to stimulate research by providing faculty with support for research expenses including travel, summer stipend, equipment, supplies, contractual services, shared facility use, and graduate or undergraduate student research assistance.
Faculty Research Awards are eligible for funding up to $5,500.
The deadline for receipt of 2017 Faculty Research Award proposals is 5:00 PM, November 28, 2016.
Awardees will be notified in late February or early March, 2017. Projects should begin by July 1, 2017, and be completed by June 30, 2018. Final reports are due by July 31, 2018.
Guidelines and the application form are available online on the Research Development Services website.
The Faculty Research Awards Committee, composed of faculty designated by the University Senate, will evaluate proposals on the basis of their intellectual or artistic merit and make recommendations to the Vice President for Research & Innovation.
An information session on the Faculty Research Awards will be held on Monday, October 31 2016, from 12:00 – 1:00 in the Mt. Hood Room of Peace Health North, 677 East 12th Avenue. This session will provide an opportunity for prospective applicants to ask questions about eligibility, proposal requirements, award conditions or any other aspects of the Faculty Research Award program.
Questions should be directed to Research Development Services, firstname.lastname@example.org.
Date of Notice: 08/01/2014
Motion type: Policy Proposal
Current Status: Notice Given
Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee
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.
Date of Notice: 07/01/2014
Motion type: Policy Proposal
Current Status: Postponed until 01/13/2016
Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee
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.
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
4:55 pm 6. Reports
4:55 pm 7. Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 pm 8. Other Business
5:00 pm 9. Adjournment
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
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.
Provost and Senior Vice President
1258 University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1258
P: 541-346-3186 | F: 541-346-2023
You are being sent this message based on your affiliation with the University of Oregon.
Share this email:
This email was sent to email@example.com.
To continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book.
Having trouble viewing this email? View this email online.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Kevin Reed <ksreed>
Date: August 19, 2016 at 11:33:34 AM PDT
To: Senate President <senatepres>, Senate Vice President <senatevp>, ASUO President <asuopres>, “Leslie Wolgamott” <lwolg>, Penny Daugherty <penny>, “Sheryl Eyster” <seyster>, Sara Hodges <sdhodges>, “Nicole Commissiong” <nrc>, Jamie Moffitt <jmoffitt>, “Kenneth Doxsee” <doxsee>, Nancy Resnick <nresnick>, “Robin Holmes” <rhholmes>, Tobin Klinger <tklinger>, Sam Hill <samhill>, Missy Matella <mmatella>, John Bonine <jbonine>, Ibrahim Gassama <igassama>, “Jocelyn Hollander” <jocelynh>, “alai” <alai>, Carol Stabile <cstabile>, “C.J. Pascoe” <cpascoe>, Priscilla Yamin <pyamin>, Jennifer Burton <jenb>, Terry McQuilkin <tmcq>, Sophia Albanis <salbanis>, Mandy Gettler <mandyl>, Panhellenic Council President <phcpres>, Maxwell Lehman <mlehman2>, Sammy Cohen <scohen2>, Melissa Barnes <mbarnes5>, Renae DeSautel <desautel>, Randy Sullivan <smrandy>, Jen Reynolds <jwr>, Title IX Coordinator <titleixcoordinator>, Sandy Weintraub <sandyw>, Caitlin Corona <ccorona>, Lance Englet <englet>, Karen Ford <fordk>, “Jennifer Freyd” <jjf>, “katherine.green” <katherine.green>, Andrea Herrera <aherrera>, “Dee Dee Kintz” <ddkintz>, Sandra Martinez-Modesto <sandram>, Robert McCullum <rmac>, Victoria Ryan <vryan>, “janeward9” <janeward9>, “Juwaan Williams” <juwaanw>
Cc: Kevin Reed <ksreed>, President Michael Schill <pres>
Subject: Notice of Temporary Policy
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.
Have a suggestion for how to make the Senate more effective? Want to see something on the web page that’s not currently there? Found an error in our data on committees, committee members or motions? Leave us a comment!
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 firstname.lastname@example.org (this is a new email address that will pass to future presidents and increase continuity) or at email@example.com.
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.
[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!
The Senate has formed the Task Force on the Bias Response Team. There are available seats for representatives chosen by ASUO and the GTFF.
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.
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.
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.
General Council Kevin Reed’s 8/19 email:
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:
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.
Vice President and General Counsel
President Schill has asked the Senate to provide a list of nominees for the search committee for the new Provost. Deadline for nominations is Friday June 24th.
This is a quote from an email sent to 16-17 Senators from Senate President Harbaugh. -Ch
“The Senate is setting up a task force to study the administration’s Bias Response Team, which has recently been in the news. The charge is to collect information on what the BRT does, analyze the effect of the BRT on academic freedom and on campus climate, and make recommendations as to whether or not Senate action is needed.
Senator Chris Chavez (Journalism) has agreed to lead this task force. Chris led the J-School’s panel on the BRT on Monday, and I think did a great job ensuring that all perspectives were heard.
If you are interested in serving on this task force, or know of a constituent who might be, please email myself, Chris Chavez, and or CoC Chair Chris Sinclair. Keep in mind that the task force will do the bulk of its information gathering this summer, and then reach out to the broader campus in the fall for input.”