Minutes of the UO Senate Meeting 13 April 2011
Prepared and submitted by Christopher S. Prosser, Senate Executive Coordinator.
Present: J. Brubaker, C. Bybee, J. Ellis, A. Emami, R. Good, D. Healey, G. Hockstatter, H. Kaur Khalsa, D. Kennett, P. Keyes, T. Ko Thompson, I. McNeely, C. McNelly, L. Middlebrook, S. Midkiff, M. Nippold, B. Powell, M. Price, N. Proudfoot, R. Rejaie, S. Runberg, Z. Stark-MacMillan, Y. Tan, N. Tublitz, L. Van Dreel, M. Vitulli, V. Vologodsky, G. Waddell, D. Walton, M. Williams
Absent: A. Berenstein, E. Chan, K. Dellabough, I. Fielding, M. Henney, M. Hyatt, C. Ives, P. Lambert, P. Southwell, L. Sugiyama, E. Thomas, P. Walker, P. Warnek
Excused: T. Bars, J. Bonine, H. Gangadharbatla, R. Kyr, A. Laskaya, H. Lin, T. Minner-Engle, J. Piger,
1. CALL TO ORDER
Senate President N. Tublitz (Biology), called the meeting of the University Senate for April 13, 2011 to order at 3:05 P.M. in the Harrington Room of the Jaqua Academic Learning Center.
1.1 Approval of the Minutes. Minutes of the 9 March 2011 regular meeting of the Senate
A motion was made by Senate President Tublitz to approve the minutes from the March 9, 2011 meeting of the University Senate. Seeing no corrections the minutes were approved with one abstention.
2. STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY
Before moving to the State of the University, Senate President Tublitz informed the Senate body that the microphone system in the Harrington Room has been synced with the hand held microphones used by Senators while speaking at Senate meetings. He also informed the Senate body that the Senate meeting was being broadcast live over the internet and Senators should be aware of this while commenting on various issues.
2.1 Remarks by President Lariviere and/or Provost Bean
Senate President Tublitz welcomed President Lariviere to the floor to discuss the State of the University. President Lariviere thanked Senate President Tublitz and then launched into an update on the New Partnership Proposal and Governor Kitzhaber‟s agreement previously announced with surprising endurance in the media. According to President Lariviere, Governor Kitzhaber has a new proposal for integrating education responsibility in the state. The Governor is using the terms preschool through twenty to describe the students affected by this proposal. President Lariviere stated that it has been recommended that this description be changed to preschool through graduate school. This proposal represents more than half the state‟s budget. After speaking with Governor Kitzhaber several times regarding this new proposal, President Lariviere stated that he likes Governor Kitzhaber‟s thinking on this new proposal because it is not a governance structure but a policy structure and he believes the policy has the best interest of the state in mind. President Lariviere is optimistic that the Governor is thinking in the right way about his approach to education in Oregon.
According to President Lariviere, Governor Kitzhaber has very explicitly stated throughout his campaign and since he has been elected that he intends to do away with both the state board of education and the state board of higher education and integrate the policy functions of those agencies into his Education Investment Board. This plan matches very closely to what President Lariviere has proposed with regard to the governance of the University of Oregon. The President stated that if you eliminate the state board of higher education and the state board of education, then preschool through twelfth grade are governed by local school boards, community colleges are governed by community college boards, and state universities are left with no governance. President Lariviere‟s governance proposal (New Partnership) matches exactly with what the Governor is proposing in regard to the governance of higher education. According to President Lariviere, the governance structure of higher education needs to be done in such a way as to allow the individual universities to flourish given their idiosyncratic structures, mission, etc…
President Lariviere stated that the reason why his administration has opted to make a formal push for approval of the New Partnership bills in the 2012 legislative session that begins in February, is purely and simply inside baseball politics. It has nothing to do with the Governor‟s enthusiasm or lack thereof in the policy, but is allowing more time for the Governor to accumulate a small number of supporters in major leadership positions to support both his policy and the New Partnership simultaneously. The President believes that in order for the New Partnership to gain appropriate support, the policy should be addressed during the legislative session in February of 2012. He stated that the Governor‟s Education Investment Board must be watched very closely and carefully and asked for help from the Senate body in doing so. At this stage, the Governor‟s proposals have been in the form of conversations only and no one has seen actual legislation. President Lariviere remarked that it is hard to overstate the importance of the engagement of the Senate body and their representative constituencies evaluating these matters. According to the President, there are no perfect pieces of legislation, and hopefully, this process leads to improvement. The President again asked the Senate body to stay engaged on this issue, and informed the Senate that there will likely be an interim work group that focuses on the Governor‟s proposal. The Senate and its constituencies therefore must be ready to articulate their needs and wants to that group starting in July.
The President went on to say that he along with alums, trustees, and representatives of the Senate and of the faculty at large, recently gave testimony in front of the House subcommittee on higher education. He stated that the committee was very surprised at how many people are paying attention to these matters. When Professor John Chalmers (Finance) and Senator I. McNeely (History) discussed their process of evaluation regarding the New Partnership, and presented their views on the Proposal, it brought the committee up short. According to President Lariviere, people who are particularly opposed to the New Partnership are interested in making this a personality issue and that is why the Senate‟s continued engagement is crucial regarding this matter.
After discussing the New Partnership, President Lariviere stated that he had just returned from a meeting of the Presidents of the AAU (Association of American Universities) in Washington. The President stated that to say it was not a uniform happy gathering of University Presidents would be an understatement. He believes that the University of Oregon is in an oddly strong position in comparison to other public universities because the UO has essentially gone through and survived everything that their colleagues are currently enduring. He used the metaphor that the UO has been living on bread and water for so long that we have learned how to build muscle mass on this diet. In one year, Pennsylvania has had a proposed fifty-three percent cut to their higher education budget. California has had a significant cut built into their current budget which could possibly double if a budget resolution is not found between California Democrats and Republicans. The President then stated jokingly that he came away from the AAU meetings depressed, but thought that it was a rare moment for the UO. If we are able to generate private investment in the way that he believes is possible, the UO will be in a very strong position in the future. President Lariviere then asked for questions from the Senate body.
The first comment was from Professor Gordon Sayre (English). Professor Sayre stated that it was widely know that the April Senate agenda was changed the night before today‟s Senate meeting and the proposal for endorsement of the New Partnership was withdrawn. He believes this was the right decision and requested an opportunity to raise questions about the New Partnership from President Lariviere. Professor Sayre stated that he emailed President Lariviere four questions the night before and looks forward to an opportunity to discuss those questions. He also stated that the town hall meeting held in January was in the right spirit for the type of discussion he is looking for. Many of the questions posed at the town hall were from students and community members and he believes that faculty did not have enough opportunity to engage the President in a dialogue on the New Partnership. President Lariviere stated that Professor Sayre was right and he welcomes the opportunity to engage more questions from faculty regarding the New Partnership once schedules could be arranged. He went on to say that the more engagement from the Senate on the New Partnership the better for all involved and that there are no hidden agendas. According to the President, the only uncomfortable aspect of this process is trying to get everyone to recognize where everyone stands and what the consequences of policies have been in the past.
Seeing no further questions, Senate President Tublitz thanked President Lariviere for his remarks and stated that Senators had received an email stating that the Senate would not be discussing the New Partnership Proposal at the April Senate meeting. The Senate Executive Committee, who is the sponsor of the motion, decided to withdraw the motion because there was a general feeling that there are still several unanswered questions concerning the New Partnership. With the introduction of the Governor‟s proposal on education and higher education, and the simple fact that the Senate Executive Committee does not know what changes will come to the New Partnership during the coming months, the sponsors felt uneasy about endorsing a proposal that was not clearly defined and thus have decided to withdraw the motion. He then asked for confirmation from members of the Senate Executive Committee. Seeing no objections Senate President Tublitz stated that he believes the motion will return to the Senate body for discussion at a later date when the New Partnership is more clearly defined. He then asked for questions from the Senate body and seeing none he again asked Senators to submit their questions regarding the New Partnership to him. Senate President Tublitz then requested that the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) review the New Partnership in detail to try and address Senator‟s questions which would then be posted to a page on the Senate website.
A statement was made by Senator M. Vituli (Mathematics). She remarked that some of the questions that have and will be posed are not financial in nature, and because of this, she does not think it proper to limit the questions to the purview of the SBC. Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that the SBC does not only focus on budgetary items, but on various implications of budgetary items and the effects those items have on the University. He went on to say that if the SBC feels that they cannot answer the questions or if the Senate does not like the answers they have given, then other answers will be provided. Senate President Tublitz felt it should be sent to the SBC first and was uncomfortable with setting up a new ad-hoc committee that would have to go through the New Partnership from the beginning. If many questions were submitted from the Senate and the University community, he would be willing to pursue this ad-hoc committee route.
Senator I. McNeely (History) stated that if Senate President Tublitz deemed it appropriate, as chair of the Academic Council (AC), he would be happy to discuss the New Partnership and field questions from Senators and their constituents through the AC. He stated that the AC‟s purview encompasses anything related to the academic values of the University and he thought that his colleagues on the AC would be willing to answer any New Partnership questions. Senate President Tublitz agreed to Senator McNeely‟s suggestion and thanked him for offering to help. Seeing no other questions or comments, Senate President moved to begin the new business portion of the meeting.
3. New Business
3.1 Motion US10/11 - 10: Endorsement of the New Partnership Proposal
Motion US10/11-10 was withdrawn at the request of the Senate Executive Committee who sponsored the motion.
3.2 Motion US10/11 - 11a,b,c: Motions on grade culture from the Undergraduate Council, Ian McNeely, chair
Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate was going to discuss each motion separately and vote on each motion separately as well. He then invited Senator McNeely to the floor to provide an introduction to each motion. Senator McNeely stated that the three grade culture motions were approximately five years in the making and reiterated that the Undergraduate Council was not out to knock down student grades and conquer or reverse grade inflation. The UC‟s findings are not predicated on any particular findings regarding causes of grade inflation, at least not in a laborious statistical sense, instead they take grade inflation and a host of related problems like grade compression, as symptoms of a deeper problem which is the loss of meaning surrounding grades. These motions are designed to start conversations about grades, share information about grades, to make faculty more mindful when assigning grades, and to make students and transcript users more capable of relying on the grades they have been given. According to Senator McNeely, the UC tried to craft these motions in a way that would respect and promote the values of academic freedom. Each motion is designed independently to fill a specific informational vacuum and to provide information to students, faculty, and transcript users. Due to their specific rationales, each motion will be voted on separately.
After providing background information on the motions, Senator McNeely gave a brief overview of each motion beginning with 11A. He stated that when instructors post a policy, as is currently done, that says A equals excellent, B equals good, C equals satisfactory, etc… students are not receiving the tools to properly understand the ways in which modern universities organize. With 11A, the UC is asking each department and undergraduate program to formulate a rationale for its grading practices and post these practices on its official website. According to Senator McNeely, there is nothing in motion 11A that is compulsory, that requires instructors to adhere in any way to these rationales. The A+ grade should be given specific attention in these departmental rationales due to the UC‟s findings that assigning an A+ grade accounts for a large part of what is perceived as grade inflation. Because of this, these grades should be specifically defined by each department. The UC will provide online access to these rationales. Senator McNeely then stated that there was no financial impact in implementing motion 11A; it merely requires a series of discussions about grades whose outcomes will be posted online. Senate President Tublitz thanked Senator McNeely for his introduction on Motion 11A and moved to begin a discussion on the motion. Before discussion could begin, Senate parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) stated that the committee who sponsored the motion must move for approval of that motion. Senate President Tublitz then asked Senator McNeely if the UC moves the motion for approval and Senator McNeely stated that the Undergraduate Council moves for the approval of Motion 11A. Senate President Tublitz then thanked Senator McNeely for moving the motion and parliamentarian Simonds for his point of order, and added that the motion does not need a second because it is being sponsored by a committee and not an individual. He then opened the floor to conversation on motion 11A.
The first comment was from Senator M. Nippold (Education). She stated that the principle of Motion 11A was fine, but it also assumes that there must be agreement within a department as to what constitutes an A+ grade or an A grade. It was her feeling that this might not be so easily codified, and that faculty members within each department might have disagreements as to the specific meaning of grades. Senator McNeely responded by stating that that was a judgment call that each department would have to make on their own. He believes that, regardless of potential disagreements, they should be asked to do so in whatever terms deemed appropriate to that department. He also stated that instructors have the choice of opting out for principle pedagogical reasons.
Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) asked what Senator McNeely meant by the word disciplines. He was not sure if Senator McNeely was referring to the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), a specific major, or a subgroup within a major. Senator McNeely stated that the word disciplines meant every individual department in the undergraduate program whether they are a part of CAS or not. Several departments harbor within themselves several different subject codes and disciplines. There exists a different teaching style within departments, for example language and literature within French. In those cases, Senator McNeely believes it would be helpful for students to know what those differences are.
At this point, Senate President Tublitz stated that he was asked to read a comment from Professor John Nicols (History) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. Here are Professor Nicols‟ comments in their entirety:
On the proposals regarding Grade Inflation
I am in class during the meeting of the UO Senate so cannot be present for the discussion in the UO Senate. I would like to urge the UO Senate to table the motion for reconsideration at a later date. I write this letter as someone who has served on all the curricular committees over the years and chaired most of them. Moreover, I am not averse to making changes and proposed a similar motion on general education requirement several years ago. I recognize, as we all do, that there is a problem with grade inflation, and I welcome the work done by the undergraduate council to reflect on the nature of the problem and to suggest some methods for dealing with the trend. Nonetheless, there are compelling reasons for moving slowly:
1.) Grading is an intensely personal issue and the grading culture varies significantly by program and department, and by school and college. I suspect that many here would agree that the problem is best regulated at the local level. So my first question is: has enough been done in departments and programs to monitor the trend and to establish guidelines for faculty? Has enough been done to alter student expectations about grades? I know that some, like Karen Sprague, have worked to change expectations, but believe the issues have not yet been addressed in most departments. And if departments have failed to address the problem, we need to know why? The top down approach offered here strikes me as premature, given that little has been done at the department level to alter expectations of faculty and students.
2.) I am very skeptical of adding notations to the transcript that inform about the number of [for example] As awarded in a class. If I were a student who had worked hard for a grade I would find it very troubling to see a remark that 88% of the other students in the class also received an A. Such a notation would serve to promote „bottom fishing‟ and that cannot be construed as an improvement.
3.) Moreover, to claim that the cost of reprograming the transcript and adding the information to DARS does not strike me as „cost neutral‟ or even as something that can be implemented in the near future. That is, even if approved, the changes will take considerable time and effort to implement [My informants in the Registrar‟s office indicate a significant degree of skepticism on this component]. This proposal needs a serious budget estimate of the real costs.
Hence my conclusion: I recommend that the motion be tabled and reconsidered only after the UC has provided departments, programs and colleges with suggestions to manage the problem, and taken up again ONLY when it has proven impossible to manage the situation locally.
Senator McNeely stated that Professor Nicols was a colleague of his and that this was the first time he had heard these remarks from him. He again reiterated that the three Grade Culture Motions were five years in the making, and that 11A was specifically designed to provide a framework to manage the problem locally. Senator McNeely mentioned that he brought this motion to his own department for discussion. He was not sure if Professor Nicols was at the meeting, but he did so at the initiative of the UC. He again reiterated that 11A provides a framework for all departments to have discussions regarding grades and to adopt whatever policies they see fit. He then stated that he would defer commenting on transcripts until his discussion of 11C. Finally, he remarked that his informant in the registrar‟s office is the registrar herself who has assured Senator McNeely repeatedly that these policies are cost neutral. She is allowed to determine programming priorities within her own budget of current staff and has stated several times that implementing these polices will be cost neutral. He then stated that he resisted tabling the motion per Professor Nicols request.
Senate President Tublitz then read comments on the Grade Culture Motions from Senate Vice President Robert Kyr (School of Music) who was unable to attend the Senate meeting. Here are Senate Vice President Kyr‟s comments in their entirety:
Statement from Robert Kyr,
President-elect of the University Senate
Re: Motions regarding Grade Culture
First, my apologies for my absence from today‟s Senate meeting (April 13, 2011). As chair of the composition department in the School of Music and Dance, I was asked to give a master class at the Hult Center for the Eugene Symphony, which offers the Laura Avery Master Class Program. John Harbison, a renowned American composer who is the composer-in-residence for the orchestra, fell ill and could not travel to Eugene from Boston. Consequently, I was asked to give the master class in his place, since I had prepared all of the student composers and performers who are participating in this public event.
I am asking Nathan Tublitz to read this statement on my behalf in order to request that a motion be made to table the three motions (US 10/11 abc) related to improving grade culture. Although I realize that grade inflation is an important issue, I do not believe that the motions as proposed will achieve the desired result of improving grade culture, and I do not believe that they will be without financial impact on the university.
Therefore, I propose that the three motions be tabled until the following is achieved by the Undergraduate Council, at which time a reconsideration of the motions might be more appropriate:
• OFFERING DIRECT SUGGESTIONS & PARTICIPATING IN OPEN DIALOGUE--
First, I propose that the Undergraduate Council works directly with departments, colleges, programs and academic units in order to suggest concrete ways to improve grade culture as appropriate for specific disciplines. One size does not fit all and it is important for the council to interact at the local level with departments in order to understand their needs and to suggest ways that our grade culture can be improved within the contexts of specific disciplines.
My first point relates directly to the charge for the Undergraduate Council, which states that it is authorized to do the following: “Participate, on behalf of the University faculty, in planning the development and improvement of the undergraduate instructional program of the institution, in consultation with the University President, officers of administration and with relevant departmental heads and program directors.” Please note that the Undergraduate Council is not given a charge to administer or implement general policies, but it is asked to participate in the development and improvement of undergraduate education with relevant department heads and program directors.
• PREPARATION OF A SPECIFIC BUDGET FOR IMPLEMENTATION--
Second, I propose that the council works in conjunction with the appropriate offices to prepare a specific report regarding the costs of enacting the motions, if it still wishes to pursue them. In regard to paying for administrative time alone, it is not possible that the changes to transcripts are “cost neutral.” A considerable amount of work will be done in order to affect the proposed changes and we must be apprised of the exact cost before these motions are considered, including the number of work hours and the corresponding dollar amount to pay for “administrative time.” The changes that are being proposed will require an enormous amount of labor to enact and are not the result of a simple “button press” as was stated at our last Senate meeting. Personally, I want to see a specific, line-item budget before I will feel ready to vote on any of these motions.
• ALTERATION OF TRANSCRIPTS--
Finally, any addition to or alteration of transcripts must not put our students at a disadvantage on a regional or national basis as they apply to pursue their studies at the master‟s or doctoral levels. It is my belief that the proposed alteration to transcripts will present our students in a bad light that will not improve their chances for acceptance at the best graduate institutions in the nation. We will be creating an unequal playing field in which our own students will be ill served and placed at a disadvantage in a highly competitive environment.
Thank you for considering my appeal to table the three “grade culture motions” in light of the issues that I have raised.
Senator McNeely responded to Senate Vice President Kyr‟s comments by stating that these opinions were not new to him. At the March Senate meeting, Senate Vice President Kyr raised these same points and since that time, Senator McNeely sent Senate Vice President Kyr a two page email in which he parsed the charge of the UC. Senator McNeely believes that these motions are within the purview of the UC and went on to say that he received no response from Senate Vice President Kyr despite numerous attempts by Senator McNeely to engage in discussion. He then stated that Senate Vice President Kyr‟s first point was very well taken. Developing appropriate solutions for specific disciplines and resisting a unilateral approach is precisely the intent of Motion 11A, and because of this, Senator McNeely did not understand Senate Vice President Kyr‟s objection. He then discussed Kyr‟s questioning of the UC‟s charge and stated that the UC would have no administrative power. The Senate would be delegating the registrar to implement changes, and he again reiterated that the registrar has assured Senator McNeely that implementing these changes would be cost neutral.
He then remarked that he trusts the registrar‟s professional judgment and is not in the position to question her. Senator McNeely continued to address the charge of the UC and stated that in his email to Senate Vice President Kyr, he specifically brought up points one, three, five, and six of the UC‟s charge that give the UC specific powers to monitor and respond to general academic policies of the university. Point five in particular establishes criteria and outcomes to determine the success of the overall undergraduate program. According to Senator McNeely, it is the UC‟s belief that grades ought to be criteria by which to evaluate the success of the overall undergraduate program. Rising grades ought to mean enhanced success, and those rising grades are now unreliable. Point six requires the UC to monitor the academic coherence quality and standards of the undergraduate academic program to insure that quality and rigor of instruction and evaluation are consistent across the curriculum. Senator McNeely stated that point six specifically requires the UC to look at evaluation practices. He stated that this is what these motions are doing and reiterated that the UC has no ability to overrule or interfere with the rationales for grading practices that will be posted on departmental websites, and he specifically would reject that power if it were offered to the UC.
Senator Z. Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) commented on Senator McNeely‟s remarks and stated that in his opinion, having the UC suggest specific changes for each department seems more top down and intrusive than asking departments to develop their own metrics for evaluation. As a student, he felt that would be helpful and remarked that he had been in classes where grading policies were not clear. If departments could develop a clear and simple grading metric, it would be a great help to students, and to him, it does not seem intrusive. He then stated that motions 11A and B appear to be vehicles to start conversations between departments and that motion 11C was different but was not currently being discussed.
The next comment was from Senator L. Middlebrook (Comparative Literature). She seconded Senator Stark-MacMillan‟s points and thanked the UC for their wording of the three Grade Culture Motions. She stated that these items are represented in the spirit of education, information and transparency and she believes they will be very helpful to students and faculty. With great respect for every voice being heard, she thinks that the personal nature of grading is slightly problematic, and to encourage departments to discuss more uniform standards and to have a language that keeps grading from being binding to individual instructors really shows the benefits of five years of considering a plan. She then spoke on behalf of her two departments that, according to her, are horribly beleaguered due to their own administration, and thanked the UC for providing the language of the motions and for not meeting with her departments. She believes that another set of meeting would be overly taxing.
Professor Thomas Wheeler (Journalism and Communication) stated that, in the interest of full disclosure, he was a member of the UC and supported the three Grade Culture Motions. He then provided background on behind the scenes discussions on the motions, and stated that he very much appreciated the thoughtful and detailed memos that were sent from Professor Nicols and Senate Vice President Kyr. He stated that he agreed with Professor Nicols first point that not enough has been done on the local and departmental level which was the impetus behind motion 11A. He took exception to the characterization of the top down aspect mentioned by Professor Nicols. At no time in their discussions was there any pretense that the criteria developed by different departments would be similar. The UC‟s intent was to keep these criteria at the local level and to foster discussions on grades. Professor Wheeler then stated that there were some comments in the memos that referred exclusively to motion 11C which should be tabled until that part of the discussion. In his view, motion 11A is not a top down policy, but is simply a conversation starter at the departmental level.
Senator M. Williams (Romance Languages) stated that she supports motion 11A. Her department is comprised of teaching faculty and many teaching graduate students, and she believes that motion 11A could be useful to such a diverse groups of teachers. She then expressed her concern that the end of fall term 2011 might be too ambitious as a timeline for implementing motion 11A. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC was not wedded to that date, but would like to get the process going and was open to suggestions regarding the timeline.
At this point, Senate President Tublitz asked for additional comments and seeing none, moved for the Senate body to vote on Grade Culture Motion US10/11-11A. He reminded the Senators that they would be voting on 11A only. Senate President Tublitz called for a voice vote and after the vote was taken, he stated that according to his ear, the ayes were in the majority. He then asked the Senate body if anyone would like to see a hand count, and seeing none, Motion 11A was passed.
The Senate then began a discussion on Motion 11B, Comparative Statistics Available to Instructors.
Senate President Tublitz asked Senator McNeely if he would like to provide a brief introduction to this motion. Senator McNeely responded that he would and also offered a friendly amendment to motion 11B. He stated that the Grade Culture Motions were sent to the Academic Council (AC) to be independently vetted. Since Senator McNeely is the chair of the AC, he excused himself from their deliberations. In their report, the AC revised the language of Motion 11B, which Senator McNeely believes is better than the current wording of the Motion. He suggested replacing the current wording with the language used by the AC in their report on Motion 11B. Senator McNeely stated that the AC endorsed all three Grade Culture Motions. He then stated that the University Senate will make comparative statistics available to instructors starting in the fall of 2011. Each time an undergraduate course is taught, the registrar will present professors with a standard set of statistics giving grade distributions for relevant courses at any moment, probably September 15 of the fall term. It was determined by the AC that those statistics should not be reported as a mean and Z score distribution, but that a bar graph would more clearly represent the comparative statistics. As an example, Senator McNeely used his course, History 105, and stated that an instructor could log on to DuckWeb and see past distributions of As, Bs, Cs, and D, etc… for History 105, for 100 level classes in History, for all classes in History, and for all classes in the College of Arts and Sciences.
When an instructor finishes teaching his or her course, right before they submit their final grades on DuckWeb, they will be given the mean grade distribution for that course. This was founded on a specific calculation, a pessimistic one, about how deeply faculty members could be expected to engage with grading. According to Senator McNeely, the one moment when every single faculty member has to think about grades is when they are obligated to submit them. At that moment, the UC felt they could trust faculty members not to go back and hastily change grades having seen their distribution. They would be shown the distribution which could help them in error detection, but the UC did not feel that the distribution would influence instructors in such a way as to rethink or redo their completed grades. He then stated that there was a great deal of concern as to who would have access to the statistics. The AC suggested that these statistics be widely publicized to the faculty and possibly the general public. People were also concerned that the statistics could be used against people who had received a grade too leniently or too harshly. As a compromise, the UC decided to fold the statistics into the official course record which is roughly equivalent to the class list shown on DuckWeb. Those statistics would be accessible to people with those course lists, which is by and large limited to faculty members who teach those courses themselves, though department heads, if they wish, can find that information in some cases. The UC will work with the registrar to serve these statistics. The registrar has volunteered her computing resources and has a great deal of insight into the proper DuckWeb formatting guidelines, and Senator McNeely has spoken with the registrar regarding privacy concerns and which metrics are proper for comparative purposes.
At this point, Senate President Tublitz stated that Motion 11B must be moved to the floor for discussion and a vote. Senator McNeely then requested that the Motion be moved. After the Motion was moved, Senate President Tublitz stated that he was feeling a little uncomfortable, and asked Senator McNeely if the AC‟s edits were indeed the entire motion. Senator McNeely stated in the affirmative that the edits were indeed the motion. Senate President Tublitz then said that more than half of Motion 11B has been changed and this was the first time that Senators were seeing this change. Under normal circumstances when a motion undergoes a change of wording, an amendment is submitted and a vote is taken on that amendment. According to Senate President Tublitz, this change is more substantial and he believes the Senate should vote to accept the amended changes to Motion 11B so that Senators could then vote on the Motion as amended or vote that they need more time to consider the changes. He then stated that the UC has spent many years developing these motions and does not want to delay a vote on them, but he also feels a responsibility to the Senate and believes that they should be given enough time to carefully consider every item that they vote on. Senate President Tublitz then acknowledged that the amended items are probably minor at which point Senator McNeely stated that the substantive difference is that statistics will now be made available before a class begins. In the previous version, which Senator McNeely would be happy to revert to if it would expedite the proceedings; statistics were made available after grades had been submitted. Senate President Tublitz then asked the Senate to vote to accept the amended version of the wording of Motion 11B so that it could then be brought to the floor for discussion. A vote was taken and the amended version of the wording of Motion 11B was accepted with two abstentions.
Discussion on the amended wording of Grade Culture Motion 11B began with a comment from Senator M. Vitulli (Mathematics). She wanted to make sure she understood what Senator McNeely meant by the statistics being part of the record, and asked, for a particular course, what the timeframe would be for the percentages of grades displayed. She also wanted to know who would have access to the statistical information be it instructors teaching that particular course, deans, department heads, etc… Senator Vitulli then stated that she wanted to better understand what Senator McNeely was proposing. Senator McNeely responded by making a distinction between the individual CRN statistics and the comparative statistics. For an individual CRN, the only items that can be bundled with that class list are the distribution of grades for that particular class. Elsewhere on DuckWeb, instructors would be able to pull up the comparative statistics designed by the UC in collaboration with the registrar. The first set of statistics would only be available to instructors who can already access the class for a given CRN. The comparative statistics would be available to others who are linked to that class. Senator Vitulli again asked what time period these statistics would cover. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the time period would be designed in collaboration with the registrar and there have been suggested periods of two, three, and five years. It is a technical problem, and the UC would be open to guidance from the Senate.
The next question came from Senator R. Rejaie (Computer and Information Science). His question was regarding the basic goal that Senator McNeely and the UC were trying to achieve. He stated that the UC is providing statistical information to himself as a member of the faculty so he knows where his grades stand relative to a group norm, or put another way, how different his grading is in comparison to others. On the one hand, Senator Rejaie‟s grading distribution may differ from previous years and instructors, etc… He then stated that in seeing these differences, Senator Rejaie is presumably supposed to react to them by fixing something if he believes something needs to be fixed. He then referred to Senator McNeely‟s earlier comment that the UC would assume that faculty members would not react to these statistics because they had just completed their grading and would therefore not change their grading after viewing these statistics. Senator Rejaie stated that he was trying to reconcile these two notions in order to determine the goal of Motion 11B. He believes that instructors may subconsciously adjust their behavior after viewing these statistics and was not sure if that was a good thing. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC does hope instructors will react at more leisurely moments for example when designing their courses or after they go back and look at their course evaluations. According to Senator McNeely, there is no implied norm or standard that the presentation of these statistics involves. Instructors can look at the statistics and decide to act or not act on them as they see fit. Senator McNeely then mentioned a personal example and stated that he noticed that he gave a large number of Bs in comparison to his colleagues and as a result, when he designs a new syllabus, he might consider tweaking his assignments in order to spread out that distribution. Senator Rejaie then asked if it was a good thing that after two or three years, the number of Bs an instructor gives end up aligning with the average in his department. Senator McNeely responded by stating that there was no way to know if the number of Bs would align with departmental averages. It all depends upon the individual instructor‟s behavior. The UC is simply giving instructors information and letting them decide how to act on that information.
Senator Nippold (Education) offered her reasoning for why she was going to vote nay on Motion 11B. She stated that the Motion seemed like a modern form of peer pressure using technology. By showing instructors statistics before they submit their grades, the UC is promoting conformity and control over how instructors are grading.
The next comment came from Senator G. Waddell (Economics). He stated that he had a few concerns with Motion 11B. He thought it was interesting that the Motion starts with small groups and instructors are given statistics right before they submit grades. He stated that if you get to that level of detail, on average we should find that we grade the same way; there is no grade inflation for the same class over time. According to Senator Waddell, the inflation we are seeing is an aggregate. As students select across different classes with different grading standards, the average grade tends to rise. He predicted that when looking at the same class over time, instructors grade the same. His second point was that now that Motion 11A has been past, he wondered if Motion 11B was jumping the gun. By passing 11A, faculty are anticipating conversations on these issues, and through these discussions, better and more appropriate ideas might arise. He thought more time was needed to allow ideas to begin to develop through conversation and mentioned that for several years now the Economics department has been distributing a similar set of statistics to instructors at the end of every term via email. Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC wants to give all departments a set of statistics similar to those already being distributed in the Economics department. He believes those statistics will inform departmental conversations.
Senator L. Van Dreel (School of Music) posed a question about the relevance of Motion 11B. She stated that most of the courses that she teaches have one to three students enrolled, and did not understand how those statistics would be meaningful to her and her courses. Senator McNeely stated that they probably would not be very meaningful and he expected that she would ignore them.
The next comment came from Senator D. Healey (American English Institute – Linguistics). She stated that she liked the idea of seeing the statistical information ahead of time, but saw little point in viewing it before instructors submit final grades as it could send the wrong message. The more information instructors have to prepare for their classes the better, but according to her, there is a peer pressure implication for not grading like your colleagues. She wanted to know what the relevant courses were and how the number of students in a particular course impacted the relevance of the Motion. She agreed with Senator Waddell‟s sentiment and thought Motion 11B would require more thought. Senator McNeely responded by stating that he would at the least hope to provide statistics at the beginning of the term.
Senator B. Powell (Student Senator) stated that one thing that concerned him regarding Motion 11B was that he did not feel it was accomplishing what Senator McNeely was hoping to accomplish as far as grade inflation was concerned. If grade inflation is a rising mean, this motion seems to push instructors grading practices towards that mean. He believes this will make the problem of grade inflation and grade compression even worse. It seems counter intuitive to try and push instructors towards a mean. He understands that that was not the intention of the Motion, but he believes it will be the end result. Senator McNeely stated Senator Powell was right. Motion 11B was not created to push instructors towards a mean or to reverse grade inflation.
A question was then raised by Senator Stark-MacMillan. He wanted to know if instructors will have to look at the distribution of their colleague‟s grades, or will that simply be an option to pursue if they so choose. Senator McNeely stated that it would be their option and could be viewed on DuckWeb. Instructors would not be forced to look at the statistics. Only the individual distribution for your particular course would have to be viewed before submitting grades. An instructor could choose to ignore the distributions entirely.
Senate President Tublitz asked the Senate body for final questions and comments before moving to a vote on Motion 11B. Seeing none, a voice vote was taken. Due to the similar number of aye and nay responses, Senate President Tublitz was unable to aurally determine the outcome of the voice vote and asked for a hand count. Assisted by Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus) and Senate Executive Coordinator Christopher Prosser (Classified Staff), a hand count was taken. The hand count vote resulted in ten ayes, thirteen nays and two abstentions. With thirteen nays, Motion 11B did not pass.
After voting on Motion 11B, Senate President Tublitz moved to begin discussion on Motion 11C, Contextual Information on Transcripts. He briefly asked Senator McNeely if there was any change to the Motion and Senator McNeely replied that there was no change. Senate President Tublitz then asked Senator McNeely to move the motion to the floor for discussion and Senator McNeely consented. The Senator then gave a brief introduction on Motion 11C and stated that the idea of the Motion was to reformat transcripts. Next to each grade merited by a student, a percentage of A range grades for that course will be included. The exceptions are for courses with fewer than twenty students because a normal distribution is not expected from classes with so few enrolled, and any course for which the release of the A grade percentage may violate federal law, specifically the FERPA law. Motion 11C would go into effect at the beginning of fall term 2013 which would allow Motion 11A to firmly establish itself. Senate President Tublitz then called for a discussion on Motion 11C.
The first comment was from Senator Glen Waddell (Economics). He stated that, in the case of Motion 11C, more information can be harmful, and thought that the Senate should be cautious regarding the introduction of this information on transcripts. One issue he had against the Motion 11C was that currently, there is a lack of empirical evidence on what Universities expect to see in response to changing transcripts in this way. The literature is growing, but current evidence is mixed. He then referred to a current working paper from Cornell University‟s Economics department on the same issue.
Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages) was interested in hearing what Senate Vice President Kyr had mentioned regarding graduates being negatively judged on this change to transcripts. Senate President Tublitz reminded Senators that Senate Vice President Kyr was concerned about the impact of having A grade percentages on UO graduates transcripts who are applying to graduate programs in competition with other graduates whose transcripts do not include these percentages.
Senator McNeely responded by stating that the UC‟s basic thought is that transcript users already make these judgments subconsciously. Senator McNeely stated that he has made similar judgments in evaluating transcripts for Phi Beta Kappa. The UC is not dictating how information should be used, but are providing one encapsulating statistic that enables people to correct their prejudices where appropriate. There are a few universities who are enacting similar transcript changes.
Senator Brian Powell stated that the only students he feels will benefit from Motion 11C are top students making As in all their courses. At the same time, an A grade might diminish in value if a course receives a higher percentage of A grades. He also stated that by only placing the percentage of As on transcripts, no one knows what a B grade means, and the students who are receiving A grades probably need the least amount of help. Finally, he believes that UO students who are not at the top of their class will be at a greater disadvantage than they already are when competing with students from other institutions who do not have A percentages listed on their transcripts.
The next comment was from Senator Michael Price (Mathematics). He asked Senator McNeely why the UC had decided to only include the percentage of A grades on transcripts. Senator McNeely responded by stating that there is not enough room on transcripts to include other grades. The A was chosen because it is on the rise. That is where grade compression exists, and Motion 11C provides a means to put that disparity into context.
Senate President Tublitz asked if there were any more comments on Motion 11C and seeing none, moved to vote on the Motion. A voice vote was taken, and Motion 11C did not pass. There was one abstention. Senate President Tublitz then stated that even though two of the three Grade Culture Motions did not pass, he believes there is a real sentiment that this is an important issue and then thanked the UC for their years of work developing these Motions. He then stated that he wanted to send a message to all the members of the UC. After hearing the discussions that had just taken place, he believes that the Senate is not against implementing these policies altogether, but there is a sentiment against implementing them now until Motion 11A has had sufficient time to run its course. He asked Senator McNeely to tell the UC that the Senate is basically tabling Motions 11B and C and asked him to return to the Senate after more time has passed.
Senate President Tublitz then moved to begin the Open Discussion portion of the meeting and invited ASUO Senate President, Zachary Stark-MacMillan, to the floor to discuss what is and is not working with the UO‟s system of shared governance.
4. Open Discussion: Shared governance: what is and is not working? Facilitators: Nathan Tublitz, Senate President; Amelie Rousseau, ASUO President; Zachary Stark-MacMillan, ASUO Senate President
Senate President Tublitz stated that the Senate was going to talk about shared governance because it is essential to the University. Previously, he asked Senators to send him a few words about what shared governance meant to them. He then listed words he had received which included: faculty, voice, commitment, focus, and listening. The reality is that shared governance is the basis for the Universities way of life, and he asked Senators three questions in regards to shared governance; what do we have now, what is missing, and how do we get to where we want to go. He asked the Senate body to tell him, and mentioned that the President and Provost were also in attendance, and that the meeting was being streamed live, what their thoughts were on the current system of shared governance at the UO.
The first comment came from Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus). He remarked that the Charter of the University of Oregon states that the faculty shall govern the University and it defines the faculty as the professors and the President. That philosophy is well embodied in the UO Constitution which was drawn up by a faculty committee and approved by the President. Professor Stahl stated that he was unaware what shared governance meant. The UO has a faculty that is supposed to govern and an administration whose responsibility is to carry out the policies established by that faculty. He does not think this is happening. Senate President Tublitz then asked for more opinions to be voiced from the Senate body, and asked Senators; what needs to be done to improve shared governance.
Senator Ian McNeely (History) stated that, historically, he did not think that most universities were governed by their faculty. Governing boards and administrators appropriately had the majority of administrative power and he felt that that model had worked well in the United States for at least a century. He believes that faculties and Senates need to focus on academic matters, and he was grateful for the work that was accomplished today in the Senate regarding the Grade Culture Motions. He then stated that he was not in any way miffed at the outcome, and that what took place today is what the UO Senate needs to be doing. Administrative matters should be left to administrators and board matters should be left to boards. Senate President Tublitz then offered up a point of clarification and history. For five years he served as President of the Coalition of Intercollegiate Athletics, which is comprised of a group of faculty senates from around the country.
As a result of that experience, he learned that University of Oregon is unique to other faculty senates across the country in two ways. The first way is that the UO has a Charter, as mentioned by Professor Stahl, which officially and unequivocally states what the governance position is of the faculty and the President; very few, if any universities have such a document. The second reason that the UO is distinct from other universities is that the UO Senate is not a faculty Senate. It is a Senate of all the stakeholder groups on campus ranging from the faculty, officers of administration, classified staff, and students. Next year, an additional Senate seat will be added from the officers of research. As of next year, every constituency, including non-tenure track instructional faculty, will be represented in the Senate, and he believes that this is something that everyone should be very proud of.
Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan (Student Senator) stated that from the student side of shared governance, the ASUO has the Clark Document, which was signed by Robert D. Clark, which gives students some authority over the student incidental fee and is the heart of the student autonomy and power on campus. Throughout the years, students have been added to almost every faculty committee, including the Senate, and he believes the UO is in a fairly good position, especially in comparison to other schools, but there is always room for improvement. He believes GTFs are missing from the University Senate. The ASUO has only two graduate school representatives and they are a definite constituency group which could add another voice to the University Senate.
Senate President Tublitz stated that he has had private conversations with many people who feel the UO‟s system of shared governance needs improvement. He then gave an example and mentioned an email he sent to the Senate body asking for nominees for the upcoming Senate election. One email recipient called Senate President Tublitz and asked to be placed in the running. This individual had been at the UO for four months and asked Senate President Tublitz why he should run for the University Senate, and did the Senate have any power. This individuals understanding was that the President had all the power at the UO, and Senate President Tublitz responded by stating that that was both true and untrue. The UO has a governance system where the Senate can pass legislation focusing on issues of curriculum, student conduct, and some policies. If a motion is passed by the Senate it becomes University law unless the President chooses not to sign it or decides to veto it. On other issues, the Senate acts as an advisory to the administration that can then choose to take or not take the Senate‟s advice. This is what he relayed to this individual and he then stated that there is an impression that the voices of the faculty are not being heard on a wide range of issues.
Speaking as one of the first classified staff employees to be elected to the University Senate, Senator Carla McNelly (Classified Staff) stated that the Senators representing classified staff have taken their position very seriously. They have met with their constituency and have discussed a wide variety of topics including the New Partnership. The classified staff Senators have attended as many Senate meetings as possible in an attempt to educate themselves on the many issues that are taking place on campus, as they take these issues very seriously. To her, having a vote and a voice and being able to participate in shared governance has been an amazing experience. Senate President Tublitz then stated that the classified staff voice has not only been much appreciated, but it has been invaluable.
Senator Peter Keyes (Architecture) stated that as someone who has been involved with several governance issues at the UO, and in talking about what needs to be improved, he feels that many people are biding their time until a better opportunity comes around. He thinks it is a two way street. People do not feel they have a strong voice and are more interested in and committed to their own research which is what gets them promotions and raises and more job offers to places with more money. They do not see how a benefit will come to them from participating in shared governance. Time spent in participating in service to the University takes away from time spent pursuing research. He did not say that this was a good thing, but that it was a part of the culture especially with younger faculty growing up in a more cynical market driven environment. Senate
President Tublitz stated that Senator Keyes point was well taken and he expanded upon not just serving in the Senate, but on participation in the whole global nature of the UO‟s governance system. It is not just a matter of getting more people to run for the Senate, but how can the Senate become more integral in the lives of people on campus. He then stated that five percent of the people do ninety five percent of the work because no one is getting promoted for the work that goes on in the Senate. He wanted people to think about ways to make the Senate a stronger institution and to try to get others to respect the Senate more than they currently do.
The next comment on shared governance came from Senator Harinder Khalsa (Romance Languages). She had a personal statement, a question and a suggestion. Her personal statement was in regards to the UO Mission. She said that if everyone was working toward that Mission then she did not understand why there was a need for shared governance. According to her, everyone should be working towards the goals stated in the UO Mission. Her question, which she asked for responses from Senate President Tublitz and University President Lariviere, was; what is and is not working in our system of shared governance. Her suggestion was regarding the New Partnership Proposal. Since it involves every constituency on campus, she feels that everyone should be working together on this Proposal. She recommended that every constituency at the UO create its own committee and work together with the administration on the New Partnership Proposal. The change that we will be making does not only affect us, but also our children who may be attending the UO, and because of this, everyone should be working together for the best possible outcome. Senate
President Tublitz turned to President Lariviere and asked if he would like to go first in answering Senator Khalsa‟s question on shared governance. The President jovially replied, no. Therefore, Senate President Tublitz responded to Senator Khalsa‟s question by stating that in the previous administration he felt that nothing was working. In the current administration there have been improvements due to the attitude and atmosphere of President Lariviere. This was the only reason Senate President Tublitz ran for Presidency of the Senate. He then addressed what was not working with our system of shared governance, and stated that he does not think enough progress has been made in really listening to all the constituent voices that exist at the University of Oregon. He believes that decisions are still being made that are not in conjunction with the current system of governance and that fall outside shared governance. This is a major source of frustration for himself and for many others at the UO. He stated that sometimes there are good reasons for these things, because democracy is messy and slow, but there is a cost of doing things the right way. Another important aspect of these decisions that is not often talked about is its impact on students. Senate President Tublitz stated that he is here for his students. He is not here to be Senate President, but has a commitment to the job that he does. Often times he believes that the disagreements that take place on campus only focus on those disagreements rather than focusing on areas of common interest and working towards agreement in those areas. This is what he thinks everyone can do a better job of.
Senate President Tublitz then handed the microphone to President Lariviere who thanked Senate President Tublitz for running for Senate President because he was the President of the University. That was one of the nicest things anyone had ever said to him. President Lariviere stated that he has been at several universities during his career, and the issues around shared governance are shared among institutions. One of the points of enormous frustration for everyone is the slowness in which things get done. He then mentioned as an example the Pacifica Forum. President Lariviere felt an obligation, particularly as a new University President, to do something. The President pressured the Provost, faculty, and others involved to come up with a solution. According to President Lariviere, this group of people dropped everything in their lives and came up with an elegant solution within six weeks. In order to affect that solution, it was necessary for it to be approved by the Senate. He then asked when it was approved and Senate President Tublitz stated that it was approved twice to which President Lariviere stated that answer reinforced his sentiment.
According to the President, given the nature of democracy one must inevitably have those kinds of delays between the need, identification, and implementation of a solution, but he does think that these kinds of delays contribute to people's reluctance to make the decisions that were discussed by Senator Keyes. He then stated that that was not a flaw of this particular mode of governance, but it contributes to a perception that the University Senate may not be a venue for action but for something else. He did not mention what that something else might be. The President stated that he was encouraged by the three Grade Culture Motions, not that he had a particular stake in any of the outcomes of Motions A, B, or C, but he was struck by the extended engagement that the Undergraduate Council had taken in drafting these motions. He was also struck by the notion that after working on these motions for five years, someone would offer up the objection that it was too soon to implement them. According to President Lariviere, this objection does not reinforce the notion that the Senate body is focused on the expeditious implementation of necessary changes in a very dynamic institution. That might be the nature of democratic representation, but it is something that he has to deal with regularly from a number of constituents, including faculty and staff, about the functioning of the Senate.
Senate President Tublitz stated that he would like to respond to the President's comments to which President Lariviere stated that his comments were not meant to be responded to, but Senate President Tublitz should respond if he so chose. Senate President Tublitz then remarked he did choose to respond and that President Lariviere's comments could basically be summarized by stating that the Senate moves too slowly. According to Senate President Tublitz, on both issues that President Lariviere raised, the Senate has moved very quickly. With regards to the Facilities Use Policy that was brought before the Senate, it was voted on within one month of being received. With regards to the Grade Culture Motions, the Senate has discussed them and voted on them over the course of two meetings. It was the UC who developed them over the course of five years. It is Senate President Tublitz's personal belief that the University Senate acts very quickly and thoughtfully on very precise and important issues, and for President Lariviere to denigrate the Senate body by saying that it is slow and that the Senate is not very good at what it is supposed to be doing, undermines the Universities entire system of governance, and he does not think that is right. The system of governance at the UO has been designed for a set of intelligent people who have to deal with important problems, and he thinks they do a damn good job. In his year and a half as Senate President and in the ten years that he has been involved in campus governance, the University Senate has responded very quickly to everything that has been brought before it. Senate President Tublitz stated that he thinks the current system of governance does work, but when decisions are made outside of the system, people become upset. The more open conversations that take place during Senate meetings on all issues, the better our system of governance will be.
Senator Ian McNeely (History) remarked that there was no question in his mind that if he had invested his time writing articles instead of presenting the Grade Culture Motions to committee after committee, he would be coming up for promotion to full professor. He stated that his comments were not casting aspersions on the process that had just taken place regarding Motions 11A, B, and C. He personally went to six or seven committees and lobbied people even when they did not respond to his efforts, and used Senate Vice President Kyr as an example. Senator McNeely stated that he spent a great amount of time in this process but believes there has got to be a better way to do it. He came away with full endorsements of Motions 11A, B, and C from every committee he visited but he feels there was not enough time to go into the valid concerns that people raised in the Senate. He stated that he respects those concerns, but wishes he had heard them six, fifteen, or eighteen months ago when he became involved in the process. Because of this, Senator McNeely stated that he was very sympathetic to the notion of things moving too slowly.
Professor Frank Stahl (Biology Emeritus) responded to President Lariviere‟s comments regarding the Facilities Use Policy. He stated that the Facilities Use Policy, which was hastily drawn up at the President‟s request, was brought to the Senate floor and was passed by the Senate. It was an abomination and the Senate realized it was an abomination, and it could not stand. Committees worked to revise it and they did so conscientiously working through the summer. After two revisions, they brought an admirable document to the Senate, and the revised policy was accepted.According to Professor Stahl, the Facilities Use Policy preserves the ideals of academic freedom which were rather stomped upon by the first edition of the motion. He did not think the Senate was at all lazy or unduly slow in the passing of this motion, rather they acted thoughtfully and correctly.
Senator Zachary Stark-MacMillan stated that the Student Senate meets every week. A two hour meeting would be considered a very short meeting of the Student Senate. He thinks that one reason for things taking as long as they do is that the University Senate meets for only two hours once a month and there is only so much that can be discussed in two hours. If the University Senate met more frequently or met for a greater length of time, more things would get done.
The next comment was made from Senate Parliamentarian Paul Simonds (Anthropology Emeritus). Parliamentarian Simonds stated that in 1995-96, the Senate passed a document called Faculty Rewards and Development. When the document first came before that Senate, it was almost exclusively research and included a small section on teaching but nothing on service. Before the Senate passed it, the document was modified so that it included more information on teaching and something on service. As far as he could tell, the document was never implemented even though it was passed by the Senate. He then asked the question; why should we continue to serve if our service does not count? He believes that service should have some component in decisions regarding promotion and tenure, because service, as part of our collegial system of shared governance, is an important part of how the whole system really works and the aura of being a participant in this University. The members of the 1995-96 Senate saw a necessity for giving rewards for service and he thinks that this document should be implemented even though it has been fifteen years since it was passed.
Professor Frank Stahl stated that he would like to address an ongoing problem that appears to unnecessarily diminish through all of the Senate regarding the Policy Library. In order to receive proper accreditation, the University was called upon to assemble its policies in a centralized location, and the Provost‟s office is to be commended for undertaking that job and doing what is by and large a useful task. There are some fundamental problems. On this campus, the Senate is the governing body, and to govern means to set policy. According to Professor Stahl, University of Oregon rules take precedent over university policy statements. University policy is appropriately set by the Senate regarding academic matters of the university. Oregon Rules, also called Oregon Administrative Rules are things drawn up by administrators, and in stating that Administrative Rules take precedence over policy, anytime the administration wants to snuff a policy, they can write an Administrative Rule. He then stated that this has to be changed. Administrative Rules are explanations of how policies will be carried out; therefore they are subservient to policies. The second problem Professor Stahl mentioned regarding the Policy Library was that the University Senate's role in the development of University Policy was not mentioned anywhere in the University Policy development process found in the Policy Library. He feels this is very discouraging and stated that anyone who might want to run for the Senate and wondered what role the Senate plays in developing University Policies will come up with the answer; zilch! According to Professor Stahl, the third problem with the Policy Library is the statement that the University of Oregon policy statements published elsewhere are not considered official, as they may not represent the most current revisions or editions. He stated that the University Senate makes policy statements, and each time they pass a legislative motion, it is a policy statement. According to the University of Oregon Constitution, under which the University operates, those policy statements become effective sixty days after they are passed unless otherwise specified or unless vetoed by the President. Currently, there are a number of appropriate academic related policies that were passed by the Senate which should be in the policy library because they were passed more than sixty days ago and were not vetoed by the President. He believes that because of this, these policies should be effective and the Policy Library should draw attention to those policies and reference them with a link to the Senate website. More perfectly, those policy statements passed by the Senate should be cut and passed into the Policy Library at the appropriate place. He went on to say that until the Policy Library, which is the major window that people have into University policy and how the University is run, gives the Senate its fair due, then no one is going to run for the Senate.
Senate President Tublitz thanked Professor Stahl for his comments and stated that he let this conversation go on longer than the allotted time because he felt it was important and also because the only other agenda item was a report on Non-tenure track faculty, which is a very important report. He wanted to give it the time it deserves to be presented before the Senate body and therefore, the report will be added to the May Senate meeting agenda. Senate President Tublitz then apologized to Senator A. Emami (Finance) and the rest of the members of the NTTF committee, and was about to move to adjourn the April Senate meeting when President Lariviere asked to respond to the comments made during the open discussion.
President Lariviere stated that in listening to Senate President Tublitz and to Professor Frank Stahl in particular, he detected a certain level of mistrust or if not mistrust, then a level of impatience, dissatisfaction, and unhappiness. He then said that this is something that he might not ever be able to do away with because those emotions come from a variety of sources, but he thinks he would be letting down the institution and his obligations to all if he did not state that if these emotions are driven by a pervasive sense of an us verse them mentality, then the President is on the Senate's side against some mythical opponent. He then stated that the Senate is not the University, and the President is also not the University. According to President Lariviere, we are all the University, and the Senate represents an important component of the UO. He then stated that the Senator's constituents are also not the University because there are one hundred eighty thousand people who feel very strongly that the UO is their University. As such, there are many voices that need to be heard. The fact that there is a document that says this is the only place where the official records are kept is right. There needs to be one place where everyone can find policy documents, and if those documents are not posted in a timely manner then that procedure needs to be fixed. He stated that the issues raised by Professor Stahl are not a part of some grand conspiracy to prevent Professor Stahl from having his voice heard, and President Lariviere is very impatient with the simple notion that all problems that confront us can be laid at the feet of the incompetent management of the Senate President of the Senate or the President of the University. These problems are very often an accumulation of circumstances. If we can get past this notion of grand conspiracy, as far as he is concerned, there is no conspiracy, between the administration and the Senate, he believes that everyone could move with much greater alacrity and effectiveness. From the President's perspective, the Senate's voice was very important. The President stated that he will respond to the Senate by taking them seriously and he expects and demands that the Senate be well informed and have grounds for their views and opinions. The Senate has a responsibility, as do all who are in positions of authority, to be well informed. The better informed the Senate is, the more their views will be driven by understanding, and the better this institution will be. He then stated that Senate President Tublitz was right in that the UO has an unusual governance structure, because faculty, classified staff, officers of administration and students all come together in the Senate to address issues that confront the University. That is a huge responsibility which requires Senators to know why they feel the way they feel about a particular issue before giving voice to that issue. Voting no because you do not understand something may be a safe bet, but it would be better to have an understanding of what you are voting for before you cast your vote. He reiterated that all he asks of the Senate is that they vote based on being well informed, and if you are not well informed, ask questions. Having a well informed Senate is crucial for the UO moving forward. He personally believes that one of the reasons why public education has fallen on such hard times is because people have not been well informed. The faculty has not been informed about the political circumstances universities find themselves in, and the public has not been informed about what goes on in the Senate. What results from these misinformed parties is a finger pointing of ignorance. The President then asked for help from the Senators and their constituents and apologized for his lengthy response. Professor Stahl then thanked President Lariviere for his kind words.
Senate President Tublitz stated that he would like to end the Senate meeting with a brief statement. He remarked that it may be an overreach to say that our system of governance at the University was similar to that of the federal government. The UO had an executive and legislative branch and sometimes those two branches came into conflict. According to Senate President Tublitz, that conflict was not a bad thing, but in his year and a half as Senate President, and having spoken to many thousands of people on campus, everyone was very glad that Richard Lariviere was President of the University of Oregon.
5. Reports
5.1 Report on Non-tenure track faculty, Ali Emami and Michele Henny, NTTF committee co-chairs and Russ Tomlin, Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
The report on non-tenure track faculty was tabled until the May Senate meeting.
6. Announcements and Communications from the Floor
6.1 Notice of Motion(s)
7. Adjournment
After making his final comments, Senate President Tublitz adjourned the April 13, 2011 meeting of the University Senate at 5:04PM.
