Date of Notice: March 18, 2020
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh, Immediate Past President
Elizabeth Skowron, Senate President
Elliot Berkman, Senate Vice President
Motion
Section I
Coming soon…
Section II
Coming soon…
Dear UO Senators,
We are facing unprecedented times created by the novel COVID-19 pandemic. As you know, the University of Oregon is closely monitoring the global outbreak and is working in close coordination with local, state, and federal health officials to guide decisions about university operations. We encourage you to visit the UO COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Information website often for information, answers to frequently asked questions, and links to important resources.
Senate leadership is working with the Administration, to ensure that solutions and supports provided to faculty and students reflect the input of broad representation across campus.
We thank our Academic Council for its extraordinary efforts to create guidance on academic continuity planning, and the Office of the Provost for developing resources to facilitate high-quality remote instruction even in these difficult times (e.g., Academic Continuity Resources and Guidance for Faculty and Instructors). The Senate will do its best to support these efforts and the work of other administrators and faculty who are working to ensure operations are running as smoothly as possible for our students.
Within the University Senate, we are preparing behind the scenes to transition upcoming Senate meetings from in-person meetings in the EMU to a remote format for the foreseeable future. Thus, beginning in April, 2020 and until further notice, we will (1) hold senate meetings via remote teleconferencing using Zoom, and (2) reserve 30 minutes at the outset of each meeting for Open Discussions, after which we will proceed to other scheduled senate business. Please contact us to add a topic to the open discussion section and we will add it and invite relevant members of the administration to participate and/or field queries. Topics may include discussion about how instructors and students are dealing with remote instructional approaches, impacts on research and scholarship, supporting members of our university community, and so forth, and provide additional opportunities for information sharing, for example. As always, we welcome your suggestions for discussion topics.
Please feel free to reach out to us directly as well. We will continue holding weekly drop-in office hours on Wednesdays 10:00 to 11:30 AM, however effectively immediately, these will occur via zoom meetings through Winter term finals week, and resume during Spring term week 1:
You may also contact us directly as well at the email addresses below. Thank you for your participation in shared governance here at the University of Oregon.
Elizabeth Skowron, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology President, University Senate eskowron@uoregon.edu
Elliot Berkman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Psychology Vice-President/President-Elect, University Senate berkman@uoregon.edu
Date of Notice: March 18, 2020
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh, Economics
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS a university task force comprised of faculty and administrators met during February 2020 to consider the use of standardized tests for admissions to the University of Oregon; and
1.2 WHEREAS the task force considered how to accomplish the goals of: increasing diversity, increasing the pool of qualified applicants, growing enrollment, and addressing equity in admissions; and
1.3 WHEREAS test-optional policies are currently in place at 13 institutions in Oregon and are being considered by numerous others around the country with those same goals; and
1.4 WHEREAS while standardized test scores such as the SAT and ACT have been a common metric in undergraduate admissions for many years, a growing body of research raises questions about their efficacy in equitably measuring college readiness; and
1.5 WHEREAS research has shown that SAT and ACT scores vary not just by academic ability, but also by confounding variables such as family income, parental education level, and race/ethnicity (Allensworth & Clark, 2020; Higdem et al., 2016); and
1.6 WHEREAS since the University of Oregon’s current admissions practices do not involve a fixed SAT/ACT cutoff, but instead involve review of a broad mix of academic factors (e.g., grade trends, rigor of courses, local context of school and its average GPA) as well as non-academic factors such as overcoming adversity, community participation, and racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity, and the ability to contribute to university life in other ways, the impact of going test-optional is unlikely to decrease the average academic ability of UO undergraduates; and
1.7 WHEREAS because of the coronavirus shutdowns many students are currently unable to take SAT/ACT tests or complete prep courses for them and UO needs to take rapid action to ensure we remain an option for all students seeking higher education.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Task Force Report: Recommendation regarding use of standardized test scores in admissions to the University of Oregon and its recommendation that UO move to a test-optional admissions policy, for students applying for Fall 2021 admission, in which most applicants can ask to be considered for admission and scholarships without submitting test scores, and that students have the ability to reverse this decision after submitting their application; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Senate authorizes the Provost to accelerate the timing of this change, if needed to respond to the developing coronavirus situation; and
2.3. BE IT FURTHER MOVED that some students may still be required to submit scores including those applicants whose high school curriculum includes study at an unaccredited school or homeschooled students, NCAA-recruited athletes, and other students who, on a case-by-case basis are determined to need to submit scores as additional evidence of college readiness.
2.4 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Office of Admissions shall deliver a report to the Senate in Fall of each year with data on the academic preparedness of the incoming undergraduate and their other relevant characteristics.
Date of Notice: January 8, 2020
Current Status: March 11, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White, Chair of UOCC
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Winter Term 2020 Preliminary Curriculum Report for the University Senate Review.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Winter 2020 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UOCC (please see related documents.
Related Documents
The Academic Council was convened on March 4, 2020 after the declaration of emergency on February 27, 2020 following the procedures described in the Academic Continuity Policy. The policy guides planning and decision-making in the event that a significant disruption to campus operations impedes academic activity. The goal of the policy is “to continue academic activities as much as possible and to mitigate the effects of a significant academic disruption, which include particularly grave academic and financial consequences for graduating students, international students, and students receiving financial aid.” The policy balances the principles of academic integrity, transparency for students, instructors, and staff, and fairness for students.
The Academic Council voted to approve the following guidelines for the duration of the coronavirus health emergency. These guidelines should be followed by course instructors in consultation with the Academic Continuity Team in their unit. The Academic Continuity Policy is clear that instructors of record (hereafter referred to as “instructors” which includes faculty and GEs) shall retain primary authority over how to manage their courses, assignments, instruction and grades, subject to the conditions described below.
During this time, Academic Council encourages us to come together to support our students and each other. During an emergency situation, it is important to be flexible, empathetic, and prepared to do a bit extra in the short run.
Academic principles to be followed:
In order to receive credit, the learning outcomes and goals of the course, as detailed in the approved course, must be met. The Instructor of Record (including any active additional Instructor(s) of Record) makes the determination about whether the learning outcomes have been met. The Academic Continuity plan allows for changes in various aspects in the way that course content is delivered, and the learning outcomes are achieved. If the instructor determines that the learning outcomes can be met with adjustments to the organization of the course, including reasonable modifications to the modality, delivery, and assessment practices, the instructor should make these changes under this emergency. Specific guidance on modifications is provided below.
Modality changes might include replacing lectures with video lecture replacements, changing methods of assessment (changing short-answer questions to multiple choice) and similar methods including those used as examples below during the duration of this emergency. The feasibility of such modality changes will be highly dependent on best pedagogical practices within the discipline concerned. Instructors should discuss such possibilities with their unit heads for guidance. If a unit head is unavailable, a unit head from a closely-aligned unit will be assigned. If the instructor determines that the learning outcomes cannot be met even with such adjustments, and the unit head concurs, then the completion of the course may be delayed until the missing instructional or grading work is completed.
Academic credit, and grades awarded to students for that credit, are based on delivery of course content in accordance with the learning objectives of the course and the assessment of the quality of student work in that course. As stated in the Academic Continuity Policy, as in any disruption, Instructors should endeavor to mitigate the effects of a significant academic disruption to ensure that the approved course content is delivered, and the appropriate assessment of student performance is undertaken.
The approved amount of student work for each course is listed in the approved Student Engagement Inventory (SEI). On average, for a 4-credit class, this totals 12 hours a week and includes 4 hours of lecture including discussion section or lab time for a lower level class and at least 3 hours for an upper level class. The remaining time is taken with other coursework such as readings and assignments.
Both delivery of content and assessment of student work can be impacted in an academic disruption. During any disruption, instructors should endeavor to ensure that the approved course content is delivered, and the appropriate assessment of student performance is undertaken by changes to the components of the SEI without significant increase or decrease in workload on the students enrolled in the course. Instructors may, for instance, reduce the number of assessed assignments by increasing work needed per assignment if they can still ensure sufficient assessment of learning outcomes. Instructors may also replace class time with out of class assignments that can meet the same learning outcomes. Finally, it may be possible for some class time and assignments to be missed, and still be able to fully assess learning outcomes by altering other assignments to include the missed class time or work.
During this coronavirus health emergency, the goals for academic continuity are:
Therefore, the Academic Council has approved the following specific expectations for instructors.
During any term, including the current Winter term, the Academic Council:
In preparation for Spring and potentially Summer terms, the Academic Council:
Absence of Instructor of Record:
If an Instructor of Record is unable to continue as instructor, unit heads may appoint an additional Instructor of Record who will continue to deliver course content and follow the course structure and content as laid out in the syllabus and any other additional resources such as the Canvas site to the best of their ability. The original Instructor of Record remains on the course and when they return, the additional Instructor of Record is removed after the appropriate transition between instructors has been affected. The Instructor of Record will then complete the course and submit grades.
The additional Instructor of Record will follow the established syllabus, including delivery of course content in accordance with the learning objectives of the course and such assessment that falls within the timeline of the course. The additional instructor will not require additional work of the enrolled students beyond the level specified in the SEI or syllabus or change the methods of assessment.
Whenever possible, submission of final grades will be done by the original Instructor of Record. If the original Instructor of Record does not return before the end of the class, course grades should not be submitted by the additional Instructor of Record until Finals Week and all assignments and scheduled exams are due and have been graded.
When the original Instructor of Record returns, they will accept the work done by the students under the additional Instructor of Record and not require additional work of the enrolled students for the time the original Instructor of Record was absent. The returning Instructor of Record will assess, in coordination with the unit head, the degree to which the learning outcomes were achieved, and the student work was correctly assessed given this disruption. If the conclusion of the Instructor of Record and the unit head is that the additional Instructor of Record was unable to deliver course content or conduct assessment as specified, or an additional Instructor of Record was unavailable, the Instructor of Record and unit head may conclude that the course has not been completed. In this case, emergency grades, if available, may be used, or incompletes if appropriate, until such time as the course can be completed.
The instructional work required to complete the course will be conducted and compensated according to appropriate labor agreements and requirements. Upon completion, students will then receive regular (non-emergency) grades.
Absence of GEs that support a faculty instructor:
The impact of loss of GEs from a faculty-taught class will vary with the number of GEs, the amount of GE FTE, and duties of those GEs. Instructors of Record may be able to complete a course with minor losses of GE support, but it is expected that major losses of GE support will require some form of replacement. The amount of loss of GE support will be reflected in the total FTE and associated total of hours of work lost.
The Academic Council recommends that Instructors of Record impacted by the academic disruption through the loss of GEs who run discussion sections, labs, etc., consider modifying the modes of delivery of the course content, activities, and assessments that are required to meet the learning outcomes and goals of the course. It is good pedagogical practice to maintain a set of alternative assignments that can be used as “make-ups” if students have valid reasons for missing class. These make-up assignments may be an acceptable method of delivering course material in accordance with course outcomes that can be deployed if planned course activities cannot be completed for any reason.
The assessment of any assignments used to replace planned course activity should be equivalent to the originally planned assessment for the missing activity. For example, a discussion section normally run by a GE could be replaced with a worksheet if the GE is ill. This worksheet covers the same material and the grading of that worksheet should be equivalent to the grading of the discussion section exercise.
Graded assignments should not generally be replaced by non-graded assignments unless completion of an assignment can be seen as having learning value. For instance, students might be asked to complete a module in Canvas that automatically records a completion grade as a replacement for attending a discussion section. Instructor should consult with their unit heads for guidance. If replacement assignments need to be graded, this must be done by a qualified person, following all applicable labor laws and negotiated contracts. Graders must be appropriately qualified. If GEs are unavailable to hold labs or sections, students should be held harmless so that any student credit for attendance to labs or sections should be waived.
Grading
The Council will continue to meet to provide guidance about grading procedures (e.g., whether to enable emergency grades) should the disruption continue.
Personnel considerations
Additional and Replacement Instructors of Record must be qualified to teach the course. Departments should follow their criteria for level qualification to teach classes, such as in replacement teaching pools, that should be followed. Departments should also follow their normal criteria for graduate students to be instructors of record such as advancement to candidacy or seniority, etc. Work associated with a course that does not involve any instruction or assessment, such as taking attendance, proctoring exams, distributing materials, supervising room occupancy, etc., may be done by individuals not qualified to instruct and following all applicable labor laws and negotiated contracts.
Unit Heads must consider whether the workload required to meet the course learning outcomes is reasonable with respect to the job description of additional instructors of record and their other obligations.
UPDATE: For those who prefer to attend remotely, rather than in person, we have set up an alternate option via Zoom. Here are the details for accessing the meeting:
Topic: University of Oregon Senate Meeting (March 11, 2020)
Time: Mar 11, 2020 03:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/245214867?pwd=Y3VVSlV4QnNHV29WcEtKelgwWkdSZz09
Meeting ID: 245 214 867
Password: 945303
One tap mobile
+16699006833,,245214867# US (San Jose)
+19292056099,,245214867# US (New York)
Dial by your location
+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 245 214 867
Find your local number: https://zoom.us/u/anCklkmYH
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:10 P.M. Approval of the Minutes
3:11 P.M. State of the University
3:45 P.M. New Business
4:20 P.M. Open Discussion
4:40 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:56 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:04 P.M. Approval of the Minutes
3:05 P.M. State of the University
3:15 P.M. New Business
4:30 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:56 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Date of Notice: January 22, 2020
Current Status: Approved February 12, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Jack Boss (Music, Chair of FPC 2018-2009)
Carol Silverman (Anthropology, Chair of FPC 2019-2020)
Elizabeth Skowron (Psychology, Senate President 2019-2020)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Senate passed an Expedited Tenure policy for the University of Oregon in January 2018 (Policy 11.02.04); and
1.2 WHEREAS the university’s experience with the policy to date demonstrates that the policy provides the academic units with leverage when seeking to hire tenured faculty members whose credentials have been established through promotion and tenure processes at other research institutions; and
1.3 WHEREAS the policy has demonstrated that it significantly lessens the administrative burden at the unit and college levels for these tenure reviews; and
1.4 WHEREAS all ten cases of expedited tenure considered since January 2018 have had positive outcomes;
1.5 WHEREAS expanding the expedited tenure review process to include experienced associate professor candidates will likely result in additional faculty hiring advantages,
1.6 WHEREAS no unit or department thus far involved in an expedited tenure case has elected to reconsider its decision to use the expedited process after the Expedited Tenure Review Committee (a subset of the Faculty Personnel Committee) has completed its review, as provided for in the original policy; and
1.7 WHEREAS consistently staffing a complement of five Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) members on the Expedited Tenure Review Committee (ETRC) has resulted in an unmanageable service burden on University FPC members; and
1.8 WHEREAS excellent teaching at the University must be consistently fostered and maintained; and
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the eligibility for expedited tenure review shall continue to include full professors and shall be changed to include associate professors who have been tenured and in rank for a minimum of three years, and
2.2 That new faculty who are hired through the expedited tenure process may be brought in as full professors or as associate professors, depending on their qualifications, and are brought in at no greater than their current rank (i.e., full professors or associate professors). For associate professors to be considered for a promotion to full will require the faculty member be reviewed by the full promotion and tenure process; and
2.3 That the final step of returning the completed review to the originating unit so that faculty members may reconsider their decision to recommend expedited tenure shall be designated as optional in the case of individuals appointed at the rank of full professor, enabling units that wish to retain this step to do so, whereas other units may elect to forego it, and
2.4 That the final step of returning the completed review to the originating unit so that faculty members may reconsider their decision to recommend expedited tenure shall be required in the case of individuals appointed at the rank of associate professor, with the unit faculty also required to vote on the decision to use expedited tenure, and
2.5 That the number of Faculty Personnel Committee members required constitute the Expedited Tenure Review Committee shall be changed from “five members” to “three to five members,” and
2.6 That the Expedited Tenure Review Committee shall always consider teaching evaluations of candidates, as available, in their review process for positions with significant any teaching responsibilities.
Financial Impact: Cost Neutral
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:05 P.M. Approval of the Minutes
3:10 P.M. State of the University
3:40 P.M. New Business
4:30 P.M. Open Discussion
4:35 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:57 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Date of Notice: November 13, 2019
Current Status: Approved January 8, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Andy Karduna, Human Physiology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS an Accelerated Master’s Programs model presents an opportunity for high achieving students to link advanced undergraduate coursework with graduate coursework and degree completion, thus reducing the time and cost of earning a Master’s degree; and
1.2 WHEREAS Accelerated Master’s Programs can be used as a recruitment tool, helping to increase enrollment both at the undergraduate and graduate levels; and
1.3 WHEREAS Accelerated Master’s Programs are very common among UO’s peer institutions, including most AAU public universities; and
1.4 WHEREAS the Graduate School has been consulting with numerous stakeholders on campus, including the Registrar’s Office, Office of Student Financial Aid and Scholarships, Office of the Provost, Undergraduate Council, Graduate Council, Academic Council and Senate Leadership; and
1.5 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council have fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for an Accelerated Master’s Program model.
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED, on the recommendation of the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils, the proposed Accelerated Master’s Program model is approved (see related documents for full details).
Related Documents
Accelerated Master’s Programs Model Proposal
Accelerated Master’s Programs Model Guidelines
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:10 P.M. Approval of the Minutes
3:15 P.M. State of the University
3:30 P.M. New Business
4:30 P.M. Open Discussion
4:40 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Date of Notice: November 20, 2019
Current Status: Approved January 8, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Jim Hutchison (Chemistry & Biochemistry), Nathan Jacobs (Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact), Mike Hahn (Human Physiology)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council is charged by the University Senate with the responsibility of “reviewing, evaluating and enhancing the quality of the University’s academic program;” and
1.2 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council has the responsibility to “monitor, help shape, and approve new undergraduate programs (majors, minors, certificates) and changes to existing programs;” and
1.3 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council has fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provosts’ Council, Higher Education Coordinating Commission,and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities for approval;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED, on the recommendation of the Undergraduate Council, the new Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering is approved (please see related documents for program specifics).
Related Documents
Date of Notice: November 13, 2019
Current Status: Approved December 11, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White, Chair of UOCC
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Fall Term 2019 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the Fall 2019 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses (please see Related Documents).
Related Documents
Date of Notice: November 6, 2019
Current Status: Approved December 11, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Joe Sventek (Computer & Information Science), Bill Cresko (Biology)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council is charged by the University Senate with the responsibility of “reviewing, evaluating and enhancing the quality of the University’s academic program;” and
1.2 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council has the responsibility to “monitor, help shape, and approve new undergraduate programs (majors, minors, certificates) and changes to existing programs;” and
1.3 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council has fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Bachelor’s degree in Data Science and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provosts’ Council, Higher Education Coordinating Commission,and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities for approval;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the recommendation of the Undergraduate Council to approve the new Bachelor’s degree in Data Science (please see related documents for program specifics).
Related Documents
Program Proposal
Academic Plan Template
DSCI Faculty
Other Similar Programs
UGDS Curriculum
Summary for Statewide Provost’s Council
Supplemental Materials
Due Diligence – Domain Emphases
Due Diligence – Program Level
Due Diligence – Multilisting Agreements
Note: Please review linked materials and provide any feedback to senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu.
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:10 P.M. Approval of the Minutes
3:15 P.M. State of the University
3:30 P.M. New Business
4:30 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:51 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Date of Notice: October 23, 2019
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Nicole Dudukovic (Psychology), Adrianne Huxtable (Human Physiology), Philip Washbourne (Biology)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council is charged by the University Senate with the responsibility of “reviewing, evaluating and enhancing the quality of the University’s academic program;” and
1.2 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council has the responsibility to “monitor, help shape, and approve new undergraduate programs (majors, minors, certificates) and changes to existing programs;” and
1.3 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council has fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Bachelor’s degree in Neuroscience jointly administered by the Biology, Human Physiology, and Psychology departments and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provosts’ Council, Higher Education Coordinating Commission,and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities for approval;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the recommendation of the Undergraduate Council to approve the new Bachelor’s degree in Neuroscience (please see related documents for program specifics).
Related Documents
Neuroscience proposal
Memo in Support
Sponsor Response to feedback from Undergrad Council
Date of Notice: October 22, 2019
Current Status: Approved November 13, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White, Chair of UOCC
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Graduate Council frequently works on program and course approval with the UO Committee on Courses (UOCC); and
1.2 WHEREAS there is a voting ex officio seat for the UOCC Chair or designee on the Undergraduate Council to coordinate course and program approval processes with that body; and
1.3 WHEREAS the University Senate approved US15/16-18: Revision of the Membership of the Graduate Council, adding the Chair of UOCC (or designee) as a non-voting ex officio member, in part to establish consistency with Undergraduate Council processes;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University approves revising the UOCC Chair or designee seat on the Graduate Council from non-voting to voting.
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:15 P.M. Approval of the Minutes
3:15 P.M. State of the University
4:00 P.M. New Business
4:30 P.M. Open Discussion
4:30 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:56 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Date of Notice: September 25, 2019
Current Status: Approved October 9, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White, UOCC
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Summer Term 2019 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the Summer 2019 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses (please see Related Documents).
Related Documents
Date of Notice: September 18, 2019
Current Status: Approved October 9, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Elizabeth Skowron, Senate President
Elliot Berkman, Senate Vice President
Sierra Dawson, Chair of CIET committee
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee (CIET) has broad relevance for and impact upon all UO faculty; and
1.2 WHEREAS the current membership criteria do not provide for consistent representation from all faculty units on campus; and
1.3 WHEREAS the faculty feedback and evaluation needs for different units on campus are varied;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the membership for the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee be revised per the changes outlined in the Redline Draft of the committee’s 17 point chart (please see Related Documents).
Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee 17 point chart – REDLINE_September 2019
Date of Notice: September 18, 2019
Current Status: Approved October 9, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Elizabeth Skowron, Senate President
Elliot Berkman, Senate Vice President
Beth Harn, Special Education and Clinical Sciences
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, the Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee indicated the need to ensure inclusiveness of all long-term faculty (i.e., clinical professor, professors of practice, instructional, library, and research); and
1.2 WHEREAS, the committee will also be inclusive of limited duration faculty employees; and
1.3 WHEREAS, non-tenured faculty on campus have expressed concerns over being disrespected and seen as “less than” compared to their tenured colleagues;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the renaming of the Non-tenured Track Faculty Committee to “Career Faculty Committee.”
Implementation Date: Immediate upon approval by University Senate
Related Documents
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:29 PM Approval of Minutes
3:30 PM Business / Reports:
4:50 PM Open Discussion
4:52 PM Other Reports
4:54 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:56 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!
Date of Notice: April 10, 2019
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Spring Term 2019 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate review.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the Spring 2019 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.
Date of Notice: April 10. 2019
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Senate Exec Committee, Committee on Committees
Motion
Section I
1.1 Whereas the Senate Executive Committee, the Committee on Committees, and the 2018-2019 Classified and OA senators have deliberated and voted on the 2019 Annual Senate Award nominations.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approve the respective nominees found in the Related Documents.
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:15 PM Approval of Minutes
3:16 PM Business / Reports:
4:42 PM Open Discussion
4:43 PM Other Reports
4:44 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:45 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
All times are estimates.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:10 PM Approval of Minutes
3:11 PM Business / Reports:
4:35 PM Open Discussion
4:36 PM Other Reports
4:37 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:40 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!
Date of Notice:
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh, Economics
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon does not currently have a policy on the hiring and promotion of Academic Administrators;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Policy on Hiring and Promotion of Academic Administrators as outlined in the Related Documents.
Policy on Hiring and Promotion of Academic Administrators proposal
Date of Notice: April 24, 2019
Current Status: Approved May 22, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Core Education Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 Whereas the University of Oregon has recently reconfigured the core ed requirements; and
1.2 Whereas the Core Ed Council “oversee[s] that part of the University curriculum which is
required of all undergraduate students”; and
1.3 Whereas Core Education Credits are defined to be those satisfying an Area of Inquiry (Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Arts & Letters), Writing, Global Perspectives and US-Difference, Inequality, Agency, and/or a Bachelor degree specific requirement.
Section II
2.1 Be it therefore moved that the existing General Limitations for the Bachelor’s Degrees found at http://uocatalog.uoregon.edu/admissiontograduation/bachelorrequirements/ under the heading “General Limitations” be replaced with the following General Limitations for Bachelor’s Degrees:
2.2 Be it further moved, that the relevant academic unit will be involved in the determination of what credit/courses are restricted in points 9, 10 and 11 of 2.1.
2.3 Be it further moved that the “One Course” restriction under the existing Group Requirements be replaced with
“Students may use a maximum of 3 courses that have the same subject code(s) as their primary major (e.g. MUS, MUJ for music majors) to simultaneously count for both a student’s major requirements and Areas of Inquiry requirements.”
2.4 Be it further moved that, under Group Requirements for Specific Degrees, 1. Bachelor of Arts, Fine Arts, or Science, the language “Each group must include (a) at least two courses with the same subject code and (b) at least one course with a different subject code. No more than three courses with the same subject code may be used to fulfill the 45-credit requirement.” be replaced with:
“Students must take courses in at least two subject codes in each Area of Inquiry. Students may use a maximum of 3 courses in any one subject code toward the total credits across all Areas of Inquiry.”
And that under Group Requirements for Specific Degrees, 2. Bachelor of Architecture, Fine Arts, Education, Interior Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Music, or Music in Music Education, the language “Each group must include at least two courses with different subject codes. Two groups must each include at least two courses with the same subject code. No more than three courses with the same subject code may be used to fulfill the total 36-credit requirement.” be replaced with:
“Students must take courses in at least two subject codes in each Area of Inquiry. Students may use a maximum of 3 courses in any one subject code toward the total credits across all Areas of Inquiry.”
2.5 Be it further moved that the limitations in 2.1-2.4 be effective Fall 2020, and will go into effect for all students; students who were admitted under the existing rules/limitations may opt to have those limitations apply.
Effective date: Fall 2019 for incoming undergraduate students.
Passed the Core Ed Council unanimously on 4/24/2019.
Updated Draft of Motion – May 20, 2019
Updated Draft – May 22, 2019
Date of Notice: April 30, 2019
Current Status: Approved May 22, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsors: Elizabeth Skowron, Professor, Department of Psychology, Senate Vice President
Lara Bovilsky, Associate Professor, Department of English, Graduate Council Chair
William Harbaugh, Professor, Department of Economics, Senate President
Frances White, Professor, Department of Anthropology, Academic Council Co-Chair & Chair, Committee on Courses
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, the UO Senate passed legislation establishing the membership structure for each of the following Senate Committees (Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, Committee on Courses, and the Core Education Council); and
1.2 WHEREAS, the UO Senate President, Vice President, and Chairs of these academic senate committees would like to support communication and collaboration between these aforementioned committees and the UO Senate, in furtherance of shared governance; and
1.3 WHEREAS, the charge(s) for each of these Senate Committees (e.g., Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, Committee on Courses, and the Core Education Council) do not designate a voting seat for a current member of the Senate;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the UO Senate authorizes the incoming Senate President, in consultation with the respective Senate Committee Chair, outgoing Senate President, and Senate Executive Committee to: (a) solicit self-nominations from current UO senators, and (b) appoint or cause to be appointed, one senator to each of these four Senate committees to serve for a two-year term as a full, voting committee member, (c) where no senator is currently serving on said committee. Senators eligible for appointment consist of members of the statutory faculty (TTF and Career).
2.2 If the selected individual is no longer serving in the Senate, for any reason, senate leadership in consultation with the respective committee chair will follow the procedures above in 2.1 to appoint a replacement from among current Senators.
Financial Impact: Cost Neutral
Appendix: List of Academic Committees Relevant in this Policy
Graduate Council
Lara Bovilsky, Chair
Sierra Dawson
Erik Girvan
Burke Hendrix
Elim Hernandez-Santos
Andrew Karduna
Alison Kwok
Seth Lewis
Celeste Mena-Morales
Fabienne Moore
Jeremy Piger
Jana Prikryl
Nicholas Proudfoot
Phil Scher
Leslie Straka
Marcia Walker
Hailin Wang
Mark Watson
Angela Whalen
Janet Woodruff-Borden
Hong Yuan
Undergraduate Council
Maeve Anderson
Jagdeep Bala
Diane Bordenkircher
Ron Bramhall
Jessica Cronce
Dennis Galvan
Michele Henney
Kimberly Johnson
Harinder Khalsa
Kathleen Lenn
Kelli Matthews, Co-Chair
Drew Nobile
Daisy O’Lice-Williams
Craig Parsons
Julia Pomerenk
Jana Prikryl, Co-Chair
Lee Rumbarger
Caleb Southworth
Mike Urbancic
Frances White
Michelle Wood
Committee on Courses
Ron Bramhall
Kristy Bryant-Berg
Christian Cherry
Tom Greenbowe
Roberta Mann
Bil Morrill
Julia Pomerenk
Jana Prikryl
Scott Skelton
Mike Urbancic
Kathy Warden
Frances White, Chair
Core Education Council
Ron Bramhall, Co-Chair
Christian Cherry
Edward Davis
Kassia Dellabough
Dennis Galvan
Pedro García-Caro
Austin Hocker
Harinder Khalsa
Lori Manson
Julia Pomerenk
Lee Rumbarger
Alison Schmitke
Doneka Scott
Emily Simnitt
Christopher Sinclair, Co-Chair
Mike Urbancic
Carolyn Vogt
Kathy Warden
Nicole Wilson
DRAFT.
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
All times are estimates.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:30 PM Approval of Minutes
3:31 PM Business/ Reports:
4:50 PM Open Discussion
4:51 PM Other Reports
4:58 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!
Date of Notice: April 18, 2019
Current Status: Approved April 24, 2019
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsor: Ed Davis, Senator
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon’s mission statement says that it strives for, “… the generation, dissemination, preservation, and application of knowledge”; and
1.2 WHEREAS the Values enumerated in the mission statement include, “We value the unique geography, history and culture of Oregon that shapes our identity and spirit,” and, “We value our shared charge to steward resources sustainably and responsibly”; and
1.3 WHEREAS the Museum of Natural and Cultural History and the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art are both accredited by the American Alliance of Museums, reflecting the uniformly high quality of their curatorial practices, collections-based research, and public-facing outreach programs, placing them in the highest ranks of museums in the United States; and
1.4 WHEREAS the exhibits and collections at the Museum of Natural and Cultural History and the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art are used by faculty in allied units in the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Design for both undergraduate education and original research; and
1.5 WHEREAS the Museum of Natural and Cultural History is the designated repository for anthropological and fossil collections in the state of Oregon and was recognized with a National Medal for Museum and Library Service in 2018; and
1.6 WHEREAS the Labor Education and Research Center has, for the last 42 years, strived to improve the lives of Oregon’s workers, their families, and their communities through integrated education, research, and public service that supports a strong, inclusive union movement; and
1.7 WHEREAS the Oregon Bach Festival has, for almost half a century, presented masterworks of J.S. Bach and composers inspired by his work to audiences in Eugene and across Oregon, offering educational opportunities, children and family programming, and community events, while supporting the academic mission of the School of Music and Dance; and
1.8 WHEREAS the University of Oregon must balance its budget through $11.6 million in expenditure reductions, but has chosen to reduce the budgets of these units by a combined $1.2 million, or 10% of the total of the University’s expenditure reduction, averaging out to 23% of the overall budgets of each of these units (including both UO funds and state allocations); and
1.9 WHEREAS the budget reductions of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art will be 15.1%, the Museum of Natural and Cultural History will be 16.6%, the Oregon Bach Festival will be 24.4%, and the Labor Education and Research Center will be 45% of each of their General Fund budgets.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate of the University of Oregon affirms the intrinsic value of the academic work of these units, recognizing that their work in preserving and educating Oregonians in the unique geography, history, and culture of Oregon is central to the University’s mission,
2.2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the disproportionate cuts to these units that serve to generate, disseminate, preserve, and apply knowledge of Oregon’s labor relations, arts, cultural history, and evolutionary and geological history, do not reflect an appropriate stewardship of those resources sustainably and responsibly. Consequently, we, the Senate, request that the University of Oregon rethink its plan for expenditure reductions to distribute them more equitably across all units.
Note: Technical change to 1.9 made 4/21, replacing “overall” with “General Fund”.
Date of Notice: April 9, 2019
Current Status: Approved April 24, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Rich Margerum
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council is charged by the University Senate to “advise the Dean of the Graduate School on matters pertaining to graduate study at the University of Oregon”; and
1.2 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council has responsibility for “providing for the maintenance of high standards of graduate instruction”; and
1.3 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council and the Graduate School have fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Ph.D. in Planning and Public Affairs in the School of Planning, Public Policy and Management and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provosts’ Council, and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission for approval;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the recommendation of the Graduate Council and the Graduate School to approve the Ph.D. in Planning and Public Affairs in the School of Planning, Public Policy and Management (please see Related Documents section).
Date of Notice: March 19, 2019
Current Status: April 10, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS peer-reviewed research on the student evaluation of teaching has provided evidence that student course evaluations like those used at UO reflect bias with respect to gender and may reflect bias with respect to race, and that the numerical scores are statistically orthogonal to student learning; see for example the meta-analysis indicating student ratings are not related to student learning by Uttl, White and Wong Gonzalez (2017); the randomized, controlled, blind experiment related to gender bias by Boring, Ottoboni, and Stark (2016); and an online course experiment exposing gender bias by MacNell, Driscoll, and Hunt (2015);
1.2 WHEREAS in Spring 2017 the UO Senate initiated a multi-year effort “evaluating and improving course evaluations and peer reviews with respect to reducing biases and improving validity, with the goal of improving teaching, learning, and equity” – 2017 Motion to Create Teaching Evaluation Task Force;
1.3 WHEREAS guiding principles for this work have been to ensure teaching evaluation is fair and transparent; informed by data collected from peers, students, and instructors themselves; and based on clear definitions of teaching quality rooted in the university’s broad “inclusive, engaged, and research-led” pillars; and to ensure that instructors receive actionable feedback for their own purposes of continuous improvement;
1.4 WHEREAS in Spring 2018 the UO Senate adopted a Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System, which approved centrally administered midterm student experience surveys (results only available to instructors) and course-level instructor reflection surveys (results included in instructors’ files), and forming and charging a standing committee with developing a new end-of-term student survey and addressing other issues related to the context, policy, and tools used in teaching evaluation;
1.5 WHEREAS in January 2019 the UO Senate voted unanimously to include in instructor files language that requires teaching be evaluated “primarily using peer reviews, instructor self-reflection, and substantive written comments,” and that “numerical student evaluations of teaching should not be used as a standalone measure of teaching quality for any university purpose” – 2019 Policy on Teaching Evaluation Disclaimer Language;
1.6 WHEREAS the evaluation of courses and instructors is the work of the faculty and unit leaders, and although student feedback about their learning experience may assist evaluators in that work, a Student Experience Survey is not a course evaluation in and of itself.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED: beginning in Fall 2019, the University will phase out its current student “Course Evaluations” and replace them with an end-of-term “Student Experience Survey” and this process will be complete by Spring 2020.
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Student Experience Survey will offer specific prompts for written student feedback, asking students to report how specific elements of the course—for example, course materials, feedback, organization, interactions with peers, and their own investment of time and effort—affect their learning experience. The Senate CIET Committee will develop procedures and guidelines regarding the addition of customized questions by units and/or instructors to the Student Experience Survey. The surveys will not ask generic evaluative questions such as “What is the quality of this instructor’s teaching?”
2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the information provided by the Student Experience Survey will not be used as a standalone tool to rate instructors for the purposes of merit, promotion, tenure or renewal, but rather as one source of information to be included, along with peer reviews and instructor reflections, etc., in the evaluation of instructors in light of their academic unit’s criteria for quality teaching.
2.4 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Senate’s Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching (CIET) Committee will continue to refine the Student Experience Survey and reporting forms in cooperation with departments, schools, and colleges. The Committee will make annual reports to the Senate about this ongoing work.
2.5 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Senate CIET Committee will develop procedures for determining whether to redact comments instructors have flagged as hateful or discriminatory.
2.6 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: In collaboration with the Office of Student Conduct, the Senate CIET Committee will develop procedures to ensure that students who have been found responsible for academic misconduct will be not be able to complete the Student Experience Survey for that course.
2.7 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Senate CIET Committee will continue to refine a protocol for instructors who wish to allow their students to complete the web-based Student Experience Survey in class. The Senate CIET Committee will also develop and disseminate materials (videos, handouts) that will help students provide feedback in the Student Experience Survey that is actionable, concrete, and focused on their learning experience.
2.8 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Senate CIET Committee, in collaboration with the Office of Institutional Research and the Office of the Registrar, will phase out the current numerical “P&T report” generated by the Office of the Registrar and replace it with a new annual report that combines information from the Student Experience Survey and Instructor Reflection in a format that, when combined with peer review of teaching reports, can be used by unit heads to evaluate instructors against the unit’s criteria for quality teaching. The committee will continue to study the issue of biases in student evaluations.
2.9 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: The Senate CIET Committee will produce recommendations for UO faculty search committees regarding materials they might request as evidence of teaching quality or promise above and beyond student ratings.
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:30 PM Approval of Minutes
3:30 PM Business/ Reports:
4:50 PM Open Discussion
4:51 PM Reports
4:58 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!
DRAFT – Note that a minor update to the COI proposal may be coming.
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:30 PM Approval of Minutes
3:30 PM Business/ Reports:
4:50 PM Open Discussion
4:51 PM Reports
4:58 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!
2/26: This meeting is cancelled, given the bad and deteriorating weather. The voting items below will be rescheduled for our March 13th meeting. Senate Pres Harbaugh.
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:30 PM Approval of Minutes
3:30 PM Business/ Reports:
4:50 PM Open Discussion
4:51 PM Reports
4:58 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!
Date of Notice: January 16, 2019
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Core Education Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS The Core Ed Council voted unanimously in support of this motion on January 28, 2019; and
1.2 WHEREAS the high school to college transition is challenging to many students and performance in the first year is correlated with student success; and
1.3 WHEREAS LMS use is correlated with undergraduate student success; and
1.4 WHEREAS Canvas is FERPA compliant, and other cloud-based grading systems (Google Sheets, etc) may not be; and
1.5 WHEREAS Between Fall 2017 and Winter 2019, 40% of UO Core Ed Courses had not published their Canvas site; and
1.6 WHEREAS The motion is supported by the Deans Council;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that Instructors of Record in classes that count toward “core education” requirements (including Areas of Inquiry; Difference, Inequality and Agency; Global Perspectives; Writing, and BA/BS requirements) shall use, and make available the Learning Management System (LMS) site for the core ed class, prior to the first meeting, to students enrolled in the course.
Implementation date: Fall 2020.
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:15 PM Approval of Minutes
3:20 PM Business/ Reports:
4:55 PM Open Discussion
4:56 PM Reports
4:58 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!
Date of Notice: November 28, 2018
Current Status: Approved April 24, 2019
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Academic Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS in 2014 the Academic Integrity Task Force was tasked with evaluating the Fall 2014 Academic Continuity Plan and consulting with faculty, department heads and administrators to develop and implement plans to preserve academic integrity researching and drafting a report on academic continuity in the event of an emergency that causes significant academic disruption on campus; and
1.2 WHEREAS the Academic Integrity Task Force recommended that during Winter term 2015, the Senate President convene the Academic Council and charge that body with developing, in consultation with Academic Affairs and the President’s office, clear protocols for the involvement of the Senate and the relevant Senate committees in campus-wide academic planning and decision-making; and
1.3 WHEREAS the university is required by Federal financial aid requirements to demonstrate student academic progress through the issuance of final course grades, and the university does not currently have the ability to do that in the event of a significant academic disruption where some or all final grades cannot be issued; and
1.4 WHEREAS students may be negatively impacted in a variety of ways if they do not receive emergency grades during a significant academic disruption; and
1.5 WHEREAS the University Senate is the sole faculty governance authority over all academic matters as commonly understood in higher education, and as such has sole authority over the methods of instruction and awarding of grades; and
1.6 WHEREAS the Office of the General Counsel has raised no legal objections to the proposed policy (Memo fr: General Counsel, April 16, 2019) while stating that the President ultimately retains emergency authority over such matters; and
1.7 WHEREAS the Academic Council has now developed this Academic Continuity Plan and recommends its approval by the University Senate.
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Academic Continuity Plan policy (Please see Related Documents below).
Related Documents
Academic Continuity Plan – FINAL (04/03/2018)
GTFF Written Response to Academic Continuity Plan 03/13/19
General Counsel Analysis Memo
Presidential Response
Date of Notice: January 16, 2019
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Academic Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS Courses required for majors, minors, certificates or other transcripted credentials must have permanent rather than generic or experimental numbers, and
1.2 WHEREAS proposals to change transcripted credentials may need to temporarily include courses that are in the process of being regularized or changed;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the following clarification of the approval process to be added to the Procedures for curricular changes.
Clarification of process when changing or creating courses required for majors, minors, certificates, and specializations
A course may be offered under an experimental number for a maximum of three times, at which time it must be either submitted for permanent approval or dropped from the department course offerings. Experimental courses are afforded none of the rights that approved courses have (i.e., they cannot be listed as required courses in degree programs, cannot have pre-requisites, cannot have expanded course descriptions, cannot be designated as group-satisfying or multicultural-satisfying, etc.).
Regularizing or changing courses for proposed new majors, minors, etc.
Courses required for majors, minors, certificates or other transcripted credentials must have permanent rather than generic or experimental numbers. Proposals to the Graduate or Undergraduate Council to add new or change existing transcripted credentials should, therefore, endeavor to have new courses or revised courses approved before submission. In rare cases, expedited approval may be requested from the Council for proposals that temporarily include courses that are in the process of being regularized or changed. Such requests might happen, for example, in response to rapidly emerging opportunities. In order for expedited approval to occur, course proposals must be initiated in the Course Inventory Management system (CourseLeaf) in outline form but with sufficient detail that the UOCC can determine that these classes will likely be approvable when the final version is submitted by the proposer. The UOCC representative on the Council will then report either that 1) these courses are on track to be approved and can be included as temporary required classes so that the proposal can move forward for a Council vote, or 2) these classes are not ready and that the proposal needs to wait for these classes to reach this “likely approvable” stage before a vote can be taken.
Date of Notice: January 30, 2019
Current Status: Approved January 30 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee has proposed disclaimer language to be utilized in conjunction with teaching evaluations from the old system to inform persons evaluating faculty promotion and tenure files until we fully transition to a new course evaluation system;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the Teaching Evaluation Disclaimer language as outlined in Related Documents.
Related Documents
Date of Notice: November 1, 2018
Current Status: Approved January 30, 2019
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (CSGBV)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence was tasked with revising the UO policy on intimate relationships on campus, in cooperation with the Office of General Counsel;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power: Sexual, Physically Intimate, or Romantic Relationships with Students policy proposal (please see related documents below).
Related Documents
Policy Draft: REDLINE
Policy Draft: CLEAN
Policy Draft: REDLINE version 2… submitted as amendment
Drafts amended at January 30, 2019 Senate meeting: REDLINE, CLEAN
DRAFT (updated 1/30 and 1/29 regarding the sexual relationships policy and Teaching Evals disclaimer language)
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:15 PM Approval of Minutes
3:20 PM Business/ Reports:
4:55 PM Open Discussion
4:56 PM Reports
4:57 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:54 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn
Date of Notice: November 28, 2018
Current Status: Approved January 30, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Undergraduate Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Senate tasked the Academic Council in motion US17/18-15 with responding to several recommendations from the Honors Task Force Report;
1.2 WHEREAS the Academic Council asked the undergraduate council to address the recommendations as they fall under the undergraduate council charge
1.3 WHEREAS the undergraduate council consulted reviewed the Honors Task Force report and developed the attached guidelines over 3 undergraduate council meeting
Section II
BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Senate approve and adopt the attached Departmental or Program Honors Guidelines effective Fall 2019.
Related Documents
Date of Notice: Dec 12, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion type: Legislation
Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS there was a technical glitch in the Course Leaf system that prevented course changes approved by the UO Committee on Courses from appearing in the Spring 2018 Curriculum Report;
2.2 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate retroactively approves the additional course changes outlined in the Addendum to the Spring 2018 Curriculum Report (please see related documents).
Related Documents
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:20 PM Approval of Minutes
3:25 PM Business/ Reports:
4:55 PM Open Discussion
4:56 PM Reports
4:57 PM Notice(s) of Motion
Date of Notice: October 3, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Fall Term 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report for the University Senate review;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED the University Senate approves the Fall 2018 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to order
3:05 PM Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
3:20 PM Presentation on Teaching Evaluation reform; Ginger Clark, USC Associate Professor of Clinical Education and former Academic Senate President
3:50 PM Business/ Reports:
4:20 PM UO’s legislative agenda; Libby Batlan & Hans Bernard, UO State and Community Affairs (Presentation and discussion)
4:40 PM. UO’s new approach to Dual Career Support; Rhonda Smith & Melanie Muenzer, Provost’s Office (Presentation and discussion)
4:56 PM Open Discussion
4:57 PM Reports
4:58 PM Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM Other Business
5:00 PM Adjourn
Draft: For discussion for Senate adoption per https://senate.uoregon.edu/entry/?Motions=US17/18-19
Warning: Bias in Student Course Evaluations
Research has shown that student evaluations, particularly numerical ratings, are marred by bias against women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other groups, and are generally unrelated to teaching effectiveness. Despite these problems, numerical ratings using our current instrument may still be collected, and past numerical ratings may still be used in teaching evaluation. The UO Senate, in cooperation with the Office of the Provost, is revising UO’s teaching evaluation instruments and practices in response to this research. During this transition, numerical student evaluations of teaching should not be used as a standalone measure of teaching quality for any university purpose. Instead, teaching should be evaluated primarily using instructor self-reflection, peer reviews, and substantive written student comments, in alignment with the academic unit’s definition of teaching excellence as that is developed.
(Note: See Uttl et al. (2017), Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related, Studies in Education Evaluation, at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X16300323)
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, October 17, 2018 and October 31, 2018
3:30 P.M. Business/Reports
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:15 P.M. New Business
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Date of Notice: Oct 9, 2018
Current Status: Approved October 31, 2018
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Graduate Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Graduate Council met on October 24, 2018, to discuss the proposal for a new online delivery mode for the existing Master’s of Science degree in Sports Product Management as attached to this motion; and
1.2 WHEREAS the Graduate Council deemed the proposal to meet the University’s standards for a graduate degree, and therefore voted to recommend that the Senate approve the proposed degree;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approves online delivery of the Master’s of Science degree in Sports Product Management, and authorizes the Provost to take the necessary steps to move forward with it.
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. New Business
4:45 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:40 P.M. Votes
3:45 P.M. New Business
Discussion of upcoming policies, discussions and issues for fall quarter
4:45 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:56 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
From: Bill Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Oregonian Op-Ed and UO Senate Resolution.
Date: July 8, 2018 at 8:52:09 PM PDT
To: gilleyb@pdx.edu
Cc: Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, ASUO President <asuopres@uoregon.edu>, Mike Schill <pres@uoregon.edu>, John Nicols <nic@uoregon.edu>, Chris Phillips <ncp@uoregon.edu>
Dear Professor Gilley –
I read your Oregonian Op-Ed today at https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/07/oregon_campuses_need_intellect.html
There’s much I agree with. However I want to set the record straight regarding the UO Senate resolution that you mention. I was UO Senate Vice President last year (and am president this year), and I helped write the resolution. You seem to have mis-read it as supporting the “hecklers’ veto”. It does not. It clearly states:
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say;
This is the latest in a series of Senate actions that have all taken the same stand – supporting the rights of speakers, and protesters, to be heard. Here is the explanation I gave to the UO Board of Trustees last month:
… Second, I want to explain the Senate’s resolution “In Support of the UO Student Collective”. This is the group of students that disrupted President Schill’s “State of the University”speech in October.
… [UO President Schill] has said that with this resolution the Senate endorsed the sorts of disruption of classes by students who might object to something about the course content, as has occurred at other universities, such as Reed and Evergreen, where students have essentially shut down courses on particular subjects.
This is not at all what our Senate has endorsed. The resolution states clearly:
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say;
https://senate.uoregon.edu/entry/?Motions=US17/18-02
I’m not a lawyer, but this language is consistent with everything I understand about the First Amendment, everything I believe about academic freedom, and everything that UO’s other policies on these matters state. People have a right to speak, and those who object to that speech have the right to have their objections heard even if that disrupts and causes inconvenience for the speaker and the audience.
What those who object cannot do, and again I quote from our resolution, is prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say.
Our resolution does not endorse the sorts of disruptions that prevent faculty, or our President, from teaching what they want to teach or saying what they want to say. It specifically speaks against that, only allowing “disruption” so long as that disruption doesn’t prevent the professor’s lecture, or for that matter the President’s talk, from continuing.
Our resolution does not endorse allowing the actions of the Students Collective taking the podium and shutting down President Schill’s address – although it does call for some leniency in their subsequent discipline, and some reforms to make sure free speech discipline cases are handled with special care. These were students, after all.
If this is not clear, please see the UO policy on Academic Freedom, which the Senate passed in 2014 and which the UO President signed, which 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. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community.
Or see the UO Policy on Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech, which we passed in 2010, which states:
The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas.
I don’t see how the Senate and the faculty could be any more clear about our position, and I’m tired of hearing people misrepresent it. Though of course I’m open to any arguments, even disruptive ones.
Thank you. Questions?
I hope that this makes clear that this UO Senate resolution is not a good example of faculty opposition to free-speech, and that you will search for a better one to use instead.
I’m posting this on the UO Senate website, and I’m ccing professor Chris Sinclair (Math), who was Senate President when this motion passed, the current ASUO student president, UO President Mike Schill, as well as UO professors John Nicols (History) and Chris Philips (Math) since they are the UO NAS members that I know.
Thanks,
Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon
http://senate.uoregon.edu
DRAFT
Location: EMU 214 (Redwood Auditorium)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, May 23, 2018
3:35 P.M. Business
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Senate Awards Reception:
Date of Notice: May 1, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Spring 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED the University Senate approves the Spring 2018 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.
Dear Senators and members of the University community:
The election of the new University Senate Vice President and President-elect (one person, the VP becomes President at the end of spring 2019) will take place at the June 6 Senate meeting. The vote is among current Senators only.
To date we have one candidate: Elizabeth Skowron, Professor of Counseling Psychology and Human Services in the College of Education. Both Vice President Harbaugh and I have worked closely with Elizabeth on the Faculty Advisory Council and the Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee (of which she is current chair). In conversations in the Faculty Advisory Committee, Elizabeth has always presented a faculty-forward view of the university and has a demonstrated ability to argue on behalf of faculty. I trust the Senate will be in good hands under Professor Skowron’s leadership, and she has my endorsement. Bill Harbaugh, who will be president for 2018-19, also endorses her.
Elizabeth will address the Senate at the June 6 meeting. There will be an opportunity to ask questions of Professor Skowron after her address.
Chris Sinclair, outgoing Senate President
Bill Harbaugh, incoming Senate President
US17/18-21: Consent Calendar (Policies)
3.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the REPEAL of III.08.05: College Courses for Credit in High School
3.2 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Revisions to III.08.06: Credit for Courses taught in High School
Date of Notice: April 25, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsor: ASUO President Amy Schenk
Section 1.
Whereas historically similar approaches have been based on a desire to avoid putting undergraduate students in the position of making decisions about their major course of study based on the cost of tuition for coursework in that major, and
Whereas the Lundquist College of Business first proposed charging a differential tuition rate for its courses in 2016-17, but later withdrew its request in order to study the issue further, and
Whereas the University did not then develop a process for reconsidering its existing approach to differential tuition and no standards for evaluating specific differential tuition proposals were created, and
Whereas the Lundquist College of Business brought a reformulated differential tuition proposal to the Tuition and Fees Advisory Board for consideration in 2017-18, and
Whereas the Tuition and Fees Advisory Board could not reach agreement on LCB’s proposal and ended up making no recommendation to President Schill in support of or in opposition to this specific proposal, and
Whereas President Schill accepted LCB’s differential tuition proposal with some modifications and recommended that the UO Board of Trustees adopt it, and
Whereas at its March 2, 2018 meeting the UO Board of Trustees accepted President Schill’s recommendation and adopted a differential tuition rate for all undergraduate coursework taken in the Lundquist College of Business by an undergraduate student regardless of their major, school, or college, and
Whereas during the discussion at that Board meeting President Schill committed the administration to putting a plan and criteria for evaluating any additional differential tuition proposals in place before they are taken to the Board for consideration, therefore
Section 2.
Be it Resolved that the University Senate and the University administration will establish a task force to review the UO’s approach to undergraduate differential tuition. If the task force determines that the use of differential tuition may be appropriate, it will propose criteria for evaluating specific differential tuition proposals, and
Be it Further Resolved that this task force shall include 2 faculty members from CAS and 2faculty members from the professional schools and colleges, all selected by the University Senate President; 2 administrators involved with undergraduate education selected by the University President; and 3 undergraduate students selected by the ASUO. The faculty members must include at least one who is serving on the Academic Council and one who is serving on the Undergraduate Council. All task force members will be voting members, and
Be it Further Resolved that the task force shall produce a report and recommendations for the University President by November 15, 2018, and
Be it Finally Resolved that the University Senate requests departments, schools, and colleges will not put forward any differential tuition proposals and the Tuition and Fees Advisory Board, Tuition Advisory Council, and the university administration will not consider or recommend any such proposals until guidelines and/or policy is created regarding differential tuition.
In the RG here:
… “I would love to move on, not have anxiety, go out to crowded places and be comfortable,” Lynn said. “I’m not hanging onto it. It’s hanging onto me.”
She recalls first trying to “have a life away” from that of a survivor of the Thurston shooting a couple years later, but “crashing hard” when the full impact of the incident hit her.
Lynn later enrolled at Lane Community College in 2003 and graduated from the University of Oregon in 2007 with a bachelor’s degree in ethnic studies with a minor in Spanish. The UO hired her not long after graduation, and she works as the University Senate’s executive coordinator.
She said she had an online exchange earlier this year with a person who said he needed a gun to feel safe in Eugene and that led her to be invited to speak at an anti-gun violence March for Our Lives rally on March 24.
She feels “inspired” by the group of students from Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., who have taken a lead role in the national discussion on school shootings and gun violence, and she hopes their efforts may help them deal with the aftereffects of witnessing a mass killing.
“They’re not being silenced, and I think that is going to be helpful to their long-term healing,” Lynn said. …
DRAFT
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, April 25, 2018
3:35 P.M. Business
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Date of Notice: May 2, 2018
Current Status: Approved May 23, 2018
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh & Sierra Dawson, Teaching Evaluation Task Force
Section I
1.1 Whereas: On May 24th 2017 the Senate approved motion 17/17-28 to create a task force on student evaluations with the charge of “evaluating and improving course evaluations and peer reviews with respect to reducing biases and improving validity, with the goal of improving teaching, learning, and equity.” (https://senate.uoregon.edu/entry/?Motions=US16/17-28)
1.2 Whereas: While student evaluations of teaching can be an important tool for evaluating and improving teaching and learning, there is substantial peer-reviewed evidence that student course evaluations of the sort used at UO are biased with respect to gender and race, and that the numerical scores are orthogonal to measures of teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes. (See for example Uttl, White and Gonzalez (2016) at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X16300323?via%3Dihub)
1.3 Whereas: There is also scholarly evidence that, unless conducted by trained evaluators using consistent methodology, peer (faculty) reviews of teaching of the sort often done by UO departments are ineffective at evaluating teaching and do not provide useful feedback for improvement.
1.4 Whereas: While in the past UO has required that only signed written student evaluations be provided to department heads and review committees to be used in instructor review, the UO Office of General Counsel’s interpretation of the relevant law is that student classroom survey evaluations of a faculty member’s classroom or lab performance must be anonymous. (See letter from the UO General Counsel’s Office)
Section II
2.1 Therefore: The Senate directs the Committee on Committees to create and staff a Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee to include faculty, graduate student, undergraduate student, and ex-officio administrative representatives, and charged with collecting feedback from stakeholders and updating the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS) as needed. The 17-point chart is appended to this motion. Senate approval will be required for any changes in the CIETS except those involving the wording of questions or design of the instruments. described above.
2.2 Therefore: In Fall 2018 the committee will present to the Senate (for vote) a disclaimer for faculty personnel committees, heads, and administrators will stop using to include in reports, if those reports continue to use numerical ratings from student course evaluations in tenure and promotion reviews, merit reviews, and other personnel matters. If units or committees persist in using these numerical ratings, a statement regarding The disclaimer will address the problematic nature of those ratings, provide and an explanation for why they are being used despite those problems and include other available information regarding faculty teaching (e.g. peer reviews, student comments, faculty self-evaluations).will be included with the evaluative materials.
2.3 Therefore: As of Fall 2018 student evaluation surveys will be anonymous. Past faculty personnel committees, heads, and administrators will stop using signed written comments from previously collected student course evaluations can continue to be used in tenure and promotion reviews, merit reviews, and other personnel matters.
2.4 Therefore: Beginning with the Fall 2018 quarter, the University will stop collecting data using the current student course evaluations and will adopt the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), starting with the following elements:
2.5 Therefore: The committee will be charged with bringing the Senate a motion regarding the end of term student evaluation survey in Fall 2018. The current Course Evaluations will stay in place until a new version is approved by the Senate.
2.6 Therefore: The committee will be charged with bringing proposals to the Senate for vote, no later than Fall 2019, motions on the following:
Notes:
Oregon Law on classroom evaluations by students
https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/352.226
(9) Classroom survey evaluation by students of a faculty member’s classroom or laboratory performance shall be anonymous. The record of tabulated reports shall be placed in at least one of the files designated in subsection (4) of this section. All survey instruments used to obtain evaluation data shall be returned to the faculty member.
(10) A public university listed in ORS 352.002 (Public universities) and, after July 1, 1975, but before the date on which the public university obtained a governing board, the State Board of Higher Education and its public universities, offices, departments or activities, when evaluating its employed faculty members, may not solicit or accept letters, documents or other materials, given orally or in written form, from individuals or groups who wish their identity kept anonymous or the information they provide kept confidential.
GCO letter regarding ORS 352.226 (9) and (10)
17-part chart
CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND EVALUATION OF TEACHING COMMITTEE [Tier 1]
1) Name of Committee followed by [Committee Tier Number in brackets]:
Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee [Tier 1]
2) Brief Description:
The committee collects feedback on the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), makes minor changes to the instruments based on stakeholder feedback, and advises the Senate on significant changes as needed.
3) Background:
Created by Senate legislation US17/18-19: “Implementing a System for the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching” on May 23, 2018.
4) Charge and Responsibilities:
The committee collects feedback on the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), makes minor changes to the instruments, and advises the Senate on significant changes as needed. Any proposals for Senate action during an academic year should be proposed in writing no later than the beginning of Spring Term.
5) Membership Requirements:
Three to five faculty broadly representative by college, including at least one career instructional faculty, one tenured professor, and one Senator, appointed by the Committee on Committees. One graduate student, appointed in consultation with the GSA and the GTFF. One undergraduate student appointed in consultation with the ASUO. Ex-officio members to include designees from the Office of the Provost, the Registrar, and the Teaching Engagement Program.
6) Leadership Structure (Chair, Convener &/or Staff):
a) Chair: Elected
b) Convener: Office of the Provost ex-officio member
c) Staff: Office of the Provost
7) Election of Chair (quarter, week or “at the first meeting”):
Annually at the first meeting.
8) Length of Term:
a) Non-Students (faculty, OA’s OR’s, Classified): 2 years, staggered
b) Students: 1 year
c) Ex officio: indeterminate
9) Term Limits:
a) For the Chair: none
b) For Committee Members: none
c) Ex officio: none
10) Frequency of Meetings:
At least quarterly.
11) Workload Designation:
a) For the Chair: Tier 1
b) For Committee Members: Tier 1
12) Reporting Deadline(s):
The Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee shall report to the University Senate. At a minimum this report shall be in the form of an annual written report submitted by the Committee Chair to the Senate President and Senate Executive Coordinator no later than June 1. The committee shall also make additional written or oral reports to the Senate as necessary.
13) Current Members [Leave blank at present]:
14) Type:
Standing Committee
15) Category:
Academic
16) Selection Process:
Appointed
17) Additional Information:
For those interested in vendors chosen for the Knight Campus project, the following link is for a contract with Nexight Group, LLC.
Date of Notice: January 10, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Lee Rumbarger; Multicultural Requirement Task Force
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon has, since 1994, required two “multicultural” courses for a baccalaureate degree selected in two of three categories, American Cultures, International Cultures, and Identity, Pluralism and Tolerance.
1.2 WHEREAS the Black Student Task Force identified a shortcoming in the degree to which our curriculum raises as a central thematic focus the study of unequal power distribution and allows for attention to US histories and communities.
1.3 WHEREAS the University’s response to the Black Student Task Force included the formation of a faculty-student Ethnic Studies 101 Working Group in January 2016, which ultimately recommended a shared, across-the-disciplines approach to teaching about “inequality and injustice” and developing students’ “skills to navigate a diversifying world” (BSTF memo).
1.4 WHEREAS a 2016 joint committee of the Undergraduate Council and the University Committee on Courses expressed “dissatisfaction with the current categories and structure” of the multicultural requirement and identified a “diluting of the purpose and coherence of the requirement.”
1.5 WHEREAS the joint committee recommended updating the multicultural requirement category titles and descriptions to reflect “current scholarship in the field of critical multicultural education” and addressing an “imbalance in the categories” that means most UO students do not take American Cultures (AC) courses and, thus, “are not exposed to the critical conversations occurring in AC courses addressing a critical analysis of students’ cultural context and assumptions.”
1.6 WHEREAS a faculty group reporting to Undergraduate Council, the Working Group on Intercultural and Inclusive Teaching, met across the 2016-17 academic year and ultimately recommended learning outcomes, teaching strategies, and curricular and support structures it determined best suited for building faculty and student capacities related to critical multicultural education.
1.7 WHEREAS on November 11, 2016 the UO Senate resolved to “strengthen our curricula to reflect the diversity of peoples and cultures that have contributed to human knowledge and society, in the United States and throughout the world.”
1.8 WHEREAS the multicultural requirement can serve as an important model in a broader process to update UO’s general education requirements.
1.9 WHEREAS many of our comparator universities have replaced requirements that teach cultural pluralism and tolerance with programs that foster rich, often experiential engagement with both global cultures highly divergent from familiar US worldviews, and historical patterns of identity-based injustice and exclusion in the US.
1.10 WHEREAS Oregon State University, University of Massachusetts Amherst, University of California, San Diego, University of Vermont, Florida International University, and Pitzer College (among others) have enacted thoughtful requirements for understanding the United States and its cultural/racial histories, and for engaging the world. These examples inspire our efforts to rethink our own requirements.
1.11 WHEREAS the charge of the Undergraduate Council includes: (1) Review and promote the objectives and purposes of undergraduate education and assure that all policies and procedures, curricula, personnel and teaching decisions that affect undergraduate education are consistent and defensible with the institution’s undergraduate education mission as defined in the University’s Mission Statement and Statement of Philosophy, Undergraduate Education; (3) Formulate, monitor, and respond to general academic policies, especially those which have impact on undergraduate programs across the University.
1.12 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council passed this proposal to withdraw the UO multicultural requirement and replace it with Difference, Inequality, Agency: US and Global Perspectives on 18 April 2018.
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the current multicultural requirement be replaced with two new requirements, one course in each category: 1) US: Difference, Inequality, Agency and 2) Global Perspectives. that undergraduate students will take one course in each of two new categories: US: Difference, Inequality, Agency and Global Perspectives. These two courses will replace UO’s current multicultural requirement.
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that courses in the US: Difference, Inequality, Agency category formed in 2.1 will develop students’ analytical and reflective capacities to help them understand and ethically engage with the ongoing (cultural, economic, political, social, etc.) power imbalances that have shaped and continue to shape the United States. This engagement may also include the relation of the United States to other regions of the world. Each course will include scholarship, cultural production, perspectives, and voices from members of communities historically marginalized by these legacies of inequality.
Each course will undertake one or more of the following:
Each course will address:
2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that courses in the Global Perspectives category will foster student encounter with and critical reflection upon cultures, identities, and ways of being in global contexts. Each course will include substantial scholarship, cultural production, perspectives, and voices from members of communities under study, as sources permit.
Each course will undertake one or more of the following:
Each course will engage with one of more of the following:
Note: Approved study abroad programs also fulfill the Global Perspectives requirement.
2.4 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that we recommend significant, faculty-endorsed professional teaching development opportunities to support the teaching of this key part of the curriculum and research on this pedagogy.
2.5 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that courses that fulfill the multicultural requirement in either the US or GP category will include on their syllabus a short rationale and shared set of student learning objectives, which may be augmented by individual faculty. The Senate Core Education Council will be charged with providing this language and refreshing it periodically as part of a continual process of improvement and evolution of the curriculum.
2.6 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that until current courses are resubmitted for approval for the new categories, all current AC courses will be placed in the new US category, all current IC courses will be placed in the new GP category, and all IP courses will be placed, by the UOCC, in either the new US or GP category depending on their primary body of illustrative material.
2.7 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the UOCC is charged with developing a process and timeline for the resubmission and approval of current courses. To ensure broad consultation and minimization of disruption to current departments and courses, the UOCC will propose a process and timeline to the Senate for review and approval in the spring 2018 curriculum report.
2.8 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Core Education Council is charged with exploring and potentially recommending optional further study options for each category, consisting of a menu of possible activities (experiential learning and service, research, advanced coursework) from which students select. The Core Education Council will also explore and recommend ways in which this further study should count toward degree requirements.
Should the Senate approve these requirements, the Senate Core Education Council will work with the Teaching Engagement Program and Undergraduate Studies to develop, for later consideration and approval by the Senate, the further study optional pathways, menu of approved optional activities, and how those activities would count toward degree requirements.
2.9 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the new requirements will be in effect in Fall 2019.
Presentation from 4/25 Senate meeting
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:10 P.M. Approval of Minutes, April 11, 2018
3:10 P.M. Business/Reports
3:50 P.M. Open Discussion
3:50 P.M. Reports
3:55 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
3:55 P.M. Other Business
4:00 P.M. Executive Session
Vote: Honorary Degrees
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Dear Campus Community:
We are seeking input on draft revisions to the “Conflict of Interest, Potential” policy and associated draft procedures. At this stage, these are very much discussion drafts and we would greatly appreciate input from the community so that we can further revise them.
The goals of this effort are to make the policy easier to understand, make it easier for employees to obtain approval for outside work, and ensure that the policy aligns with state law.
Please provide comments via this link by Friday, April 27:
https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bsJEMUqBoPN3zsV
During the month of April, we have been attending a variety of standing meetings to obtain initial feedback on the drafts. After revising the documents based on this first round of feedback, we anticipate convening a diverse group of employees to provide further feedback and then submitting the revised policy through the standard policy process.
For your reference, you can find the current policy here: https://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/09-research/conflicts-interest-potential
Thank you for any time you are able to put into this during the busy spring quarter. I look forward to your feedback.
Sincerely,
Cassandra Moseley
Sr. Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation
UPDATE (Mon, Apr 16, 2018):
We still need several folks to sign up for committee service. The survey is still open. If you have trouble with the “submit” button, please email the following to senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu:
Name
Rank
Department
At this time, no one has indicated interest in the following vacancies:
Campus Planning Committee
1 faculty from College of Design
1 Classified Staff
Committee on Scholarships
1 teaching Faculty from Law
1 teaching faculty from Soc Sci
1 teaching faculty from Education
1 teaching faculty from SOJC
1-3 at-large teaching faculty
CORE Ed Council
1 Soc Sci faculty
Faculty Advisory Council
1 career NTTF from the Professional Schools (no more than 1 from same school, college or administrative unit)
Faculty Personnel Committee
1 faculty from Law
1 faculty from SOJC
Grad Council
1 TTF faculty from Business
Nontenured-Track Faculty Committee
3 Tenure-Track faculty
Ombuds
All seats
Respect & Community Values
1 Research faculty
ROTC
2 faculty
Undergrad Council
1 faculty from College of Design
University Senate
1 faculty from SOJC
2 faculty from Soc Sci
1 faculty from Libraries
Dear Campus Community,
Thank you to everyone who has already completed the survey regarding university service opportunities. Between the University Senate and several university committees, there are myriad ways for you to be involved in shared governance at the UO.
We know there are countless demands on your time, but encourage you to take a look at the opportunities to serve the UO through a committee or senate position. This type of service is extraordinarily beneficial to the institution.
Please respond by Thursday, April 12. Filling out the survey does not automatically put you on a committee or the ballot – we’ll follow up with you before doing anything official.
If you have any questions, please contact Betina Lynn, the Senate’s executive coordinator, at senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu.
Sincerely,
Chris Sinclair
University Senate President
Professor of Mathematics
Bill Harbaugh
University Senate Vice President and President-elect
Professor of Economics
Date of Notice: March 14, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Core Education Task Force
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS The Mission of the University of Oregon is:
The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research university committed to exceptional teaching, discovery, and service. We work at a human scale to generate big ideas. As a community of scholars, we help individuals question critically, think logically, reason effectively, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live ethically; and
1.2 WHEREAS The combined curriculum common to all undergraduate degrees, the Core Education, should serve the mission of the university; and
1.3 WHEREAS Clearly articulated learning goals are useful for student success; and
1.4 WHEREAS Clearly articulated criteria for how a course meets learning goals is useful for UOCC course approval; and
1.5 WHEREAS Clearly articulated criteria for how a course meets learning goals are useful for assessment of student learning in that course; and
1.6 WHEREAS The American Association of Colleges and Universities has developed nationally vetted learning goals and criteria for many categories of learning outcomes common between institutions; and
1.7 WHEREAS Accreditation standards require that institutions demonstrate how their common curriculum supports their institutional mission; and
1.8 WHEREAS Accreditation standards require that the institution establish and assess student learning goals for its general education program.
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate establish the following categories of Learning Goals derived from the University Mission: Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, Written Communication and Ethical Inquiry. These categories of Learning Goals will be called Methods of Inquiry.
2.2 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that when approving new courses which satisfy one of the Areas of Inquiry of Arts & Letters, Social Sciences and/or Natural Sciences, the UOCC will ensure that, in addition to the learning goals relevant to the Area of Inquiry(ies), courses will only be approved if they address learning goals from at least two Methods of Inquiry.
2.3 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that when approving courses which satisfy one of the Areas of Inquiry of Arts & Letters, Social Sciences and/or Natural Sciences, the UOCC will require approved courses to address at least half of the criteria for the relevant Methods of Inquiry.
2.4 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Core Education Council will develop and bring to the Senate for approval guidelines for assessing the learning goals in Methods of Inquiry.
2.5 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Core Education Council will regularly review Methods of Inquiry and recommend changes to the Senate when appropriate.
Presentation with Methods of Inquiry
Learning goals (paragraph) and criteria (bullets) for Methods of Inquiry
Students will develop the skills and habits of mind necessary for the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events in the evaluation and formulation of opinions and conclusions. Critical thinking requires students to question critically, think logically and reason effectively in the context of discipline-specific methodologies.
Students will develop the capacity to combine or synthesize existing ideas, images, or expertise in original ways, and work in an imaginative way characterized by a high degree of innovation, divergent thinking, and risk taking.
Through iterative experiences across the curriculum, students will develop the capacity to develop and express ideas in writing, to work in different genres and styles, work with different writing technologies, and mix texts, data, and images to effectively communicate to different audiences.
Students will develop the capacity to identify, examine, and critically revise ethical positions, map them onto larger ethical ideas (theoretical traditions, moral frameworks, prevailing social frameworks), and reflect on how decisions and actions (including, sometimes, inaction) shape our relations to others and self. Students will develop the capacity to articulate the ends sought in a range of endeavors in personal, social and professional contexts. Students will also develop concepts, practices, and other tools appropriate to valuing those ends in relation to their means of attainment and their impacts on self and others.
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, March 14, 2018
3:30 P.M. Business/Reports
4:45 P.M. Open Discussion
4:45 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
The Senate has been asked to publish this open letter from two faculty members of the Department of Architecture to the Provost. Our understanding is that the faculty are also collecting signatures for an additional longer letter.
Dear Statutory Faculty:
It’s time to start the annual process of electing a new Senate VP & President Elect. This is one position, elected by the Senate at its last Spring meeting. Any statutory (i.e. teaching) faculty are eligible to run (not just Senators) excepting those serving in administrative positions “above” that of department head.
Neither Chris nor I plan to run for the VP/Pres Elect position. We both agree it’s time for new Senate leadership to step forward.
Three year commitment: Continue reading Nominations for a new Senate VP/President Elect
From: Kevin Reed <ksreed@uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: Potential Fee Appeal by Daily Emerald Public Records Requester
Date: March 16, 2018 at 2:41:57 PM PDT
To: William Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>
Cc: David Cecil <cecil@uauoregon.org>, Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>
Please review the Oregon Government Ethics Law. Feel free to seek an advisory opinion from the Oregon Government Ethic Commission. As I am sure you are aware, violations of the OGEL can create personal liability to the public official, and thus the risk is really yours, not that of UO.
You have been assessed over $45,000 in fees on your public records requests over the course of the last 5 or so years. You have paid a few hundred dollars for documents, but mostly you have protested the fees and argued for a change in fee policy that would reduce or eliminate fees. A private citizen is, of course, free to engage in such advocacy, but when a public official does so in his official capacity, he does so at his own risk. I have told you this before, and you have ignored my advice thus far. And, as I said the risk is on you, not the university, so I can’t tell you what to do. Continue reading General Counsel Reed steps down from Transparency Committee, warns Senator Harbaugh that participation in Senate committee work may violate Oregon ethics law
Date of Notice: January 3, 2018
Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Winter 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED the University Senate approves the Winter 2018 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.
Date of Notice: February 27, 2018
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Academic Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 Whereas: The Honors Task Force report, June 6, 2017, were presented to the Senate (June 9, 2017) and reviewed and discussed by Academic Council (February 27, 2018), and
1.2 Whereas: the Honors Task Force made a series of recommendations (appended), and
1.3 Whereas: these recommendations can be divided into those that can be addressed immediately (see 2.1 through 2.3), and others that require more preparation (see 2.4 onwards).
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that GPA-only based routes to departmental honors be eliminated effective Fall 2019, and
2.2 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that GPA levels for earning Latin honors be standardized so that they are the same across the quarters of a given academic year effective Fall 2018, and
2.3 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED a short document, hosted on the Registrar’s website, summarizing the existence and requirements of honors opportunities across campus will be centrally maintained for the University community and be made available to advisors, other support staff, and recruiters, and
2.4 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Academic Council engage relevant committees and councils to develop broad summary language that articulates the principles guiding the purpose of departmental honors programs. This summary should then be reviewed and approved by the appropriate Senate committees and councils by the Senate, with advice from the appropriate Senate committees and councils.
2.5 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Office of the Provost work with colleges and departments that do not currently have an option to earn departmental honors to explore whether such a program would be appropriate as a way to better serve top performing students in their programs, and if appropriate to aid in the development of an honors program. that the Academic Council engage relevant committees and councils to develop guidelines to help articulate Clark Honors College honors and departmental honors thesis programs, including the use of a single project to count towards honors under both sets of guidelines. These guidelines will then be reviewed and approved by the Senate, with advice from the appropriate Senate Committees and councils.
2.6 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Office of the Provost work with departments to charge them with maintaining a transparent means of communicating accurate information about their honors programs. At a minimum, this should include published details of the existence and requirements for departmental honors on departmental or college websites and in the portion of the UO Catalog dedicated to their academic unit.
2.7 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Office of the Provost give consideration on how to address recommendations 7 through 10 from the Appendix.
Continue reading US-17/18-15: Revisions on Criteria for receiving Departmental Honors
Date of Notice: February 14, 2018
Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsors:
● Greg Bryant, Officer of Research Senator
● Paul Cziko, Visiting Assistant Research Professor, Biology
● George Evans, Professor, Economics
● Dan Gavin, Professor, Geography
● Lauren Hallet, Assistant Professor, ENVS and Biology
● David Hulse, Knight Professor of Landscape Architecture
● Bart Johnson, Professor, Landscape Architecture
● Pat McDowell, Professor, Geography
● Terry McQuilkin, Instructor, SOMD, and Classified Staff, UO Libraries, Senator
● Brook Muller, Professor, Architecture
● Kari Marie Norgaard, Associate Professor, ENVS and Sociology
● Eileen Otis, Associate Professor, Sociology
● Bitty Roy, Professor, Biology
Section I
Section II
Continue reading US17/18-14: Withdrawal of North Campus Conditional Use Permit
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake Rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, February 28, 2018
3:35 P.M. Business
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
DRAFT
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, February 14, 2018 & Consent Calendar
3:25 P.M. Business
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
It’s that time of year when we hope faculty will begin thinking about serving in the Senate or on one of the many Senate committees next year. And it’s always time to sit down and talk with your dean about how things are going in your school or college. So, the Senate has decided to combine the two by offering a series of school- and college-centered nights at the Faculty Club. You’ll be able to talk with your dean and we’ll tell you about ways you can provide service to the university through the Senate.
In addition, we’ve arranged for Provost Jayanth Banavar and UO President Mike Schill to have their own nights at the Faculty Club. All faculty are invited to attend on those nights.
These events will be on Wednesdays and Thursdays through the rest of Winter Term from 5 – 6:30 pm in the Faculty Club at the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. Here’s the schedule so far:
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Sarah Nutter, Lundquist College of Business
Thursday, February 22, 2018
Andrew Marcus, CAS
Hal Sadofsky, CAS Divisional Dean – Natural Sciences
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Provost Banavar
Thursday, March 1, 2018
Bruce Blonigen, CAS Dean for Faculty & Operations
Phil Scher, CAS Divisional Dean – Social Sciences
Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Randy Kamphaus, College of Education
Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Juan-Carlos Molleda, School of Journalism & Communication
Christoph Lindner, College of Design
Thursday, March 15, 2018
President Schill
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake Rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, January 31, 2018
3:35 P.M. Business
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
From Senate VP Harbaugh:
In response to the news about the UO Foundation’s efforts to modify the terms of former Professor Marion Dean Ross’s bequest to the Department of Art History, I’ve made a request to the Oregon DOJ for information about other Foundation modification requests. I will add these to this post, along with any additional Ross Fund documents, when I receive them.
Ross Fund documents:
At the recommendation of the Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, President Schill has signed a new temporary policy on Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power: Sexual or Romantic Relationships with Students.
The short version is:
It is a Conflict of Interest and abuse of power for: (1) faculty members and staff to engage in sexual or romantic relationships (Relationships) with students enrolled in their classes or otherwise subject to their supervision or evaluation; (2) staff members to engage in sexual or romantic relationships with students subject to their supervision or authority; and (3) work supervisors to engage in sexual or romantic relationship with students subject to their supervision or evaluation. Conflicts of Interest can occur even when both parties have consented to the relationship.
The full policy is found at: https://policies.uoregon.edu/conflicts-interest-and-abuses-power-sexual-or-romantic-relationships-students
The CSGBV will be working on a permanent policy to replace this temporary one.
Date of Notice: January 22, 2018
Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate President
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS Core Education (also referred to as general education) requires extensive faculty oversight that currently cannot be provided by existing Senate committees; and
1.2 WHEREAS Core Education needs revision and revitalization to better serve students and comply with accreditation standards; and
1.3 WHEREAS the University’s general accreditor, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) suggested the university form a faculty committee to perform the tasks described above;
Section II
2.1. THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate hereby creates the Core Education Council per the parameters laid out in the 17 pt chart in the Related Documents section below; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Senate directs the Committee on Committees to set the length of initial terms for elected members of the Core Education Council in a manner which ensures minimal variation in the number of open seats on the Council in subsequent years.
Related Documents
17 Point Chart – FINAL-03/09/2018
Date of Effectiveness:
Associate Vice Provost for Academic Excellence Ron Bramhall and the chair of the Senate Core Ed Task Force Chris Sinclair gave the presentation below to the University Senate in the 1/17/18 meeting.
This was the first of many discussions in the Senate this year on issues surrounding general education at the University of Oregon.
The Core Ed Task Force is interested in feedback from the university community regarding these discussions. Please leave comments here or email them to csinclai@uoregon.edu
Consent Calendar Process (Per US17/18-04)
1.1 WHEREAS any Senator may question an item’s inclusion in the Consent Calendar prior to the final vote. The Senate President shall ask the Senator to explain the objection and then shall ask if someone else wishes to second the objection. If so, an item shall be removed and shall come before the Senate for consideration instead as a regular, debatable motion under the Senate’s normal rules of order.
1.2 WHEREAS The Senate shall vote en bloc and without debate on any items on a Consent Calendar, except for any item that has been removed in accordance with paragraph 2.1.2.
1.3 WHEREAS Senators shall receive at least 5 business days’ notice of items placed on a Consent Calendar before that Consent Calendar may come before the Senate for approval. Such notice can be via email, via the Senate website and blog, or via other practical means for communicating with Senators.
APPROVED January 31, 2018
US17/18-09
3.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that University Senate approves the revisions of the following policy per the draft compiled by the Senate Executive Committee in consultation with AVP Mariann Hyland (please see second link):
02.01.03 Faculty Merit Increase Factors (REVISE)
*** Draft Policy with Senate Exec proposed changes
Provost Merit Raise Policy Guidelines
US17/18-10
3.2 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the REPEAL of OUS 01 Academic Calendar and the REVISIONS to IMD 2.025 Academic Calendar
Dear Research Community,
We received notice from the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and 15 other federal departments and agencies have announced an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that delays the revised “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (also known as the Common Rule) which was scheduled to go into effect January 19, 2018. The IFR delays the effective date and general compliance date of the revisions to the Common Rule to July 19, 2018. For the full text of the federal register notice, click here.
Until July 19, 2018, institutions are required to comply with the pre-2018 Common Rule. RCS has reviewed our most recently developed and issued materials to ensure only those that continue to comply with the pre-2018 Common Rule are available to the research community.
RCS will continue to keep the research community informed through our dedicated Revised Common Rule website. Please feel free to contact Research Compliance Services with any questions.
We request that you share this message with your colleagues conducting human subject research to ensure they are informed of this news.
Thank you,
Research Compliance Services
researchcompliance@uoregon.edu
541-346-2510
rcs.uoregon.edu
|
Date of Notice: January 10, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Motion Sponsor: Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of Academic Council and UOCC
Motion
Section I
1.1 Whereas HB 2998 states “Community colleges and public universities listed in ORS 352.002 shall:
(a) Evaluate existing one-year curricula for students at a public post-secondary institution of education who plan to transfer to a different public post-secondary institution of education; and
(b) Establish a foundational curriculum, or foundational curricula, for the first year of coursework at public post-secondary institutions of education in this state.
(2) A foundational curriculum established under subsection (1) of this section must contain a minimum of 30 college-level academic credits.
(3) Students at a community college who complete a foundational curriculum established under subsection (1) of this section shall:
(a) Be able to transfer each academic credit contained within the foundational curriculum from a community college to any public university listed in ORS 352.002; and
(b) Have each academic credit from the foundational curriculum be counted towards the student’s degree requirements at any public university listed in ORS 352.002., and
1.2 Whereas the existing AA/OT and OTM defines a 90 credit and 45 credit curriculum respectively with course attributes defined by Senate approved criteria and outcomes, and
1.3 Whereas these existing criteria and outcomes need updating, therefore,
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the Senate approves the Foundational Curricula approved by the Undergraduate Council on Jan 10th, 2018 and by the UOCC on Jan 12th, 2018, and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the senate approves the updating of the course criteria and outcomes as approved by the Undergraduate Council on Jan 10th, 2018 and by the UOCC on Jan 12th, 2018.
Related Documents
HB 2998 Report – Final Commission
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake Rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, November 29, 2017
3:35 P.M. Business
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Date of Notice: November 15, 2017
Current Status: Approved January 31, 2018
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Senator
UPDATE: Jan. 31, 2018 – From Senate Executive Committee
The Senate Executive Committee to whom was referred the Resolution of Senator Mobasser on the subject of the campus response to White Supremacist activity on campus, beg leave to submit the following report.
Report of the Senate Executive Committee
In consideration of the intent of Senator Mobasser’s original resolution, the accepted and proposed amendments of Senator Gary, Freyd and Garcia-Caro, and in consultation with these Senators and others from the constituencies represented by the University Senate, the Senate Executive Committee moves that the University Senate substitute the entire text of Senator Mobasser’s resolution with the following text:
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Mission Statement of the University of Oregon states:
“We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community”; and
1.2 WHEREAS UO students have approached the UO administration with their concerns about UO policies and US policies that affect their well-being, safety, and academic success; and
1.3 WHEREAS White Supremacist speakers and White Supremacist groups have been increasingly present on the University of Oregon campus; and
1.4 WHEREAS White Supremacist groups have increased efforts to recruit on college campuses; and
1.5 WHEREAS far right and White Supremacist groups historically and currently leverage free speech rights to incite violence at public universities; and
1.6 WHEREAS a commitment to free speech carries a concomitant duty to speak out in defense of values of democracy and inclusivity against the forces of racism and White Supremacy; and
1.7 WHEREAS the history of White Supremacist organizations’ connection to violence against minority groups is unambiguous; and
1.8 WHEREAS the State of Oregon has a history of White Supremacist group activity; and
1.9 WHEREAS the Department of Homeland Security has stated that White Supremacist groups “continue to pose a persistent threat of lethal violence” to racial/ethnic/religious minorities; and
1.10 WHEREAS hate and bias incidents have increased by nearly 40% in Eugene, Oregon between 2015 and 2016, roughly half of which were racially motivated, as per the City of Eugene 2015 and 2016 Hate and Bias Reports; and
1.11 WHEREAS the UO campus still prominently displays signs and monuments that glorify white colonization and domination, while failing to do enough to honor the work and sacrifices made for justice and equity; and
1.12 WHEREAS, although campus has began to recognize people of color, women, and others of diverse backgrounds marginalized voices through actions such as the renaming of Dunn Hall to Unthank Hall and the naming of Kalapuya Ilihi residence hall, there is still more to be done.
Section II
2.1 BE IT RESOLVED that the UO Senate denounces the views and actions of White Supremacist, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazi groups as incompatible with the values of our university community; and
2.2 BE IT RESOLVED that the UO Senate urges the university administration and community to speak out in unity against White Supremacist, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazi groups to protect our values and our position as an institution of higher learning, and to protect the safety of members of our community who are most affected by their actions and message of hate; and
2.3 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that we request that the University President in consultation with the Senate President and student leaders, convene an ad hoc task force comprised of members from all campus constituencies to discuss, identify and propose campus education about the UO’s history as it relates to diversity and inclusivity, as well as recommend changes, modifications and additions to spaces and monuments which still narrate the campus along the lines of white supremacist mythologies.
UPDATE: Jan. 17, 2018 – referred back to Senate Exec Committee for further revisions – REDLINE VERSION
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Mission Statement of the University of Oregon states:
“We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community”; and
1.2 WHEREAS UO students have approached the UO administration with their concerns about UO policies and US policies that affect their well-being, safety, and academic success; and
1.3 WHEREAS White Supremacist speakers and White Supremacist groups have been increasingly present on the University of Oregon campus; and
1.4 WHEREAS White Supremacist groups have increased efforts to recruit on college campuses; and
1.5 WHEREAS far right and White Supremacist organizations groups historically and currently leverage used disingenuous appeals to “free speech” in order to gain access to rights to incite violence at public universities; and
1.6 WHEREAS other public universities have denied platforms to specific White Supremacist speakers/groups; and
1.6 WHEREAS a commitment to free speech carries a concomitant duty to speak out in defense of values of democracy and inclusivity against the forces of racism and White Supremacy; and
1.7 WHEREAS the history of White Supremacist organizations’ connection to violence against minority groups is unambiguous; and
1.8 WHEREAS the State of Oregon has a history of White Supremacist group activity; and
1.9 WHEREAS the Department of Homeland Security has stated that White Supremacist groups “continue to pose a persistent threat of lethal violence” to racial/ethnic/religious minorities; and
1.10 WHEREAS hate and bias incidents have increased by nearly 40% in Eugene, Oregon between 2015 and 2016, roughly half of which were racially motivated, as per the City of Eugene 2015 and 2016 Hate and Bias Reports; and
1.11 WHEREAS the UO campus still prominently displays signs and monuments that glorify white colonization and domination, while failing to do enough to honor the work and sacrifices made for justice and equity; and
1.12 WHEREAS, although campus has began to recognize people of color, women, and others of diverse backgrounds through actions such as the renaming of Dunn Hall to Unthank Hall and the naming of Kalapuya Ilihi residence hall, there is still more to be done.
1.12 WHEREAS White Supremacist speech and organizing is a significant threat to our stated values, and members of our university community, especially marginalized demographics;
Section II
2.1 BE IT RESOLVED that the UO Senate denounces the views and actions of White Supremacist, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazi groups as incompatible with the values of our university community; and recognizes their organizing on campus as a significant threat to the university community and our stated values; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UO Senate urges the university administration and community to unite in solidarity speak out in unity against White Supremacist, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazi groups to protect our values and our position as an institution of higher learning, and to prioritize protect the safety of members of our community who are most affected by their actions and message of hate.
2.3 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that we request the University President, in consultation with the Senate President and student leaders, appoint convene an ad hoc committee task force charged with recommending the creation, placement, and wording of at least four plaques to be placed in relevant locations on campus (such as next to the Pioneer statues) designed to inform the community (consistent with our educational mission) about the history of white supremacy and/or its resistance on the University Campus, with the intention that the plaques will be in place by September 15, 2018. comprised of faculty, students, staff and administrators comprised of members from all campus constituencies to discuss, identify and propose campus education about the UO’s history as it relates to diversity and inclusivity, as well as recommend changes, modifications, and additions to spaces and monuments which still narrate the campus along the lines of white supremacist mythologies.
Resolution language to be replaced by the above amended text:
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS hate crimes have increased by nearly 40% in Eugene, Oregon between 2015 and 2016, roughly half of which were racially motivated, as per the City of Eugene 2016 Hate and Bias Report; and
1.2 WHEREAS White Supremacist groups have been allowed on the University of Oregon campus by the administration; and
1.3 WHEREAS White Supremacist speech and organizing is a direct threat to members of our university community, especially marginalized demographics;
Section II
2.1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UO Senate denounces White Supremacist speech and organizing on campus as a direct threat to the university community; and
2.2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the UO Senate urges University of Oregon administration to pledge that they will dissuade and minimize the impact of White Nationalists and other hate groups on this campus to the best of their ability.
Related Documents:
Flyer 1
Flyer 2
Flyer 3
Flyer 4
Flyer 5
White Nationalist Sticker
Student Collective Handout
White Supremacist Intelligence Memo
White Supremacist Infiltration doc
White Supremacist website
Date of Notice: November 13, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee
DRAFT
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the University Senate’s bylaws allow for the adoption of internal procedures and special rules of order (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2); and
1.2 WHEREAS a mechanism known as a Consent Calendar will expedite meetings by consolidating apparently non-controversial action items such as, but not limited to, minor university policy changes or enactments, the adoption of reports, or similar matters; and
1.3 WHEREAS a Consent Calendar is a common tool used by parliamentary bodies;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the University Senate hereby adopts, as a special rule of order, the use of a Consent Calendar as follows:
2.1.1 The Senate Executive Committee may place a matter on the Consent Calendar.
2.1.2 Any Senator may question an item’s inclusion in the Consent Calendar prior to the final vote. The Senate President shall ask the Senator to explain the objection and then shall ask if someone else wishes to second the objection. If so, an item shall be removed and shall come before the Senate for consideration instead as a regular, debatable motion under the Senate’s normal rules of order.
2.1.3 The Senate shall vote en bloc and without debate on any items on a Consent Calendar, except for any item that has been removed in accordance with paragraph 2.1.2.
2.1.4 Senators shall receive at least 5 business days’ notice of items placed on a Consent Calendar before that Consent Calendar may come before the Senate for approval. Such notice can be via email, via the Senate website and blog, or via other practical means for communicating with Senators. Such items shall also be listed in the Senate Agenda.
[Scroll down to see expedited tenure policy synopsis for a selection of comparators]
Date of Notice: October 4, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Boris Botvinnik (Math), Faculty Personnel Committee
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon occasionally seeks to hire tenured full professors from other colleges and universities, and, in even fewer cases, seeks to hire researchers who are not faculty but are nevertheless outstanding in their fields; and
1.2 WHEREAS the standing of such possible new tenured faculty is verified in part by previous peer reviewed tenure and promotion processes or, in the case of researchers, by the national and international research community; and
1.3 WHEREAS the faculty of the tenure-home unit of the possible new faculty reviews each case and votes to approve the appointment, tenure, and rank of the candidate; and
1.4 WHEREAS the Faculty Personnel Committee of the University Senate represents the faculty in every promotion and tenure review case; and
1.5 WHEREAS the current system of review requires that any new hire, regardless of rank, be evaluated by the full tenure and promotion process, and
1.6 WHEREAS this system puts the University of Oregon at a competitive disadvantage when attempting to hire such faculty;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate establish an expedited tenure review process that conforms to the following rules:
2.2 The expedited tenure process is not appropriate for faculty members or academic administrators who are currently employed and/or under contract at the University of Oregon.
2.3 If a unit faculty votes to hire a new faculty member at the rank of full professor, and votes to recommend indefinite tenure to the candidate based on the candidates’ application materials, and the Provost and the Dean of the relevant School or College agrees with the hiring and tenure recommendation of the unit, then the faculty and the Dean can forward the possible new faculty member’s dossier to the Faculty Personnel Committee for an expedited promotion and tenure review; and
2.4 The expedited review shall be conducted by a subcommittee of the Faculty Personnel Committee consisting of five members (with one member selected as chair by the subcommittee) and will include three FPC members from the College of Arts and Sciences (one from each division) and two FPC members from the other schools and colleges. The members of this committee, to be called the Expedited Tenure Review Committee (ETRC), will be elected annually by the FPC. The ERTC will be composed with attention to equity, diversity and inclusion. ETRC members shall recuse themselves from the consideration of tenure cases in their unit. Vacancies, including those that arise from recusals, will be filled by the FPC chair after consulting the FPC membership; and
2.5 The ETRC will be “on call” through the academic year and the summer term to review cases and make recommendations to the Provost. The ETRC will meet at least once each fall with the Provost to discuss process and standards and select a chair for the year; and
2.6 The ETRC, upon completion of its review, will report their recommendation to the hiring unit, and will provide the compiled tenure dossier, which shall include all information upon which they have made their recommendation, to the hiring unit. Relevant members of the unit, as specified by the unit governance documents, shall have three five business days after receipt of the dossier to change their vote for indefinite tenure and to notify the ETRC about any such changes. The ETRC shall consider any changes to the unit tenure vote and either recommend to the Provost that the possible new faculty member should receive indefinite tenure and the rank of full professor or require that the faculty member be reviewed by the full promotion and tenure process; and
2.7 The ETRC will determine what materials should be considered in their review, but such materials must include at a minimum the following: candidate’s cv, all relevant research materials, a quantitative assessment of the candidate’s work and impact if available, and at least three five external evaluations, three of which may be letters from application process and at least two of which must be external evaluations (by letter or by a phone call conducted by a member of the ETRC). The latter two evaluators must be selected by the committee from a list of possible evaluators prepared by the hiring department(s) and not including anyone listed among the candidate’s references. The ETRC will carefully document any non-written evaluations for inclusion in the tenure dossier. The ETRC may request other information as it sees fit through the dean of the relevant school or college. Failure of a dean to provide requested information may result in the ETRC requiring the candidate be reviewed by the full promotion and tenure process.
2.8 Materials collected for each review will be available to all members of the FPC and FPC members may provide comments to the ETRC until the ETRC concludes its deliberations and makes its decision on the case.
2.9 The FPC shall be responsible for tracking when an individual is awarded tenure via the expedited process and will include in their annual report to the Senate the number of cases considered by the ETRC and the number of cases in which tenure was awarded via the expedited process.
Financial Impact: The process potentially saves time and other resources expediting the review of cases that are likely to be approved by a full review.
Expedited Tenure: Miscellaneous Policies and Practices at Other Universities
University of Maryland
Policy Title: Appointment, Promotion and Tenure of Faculty – Expedited Appointments
https://pdc-svpaap1.umd.edu/policies/documents/APTManual.pdf (see page 15)
Policy Statement:
“In cases where a unit has identified a potential faculty hire it has reason to believe is highly competitive and warrants an expedited review (sometimes referred to as a “target of opportunity” appointment), the review process can be streamlined. To qualify for this streamlined process, candidates would be nominated by both the Chair and the Dean and approved by the Provost’s Office. Such candidates normally would hold tenure and the comparable rank at another institution. The streamlined process could also be used for scholars considered for administrative positions.
Appointments at this level for consideration of tenure could substitute three evaluative letters from the search process for the three external reviewers nominated by the candidate, and the candidate’s CV submitted in connection with the search may be used, and need not be signed.
The review process would proceed as follows:
For non-departmentalized Colleges, the review at the campus level should include a review by an ad-hoc committee formed by the Provost with a minimum of three persons drawn from members of the current University Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.”
Penn State University
Policy Title: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations (full policy attached)
“An initial appointment at the rank of associate professor or professor may be made with grant of tenure, with the approval of the Executive Vice President and Provost and the President of the University in accord with University guidelines that prescribe immediate tenure reviews.” (See “Guidelines for Immediate Tenure Reviews”)
University of Virginia
Policy Title: Promotion and Tenure – Section 9: Expedited Review
Policy Statement:
“Whenever possible, faculty promotion and tenure or new faculty hires should have tenure status reviewed or granted through the processes described above. When this is not possible and a rapid decision to hire with tenure is needed or a retention counter-offer with promotion and/or tenure must be made quickly, an expedited review may take place in accordance with the procedures described below.”
Expedited Review Procedures:
These procedures make it possible for faculty review to be completed in a compressed time period; they are not intended to bypass normal review processes.
Promotion and tenure review requires:
In expedited review, the chair and dean may appoint a sub-committee consisting of no fewer than three faculty members who are members of the department or school promotion and tenure committee or who usually participate in these decisions. The subcommittee reviews the nomination and provides the chair or dean with a decision in no more than three days. Once the provost receives the dean’s recommendation, the provost reviews the nomination and makes a decision as quickly as possible, generally within two weeks.
Materials submitted in a dossier for expedited review should be similar to those normally included in a promotion dossier, including a complete, detailed curriculum vitae. Three outside, arms-length letters, are acceptable, provided they address the candidate’s suitability for the faculty rank and tenure. A candidate’s cover letter or research plans may substitute for the usual statement in the dossier. While it is not necessary to include letters from UVA faculty colleagues or students, it is essential to include evidence of the faculty member’s teaching effectiveness. A summary of teaching evaluations from the University or the prior institution, teaching awards, and other documentation may provide evidence of effective teaching. Incomplete dossiers will delay review.
Montana State University
Policy Title: Expedited Tenure Review at Hire
http://www.montana.edu/policy/faculty_handbook/standards_timelines.html
Policy Statement:
“The finalist for a tenurable faculty or administrator position who holds tenure at an accredited institution of higher education with comparable tenure standards is eligible for an expedited tenure review at the time of hire. With the agreement of the finalist, the provost will authorize the administrator of the relevant primary academic unit to forward the finalist’s application materials and any supporting materials to the unit’s promotion and tenure committee for consideration.
The primary review committee will forward their recommendation for successive consideration by the primary review administrator, the intermediate review administrator (if applicable), and the provost. The provost will assess the application materials and previous recommendations, and make a recommendation to the president.
If the president approves the award of tenure at hire, they will forward that recommendation to the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education for consideration by the Board of Regents at the next appropriate Board meeting. If the decision of the Board is favorable, the effective date of tenure will be recorded as the date of hire.”
University of Arizona
Policy Title: Off-Cycle Review of Promotion and Tenure or Continuing Status
http://facultyaffairs.arizona.edu/off-cycle-review-promotion-tenure-continuing-status
Policy Statement:
“In exceptional circumstances, due to retention or pre-emptive situations, it may be necessary for department and colleges to review cases for promotion and tenure or continuing status outside the normal University review schedule. The Department Head, with the endorsement and approval of the College Dean must seek permission from the Provost or his/her designee to initiate a candidate’s review outside the normal University cycle. The Department Head and College Dean must articulate the circumstances prompting the request for an off-cycle review.
Having received permission to conduct an off-cycle review, both the Department and the College must follow their normal review process for reviewing promotion and tenure or continuing status. This includes requesting and providing the requisite number of letters from external reviewers as set forth in the University of Arizona P&T and CS&P guidelines.
The College forwards the recommendations and appropriate documentation to the Office of the Provost. The Provost, with the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, will determine the final outcome of the review.
The agreement to offer expedited reviews is not to be included in offer letters to potential hires. Only the Provost or his/her designee can approve the initiation of a candidate’s promotion and tenure or continuing status review outside of the normal University cycle.”
Arizona State University
Policy Title: Tenure – Expedited Review for Tenure
Policy Statement:
Current Faculty
The university reserves the right to conduct an expedited review for awarding tenure to a faculty member when such action will serve the best interests of ASU. The decision to conduct an expedited tenure review is an exception to the regular tenure review described above and will be approved only in extraordinary circumstances, which could include, but are not limited to:
ASU has no obligation to consider or approve an expedited review at the request of the faculty member even for the circumstances listed above. For information about the expedited review procedures, see P4, “Expedited Review for Tenure-Eligible Faculty Process Guide.”
Every effort will be made to conclude an expedited review within 21 calendar days following the initiation of the review or as soon as possible thereafter.
Decision
The president of the university will make the decision to award or deny expedited tenure and appropriate faculty rank and will notify the provost of the university and dean orally as soon as possible after decision is made. The dean will notify the unit head and the faculty candidate as soon as possible thereafter. The president will provide a written notice of the decision within ten days to the same university administrators and the unit head and faculty member.
UC Santa Barbara
APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION POLICY
Professor Series
The [tenure and promotion] case may also be referred by the Chancellor to an ad hoc review committee. If such referral occurs, the review committee is appointed by the Chancellor or designated representative, upon nominations provided by the Committee on Academic Personnel. The members of the review committee will normally be of rank at least equal to that proposed for the individual to be reviewed. The Chancellor shall transmit to the review committee the recommendation file, including any information received subsequent to the department review, and a copy of the latest version of the President’s Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees In accordance with these instructions, taking into account all the available evidence, the review committee shall make its evaluation of the case and submit its recommendation to the Chancellor who thereupon forwards the report and accompanying file to the Committee on Academic Personnel. The latter committee, on the basis of all available evidence, submits a comprehensive report and recommendation to the Chancellor. The ad hoc review committee and the Committee on Academic Personnel reports should not identify individuals who have provided confidential letters of evaluation except by code.
Dear Senate President Chris Sinclair and Vice President Bill Harbaugh,
Attached, please find a letter from President Schill regarding Senate Resolution US17/18-02. Please distribute this letter to the members of the University of Oregon Senate.
Sincerely,
Office of the President
President Schill’s letter to the Senate on 11.28.17 in response to the US17/18-02: Resolution to Support the UO Student Collective
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:40 P.M. Approval of Minutes, November 1, 2017 and November 15, 2017
3:45 P.M. Business
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Common Reading at the UO has been a campus-wide program in Undergraduate Studies since 2014. Its goals are building community, enriching curriculum, and engaging research through the shared reading of an important book.
The selected book for 2017-18 is Louise Erdrich’s The Round House. Guest scholars and artists as well as UO faculty, staff, and students have been engaging with the book and its associated themes and contexts. Curricular resources are available for faculty using the book in classrooms as well as discussion groups throughout campus (See https://commonreading.uoregon.edu/roundhouse/). A list of past, current, and upcoming public events for the academic year can be found at https://commonreading.uoregon.edu/events/.
The Common Reading Selection Committee for 2018-19 invites input from Senate members on the current shortlist of nominated books based on the theme of transborder/transnational. A call for book nominations on this theme was sent throughout campus networks in October, and 46 nominations were received. Reviewing the nominations through the lens of the selection criteria, the committee determined that 12 of the nominations should go forward for the next round of review. Committee members are currently learning more about each of these books.
As part of the committee’s review process, we invite all Senate members to share insights on the list provided below. Comments can be shared via commonreading@uoregon.edu by Monday, December 4. Selection criteria are available at https://commonreading.uoregon.edu/about-the-common-reading/.
Common Reading Book Nominations currently under review.
1) Exit West by Mohsin Hamid
2) The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui
3) Home Fire by Kamila Shamsie
4) This Muslim American Life: Dispatches from the War on Terror by Moustafa Bayoumi
5) Salvage the Bones by Jesmyn Ward
6) Homegoing by Yaa Gyasi
7) No Longer At Ease by Chinua Achebe
8) A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki
9) Lucky Boy by Shanthi Sekaran
10) Under the Feet of Jesus by Helena Maria Viramontes
11) They Leave their Kidneys in the Fields: Illness, Injury, and “Illegality” Among US Farmworkers by Sarah Bronwen Horton
12) The Land of Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail by Jason De Leon
Date of Notice: November 8, 2017
Current Status: Approved November 15, 2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee
Motion
Section II
2.1 Hearing no objections, the University Senate confirms the following members of the Committee on Committees (CoC):
John Bonine, (Faculty) Law
Ben Brinkley (OA), CASIT
Lowell Bowditch (Faculty), Classics
Chris Chavez (Faculty), SOJC
Ali Emami (Faculty), Business
Rob Kry (Faculty), Music
Gordon Sayre (Faculty), English
Mike Strain (Research Faculty), CAMCOR
Holly Syljuberget (OA), Business Affairs
Chuck Theobald, LISB Staff
Annie Zeidman-Karpinski, UO Libraries
Bill Harbaugh, Ex Officio
Mariann Hyland, Ex Officio
Betina Lynn, Ex Officio
Date of Notice: November 15, 2017
Current Status: Approved November 29, 2017
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Student Senator
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the Mission Statement of the University of Oregon states: “We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community”; and
1.2 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Free Inquiry and Speech states “Free speechis central to the academic mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic society.” [Emphasis added]; and
“The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community.”; and
1.3 WHEREAS UO students have approached the UO administration with their concerns about UO policies and US policies that affect their well-being, safety, and academic success; and
1.4 WHEREAS the preamble of the Student Conduct Code reads:
“The primary mission of the Student Conduct Code is to set forth the community standards and procedures necessary to maintain and protect an environment conducive to learning and in keeping with the educational objectives of the University of Oregon. Founded upon the principle of freedom of thought and expression, an environment conducive to learning is one that preserves the freedom to learn — where academic standards are strictly upheld and where the rights, safety, dignity and worth of every individual are respected.” [Emphasis added]; and
1.5 WHEREAS overzealous disciplinary action against students may result in the repression of dissent and free speech and continues to harm these students’ academic success; and
1.6 WHEREAS UO officials have made public statements that may prejudice the adjudication of the alleged conduct code violations; and
1.7 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Academic Freedom says
“Members of the university community have freedom to address, question, or criticize any matter of institutional policy or practice, whether acting as individuals or as members of an agency of institutional governance.”
and
“These freedoms derive immediately from the university’s basic commitment to advancing knowledge and understanding. The academic freedoms enumerated in this policy shall be exercised without fear of institutional reprisal. Only serious abuses of this policy – ones that rise to the level of professional misbehavior or professional incompetence – should lead to adverse consequences. Any such determinations shall be made in accordance with established, formal procedures involving judgment by relevant peers.”
and yet despite this requirement, relevant peers have not been involved in this conduct code judgement process.
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate recognizes that the students involved in the protest at the State of the University Address succeeded in bringing significant matters of academic concern and student well-being to the attention of the university community, and that we urge that this be taken into consideration when judging their discipline cases; and
2.3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate calls on the the Student Conduct Code and Community Standards Committee to ensure that the Student Conduct Code is revised to include student peers in judgements on disciplinary cases involving free speech, as required by the Policy on Academic Freedom. Given the importance of free speech and academic freedom, the Senate urges the Committee to develop Student Conduct Code procedures distinct from standard discipline charges; and
2.4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UO Senate urges the administration to cease the Student Conduct disciplinary charges process and pledges to support student protesters during the disciplinary appeals process; and
2.5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate supports the conversations the administration has now initiated with the UO Student Collective and that the Senate will continue to provide a forum for all students.
Related Documents:
President’s Response – 12/01/2017
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
4:00 P.M. Approval of Minutes, November 1, 2017
4:00 P.M. New Business
4:45 P.M. Open Discussion
4:45 P.M. Reports
4:45 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Please find President Schill’s response to Senator Wyden’s letter (below) asking for more information about the UO’s Student Conduct & Community Standards Committee processes regarding a 2016 incident with a UO basketball player HERE.
November 6, 2017
Dear President Michael Schill and Trustees of the University of Oregon:
We write in a unified voice as representatives of major constituencies at the UO to express our concern with the response of your office to the October 6, 2017 student protest of the State of the University Address. During the demonstration, activists took the stage and presented a list of demands created by a coalition of students. Your actions since this event have potentially endangered these students by calling out their actions in a national venue, and have escalated tensions in such a way as to obscure the concerns which precipitated the protest.
Since the protest, you have availed yourself of campus, community, and national platforms to express your voice and reading of events. This is in contradiction to the claim that you were silenced. Further, your New York Times OpEd obscured the nature of the tensions that energized the protest and narrowly framed the circumstances in an analysis of free speech devoid of any consideration of the relationship between power and access to platforms for speech. Any appreciation of academic freedom and free speech must grapple with power. For faculty and graduate instructors, it is understood that any privileged platform brings responsibilities to assure speech opportunities for all voices in the classroom, not just the more vocal, visible and privileged. The bedrock of civil society rests on the parallel notion that democracy works when spaces are available for all voices, even those viewed as disruptive, unusual, or repugnant. In hearing these voices, a collective adjustment to institutions can be advanced to include the marginalized or oppressed, and repugnant or bigoted views can be rebutted. Power and platform are at the center of our practical applications of free speech and academic freedom. So far, you have not given consideration to this important dimension of the subject.
The actions of your office, particularly your New York Times OpEd, have escalated tensions, and exposed our students to intimidation and ugly responses by online commenters. We find it disturbing that you did not anticipate this outcome. Under this national mockery, our students are castigated and put in a vulnerable position; they are denied an equivalent platform for their version of the events, and have lost any semblance of due process.
We understand and support your call for debate and discussion about what transpired on October 6th. We also recognize that in this debate, the student activist perspective matters and needs consideration.
That the protest lasted less than 15 minutes, and that there appeared to be only a slight effort to reclaim the stage by you or your staff, has left many wondering how much your departure from the room was pre-planned. Is discipline warranted if, as University President, you did not attempt to earnestly engage this minor protest?
Major public universities, especially ones in the throes of state disinvestment, rising tuition, privatization, and shifting priorities, routinely experience visible protest. This recent event is no different. Instead of a healthy campus conversation, your administration is pursuing sanctions. The threat of sanctions stifle this important conversation.
The October 30t h letter from Associate Director for Student Conduct and Community Standards, Katy Larkin, accused a number of students and non-students with misconduct charges in connection to this event. These accusations include “Disruption of University” and “Failure to Comply”. This effort to conduct a disciplinary investigation is rife with problems:
1 ) Factual ambiguities: you and your staff left the event within 10 minutes, never allowing for other outcomes through the duration of the planned event;
2) Anticipation of conflict, not engagement: your email and video are evidence that plans were made in advance of the scheduled speech and protest, suggesting that instead of dialogue, your office wanted to make an example of these students;
3) Lack of oversight: these charges were brought with no oversight by the Student Conduct and Community Standards Committee;
4) Intimidation : the disciplinary investigation letter is likely to be read as an intimidation tactic, contrary to the very values of academic dialogue that you advocated in your email to the campus and, implicitly, in the NYT OpEd;
5) Investigatory Errors: more transparency in the investigatory process is needed. Some of the students who received letters WERE NOT at the event, implying problems with the implementation of the process, and the surveillance of student social media activity by your administration;
6) Derailing due process: the options presented in the sanction letter to students (to accept the charges or contest them in a closed session administrative conference) is an embarrassment to due process as your administration has already implicated these students as guilty in the local and national media; and
7) Lack of just representation and counsel: the Office of Student Advocacy has denied fees-paying students advice, citing a ‘conflict of interest’ without explanation. These students were only given 7 days to respond, and this inability to seek out advice has severely hindered students’ ability to seek alternative counsel for this vulnerable situation.
In our view, this has gone too far. It is time to de-escalate. We ask that you cease the punitive measures against students and engage in a dialogue without the cloud of threat or intimidation. The UO Student Collective, which includes students who were involved in the protest, will have the floor to present their concerns to the University Senate on November 15. This is a much better venue for beginning a campus dialogue than the other highly constrained venue that you have pursued thus far.
Signed,
Imani Dorsey, ASUO State Affairs Commissioner
Michael Dreiling, President, United Academics
Jessica Neafie, President, Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation
Chris Sinclair, President, University Senate
Below is a draft of proposed changes to the Student Conduct Code. The Board of Trustees, in their Delegation of Authority Policy, has taken control of student conduct policy from the faculty. The Student Conduct Committee mentioned below, which is appointed by the UO President, does provide for some faculty input, but it has not yet been constituted:
a. The committee shall be appointed by the President and shall consist of four faculty members to be recommended by the Committee on Committees and four student members to be recommended by the ASUO. Faculty and student members shall serve staggered, two-year terms and may be reappointed, up to three consecutive terms, or a maximum of six years. The President may appoint temporary members to assure full Committee membership during summer session or at other times as are necessary.
b. The Director of Residence Life or designee, the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards and the Director of the Office of Student Advocacy shall be non-voting, ex-officio members of the Student Conduct Committee
Draft document of Proposed Changes to the Student Conduct Code
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, October 18, 2017
3:30 P.M. Business/Reports
4:30 P.M. Open Discussion
4:30 P.M. Reports
4:30 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:30 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
This month, a handful of student protesters at the University of Oregon blocked me from delivering my state-of-the-university speech, one of my jobs as president. I had planned to announce a $50 million gift that would fund several new programs. I ended up posting a recorded version of the speech online.
Armed with a megaphone and raised fists, the protesters shouted about the university’s rising tuition, a perceived corporatization of public higher education and my support for free speech on campus — a stance they said perpetuated “fascism and white supremacy.”
Read more [here].
Note that the Senate and Senate leadership do not necessarily endorse President Schill’s views in this op-ed. However, I do believe this is an important conversation we need to have as a campus and I am boosting the op-ed in the spirit of continued dialog on the topic. -CDS
I have been using Prezi to present the Senate agenda for the year. This document contains links and updates to various agenda items. It can be viewed in any modern web browser by following this link [Senate Agenda Prezi].
Dear President Schill:
I’ve had a number of conversations around campus with both students and faculty regarding the student protest of the State of the University address.
Here are some reflections:
The statement from Tobin Klinger to the Oregonian that the protest was in violation of the student conduct code is unhelpful and has irritated many faculty. Faculty see Klinger as an un-academic public relations spokesperson who has little credibility with the students or the faculty. However, he is an official spokesperson, and so we assume he was speaking for the administration. As such his statement could be taken as an abrogation of due process. This removes the veil of faculty oversight of student discipline, and there is simmering resentment that this power was taken from faculty by the Board of Trustees. Any unilateral administrative establishment of discipline on an issue that revolves around speech is a hornets nest that is best left un-kicked. We do understand that it may sometimes be necessary to “read the riot act” to students to notify them (or others) that continued assembly will be dealt with under the student conduct code.
My recommendation would be to have Tobin clarify his remarks and to state publicly that the university has no plans to charge any of the students in the protest with any conduct violation. Were actual conduct charges to be brought, I do not think you would have the support of the majority of the faculty nor students, and I think the Senate would react in a manner which you would find unproductive. A couple senators have already threatened a resolution to be introduced next Wednesday; we have a busy agenda that day and I would prefer to stay on task.
As you know, I have invited [the UO student collective] to come to the Senate for a brief 5-minute presentation followed by a 5-minute question and answer period. [The UO student collective] has not responded yet. In conversation with faculty, more individuals agree that this is the correct course of action for the Senate than agree with you that this is rewarding bad behavior. I will not argue that we are not rewarding bad behavior, because I see your point, but I think more people are moved by the argument that these students have fewer avenues to air their grievances than you or I, and that this was a legitimate protest.
I have been reflecting on my formal invitation of this student group to the next Senate meeting. Had I a do-over, I would take the advice of Frances White and merely indicate to this group that the Senate is a public forum on campus and that any group of students should be able to get on the agenda (with instructions on how to do so). This would allow the students an avenue for a public conversation without officially sanctioning it. I am unwilling to rescind my invitation to the student group, but I will hold onto this lesson for future use.
Thanks for considering my recommendations and for helping find a productive way out of this tricky situation,
—
Chris Sinclair
Assoc. Prof. Math
Senate President
University of Oregon
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, October 4, 2017
3:30 P.M. Business/Reports
4:50 P.M. Open Discussion
4:50 P.M. Reports
4:50 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Core Education Task Force
Accreditors want us to have a faculty committee responsible for supervising the “Core Education” requirements of the university. Core Education is taken to include general education requirements, multicultural requirements, required writing courses, and BA/BS requirements. This may also include first year programs such as FIGs (Freshman Interest Groups) and ARCs (Academic Residence Communities). The Senate needs a task force to specify the scope of such a committee and how it relates to the existing academic committee structure.
The Diversity, Power, Agency task force (DPA) has been asked to review the Multicultural Requirement (MCR) and make recommendations for updates/revisions. The following are excerpts from the task force’s conversations thus far. This project is ongoing and feedback is encouraged. Continue reading Diversity, Power, Agency Task Force
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:45 P.M. Approval of Minutes, June 7, 2017
3:45 P.M. New Business
4:30 P.M. Open Discussion
4:31 P.M. Reports
4:32 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Senate Leadership has been asked to recommend faculty for a number of committees and working groups. If you are interested in serving, please email senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu. Continue reading Faculty Openings on Committees and Task Forces
September 14, 2017
Bill Harbaugh
Senate Vice President
Dear Bill:
I hope that your summer has been restful and that your preparations for fall term are going smoothly.
As we look forward to the implementation stage of the Diversity Action Plans (DAPs), we are preparing an ecosystem of support that will facilitate the new programming as well as policies, partnerships, and innovations in our schools, colleges, and administrative units. The first step in this process is to reconfigure the University-Wide Diversity Committee (UWDC) as an infrastructure for IDEAL implementation, which will involve establishing and staffing a new committee and subcommittee structure. At that stage, we will need the participation of faculty, staff, GEs and students who are interested in this work. Attached, please find a table that we are using to guide the next phase of this process forward. The table lists the working groups being formed and their charges. The groups were selected based on tactics that appeared across multiple units’ DAPs.
I write today to ask for your assistance in identifying and recommending colleagues from the UO Senate, who can assist us in carrying out the next steps/working group charge for the following tactics:
* Climate Survey Development and Analytics
* Implicit Bias Professional Development*
* Evaluating Existing Workshops, Professional Development Programs/Gap Analysis*
* Recruiting Processes, Outlets, and Retention Tools*
* Professional Development Pilot Programs
* Leadership Succession Planning*
* Onboarding and Training for New Employees and New Supervisors*
While recommendations for service on any working group is welcome and appreciated, those groups flagged with an asterisk (*) are in the greatest need of membership.
As you recommend colleagues, please also suggest the capacity in which they might serve (committee member, chair, co-chair, etc.) Be assured that each of the committees and subcommittees will be staffed and supported by a DEI team member. It is our intent to ensure that meetings are carried efficiently and make the best use of committee members’ time and expertise.
It will be wonderful to get your feedback by September 30, 2017 so that we can include it in the proposed work plan for President Schill. Once we get approval from him, we will move forward to establish our working groups so that they are ready to begin meeting fall 2017. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Yvette M. Alex-Assensoh
Vice President for Equity and Inclusion
CC: Chris Sinclair
Lesley-Anne Pittard
Vickie De Rose
Kelly Pembleton
Samantha Zysett
A helpful reader passes on what he swears are actual Faculty Assembly Resolutions from the 82-82 academic year archives:
Resolutions: “The Assembly politely requests the President to convey to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second their hearty congratulations on the glorious resolution of the Falklands crisis.”
“The Assembly equally condemns the Nicaraguan persecution of the Moskito Indians and the actions of those Americans who support murder and vandalism in Northern Ireland.”
“The Assembly supplicates the President to open meetings with the following prayer: O Almighty Lord God, who for the sin of man didst once drown all the world, except eight persons, and afterward of thy great mercy didst promise never to destroy it so again; we humbly beseech thee, that although we for our iniquities have worthily deserved a plague of rain and waters, yet upon our true repentance thou wilt send us such weather, as that we may receive the fruits of the earth in due season….Amen. (If the weather changes, the prayer for rain may be substituted.)
Meetings will conclude with the singing of the Star Spangled Banner.”
“Be it resolved, that structural incongruity is essential to a liberal university.”
“Though it may not be common knowledge, the Soviet Union, and Tsarist Russia before it, have had a dismal record of unprovoked attacks on weaker nations. (Insert here a history of Russia from any standard encyclopedia.) Accordingly, the Assembly earnestly exhorts the President of the United States to use the greatest circumspection in arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. (To be moved as a substitute for Professor Straton’s motion)””
“In view of the alarming incidence of Herpes, the Assembly strongly recommends to members of the University community who do not have the gift of continence that they confine their sexual activities to monogamous relationships, preferably within the bonds of holy matrimony. Furthermore, pitying the plight of university graduates who cannot get teaching jobs because of the decline in the school population, the Assembly recommends that, where qualifications are equal, preference in new appointments shall be given to candidates who give promise of raising large families; and to reconcile this principle with affirmative action, the Assembly urges free child care facilities for married faculty. (To be moved as a substitute for Professor Ryan’s motion.)”
Motion: “Be it moved, that one can of worms is equal to any other can of worms.”
Policy creation at the University of Oregon is designed to ensure that policies are adequately vetted by various stakeholders and subject-matter experts during the drafting process and before being implemented. The entire process is laid out in the Policy on University Policies. As the process can be rather elaborate, the Office of Secretary of the University has provided a helpful cheat sheet.
The Honors Task Force, co-chaired by Jeremy Piger and Josh Snodgrass, has completed its work reviewing Honors Programs at the University of Oregon. The attached document contains the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Task Force. The document also contains a substantial amount of data that was collected during the process.
UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust – Diane Dietz, Register Guard
UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award – Kurt Willcox, University Senate
UO Senate Wayne Westling Award – Jennifer Freyd, Psychology
UO Senate Officer of Administration Leadership Award – Lisa Raleigh, College of Arts & Sciences
The Senate also thanks Scott Coltrane and Paul Simonds for their distinguished service to the University of Oregon.
Date of Notice: May 1, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of the UO Committee on Courses
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Spring 2017 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review, with the following amendments:
Approved:
Anth 243
Anth 274
EDLD 626
EDLD 631
EDLD 638
EDLD 643
Add admin actions:
KRN 403 Thesis (1-6R) [Pass/no pass only] Repeatable.
KRN 503 Thesis (1-6R) [Pass/no pass only] Repeatable.
Corrections:
GRST 621-should be listed with 4 credits, not 3
Anth 278-remove “effective spring 2017”
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approves the Spring 2017 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.
Related Documents
Spring 2017 Preliminary Curriculum Report
Spring 2017 Final Curriculum Report
UOCC Guidelines for approval of undergraduate online/hybrid classes
The annual written reports to the University Senate from the Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) Tim Gleason and the Athletics Director (AD) Rob Mullens have been submitted and are available below for your perusal:
Sent on behalf of Patrick Phillips, Acting Executive Director of the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific
Summer 2017 Knight Campus funding opportunity for UO student outreach programs offering professional development and mentoring to underrepresented groups in STEM fields.
The Knight Campus welcomes applications from groups seeking financial support for programs that encourage students to engage in scientific training with an emphasis on programs that encourage individuals from underrepresented groups in the STEM fields. The programs we envision supporting will have an element of student-governance in the programming and implementation while including significant faculty input and oversight. The programs can be focused on undergraduate and/or graduate students. We expect the programs to have a well-articulated approach to developing a social and academic community aimed at recruiting, engaging and retaining students in scientific fields; some form(s) of a mentoring program (peer, faculty, external); practical research opportunities and professional development training.
All submissions must provide evidence of significant faculty engagement. Awards of up to $30,000 will be made based on the needs articulated in the proposal. See eligibility and application guidelines below.
The Knight Campus will accept applications through Friday, June 2, 2017 at 5pm via email only – accelerate@uoregon.edu. Applicants will receive a response no later than Thursday, June 15, 2017. Questions should be posed via email to Moira Kiltie kiltie@uoregon.edu.
Eligibility Criteria
Application Instructions
REMINDER: Application deadline is Friday, June 2 at 5pm. All applications should be submitted by email to accelerate@uoregon.edu.
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms); 3:00-5:00 pm
3:00 pm Call to Order
3:35 pm Approval of Minutes, April 26, 2017
3:36 pm New Business
3:56 pm Open Discussion
3:59 pm Reports
4:39 pm Notice(s) of Motion
4:40 pm Other Business
Executive Session:
Vote on Awards
5:00 pm Adjournment
Date of Notice: May 17, 2017
Current Status: Approved May 24, 2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Sierra Dawson (Human Physiology) and Bill Harbaugh (Senate & Economics)
Section I
Whereas: While student evaluations of teaching can be an important tool for evaluating and improving teaching and learning, there is substantial peer-reviewed evidence from other colleges and universities that student course evaluations of the sort used at UO are biased with respect to gender and race and that the numerical scores are poorly correlated with teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes.
There is also scholarly evidence that peer (faculty) reviews of teaching may be ineffective at evaluating teaching effectiveness and giving useful feedback for improvement.
The Senate seeks to increase the validity and effectiveness of both student course evaluations and peer reviews, for the purposes of evaluation and improvement of UO’s teaching.
Section II
Therefore: The UO Senate seeks to improve UO’s methods of course evaluation and teaching reviews by moving that:
The Senate creates a Teaching Evaluation Task Force, with membership and duration to be determined by the Committee on Committees, to include stakeholders from the faculty and administration, with the charge of evaluating and improving course evaluations and peer (faculty) reviews with respect to reducing biases and improving validity, with the goal of improving teaching, learning, and equity.
The Senate authorizes the Teaching Evaluation Task Force to work with the Teaching Engagement Program to exempt a limited number of courses per quarter from the regular student course evaluation process for faculty participating in their programs, so long as reasonable alternative procedures for student input are in place and the results are communicated to the Task Force.
The Teaching Evaluation Task Force is authorized to conduct temporary experiments with student course evaluations and peer reviews to begin as soon as Summer 2017. These experiments may include changes in the questions, format, timing, software, and incentives for participation of students. The Task Force will aim to report to the Senate on possible improvements to student course evaluations and peer evaluations by Fall 2018. The report will include analysis of gender and race bias in the traditional and experimental evaluations. All courses in these experiments will return to the current default course evaluation process by Fall 2018, unless the Senate acts otherwise to change that process. Stakeholders will be consulted before any experiments and before the Task Force’s report.
The Teaching Evaluation Task Force will address the issues of academic misconduct and student evaluations raised by motion https://senate.uoregon.edu/2017/02/15/us1617-15-student-misconduct-and-teaching-evaluations-policy-propos in its reports and proposals to the Senate.
Date of Notice: April 24, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Type of Motion: Legislation
Sponsor: Academic Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS The Academic Council met on April 24, 2017 and reviewed the proposal that the Cinema Studies (CINE) program be made into a department; and
1.2 WHEREAS the Cinema Studies Program (CINE) has functioned as an inter-unit structure in the College of Arts and Sciences, the College of Design, and the School of Journalism and Communication; and
1.3 WHEREAS a review team for Academic Affairs and a faculty survey in 2016 identified a number of challenges including the need for internal governance and high service load on program faculty holding appointments elsewhere; and
1.4 WHEREAS the current structure lacks curricular autonomy in the offering of classes in the program and other curricular matters that arise from CINE’s dependence on courses contributed from many departments; and
1.5 WHEREAS the Cinema Studies faculty voted in favor of departmentalizing on January 19, 2017; and
1.6 WHEREAS the Academic Council endorsed the Cinema Studies Program be given departmental status;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREBY MOVED that a Department of Cinema Studies be created, effective July 1, 2017.
Related Documents
5/8/2017 update:
Dear Senators: Here is the latest info I have on the Faculty Trustee nomination process:
On Behalf Of CAPPS Lindsey D * GOV
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 2:14 PM
Cc: Angela Wilhelms <wilhelms@uoregon.edu>; MOLLER Mary * GOV <Mary.MOLLER@oregon.gov>
Subject: Thank you for applying – University of Oregon Board of Trustees
Good morning,
Thank you for applying to serve on the University of Oregon Board of Trustees. We will be appointing this position over the next few months, with Senate Confirmation to follow in September of this year. In the meantime, we will soon reach out to schedule individual interviews with each candidate. We are not seeking additional applications at this time.
Thank you,
Lindsey Capps
Chief Education Officer |
Education Policy Advisor to Governor Kate Brown
Senate Pres Harbaugh
3/14/2017:
Dear UO Community:
Here are the application materials and statements for the 5 nominees for UO Board Faculty Trustee. The Senate leadership will poll the faculty members of the Senate this week on the nominees and we will send that information to the Governor’s Office, along with our recommendations.
Bill Harbaugh, Senate President & Econ Prof.
Lillian Duran (Associate Professor of Special Ed & Clinical Sciences) Application Materials
Statement: As the first generation in my family to attend college I am acutely aware of the challenges many young adults must overcome to be able to pursue higher education. The University of Oregon represents opportunity, hope, and prosperity to thousands of students every year and it employs and produces some of the most renown scholars in the country. I am honored to be a new faculty member in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences and am excited at the opportunity to serve the University on the Board of Trustees. My interest comes from a desire to support the continued excellence of the institution and to support innovation and growth as the university continues to evolve to remain a leader in higher education. I was a special education teacher for 10 years before pursuing my PHD. My area of research focuses on developing educational assessments and interventions for young children who speak languages other than English at home. I am dedicated to supporting, diversity, equity, and inclusion both in my professional and personal life and I will bring this dedication and focus to the Board. I appreciate this opportunity to be considered for the Board of Trustees and look forward to many years ahead as an active and engaged member of the UO community.
Marina Guenza (Professor of Chemistry) Application Materials
Statement: The University of Oregon is in a moment of transformation, facing many challenges but also many emerging opportunities. With a new governance structure in place, a dynamic President, and a newly hired Provost, and with the development of the new Knight campus, the University of Oregon is experiencing an exciting moment of transformation and grow. Establishing the right balance between supporting research excellence and providing a first rate education within current economic constraints is one of the many challenges that our University faces. In a continuously changing environment, faculty, staff, administrators, and students are working together to make the U of O an excellent, inclusive, and welcoming place to work and to study. In this framework, the Board of Trustees is an essential component to the institution, as it provides support to the work of the President. As a member of the Board, I will have the opportunity to bring the voice of the faculty into the many complex governance challenges, while facilitating the connection between the university’s governing body and its shared governance institution. It would be a honor for me to serve.
Laura Lee McIntyre (Professor of School Psychology) Application Materials
Statement: I am a professor in school psychology and head of the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences at the University of Oregon. My research focuses on promoting positive child and family outcomes for children with developmental and behavioral problems through family- and school-based interventions. I have been at the University of Oregon since 2009 and have served on the University Senate, University Faculty Personnel Committee, Research Advisory Board through the Office of the Vice President for Research, and nationally as president of the American Psychological Association’s Division on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities/Autism Spectrum Disorders. I have won awards for my research, teaching, and service. Through my engagement in leadership and service at UO, I have learned more about the strengths and challenges of our academic programs, departments, schools and colleges, and university at-large. For example, I currently serve on the University Senate and the University Faculty Personnel (FPC) Committee. Both of these positions have expanded my perspective of university wide issues that are germane to the health and functioning of our university. Issues pertaining to promoting research excellence through rigorous promotion and tenure evaluation (through my work on the FPC) to issues of academic matters, transparency, and shared governance (through my work on the University Senate) are at the heart of these committees. I have both national leadership experience and local board of director experience. To that end, I understand the important fiduciary responsibility associated with the UO Board of Trustees. I believe that my extensive University of Oregon service, commitment to excellence in higher education, and focus on issues of equity and inclusion make me a strong candidate for this position.
Barbara Mossberg (Professor of Practice, Honors College) Application Materials
Dear Governor Brown and Oregon Community,
I deeply appreciate and am excited by the opportunity to explore with you the possibility of my serving in the role of Faculty Trustee for the University of Oregon Board of Trustees. Towards that end, I am attaching my Statement of Interest, a curriculum vita, and resume (which is the on the official pages of the University of Oregon Clark Honors College Core Faculty). This latter is a short bio, teaching philosophy, excerpted cv and teaching info of interest to prospective students, parents, and advisors.
I would be happy to meet with you or anyone engaged in the decision about this appointment, in person, or in whatever forms are most convenient, including on line. I would also be happy to provide you with additional materials, including references from our students, colleagues, staff, and parents of my students (who write and meet with me); since I have colleagues from my earliest days at the university in the 1970s and 1980s, colleagues through the past forty years, and new peer relationships now in the last few years, I can include examples for you from each category. I also can provide you examples of published work on arts and sciences approaches to higher education leadership and work with governing boards, and narratives of my work to represent the culture of UO. I stand by to help however I can in this process.
One of the things I most love about this opportunity to serve UO by engaging productively and collaboratively with our Board is bringing to bear the experience Oregon first launched me in–the interaction with our community in business, civic leadership, education, arts, media, law, healthcare, and culture–around a common cause of the greatest solution for society, higher education. I know from my over forty years in our community and representing higher education that we face a host of issues. However, for dealing with the most critical and urgent needs of democratic society, we have solutions that involve the most conscientious, generous, civic-minded, creative, earnest, and devoted citizens from every sector, at every level, and these coalesce in higher education.
I see enormous stakes in the governance of UO, and I would love to serve at this threshold moment for the University as we move into the emergent science initiatives, increased dedication to diverse and inclusive learning culture, support for creative and innovative curriculum, and greater engagement across disciplinary and cultural lines. It is a tremendous moment for the University in identifying resources and will. I have represented Oregon so long, the state and character of our people, that you will forgive my optimism and belief that there is a reason Henry David Thoreau said in the 1840s as he developed a groundwork for the inextricably connected civil liberties and human rights, and environmental legislation: “I will walk towards Oregon.” There is something here that makes for national models and hope. I would love to help give voice to this.
Joe Sventek (Professor of Computer Science) Application Materials
Statement: In a career spanning nearly 40 years, I have held both technical and financial leadership roles in industrial and academic settings. Since arriving at UO in September 2014, I have led major initiatives for the VPRI and Provost, and have been a Wise Head adviser to the CAS Dean, in addition to my roles as Professor and Head of the Computer and Information Science Department. At HP Laboratories, I successfully created a new company to produce products based upon research in my unit, thus creating jobs and tax revenue in the state of California; this startup company, TimesTen Performance Software, was acquired by Oracle for ~$500M in 2005. From my leadership positions in academia, I have gained an excellent understanding of the strategic challenges facing universities, in general, and UO, in particular. I also have direct experience with shared governance, having been a member of Senate at my previous institution. All through my career, I have tried to benefit my unit while contributing to the success of the overarching enterprise. If given the opportunity, I will bring all my skills, experience, and energy to being an effective trustee, as well as work with the Senate in order to represent UO faculty concerns in board deliberations.
UPDATE: May 1, 2017
—–Original Message—–
From: Bill Brady
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 8:33 AM
To: Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>
Cc: Senate Vice President <senatevp@uoregon.edu>; Senate Executive Coordinator <senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu>
Subject: RE: AAEO Director search
Bill-
The committee is finalizing its lists of candidates it would like to invite to campus. We expect to bring three qualified candidates to campus in mid to late May. Each candidate will give a public presentation that will be open to the campus community. We are creating a page which will be hosted on the HR website that will include background information on the position, the candidates’ on-campus schedules, their CVs, and a survey where community members may provide feedback.
Hope this information is helpful.
Warm Regards,
Bill
Bill Brady
Assistant Vice President, Employee and Labor Relations
541-346-2305
Office of Human Resources
677 East 12th Avenue, Suite 400
5210 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5210
On Sunday Apr 30, 2017, at 9:34 PM, UO Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu> wrote:
To: Bill Brady <wbrady@uoregon.edu>
Hi Bill –
I’m writing as Senate President, to ask for an update on the search for a new AAEO director, particularly posting of finalists info, and opportunities for Senate constituents to meet the finalists.
Thanks,
Bill Harbaugh
Senate President
Economics Professor
University of Oregon
AAEO Director search committee:
Here is a link to the posting for the position: http://careers.uoregon.edu/cw/en-us/job/519619/director-office-of-affirmative-action-and-equal-opportunity-aaeo
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake Rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 pm Call to Order
3:25 pm Approval of Minutes, Apr 12, 2017
3:30 pm New Business
4:10 pm Open Discussion
4:11 pm Reports
4:58 pm Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 pm Other Business
5:00 pm Adjournment
Date of Notice: April 11, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsor: N. Christopher Phillips (Math)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS Spam is a continuing email problem.
1.2 WHEREAS mainstream spam blocking, commercial and otherwise (including that used by University of Oregon Information Services) misses many relatively low volume spammers, such as those primarily targeting academics.
1.3 WHEREAS there are thousands of scan journals which publish almost anything if paid a high enough fee, many of which advertise themselves in spam not blocked by University of Oregon Information Services.
1.4 WHEREAS spam from scam journals sometimes fools graduate students, postdocs, and young faculty into thinking that the journal is legitimate, and fools them into damaging their career prospects into publishing in these journals,
1.5 WHEREAS the Scientific Spam DNSBL (URL: http://www.scientificspam.net; information: http://www.scientificspam.net/?page_id=6; lists: bl.scientificspam.net and rhsbl.scientificspam.net) does list many spammers targeting academics, including many scam journals, and including spammers not blocked by University of Oregon Information Services.
1.6 WHEREAS the University of Oregon Information Services does not provide technical support for individual users to use any DNS blocklist at all.
1.7 WHEREAS the University of Oregon Information Services has refused a request for such support, and refused a request to add the Scientific Spam DNSBL to the spam blocking options available to University of Oregon email users.
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the University of Oregon Senate strongly urges Information Services to include spam blocking via the Scientific Spam DNSBL as a spam blocking option for its email users.
2.2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University of Oregon Senate strongly urges Information Services to provide technical support for individual users wanting to use publicly available DNS blocklists of their choice via .procmail.
Date of Notice: April 6, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math)
Motion
Section I
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED the University Senate modify the term limit rule for the Undergraduate Council to be considered a guideline, rather than a policy, to allow for flexibility as needed; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED the Committee on Committees recommends that the University Senate abolish service term limits for the following committees:
The Division of Equity and Inclusion is currently reviewing draft Diversity Plans from various units around campus, in response to this call from President Schill:
Provost Coltrane and I will ask each dean and vice president to immediately begin conversations within their schools and departments with our faculty members, students, and staff members of color. The IDEAL plan calls on each school to develop plans on an annual basis. I will ask that each school and administrative unit accelerate the process and report back to me in 90 days with a set of steps they plan to take to promote diversity, combat racism in their units, and promote inclusion.
Units were asked to identify tactics, measures, resources, and lead personnel over a three-year timeline. The plans also identified specific target groups, such as students, faculty, staff, administrators and alumni for each tactic.
The Senate has asked the Office for Equity and Inclusion for copies of the drafts, but have not had a positive response. However we have been able to get the following drafts from several Deans and others. If you don’t see yours below, please send it to the Senate for posting.
College of Arts & Sciences:
Executive Summary
Humanities
Natural Sciences
Social Sciences
Snippet from Soc Sci:
School of Music and Dance:
Executive Summary
Diversity Action Plan
Snippet:
Law School:
Snippet:
College of Education:
Please join us for a special spring event that we hope will serve as a powerful launch for UO’s efforts toward core curriculum re-design: “Dear X: Letters from the Classroom.” The performance of actual letters from UO students and faculty offers a unique and concrete anchor for discussion about transforming our undergraduate education.
Students: bring your friends, bring your instructors!
Faculty, advisors, staff: bring your colleagues, bring your students!
This conversation is for all of us.
April 18, 4-6pm in the Global Scholars Hall (GSH 123)
You can reserve your spot here (and forward the link to others you invite):
http://bit.ly/2kH1ttg
Learn more about trED here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opE30c0t9LI&t=16s
Notice of Motion: March 24, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White (Anthropology), Co-Chair of Academic Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the “Y” grade, which means “No basis for grade (recorded by the instructor) or “There is no basis for evaluating the student’s performance”, is intended to be used only in the very specific situation in which a student registers for a course but never attends or participates in any part of the course; and
1.2 WHEREAS in practice the “Y” grade is not always used for that specific purpose and other uses can cause students to lose financial aid; and
1.3 WHEREAS a “Y” grade, because it has no effect on student GPA, does not provide the student or institution with information to prompt intervention when it might be needed; and
1.4 WHEREAS most other institutions of higher learning use the “F” grade for students that register for a course and either never attend or participate, or attend and participate in only part of the course but doesn’t complete the course;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the “Y” grade is eliminated as an option in the University of Oregon grading system; and
2.1.1 A grade of “F” will be recorded when a student registers and either never attends or participates, or attends and participates in part of the course but does not complete the course requirements; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED when a grade of “F” is recorded in the online grade roster, a new capability will be developed to allow the user to select one of two options that either the student did not attend or participate, or to enter the last day of attendance or participation; and
2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED when students who have an open misconduct case past the grading deadline, faculty record the grade the student would have earned if they are found not responsible for academic misconduct as this approach is in line with a principle of due process. Faculty can change this to a different grade if warranted by a finding that a student is responsible for academic misconduct.
Related Documents
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:25 P.M. Approval of Minutes, March 15, 2017
3:30 P.M. New Business
4:20 P.M. Open Discussion
4:21 P.M. Reports
4:58 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjournment
Date of Notice: April 5, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsors: Stephanie McGee, OA Senator
Amanda Hatch, OA Senator
Keith Frazee, OA Senator
Laura Lee McIntyre, Faculty Senator
Craig Parsons, Faculty Senator
Motion
Section I
1.1. WHEREAS, the University Senate is a highly respected partner in shared governance at the University of Oregon, and;
1.2 WHEREAS, the Bylaws of the University of Oregon Senate provide the rules, processes, and procedures of the University Senate; and
1.3 WHEREAS, modifications to the governing documents of the University Senate should be held to the highest standard, and;
1.4 WHEREAS, Article 3.11 of the Bylaws of the University of Oregon Senate does not clearly define “two-thirds affirmative vote of the University Senate.”
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED, that Article 3.11 of the senate bylaws be amended as follows:
“3.11 Modifications to the Senate By-Laws. These by-laws may be altered by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the prescribed University Senate membership. Temporary alterations, such as allowing a visitor the right to the Senate floor, may be presented directly within a Senate meeting. Permanent modifications to these by-laws shall be proposed in the form of a formal motion and shall follow the procedures for motions as set forth in Article 3.7.”
Background and Rationale:
Article 3.11 of the Bylaws of the University of Oregon Senate states the “by-laws may be altered by a two-thirds affirmative vote of the University Senate.” The “two-thirds” requirement is not universally understood, interpreted by some to mean two-thirds of the members in attendance and by others as two-thirds of the total membership. This amendment provides the clarification that by-laws may only be modified by a “two-thirds affirmative vote of the prescribed University Senate membership.”
The Bylaws clearly state in Article 3 § 3.2 that the Senate shall follow Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised to govern the University Senate. Section 3.2.1 states that any “deviations from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised may be decided by the Senate and shall be presented to the Senate in the form of a motion and shall require a two-thirds affirmative vote to be adopted.”
Modifications to an organization’s governing documents should be held to the highest standard. Specifically in amending a previously adopted bylaw, we should make sure that the rights of all members continue to be protected. The best way to insure this is to prevent bylaws from being changed without every member being able to weigh in on the proposal. Robert’s Rules states that to amend the bylaws, the minimum vote required should be two-thirds of those present with previous notice or if notice is not given then a minimum of the majority of the entire membership. The bylaws should not be changed as long as a minority greater than one-third disagrees with the proposal.
Interpreting Article 3.11 to mean that bylaw amendments can be approved by two-thirds of members in attendance, effectively means that as few as 19 senators (2/3 of a quorum) can amend the Senate’s governing documents. Nineteen senators represents approximately 1/3 of the total senate membership, creating an opportunity for a small number (a minority) of senators to make substantive changes to carefully considered and well-established senate processes. Two-thirds of the “prescribed University Senate requires that 36 affirmative votes are necessary to amend the bylaws.
Voting Numbers Breakdown:
Quorum required in meetings 28 of 54 Senators (51.9% of membership)
2/3 of quorum in meetings 19 of 54 Senators (35.2% of membership)
2/3 of prescribed membership 36 of 54 Senators (66.7% of membership)
Date of Notice: April 4, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Alison Schmitke (Education), Chair of Undergraduate Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, the Student Success Advisory Council and the Undergraduate Council are engaged in discussions regarding efforts to support student success in areas related to academic and curricular issues.
1.2 WHEREAS, the charge of the Undergraduate Council includes: (1) Review and promote the objectives and purposes of undergraduate education and assure that all policies and procedures, curricula, personnel and teaching decisions that affect undergraduate education are consistent and defensible with the institution’s undergraduate education mission as defined in the University’s Mission Statement and Statement of Philosophy, Undergraduate Education; (3) Formulate, monitor, and respond to general academic policies, especially those which have impact on undergraduate programs across the University.
1.3 WHEREAS, there is no current policy addressing the timing of declaring a major.
1.4 WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Council passed the Policy on Major Declaration on February 16, 2017.
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the Policy on Major Declaration be implemented starting Fall 2017.
Related Documents
|
Nominations for 2017 Senate Awards Are Now Open Each year, the University Senate recognizes four members of our community for their exemplary leadership and service. Nominations for these awards are now open. Any member of the campus community may nominate an eligible faculty member, classified staff person, or officer of administration for these awards. You will find instructions about what to include with your nomination on each award’s webpage. We will present the awards in a formal ceremony at the University Senate meeting on June 7. The deadline for all nominations is Tuesday April 25, 2017. Please send nominations to: senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu. Thank you for taking the time to help the University Senate recognize and celebrate those who contribute so much to our university community. THE AWARDS: ● UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust Purpose: Award is given to the person who has best exemplified the principles of shared governance, transparency, and trust during the past year. Established 2015. Purpose: Named in honor of Wayne T. Westling, Professor of Law at the University of Oregon from 1979-2001. Award is given for outstanding and long-term leadership and service to the university. Established 2001. ● UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award Purpose: Recognize someone who is a leader in one or more of these areas – personal and professional development, a respectful work environment, or diversity. Must have made “a difference through their actions and through collaborative relationships.” Established 2011. ● UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration Purpose: Recognize exemplary service over a period of years and outstanding leadership. Must be committed to shared governance and participatory decision making and must foster inclusiveness, respect, and professional excellence. Established 2011. |
Dear Campus Community:
THANK YOU to everyone who has already completed the survey regarding university service opportunities. Between the University Senate and several university committees, there are myriad ways for you to be involved in shared governance at the UO!
We know there are countless demands on your time, but encourage you to take a look at the opportunities to serve the UO through a committee or senate position. This type of service is extraordinarily beneficial to the institution.
The deadline to respond is Friday April 14. Filling out the survey does not automatically put you on a committee or the ballot – we’ll follow up with you before doing anything official.
Please contact us if you have any questions. The best email to use is Betina Lynn’s, the senate executive coordinator: senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu.
Sincerely,
Bill Harbaugh
University Senate President
Professor of Economics
Chris Sinclair
University Senate VP & President-Elect
Professor of Mathematics
Dear colleagues,
Achieving academic excellence is a top priority for the University of Oregon. We are energized by our new leadership, historic philanthropy, and extraordinary faculty hires as they drive us toward even greater excellence. An important way we can continue improving teaching and research quality on our campus is through faculty service in a healthy shared governance structure.
As a result, we encourage you to serve the UO through participation in the University Senate or on a university committee. We know faculty members are busy, and appreciate the myriad of demands on your time. Yet, we encourage you to consider service with one or more of these important bodies. To learn more about these opportunities, we invite you to join us at a University Senate reception on Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 5:00 pm in the EMU’s Crater Lake Room.
There will be light catering, brief introductions by President Schill and Senate President Harbaugh, as well as an opportunity to mingle and ask questions about the various service opportunities available to you.
There will soon be an online form available where you can indicate areas of interest and self-nominate for elected positions, so please keep your eyes open for that.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President and Professor of Sociology
Bill Harbaugh
Senate President and Professor of Economics
Chris Sinclair
Senate Vice President and Professor of Mathematics
Dear UO Community:
March 22, 2017
To: CAS Social Sciences Faculty
From: W. Andrew Marcus, Tykeson Dean of Arts and Sciences
Subject: Divisional Dean for the Social Sciences
Professor Carol Stabile, Interim Divisional Dean for Social Sciences, will be leaving her position with the University on June 30, 2017 to take over the headship of the Department of Women’s Studies at the University of Maryland. She has displayed a tremendous commitment to academic excellence while also retaining a keen understanding of the difficult choices we must make in these times of budgetary constraints. I have learned a great deal from Carol during her time in the dean’s role; a time that has seen some tremendous hires within the Social Sciences Division and the launching of an internal cluster on African American Studies. I am particularly grateful for her contributions to our college given the last minute manner in which I approached her about the position and her knowledge that this would be a temporary role. All of us in the dean’s office have been beneficiaries of Carol’s wealth of experience, direct problem-solving approach and good humor. Simply put, we will miss her.
I am now seeking your advice and comments in identifying our next Divisional Dean for Social Sciences from among our current faculty. Candidates:
I have appointed an advisory committee of CAS faculty to review nominations and applications and provide consultation to me for this selection. As is standard practice, the committee has two heads from within Social Science and one from outside the division. The committee includes Jocelyn Hollander (Chair), Frances White and Li-Shan Chou. I am grateful that they have agreed to screen applicants and evaluate their qualifications for the position.
I hope to select an incoming Divisional Dean for Social Sciences by the beginning of May so that we can plan for a smooth transition. The new Divisional Dean will begin a three-year term on July 1, 2017.
Applicant letters should be no longer than three pages in length and address:
Please send nominations to me as soon as possible. Application letters should be sent to Miriam Bolton (mbolton@uoregon.edu), along with a current c.v., no later than Friday, April 14. If you are interested in the position and wish to speak with me before you apply, please let me know.
Position Description:
The Divisional Dean (DD) position is the primary designee/delegate for the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in almost all matters involving the administration and oversight of departments and programs in the DD’s assigned division (humanities, natural sciences, or social sciences). The DD is the first contact for department and program heads for all Dean-level issues, coordinates Dean-level decisions with the Dean and the Dean for Faculty and Operations, and then helps communicate these decisions to departments and programs in their division.
Strategic Vision. The DD takes the major leadership role in working with department heads, faculty, and other Deans to identify and articulate the strategic vision for the future of the division and the College. The DD is an ambassador for their division and the College-at-large. Examples of key activities connected with this responsibility are:
Management. The management issues coordinated by the DD are broad and diverse but are mainly connected to personnel and budget allocations:
Personnel
Other Duties. Divisional Deans are often assigned other duties, as needed. These can include:
3/19/2017 update with link to General Counsel’s report:
I’m still waiting for the administration to provide the Senate with a copy, but I got this version from a Emerald student journalist and it looks legit:
Comments on the report and suggestions for next steps for the Senate to take are welcome. In the past I would have send this to the IAC, but given the new IAAC’s restricted charge I’m considering setting up a Task Force on Free Speech to deal with it.
Bill Harbaugh
1/23/2017 followup:
Dear GC Reed –
I’m writing as Senate President, to ask you for an update on your investigation of the Duck AD for potential violations of UO’s free speech and academic freedom policies.
Thanks,
Bill Harbaugh Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon
On MondayJan 23, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Kevin S Reed <ksreed@uoregon.edu> wrote:
I’m in deep interview mode. Coming along swimmingly.
Kevin S. Reed | Vice President and General Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
219 Johnson Hall | Eugene, OR 97403-1226
(541) 346-3082 | ksreed@uoregon.edu
1/12/2017 update:
Register Guard reporter Austin Meek has a report on General Counsel Kevin Reed’s investigation of the Athletic Department here: http://registerguard.com/rg/sports/football/35172801-69/oregon-general-counsel-opens-review-into-athletic-department-media-policies.html.csp
12/1/2016 update:
Yesterday I received an email from President Schill saying that he would instruct GC Reed to investigate these athletic department free-speech issues, and report to him. I assume that the Senate will also be given this report.
I’ve already talked with several current and former Duck sports reporters, who told me about many other potential similar violations of UO free speech policies by the Athletic Department in recent years, with respect to both student-athletes and student and professional reporters.
One noted the #blacklivesmatter protest by Dana Altman’s student-athletes during the National Anthem, reported by Tyson Alger in the Oregonian here: http://www.oregonlive.com/ducks/index.ssf/2014/12/oregon_coach_dana_altman_says.html
Altman chewed out his players and wouldn’t let them talk to the press afterwards.
The Senate will continue to look into these free speech issues.
From: UO Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Free Speech for students and the student press
Date: November 27, 2016 at 10:13:14 PM PST
To: Kevin Reed <ksreed@uoregon.edu>
Dear General Counsel Kevin Reed:
We are writing you as President and Vice President of the Senate, regarding media reports that UO Athletic Department AAD Dave Williford told Oregon Daily Emerald sports editor Kenny Jacoby and other UO student-journalists that he would take away their Athletic Department issued press credentials, if the Emerald went ahead with their story on alleged assaults by UO football players. The news reports also say that the UO Athletic Department has a policy requiring that student-athletes not talk to the press without the Athletic Department’s permission.
The story is published here, https://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/11/17/oregon-tight-end-pharaoh-brown-accused-three-acts-violence-since-october-2014/ and the interview in which Mr. Jacoby explains the threat to take away his and other UO student reporters’s press credentials is here: http://www.oregonlive.com/sports/oregonian/john_canzano/index.ssf/2016/11/oregon_daily_emerald_story_dem.html.
This apparent threat from Mr. Williford, and these Athletic Department policies, procedures, or practices preventing UO students from talking to reporters may be in violation of the UO policies on Freedom and Speech and Inquiry, and on Academic Freedom. The former policy states:
The University of Oregon values and supports free and open inquiry. The commitment to free speech and freedom of inquiry described in this policy extends to all members of the UO community: Faculty, staff, and students. It also extends to all others who visit or participate in activities held on the UO campus.
Free speech is central to the academic mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic society. The University encourages and supports open, vigorous, and challenging debate across the full spectrum of human issues as they present themselves to this community. Further, as a public institution, the University will sustain a higher and more open standard for freedom of inquiry and free speech than may be expected or preferred in private settings.
Free inquiry and free speech are the cornerstones of an academic institution committed to the creation and transfer of knowledge.
The latter policy states:
The University’s responsibility to help students to think critically and independently requires that members of the university community have the right to investigate and discuss matters, including those that are controversial, inside and outside of class, without fear of institutional restraint.
(at https://policies.uoregon.edu/content/academic-freedom-0)
We are asking that you investigate this incident, and the relevant UO Athletic Department policies, practices, and procedures, and give a report to the Senate giving your interpretation of whether or not the UO policy on Free Speech and Inquiry and the policy on Academic Freedom, or relevant State or Federal laws, have been violated.
In particular, We ask you to address the following questions:
1) Is requiring student-athletes not to speak to the press without Athletic Department approval in conflict with UO free speech policies and law?
2) Is taking, or threatening to take, the press credentials of UO student journalists if they publish a story in conflict with UO free speech policies and law?
3) Were Mr. Williford’s actions – i.e. apparently attempting to discourage student-athletes from talking to the press, and threatening to take away the press credentials of these reporters, consistent with current UO policy?
We would appreciate it if you would send this report to the Senate by January 10, 2017. Please let us know if you have any questions.
Bill Harbaugh, Economics Prof., Senate Pres
Chris Sinclair, Assoc. Prof. Math, Senate VP
Notice Given: 03/10/2017
Current Status: Approved 03/15/2017
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsor: Alison Gash (Political Science)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon affirms that our core values include “equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community.”
1.2 WHEREAS the Senate and our academic community and peers across the country are concerned about the recent increase in hate crimes and inflammatory language around the United States, including at the University of Oregon.
1.3 WHEREAS there have been repeated examples of threats against women, LGBTQAI-identified individuals, specific ethnic and religious groups, and immigrants during and after a divisive presidential election.
1.4 WHEREAS President Schill’s Nov. 15th message to the campus community maintains that “we condemn any threat or effort to intimidate anyone at the university. We are a community of scholars. Efforts to divide us based upon the color of our skin, our nationality, our immigration status, our abilities, our diversity of thought, our gender, or our sexual orientation must be called out and stopped.”
1.5 WHEREAS, the Departments of Justice and Education issued a “Dear Colleague” letter on May 13th, 2016 requiring that “a school must not treat a transgender student differently from the way it treats other students of the same gender identity.”
1.6 WHEREAS, the letter defines gender identity as “an individual’s internal sense of gender. A person’s gender identity may be different from or the same as the person’s sex assigned at birth.”
1.7 WHEREAS, ORS 659.850, similarly, prohibits gender identity discrimination in the state’s educational settings.
1.8 WHEREAS, on February 23rd President Trump issued new guidance on Title IX rescinding the May 13th language regarding transgender students.
1.9 WHEREAS, on February 28th the University of Oregon’s Title IX Coordinator posted language on Around the O re-affirming the university’s policy to continue to honor their commitments to transgender safety, equality and dignity:
“Federal change in transgender protections will not affect UO”
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE, the Senate of the University of Oregon, affirms the rights of transgender students to seek the benefits of a University of Oregon education with safety and dignity; and
2.2 THEREFORE, the Senate of the University of Oregon affirms the rights of transgender students to enjoy all the benefits, privileges and protections offered to any University of Oregon student or faculty member; and
2.3 THEREFORE, the Senate of the University of Oregon REQUESTS that President Michael Schill issue an email to all campus members publicly re-affirming the University’s commitment to transgender student safety, equality and dignity.
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3: 15 P.M. Approval of Minutes, March 1, 2017
3:15 P.M. New Business
4:20 P.M. Open Discussion
4:21 P.M. Reports
4:58 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn
Notice Given: 02/27/2017
Current Status: Approved 03/15/2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh (Economics)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the naming, or renaming, of an academic unit is considered a major event in the history of the institution, requiring due consideration, appropriate due diligence, and consultation; and
1.2 WHEREAS currently there is no UO policy providing guidance and structure for this process;
1.3 WHEREAS the UO Board of Trustees has sole authority to name any campus, school, college, department or equivalent in recognition of an individual or organization;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approves the newly proposed Naming Academic Units policy as outlined in the Related Documents.
Related Documents:
UPDATE: New
Date of Notice: 02/27/2017
Current Status: Approved April 12, 2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh (Economics)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the process of awarding honorary degrees has become confusing and overly proscriptive over time; and
1.2 WHEREAS some technical changes are needed to remove obsolete references to OUS; and
1.3 WHEREAS final approval of Honorary Degrees rests with the UO Board of Trustees;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approves the proposed Honorary Degree Policy changes as outlined in the related documents.
Related Document:
Date of Notice: February 15, 2017
Current Status: Approved 03/15/2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of UO Committee on Courses
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Winter 2017 Preliminary Curriculum Report for the University Senate Review;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approve the Winter 2017 Curriculum Report as submitted by the Committee on Courses.
Related Documents:
Faculty and staff invited to open forum on recent immigration rules changes.
UO faculty and staff are invited to an open forum to discuss the many challenges associated with recent federal changes in immigration rules. The event will be held on Tuesday, March 7 at the EMU Gumwood Room, 4:00 – 5:30 P.M.
Representatives from UO Human Resources, Academic Affairs, Federal Affairs, International Affairs and a local immigration law specialist will hold an open forum to provide insights and a formal space for faculty and staff to air concerns.
This event is open to all in the UO community.
Those interested in attending can RSVP through the UO Events Calendar.
University of Oregon Resources
Immigration FAQs
Update on Status of Executive Order
For Students
For Departments
For Employees
Responses to Immigration Enforcement
Allies and Supporters of UO’s Global Community
Allies and Supporters of UO DREAMers
Presidential Executive Order
White House: Office of the Press Secretary
1) Revised Travel Ban (3/6/17)
2) Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits…..(3/6/17)
For more information about DHS and the executive order, please visit: https://www.dhs.gov/executiveorders
Statement from APLU
APLU Statement on New Executive Order Temporarily Banning New Visas for Citizens of Six Countries (3/6/17)
Washington, DC – Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) issued released a statement regarding President Trump’s new executive order that temporarily prohibits the issuing of new visas to citizens of six countries.
DRAFT
Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.
3:00 P.M. Call to Order
3:05 P.M. Approval of Minutes, February 15, 2017
3:06 P.M. Report
3:22 P.M. Announcements
4:20 P.M. New Business
4:30 P.M. More Reports
4:40 P.M. Open Discussion
4:58 P.M. Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 P.M. Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjournment
12:00 – 1:00 P.M.
Cedar and Spruce rooms (EMU 231 & 232)
Purpose: Info-Session by UO Dreamers Working group
The info-session will be led by Ellen McWhirter (Counseling Psychology) and the UO Dreamers Working Group. It will present strategies for supporting UO undocumented, DACAmented, and students from mixed status families.
Brown Bag Lunch
Sponsored by: The Center for Latino/a & Latin American Studies (CLLAS)
Date of Notice: January 18, 2017
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Huaxin Lin (Math)
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS academic honesty is an integral for maintaining an effective learning environment; and
1.2 WHEREAS to maintain an academically honest environment instructors must report academic misconduct to Student Conduct and Community Standards; and
1.3 WHEREAS accurate student course evaluations play a vital role in departmental governance and university hiring, retention, and promotion policies; and
1.4 WHEREAS a student who has been been accused of academic misconduct has an inherent conflict of interest regarding course evaluations; and
1.5 WHEREAS concerns about student course evaluations may deter faculty members from reporting academic misconduct, and thereby create a conflict of interest where none otherwise would exist; and
1.6 WHEREAS the current course evaluation system does not allow the university to retroactively remove student course evaluations after reports on those evaluations have been prepared;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that if a student has been accused of misconduct related to a class WITHIN ONE WEEK of the end of the final exam period shall have his/her numerical and narrative course evaluations for that class STRUCK FROM THE RECORD and from all averages of student evaluations; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Registrar’s Office shall take all necessary actions to enforce this policy; and
2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Registrar’s Office shall enforce this policy beginning in the Fall Quarter of 2017;
2.4 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that when the Registrar’s Office considers recontracting the course evaluation system, the ability to remove student evaluations retroactively, for a period of at least one quarter, shall be a priority.
Related Documents:
2/14/2017:
From: Mike Schill <mschill@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Time, Place and Manner rules
Date: February 14, 2017 at 5:51:47 AM PST
To: Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, William Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>
Hi Bill and Chris,
After discussing the matter with you two, Kevin Reed and other senior staff, I have decided to withdraw our proposal for time, place and manner rules. While I still believe that these rules are advisable to protect content neutrality, I am also convinced that we need to do more work in educating the community and building consensus around them. The UO has no shortage of pressing issues, difficult problems and wonderful opportunities for us to work on together now. Therefore, I am putting the time, place and manner proposal on hold for the foreseeable future.
Best,
Mike
12/07/2016: For informational purposes and background, please see previous senate motion:
This policy contains elements related to free speech activities on campus.
11/27/2016 update: After weeks of of not responding to Senate requests for an updated draft of the TPM free speech restrictions policy, General Counsel Kevin Reed has now submitted one to the administration’s Policy Advisory Council.
Continue reading President Schill drops policy proposal for TPM restrictions on free speech
From: UO Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>
Subject: DEADLINE Feb 28: Nomination and review process for the new faculty member of the UO Board of Trustees
Date: February 13, 2017 at 2:24:35 PM PST
Dear UO Statutory Faculty Members –
The current Faculty Trustee on the UO Board of Trustees – Susan Gary (Law) – will be completing her term of office on June 30. Sometime between now and then Governor Kate Brown will appoint another member of the statutory faculty to take her place. The Oregon Senate then confirms (almost always) the appointment. The Faculty Trustee is a voting member of the UO Board, by the Governor’s decision, and we expect that to continue given the Governor’s support for shared governance.
The Faculty Trustee is not appointed to promote the faculty’s interests, rather they share the fiduciary responsibility to act in the broad best interests of the University that all our Trustees have. We believe that this requires that the faculty trustee be well informed about the university at large and the opinions of the faculty on important matters that come before the board, be able to effectively inform the rest of the board about those opinions, be able and willing to keep the faculty informed about the thinking and plans of the Board, and be selected with input and buy-in from the faculty – something that has not been done in the past.
So we’re writing to all UO Statutory Faculty to suggest that you learn more about the Board and consider submitting an application to the governor’s office and encourage colleagues who you think would do a good job for UO to also apply. The deadline to apply to the Governor’s office is Feb 28th, and as explained below the Board would prefer that the Faculty Trustee be from CAS, since the last one was from a professional school.
The rest of this email gives some info about university boards and the UO Board, explains how faculty can self-nominate for the Faculty Trustee position, and explains how the Senate will review nominations and make a recommendation to the Governor’s office.
Information on the Board:
The party line on the UO Board can be found at their website here http://trustees.uoregon.edu/ along with contact information. The Association of Governing Boards has a lot of information at https://www.agb.org/reports/topic/faculty-and-shared-governance. One recent AGB report, for example, is “Shared Governance: Is OK good enough?” at http://agb.org/sites/default/files/survey_2016_shared_governance.pdf You might also want to contact Susan Gary sgary@uoregon.edu or Board Secretary Angela Wilhelms at wilhelms@uoregon.edu.
Information on how to apply to the Governor’s Office:
As the Governor’s website says, “Applying for a Board is Easy!” Unfortunately their website is a bit slow: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/admin/Pages/How_To_Apply.aspx.
You will need to complete this form: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/admin/Documents/Interest%20Form%20.pdf and include a c.v., bio, and statement of interest. The application form is here: http://www.oregon.gov/gov/admin/Documents/Interest%20Form.pdf
The Board has posted this statement on the process: https://trustees.uoregon.edu/sites/trustees2.uoregon.edu/files/board_membership_considerations.pdf. It clarifies that the Board will not prohibit the Senate or other organizations from recommending candidates – which we appreciate – and will not make its own recommendation or allow individual trustees to advocate for or against prospective candidates. However they do reserve the right to:
“Provide information to the Governor’s executive appointments office about what demographics, skills and experiences will help maintain a well-rounded board in whole • Advocate for alternation between constituency types (e.g. classified/OA; professional school/CAS)”
Which we take to mean they would prefer this new trustee be from CAS, since Prof. Gary is from Law.
Information on how the Senate will provide input to the Governor:
We have contacted the governor’s office and they want input from the University Senate and the faculty about who would be a good Faculty Trustee.
After the deadline for applications closes on February 28th, they will send us a list of all applicants and their application materials. We will post these on the Senate website, and ask the nominees if they would like to provide any additional information, or answer emailed questions from faculty. We will then ask the statutory faculty members of the Senate to rank the nominees (with a Qualtrics poll) and we will provide the aggregate rankings to the Governor’s office. The Senate President and Vice President will consult with the Senate Executive Committee and provide the Governor’s office with our evaluation of the nominees – just as any other citizen may do.
Thanks very much for your assistance in helping ensure that we have a strong set of faculty applicants for the governor to consider when she fills the upcoming vacancy on our UO Board of Trustees!
Bill Harbaugh, Senate President & Professor of Economics
Chris Sinclair, Senate President Elect and Associate Professor of Mathematics
University of Oregon
Dear Senators –
At last week’s meeting I discussed the problems with the computing resources “Acceptable Use Policy” that the administration was proposing to implement. This policy governs everything we do when we use a UO computer, a computer bought with grant money, or when we connect our own computer or phone to the UO network. It applies to students, faculty, librarians, staff, and OA’s.
Greg Bryant, John Bonine, and Colin Koopman – a.k.a. the Senate’s Info Tech Task Force – had identified a host of problems with this policy. The administration addressed some issues, but would not respond to simple questions about other problems. On Wednesday, after I brought up this issue in the Senate, the Board of Trustees Secretary emailed me to propose a meeting between a few UO faculty and the relevant Assistant General Counsel. I responded by asking for a meeting with the Senate Executive Committee, because of the importance of this policy. The BOT Secretary did not respond to that request.
Today I met with the Provost’s Chief of Staff. She told me that she would yank the AUP proposal from the policy process, agreeing that the policy as put forward needed some work that would best be done when we have a new CIO, and she thanked the ITTF for their edits and comments, without of course committing to accept them.
Meanwhile the current AUP remains in effect. It is at https://it.uoregon.edu/sites/default/files/UO_Acceptable_Use_of_Computing_Resources_Policy_13Nov2015.pdf It is a bit dated, but seems far preferable in terms of its protections. For example, here is the Prohibited Conduct section:
Current language: “The University Conduct Code, OAR 571-21-030, also applies to electronic forums. The code prohibits, among other things, lewd or indecent conduct, threat of imminent physical harm, sexual or other harassment, stalking, forgery, intentional disruption of university services, and damaging or destroying university property. Similarly, the code’s prohibitions against illegal discrimination, including discriminatory harassment and sexual harassment, also apply to electronic forums.”
The University Conduct Code is actually the Student Conduct Code, at https://policies.uoregon.edu/vol-3-administration-student-affairs/ch-1-conduct/student-conduct-code. It only applies to students. It is also very specific:
16. “Harassment” means:
a. Intentionally subjecting a person to offensive physical contact;
b. Unreasonable insults, gestures, or abusive words, in the immediate presence, and directed to, another person that may reasonably cause emotional distress or provoke a violent response (including but not limited to electronic mail, conventional mail, social media and telephone) except to the extent such insults, gestures or abusive words are protected expression; or
c. Other types of prohibited discrimination, discriminatory harassment, and sexual harassment as defined by law.
In contrast, the administration’s proposed new policy language was vague and expansive and included no language about protected expression:
“6.6 Shall not use UO IT resources to transmit any communications that reasonably could be considered obscene, harassing, threatening or discriminatory by the recipient or another viewer. For more information on UO policies in this area, see the Office of Affirmative Action & Equal Opportunity web site.”
While the old policy prohibited physical threats with the specific language from free-speech case law,
“threat of imminent physical harm”,
the proposed new policy would apply threats of any kind, apparently including the familiar “If you miss one more class I will lower your grade” email threat. And they wanted to apply this broad policy language to all users, not just students. How would our General Counsel’s office find the time to deal with all these prohibited emails? Why would they want to try?
This new policy will come back to the Senate for approval someday. My explanation above covers just one of the many problems with it. Read more in the pdf below from the ITTF, which will continue to monitor the situation.
Thanks,
Bill Harbaugh, Senate Pres, Econ Prof
Draft UO Acceptable Use Policy – with Senate Task Force changes, Feb 1-1yoj5hr
Date of Notice: 01/18/2017
Current Status: Approved 02/15/2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Committee on Committees
Motion
Section I:
1.1 WHEREAS, the Committee on Committees has difficulty filling seats on committees; and
1.2 WHEREAS, some committees require multiple years for members to become proficient with the policies and procedures germane to the operation of those committees;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED, that the University Senate hereby repeals US12/13-38: Term Limits for Senate Committees
Related Documents:
Senate Committees with Term Limits – 02/08/17
This legislation would repeal the ‘umbrella’ term limits that were passed under motion 12/13-38. Several committees have term limits specified in their charge/enabling legislation. Were the repeal to pass, the following committees would still have the term limits.
1/30/2017: The administration will host a town hall Monday at 6PM, EMU Ballroom, on the Trump Travel Ban and the Sanctuary resolution implementation. http://around.uoregon.edu/content/campus-town-hall-address-questions-immigration
1/28/2017: I’ve asked President Schill and VP Alex-Assensoh for an update on the administration’s implementation of the recommendations in this resolution and how President Trump’s “extreme vetting” order will affect UO. We expect to have more information this week and a full report by the end of the quarter.
Passed 11/16/2017: Senate Resolution: “University of Oregon as Sanctuary Campus”
Continue reading Update: US16/17-09: Declaring UO a Sanctuary Campus
|
Date of Notice: 12/15/2016
Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Academic Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, classes that focus on student engagement opportunities such as career, professional and personal development, and opportunities for community and social involvement can be valuable learning experiences; and
1.2 WHEREAS, these classes cannot be regularized as credit-bearing under the current class review process; and
1.3 WHEREAS, an amendment to the credit-bearing general limitations to the bachelor’s requirements will create a new category for these types of courses and set limits on their bearing credit towards the bachelor’s degree;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED, the University Senate approves to amend the credit-bearing general limitations to the bachelor’s requirements to create a new addition of category “d” of Point 4 of the “General Limitations” as follows:
Point 4. A maximum of 24 credits may be earned or accepted as transfer credits in the following areas (a, b, c, and d) with not more than 12 credits in any one area.
a) Lower-division professional-technical courses
b) Physical education and dance activity courses
c) Performance in music (MUP), except for majors in music
d)Applied and/or experiential courses, courses focusing on academic support skills or career/professional development courses; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED, for clarity, Point 7 of the “General Limitations” will be revised as follows:
Point 7. A maximum of 12 credits in TLC (University Teaching and Learning Center) courses and a maximum of 12 credits in FE (field experience) courses, whether earned or transferred, may be counted towards the bachelor’s degree. These limits (12 credits in TLC; 12 credits in FE) are independent of the limits of category 4(d).
Related Documents:
Amendment to the Credit-Bearing General Limitations to the Bachelor’s Requirements
Dear Professor Gleason –
I’m writing as UO Senate President, to you in your capacity as “Faculty Athletics Representative”.
As noted in your appointment notice from Mike Gottfredson at “https://president.uoregon.edu/content/tim-gleason-appointed-faculty-athletic-representative,
“The FAR is responsible for ensuring the academic integrity of the intercollegiate athletic program, promoting the well-being of student athletes, and supporting institutional oversight of athletics compliance and student eligibility.
I’m sure you’ve read the stories in the Oregonian and the Washington Post regarding the hospitalization of at least 3 UO students after football workouts.
I am asking you to investigate this situation, provide a preliminary written report to the Senate Executive Committee by Jan 24th, and appear at the Feb 1 Senate meeting to answer questions.
Thanks,
Bill Harbaugh
Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon
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 members of the University of Oregon community,
As many of you may know, the Provost Search Committee has been hard at work for the past five months. The 17-member committee, which includes representatives from virtually all of the UO’s constituencies, has created a position description, built a pool of candidates, and conducted interviews with a wide variety of potential candidates. We are now at the stage of the process where we plan to bring some of them back to Eugene for more intensive interviews and recruitment.
The Provost Search Committee, in conversation with members of the search firm Russell Reynolds Associates and some of our candidates, has concluded that the successful completion of the search requires that we follow what is increasingly becoming the national practice: avoiding the sort of open search that we have previously employed for decanal candidates. If we were to follow past practice, a number of candidates would drop out of the process rather than compromise their leadership positions at their current universities.
We have consulted with University Senate leadership and the Faculty Advisory Council on how to move forward with the next step in the process in a way that carefully balances our need to conduct a competitive search with our desire to receive input from appropriate campus stakeholders. We have agreed that over the next few months, finalists will come to Eugene to be interviewed again by the search committee and by deans, vice presidents, the provost and his chief of staff, the senate president, and the president of United Academics. Following this process, the search committee will present their final recommendations to the president, who will ultimately make the hiring decision.
We are excited by the pool of candidates; they are an accomplished set of academic leaders capable of leading our university. We are also very grateful for the generous amount of work and dedication of members of the Provost Search Committee who are committed to finding our university the best person to be our next provost. While our process for selecting the next provost will be different than it has been in the past, in light of the inclusive nature of our search committee and our desire to hire the very best provost we can, we are comfortable with the process set forth above.
We look forward to providing you with more information in late February or early March.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
Geraldine Richmond, Provost Search Committee Chair
Presidential Chair and Professor of Chemistry
From: “President Michael H. Schill” <pres>
Subject: Open Mike: Balancing principles
Date: January 9, 2017 at 11:55:25 AM PST
Dear Colleagues,
Over the past couple of months, the University of Oregon’s handling of events associated with Professor Nancy Shurtz’s decision to wear a controversial Halloween costume has garnered significant media attention, both locally and nationally. A number of editorials, letters to the editor, and blog posts have engaged in discussions on the topic. Some of the coverage has been, in my opinion, thoughtful but some has, perhaps not surprisingly, sensationalized and caricatured what is a very serious incident that deeply affected our students and, by extension, our entire university community. A number of colleagues have asked me for my own views on the matter. I hesitate to burden you with this personal reflection, but because this incident has polarized our community I have decided that it would be useful for me to share some of my own thoughts about the matter.
At the outset, I should state that, under university policies, the provost, not the president, is the figure whose job it is to respond to complaints against faculty members. Therefore, I have not played a formal role in responding to the incident. I write this to clarify my institutional role and not to decline responsibility. To the contrary, as president, I am ultimately responsible for everything on our campus.
When Professor Shurtz invited her two classes to her home for a Halloween party on October 31 and dressed up wearing blackface, she created a conundrum that is the stuff of a very difficult law school examination question. Two very important principles were potentially in conflict—the right of students to be free from racial harassment and the right of faculty members to exercise free speech. A law firm that the university hired to do an impartial investigation of the matter interviewed students and faculty members who were at the party and made a factual finding that at least some of the students felt compelled to attend their professor’s party and that they would potentially suffer negative consequences if they left early, despite being deeply offended and affronted by Professor Shurtz’s costume and its strong connotations of racism. The investigators made a factual finding that the behavior by Professor Shurtz constituted racial harassment under university policy V.11.02.
Of course, this is only part of the story. Professor Shurtz told the investigators that she didn’t intend to act in a racist manner. Instead, she said she was dressed “as a book” she had recently read that highlighted the shortage of black doctors in the medical profession. She also told the investigators that she was making a statement about the paucity of African American doctors. The law firm weighed the harms from the harassment against the value of her conduct and determined that, according to the balancing test prescribed by Pickering v. Board of Education, the former outweighed the latter, rendering her conduct unprotected. The provost accepted the findings of the investigation and, pursuant to university policy, took appropriate actions to make sure that Professor Shurtz understood the gravity of the incident and would not behave in a similar fashion in the future. I am not able to divulge the nature of these actions because university policy mandates confidentiality.
As I consider the case of Professor Shurtz, I have to admit I am torn. I believe that freedom of speech is thecore value of any university. When faculty members pursue their avocation—teaching students and conducting research—they must be able to say or write what they think without fear of retribution, even if their views are controversial, and even if their research and their views risk causing offense to others. Otherwise, advances in learning will be stunted. This freedom of speech includes the freedom to share political views, academic theories, good ideas, and even bad ones, too. It includes speech that offends others. Without academic freedom we could scarcely call the UO a university.
For me, stating that principle in the abstract is easy and uncomplicated. But here is the problem—figuring out when and whether there are legitimate limits on freedom of expression actually is complicated. In general, it is not acceptable for someone to use her rights to deprive another of her rights. I should not be able to use my speech to deny others of their right to be free from racial or sexual harassment. I can hold—and share—controversial views. But that does not give me the right to harass specific individuals or to speak in any way I wish to, in any place, or any point in time.
But, when exactly does offending someone turn into proscribed harassment? Only a small number of legal commentators would say that faculty members should be immune from all harassment charges on academic freedom grounds. Instead, most of us recognize that speech rights are extremely important, but they also fall on a continuum. For whatever it is worth, I personally am fairly close to the end of the spectrum that believes speech should be maximally protected. But even I believe that there are cases when speech or conduct is of relatively minimal value compared to the great harm that it may do to our students—particularly to students who already struggle with isolation and lack of representation. For example, imagine a required class in which a professor repeatedly uses the “N” word for no apparent reason except to elicit a reaction. Could African American students forced to sit through this class have a claim of harassment? I think so. Similarly, imagine a class in which a professor makes repeated, sexually explicit remarks to a student or students for no educational purpose. Free speech principles should not, in my view, prevent the university from taking appropriate actions to make sure these actions stop and do not recur in the future.
To be sure, the case of Professor Shurtz is not quite as clear-cut. The events took place in her home, not in the classroom. Her stated intention ex post was not to offend, but to draw attention to systemic racism. Still, some of her students felt that they were in a similar situation to students in a classroom being subjected to harassing speech, as they felt pressure to attend and to remain at the event. They felt that they could not leave without jeopardizing their standing in the class, and they also felt that the offensive nature of the blackface was the equivalent of hearing the “N” word. In these circumstances, should the university have ignored the event or should it have taken action proportionate to the offense? What lesson would we be teaching our students if we let the incident end without even an official letter of reprimand? These were the very difficult questions that Provost Coltrane had to grapple with, and I am supportive of the process he used and the fairness he displayed in making his decision.
Some commentators have taken to the barricades, and suggested that any finding or action taken with respect to Professor Shurtz will ultimately open the door to firing professors for expressing their political views. Really? In law, we call this the “slippery slope” argument or “the parade of horribles.” While I have tossed and turned for nights over the fact that the university found that a professor’s expressive conduct constituted harassment, I think the reaction of those commentators is overly dramatic and not supported by anything that took place in this case. Go online and you will find that Professor Shurtz remains a member of the law school faculty. Name a single faculty member who has been punished by the provost for his or her political views. This has not happened and you have my vow it won’t happen as long as I occupy my office in Johnson Hall.
The blackface incident has been a painful one for everyone in our UO community. It came at a time of heightened emotions with respect to the treatment of African Americans on our campus and on campuses throughout the nation. It also came at a time of turmoil and recrimination in our national politics. In my opinion, each of us should be uncomfortable with the harassment that our students experienced at the home of a senior faculty member. Each of us should also be uncomfortable with the fact that the provost felt it necessary to take remedial actions with respect to a faculty member in connection with her expressive conduct. Maybe I am just being a Pollyanna, but ultimately I hope that this discomfort will serve a good purpose. I hope that we come out of this experience with a greater understanding both of the value of free speech and the ways in which our speech can harm each other.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
Date of Notice: 12/21/2016
Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor:
Graduate School; Scott L. Pratt, Dean
Graduate Council; Lara Bovilsky, Chair
Graduate School; Sara Hodges, Associate Dean
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council is charged by the University Senate to “advise the Dean of the Graduate School on matters pertaining to graduate study at the University of Oregon”; and
1.2 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council has responsibility for “providing for the maintenance of high standards of graduate instruction”; and
1.3 WHEREAS, the Graduate Council and the Graduate School have fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Master of Arts program in Language Teaching Studies and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provosts’ Council, and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission for approval;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the recommendation of the Graduate Council and the Graduate School.
Financial Impact:
Related Documents:
This announcement was sent out 12/6/2016. The administration’s unelected Budget Advisory Group will not meet this year, and the administration will form a joint Budget Advisory Task Force with the Senate Budget Committee. The BATF will start meeting in January.
More information on how the Governor’s budget proposal will affect higher education is available on OSU’s excellent government affairs blog. UO’s website is here.
Dear University of Oregon community,
Last Thursday, Oregon Governor Kate Brown released her budget for the FY 2017–19 biennium and proposed flat funding for all seven public universities. This is good news only in the sense that it could have been a lot worse due to the state’s estimated $1.7 billion budget deficit for the next biennium. The bad news is that flat funding from the state creates significant financial challenges for the UO.
You may recall that the UO joined with all of the other Oregon public universities in signing a letter this fall stating that we needed a combined $100 million in additional state funding to keep next year’s tuition increase below 5 percent. This proposed budget obviously falls well short of that goal. Oregon has still not returned to the levels of state support delivered to the UO before the economic downturn—about $80 million in 2008. The UO currently receives about $66 million in state operating support. Also bear in mind that over the last 20 years, both in Oregon and nationally, cuts to public support for higher education have shifted the burden of paying for a college degree to students and families. We will work tirelessly to seek additional funding from the state—and we call on students, faculty, staff, and other stakeholders to join with us in this effort.
We project that the UO’s educational and general operating expenses will increase approximately $25 million next year largely due to salary increases contained in our faculty and staff labor contracts, rising health-care costs, and the extraordinary increase in our required contribution to the state’s unfunded pension (PERS) liability. The way the state distributes funds over the two years will result in another $2.5 million reduction. When you add everything up, it means next year, if our funding from the state remains constant as proposed, the UO will face at least a $27.5 million shortfall. We must find, in some combination, additional revenues (e.g., tuition and fees) or expense reductions as a result.
Furthermore, it is important to recognize that the current governor’s budget proposal of “constant funding” is premised on the assumption that the state will generate nearly $900 million in new revenue from a variety of sources. If lawmakers are not able to agree on a revenue plan, the overall state budget will need to be cut further to bring it into balance.
Also, the university’s revenue shortfall for next year should not be confused with efforts by several of our schools and colleges to bring their budget into balance. This work is ongoing and will proceed along a parallel track.
As we plan for these uncertainties, our top priority is to protect our access and academic programs. Indeed, with the incredible opportunities presented by the gift of Phil and Penny Knight, our initiative to increase the number of tenure-related faculty by 80 to 100 members over five years, investments in student success, and planned initiatives around diversity and inclusion, the school is poised to make historic strides in building the sort of academic excellence that only a few years ago seemed out of our reach. Despite the very real financial challenges we may face, we will protect these efforts and keep our march toward excellence on track.
While we will not know the final state budget for many months, perhaps as late as July, we need to move ahead now in our planning. The Tuition and Fees Advisory Board began meeting last month to consider the budget situation and potential tuition and fee increases. The current budget realities mean it will be nearly impossible to keep the tuition increase below 5 percent, and in fact the percentage could rise much higher. We will join with our students in helping state lawmakers understand how this proposed budget affects higher-education affordability at the UO and across the state of Oregon.
In addition, we will need to look creatively at other options. Within the next few weeks, the president will appoint an ad hoc budget advisory task force to provide advice and ideas for raising additional revenues and reducing expenses. The task force will include members of the Senate Budget Committee as well as administrators, faculty and staff members, and students. It will begin meeting in early January. The traditional Budget Advisory Group, which works to make recommendations on strategic investments, will not be convened this year.
We also ask that all departments proceed carefully with any new hiring of administrative staff and non-tenure-track faculty over the remainder of this fiscal year. Existing searches and requests for hiring approval should be reevaluated with an eye toward whether the personnel are absolutely essential and whether the hiring could be delayed until July 2017, when we will have a better understanding of the overall budget. Ultimately, it is very likely that many of our units will see reductions to their budgets next year. In many instances, it will be better to handle these expense reductions through attrition rather than through layoffs or contract nonrenewals.
The governor’s budget is a starting place and nothing is set in stone. Over the next several months, we will work with counterparts at the other state universities to make the case to increase state funds for higher education. We invite all members of our community, including our alumni, the ASUO, and labor unions, to join us in this effort.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President
Date of Notice: 09/21/2016
Current Status: Approved 11/30/2016
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Andy Karduna, Human Physiology
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, in recent years, the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC) has generally been ineffective in either an advisory or oversight capacity with respect to intercollegiate athletics; and
1.2 WHEREAS in the spring of 2014, upon the recommendation of the chair of the IAC, President Gottfredson formed and appointed members to a President’s Advisory Group on Intercollegiate Athletics (PAGIA) and directed athletics to interacted with this committee, rather than with the IAC; and
1.3 WHEREAS the PAGIA has not met since President Schill arrived at the University of Oregon; and
1.4 WHEREAS President Schill wants an effective advisory committee and the Senate has an interest in working with the president on forming this committee; and
1.5 WHEREAS the chair of the 2015-2016 IAC, in collaboration with the rest of the IAC and President Shill, drafted a charge for a new advisory committee – the Intercollegiate Athletic Advisory Committee (IAAC); and
1.6 WHEREAS the 2015-2016 IAC voted to approve the drafted charge for an IAAC and this charge was then reviewed by the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 Committee on Committees.
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Senate approves a replacement of the Intercollegiate Athletic Committee (IAC) by the Intercollegiate Athletic Advisory Committee IAAC, effective immediately; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that current members of the IAC elect 4 current faculty members of the IAC to serve as the elected faculty members on the IAAC for the 2016-2017 academic year and that these member serve until their membership on the IAC would have expired; and
2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the University Senate encourages the President to select 3 appointed faculty members and 1 student member from existing IAC membership to serve as the appointed faculty and student members on the IAAC for the 2016-2017 academic year, and that these member serve until their membership on the IAC would have expired.
Related Documents:
Date of Notice: 11/28/2016
Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Committee on Committees
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, the Senate recently updated their bylaws to revise the membership, charge, and name of the University Committee on Sexual Orientation, Attraction, Gender Identity and Expression; and
1.2 WHEREAS, there has been significant confusion about the official and finalized version of the name, reporting structure/classification, membership, and charge of this committee;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED, the Senate hereby confirms the name of the committee as the University Committee on Sexual Orientation, Attraction, Gender Identity and Expression; the committee’s charge and responsibilities, membership structure and appointment of new members; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED, the Senate hereby confirms this committee will report to the University Senate; and
2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED, the Senate hereby confirms the committee’s charge and responsibilities, membership, meeting structure, and appointment/confirmation of new members, as outlined in the revised 17 pt. chart (please see Related Documents);
Related Documents:
UPDATE April 2017: Memo from Wabash regarding recent UO visit.
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
(Updated)
Dear Colleagues –
On Monday I sent UO General Counsel Kevin Reed this request:
11/13/16, 3:18 AM, “UO Senate President” <senatepres@uoregon.edu> wrote:
Dear GC Reed –
I’m writing as UO Senate President, to request that you provide the Senate with the details of the charge you’ve given the AAEO office and/or outside counsel to investigate the Halloween blackface incident. The Senate and its Executive Committee is particularly interested in knowing what laws, regulations, or UO policies the investigation may involve.
We would like to have the information before the Senate meeting this Wednesday.
Continue reading Adminstration’s investigation of the halloween party Black doctor incident
Date of Notice:10/16/2017
Current Status: Approved 04/12/2017
Motion type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Senate Responsible Reporting Work Group
Motion:
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, it is important that students, faculty, and staff clearly understand options available for dealing with instances of sexual and gender-based violence; and
1.2 WHEREAS, seeking assistance and reporting are two such options; and
1.3 WHEREAS, existing University of Oregon policy on these matters was last adopted in 2004; and
1.4 WHEREAS, new guidance has been provided by the U.S. Department of Education¹s Office of Civil Rights, especially since 2011; and
1.5 WHEREAS, the University President enacted an emergency policy in February 2016 on these matters; and
1.6 WHEREAS, Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 was adopted to ensure equality in education and to remove gender-based impediments to academic success; and
1.7 WHEREAS it is clear that academic success is an academic matter as commonly understood in education; and
1.8 WHEREAS, the University Senate voted against a proposal for a permanent policy that a committee offered in May 2016; and
1.9 WHEREAS, the University President enacted a new emergency policy in August 2016 on these matters while encouraging the Senate to continue its work on a permanent policy; and
1.10 WHEREAS, the Responsible Reporting Work Group (RRWG) includes faculty, students, and administrators who have worked collaboratively to write a new policy, including consultation and public forums with others concerned with a potential policy; and
1.11 WHEREAS, the RRWG developed the following statement of principles to guide its work:
1) Be consistent with the core mission of the UO
2) Be based on data, when that data exists.
3) Be guided by the spirit of Title IX: to protect educational equity.
4) Do no harm.
5) Recognize that student survivors are adults and have autonomy.
6) Respect academic freedom.
7) Protect from liability University employees who are acting pursuant to the policy.
8) Stay grounded in the reality of how the University deals with reports of sexual violence.
9) Be cognizant of the legal and national context in which the policy will operate;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following policy be adopted by the University Senate and forwarded to the University President for his consideration and approval (see Related Documents section):
Financial Impact:
The overall financial impact is uncertain. Implementing the policy will involve employee training, but training is already required under the law and existing policy. The existing safe.uoregon.edu website will need updating, but UO already has knowledgeable staff for this work. The policy recommends, but does not require, that UO provide an reporting escrow system, at an unknown cost. On the other hand, by establishing reasonable reporting rules for employees we expect, but cannot ensure, that it will reduce UO’s exposure to legal damages related to non-compliance.
Related Documents:
Proposal: April 2017
Below is an exchange between UO GC Kevin Reed and UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh, a well known free-speech advocate and blogger, regarding Reed’s proposed policy regarding restrictions on the time, place and manner of campus free-speech.
From: Kevin Reed [mailto:ksreed@uoregon.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2016 10:58 AM
To: Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH@law.ucla.edu>
Subject: Any chance you’d be willing to comment on these?
Continue reading Volokh comments on TPM free speech constraints proposal
I am proud to be serving as a new UO Senator this year. Given some controversy over the Senate’s role in recent years, I want to think deliberately about how I see this body. I am writing this memo to clarify my views for myself, but I will share it to seek reactions that could sharpen (or change) my thinking.
Continue reading Thinking about the Role of the UO Senate, by Craig Parsons
From: “Christopher Minson” <minson>
Hello Fellow Senators,
Continue reading Note from Chris Minson on Parliamentary Procedures in the Senate
From: “President Michael H. Schill” <pres>
Subject: You’re invited to the new UO Faculty Club
Date: November 1, 2016 at 10:27:05 AM PDT
Colleagues,
We are pleased to let you know that at 5 p.m. on Wednesday, November 9, we will open the new University of Oregon Faculty Club in a new designated space in the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. This idea has been in the works for a number of years, and is meant to provide a place where statutory faculty and their guests can gather in a welcoming and collegial space.
Date of Notice: 10/01/2016
Current Status: Approved 11/02/2016
Motion type: Legislation
Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Chair of CoC
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, the Senate recently updated their bylaws to revise the membership of the Committee on Committees to include Classified Staff members and Officers of Administration;
Section II
2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED, the Senate hereby confirms the appointment of the following new members to the Committee on Committees:
Chuck Theobald, Lewis Center for Neuroimaging
Ben Brinkley, CASIT
Holly Syljuberget, Business Affairs
Financial Impact: Cost Neutral
Colleagues and Students,
I have the immense pleasure of announcing that our dear friends Penny and Phil Knight have made an extraordinarily generous $500 million gift—the largest ever to a public flagship university—that will launch an initiative to rethink and reshape research at the University of Oregon. The Phil and Penny Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact will fast-track scientific discoveries into innovations, products, and cures that solve problems and improve our quality of life.
Continue reading Announcing the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact
Date of Notice: 08/01/2014
Motion type: Policy Proposal
Current Status: Notice Given
Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee
Motion
BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the “Interim Policy” — Review of Academic Administrators — as presented (see Related Documents) and its redlined version (see Related Documents), which will now be converted from temporary to permanent status.
Continue reading US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators
Date of Notice: 07/01/2014
Motion type: Policy Proposal
Current Status: Postponed until 01/13/2016
Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee
Motion
BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the “Interim Policy” — Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators — as presented in the following document (see Related Documents) and its redlined version (see Related Documents), which subsequently, will be converted from temporary to permanent status.
Continue reading US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators
UO’s federal accreditation comes from the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities – website here.
UO’s website on the process is here: http://accreditation.uoregon.edu/
Date of Notice: 10/07/2016
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Current Status: Approved 11/16/2016
Sponsor: Graduate Council
Continue reading US16/17-05: Policy on Graduate Online & Hybrid Courses: Student Engagement
Too bad, they don’t allow comments – just “a suggestion box” which only the admins can see. How 1950’s.
So I’m posting this, as a place for the UO community to comment on CAS matters. Here’s the “Thinking about CAS” blog.
Date of Notice: 08/30/2016
Motion type: Legislation
Current Status: Approved 11/02/2016
Sponsor: Alison Schmitke (Education), Chair of the Undergraduate Council
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Council is charged by the University Senate with “reviewing, evaluating, and enhancing the quality of the University’s academic programs;” and
1.2 WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Council has the responsibility to “monitor, help shape, and approve new undergraduate programs (majors, minors, certificates) and changes to existing programs;” and
1.3 WHEREAS, the Undergraduate Council has fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Bachelor’s degree in Spatial Data Science & Technology (Department of Geography) and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provost’s Council, and the Higher Education Coordinating Commission for approval;
Section II
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the BA and BS degrees in Spatial Data Science & Technology
Related Documents:
Date of Notice: 09/21/2016
Motion type: Legislation
Current Status: Approved 10/19/2016
Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee
Motion
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS, many committees are staffed by persons from all Senate constituencies; and
1.2 WHEREAS, Classified Staff and Officers of Administration have knowledge about members of their respective constituencies, which is useful in filling committee vacancies;
Section II
2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED, that section 5.5 of the senate bylaws be amended as follows:
The Committee on Committees shall generally have 10-12 members from the Statutory Faculty as defined in the University of Oregon Constitution Section 2.2. Senate constituencies, with a majority coming from the Statutory Faculty as defined in the University of Oregon Constitution Section 2.2. To facilitate its work, the Committee membership should represent the broadest possible cross-section of campus academic units including CAS and the professional schools. The Senate Vice President is the chair of the Committee on Committees.
Date of Notice: 09/21/2016
Motion type: Legislation
Current Status: Approved by the Senate 10/19/2016
Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee
Motion:
Section I
1.1 WHEREAS The Senate Bylaws requires that “The Order of Business” be conducted in a specific sequence, and;
1.2 WHEREAS changes requires a ⅔ vote of the Senate at the start of the meeting any time there is a need to re-order the agenda, such as when accommodating the schedule of a presenter, and;
1.3 WHEREAS Taking such votes is cumbersome and changing an already-posted agenda can be misleading to those who are attending part of the meeting for particular agenda items, and;
1.4 WHEREAS Allowing for prior modification of the order listed in the Bylaws, at the discretion of the President in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee, will be more efficient and transparent by allowing the the published agenda to show the actual order of business.
Section II
THEREFORE: The Senate modifies Article 3.3 of the Senate Bylaws as follows:
3.3 Senate Agenda. The Senate President shall set the agenda for each University Senate meeting in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. The Senate agenda must be made public and available to the Senate at least 7 6 days prior to the Senate meeting. The Order of Business follows the sequence listed below. Senate meetings will include all items in the Order of Business listed below, however the sequence may be modified by the Senate President in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. Section 3.3 shall be a Special Rule of Order as defined by Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.
Background:
Current bylaws, Article 3, from
ARTICLE 3: RULES AND PROCEDURES
3.1 The Senate shall adopt its own rules and procedures. The Senate is free to adopt its own internal rules and procedures (i.e., Senate by-laws) except as explicitly stipulated in the University of Oregon Constitution Section 8.1. These exceptions are noted throughout this document.
3.2 The Senate shall follow Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the University Senate in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are consistent with these bylaws, the University of Oregon Constitution, and any special rules of order the University Senate may adopt. Senate rules must also adhere to all local, state and national laws.
3.2.1 Deviations from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. The Senate may choose to adopt rules that do not conform to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. Any deviations from Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall be presented to the Senate in the form of a motion and shall require a two-thirds affirmative vote to be adopted.
3.3 Senate Agenda. The Senate President shall set the agenda for each University Senate meeting in consultation with the Senate Executive Committee. The Senate agenda must be made public and available to the Senate at least 7 days prior to the Senate meeting. The Order of Business follows the sequence listed below. Section 3.3 shall be a Special Rule of Order as defined by Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised.
3.3.1 Call to Order.
3.3.2 Approval of the Minutes. The minutes from the previous meeting shall be brought before the Senate for discussion, revision if necessary, and formal approval by vote.
3.3.3 State of the University. The President of the University or his/her designee shall be granted this period at each Senate meeting to make a presentation.
3.3.4 New Business. New Business is the section of the Senate meeting where motions shall be brought to the Senate floor for discussion, consideration and action. Other action items, such as formal acceptance of the Curriculum Report from the Committee on Courses and motions from prior meetings that were tabled or sent back for revision shall also be presented in this part of the meeting.
3.3.5 Open Discussion. The Senate shall have the opportunity to discuss a topical issue of campus-wide concern during this part of the meeting. No formal action shall occur during the Open Discussion period and motions shall not be brought to the floor for consideration.
3.3.6 Reports. This shall be the section of the meeting when reports from University Standing or ad hoc Committees, Administrative Advisory Groups, Externally- Mandated Boards and other campus constituencies are presented.
3.3.7 Notice(s) of Motion. Notice shall be given for all motions to be discussed and acted upon by the Senate at a future meeting (See Article 3.7 for more information concerning Legislation and Resolutions).
3.3.8 Other Business.
3.3.9 Adjournment.
Under the 2011 UO Constitution, the faculty has authority over “all academic matters as commonly understood in higher education”:
1.2 The University of Oregon is governed by the President and the Professors in accordance with the 1876 University of Oregon Charter. ORS 352.010. 1.3 Sole faculty governance authority at the University of Oregon resides in the Statutory Faculty. This authority extends to all academic matters as commonly understood in higher education. The Statutory Faculty may delegate its authority but must retain oversight responsibility.
This summer President Schill and Provost Coltrane made an attempt to be more specific:
From: Scott Coltrane
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 9:48 PM
To: harbaugh@uorego.edu; Chris Sinclair
Cc: Mike Schill
Subject: Fw: Academic principles
Bill and Chris,
I wanted to share with you the attached Statement of Principle Regarding Academic Policies that Mike and I have approved to help us determine if a policy is academic or not. The Policy on Policies uses language from the Constitution (see citations on the attachment), but there is still the question of what “commonly understood” means. Based on research from AAU peers, AAUP, etc., this seemed like an appropriate baseline. We do feel it is important to have an articulated standard to help guide us through the policies process. We look forward to hearing your thoughts.
SCOTT COLTRANE | Provost and Senior Vice President
provost@uoregon.edu | 541-346-3186
202 Johnson Hall
1258 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403
Statement of Principle Regarding Academic Policies
Primarily, we see academic policies as those addressing curriculum, academic standards, academic standards of admission, academic freedom, tenure and promotion, major changes to academic programs, grading standards, and student life as it relates to the educational process. Additionally, academic policies are more likely than not going to include policies relating to faculty status; this area includes appointments, reappointments, decision not to reappoint, promotions, the granting of tenure and denial. See AAUP’s Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities Section 5.[1]
Policies which have broad applicability to university employees but do not differentially treat faculty are not considered academic. For example, key control to buildings, parking, purchasing regulations, or information technology matters relevant to all users, such as training, security and email use.
Regardless of whether a policy or proposal is deemed “academic” and thus proceeds through the academic policy process, the input of the senate or individual faculty members is always welcome through the public comment process for interested stakeholders.
Approved by President Michael Schill and Provost Scott Coltrane
August 2016
Miscellaneous Policy References and Citations
A “University Policy” (Policy) is a policy that
Excluded from the definition of a University Policy are things such as, but not limited to, implementation guides, operating guidelines, internal procedures, and similar management controls and tools.[2]
An academic policy is one that addresses curriculum, academic standards, academic standards of admission, academic freedom, tenure and promotion, major changes to academic programs, grading standards, student life that relates to the educational process, or other matters of an academic nature as commonly understood in higher education.[3]
Proposals regarding majors, programs, minors, certificates, courses, and degree requirements are not considered policies for process purposes.[4]
[1] https://www.aaup.org/report/statement-government-colleges-and-universities
[2] University of Oregon Policy I.03.01, Section 3.1
[3] University of Oregon Policy I.03.01, Section 3.2; University of Oregon Constitution, Section 1.3 (emphasis added)
[4] University of Oregon Policy I.03.01, Section 5.3
CAS and, I believe the other colleges are currently revising their teaching release policies. I’ve asked the deans for the current drafts, and will add them below as I receive them.
Info request:
From: UO Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>
Subject: course release policy
Date: October 1, 2016 at 2:31:09 AM PDT
To: Andrew Marcus <marcus@uoregon.edu>, Bruce Blonigen <bruceb@uoregon.edu>, bfoley@uoregon.edu, Terry Hunt <tlhunt@uoregon.edu>, randyk@uoregon.edu, Adriene Lim <alim@uoregon.edu>, cpl@uoregon.edu, lawdean@uoregon.edu, jmolleda@uoregon.edu
Cc: Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, Senate Executive Coordinator <senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu>, Office of the Provost <provost@uoregon.edu>, Mariann Hyland <hylandm@uoregon.edu>
Dear Deans –
I’m writing as Senate Pres, to ask that you provide the Senate with a copy of the current draft of your college’s course release policy, so that I can distribute it to the Senate before our October 5 meeting.
Thanks,
Bill Harbaugh
Senate President
Economics Professor
University of Oregon
CAS response:
From: Karen Ford <fordk@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Fwd: course release policy
Date: October 1, 2016 at 3:57:50 PM PDT
To: William Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>
Dear Bill,
I’m responding to your request below for college course release policies. Attached are our proposed methodology and metrics in CAS, which we’ve drafted after discussions among the CAS deans and with the Wise Heads. We will be discussing the proposal with Academic Affairs and United Academics before it’s final.
All the best,
Karen
AAA response:
From: Christoph Lindner <cpl@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: course release policy
Date: October 1, 2016 at 11:48:25 AM PDT
To: Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>
Cc: Senate Executive Coordinator <senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu>
Dear Bill,
I’m sorry to say that A&AA does not currently have a draft school policy on course releases. We are currently working on developing/drafting such a policy, which will be available to share and circulate in due course.
best wishes,
Christoph
Christoph Lindner
Dean and Professor
School of Architecture and Allied Arts
University of Oregon
cpl@uoregon.edu
aaa.uoregon.edu
From: Office of the Provost <provost@uoregon.edu>
Subject: FPC Support
Date: October 3, 2016 at 8:58:54 AM PDT
To: “dcrumb@uoregon.edu” <dcrumb@uoregon.edu>, David Frank <dfrank@uoregon.edu>, Esther Hagenlocher <ehg@uoregon.edu>, Steven Morozumi <stevenm@uoregon.edu>, Laura Lee McIntyre <llmcinty@uoregon.edu>, Doris Payne <dlpayne@uoregon.edu>, Boris Botvinnik <botvinn@uoregon.edu>, “Scott Fitzpatrick” <smfitzpa@uoregon.edu>, John Foster <jfoster@uoregon.edu>, Margaret Paris <mparis@uoregon.edu>, Eric Torrence <torrence@uoregon.edu>
Cc: William Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>, Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, Chuck Triplett <clt@uoregon.edu>
Dear FPC Members,
In recognition of the significant time commitment made by members of the UO Faculty Personnel Committee, and acknowledging input from past committee members and chairs, I will be providing supplements to FPC members’ Academic Support Accounts. Following each year of service, the Chair will receive $3,000, the Chair-elect $2,000, and each other member a $1,000 supplement to their ASA accounts.
With appreciation for all you do for our university,
Scott
SCOTT COLTRANE | Provost and Senior Vice President
provost@uoregon.edu | 541-346-3186
202 Johnson Hall
1258 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403
SCOTT COLTRANE | Provost and Senior Vice President
provost@uoregon.edu | 541-346-3186
202 Johnson Hall
1258 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403
Current FPC:
Sponsored by the Senate Responsible Reporting Work Group
Friday, September 30 from 1-2:30 pm in 150 Columbia
Purpose: to gather student input to help the work group develop a university policy about supporting survivors and reporting sexual assaults
Come to the forum. Learn what the work group is discussing. Share your perspective directly or anonymously. Join the conversation on this blog.
Agenda:
Who on campus should be required to notify our Title IX Coordinator when they learn of a sexual assault?
If you tell an administrator, faculty member, or staff person about a sexual assault, what do you expect them to do?
Do we have enough confidential resources on campus where a sexual assault survivor can get help without having to formally report the incident?
If you experienced sexual assault and someone reported it confidentially, would you want that confidential person to contact you and offer support resources?
3. Student comments to the work group.
Information about support resources on campus will be available.
Location: EMU Crater Lake Rooms; 3:00-5:00 pm
3:00 pm 1. Call to Order
1.1 Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh
3:05 pm 2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 October 5, 2016
3:05 pm 3. State of the University
3.1 Remarks by Patrick Phillips, Interim Director of CASI
3:15 pm 4. New Business
3:15 pm 4.1 Discussion: US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators; Senate Executive Committee
3:25 pm 4.2 Discussion: US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators; Senate Executive Committee
3:35 pm 4.3 Vote: US16/17-01: Change to the Senate bylaws regarding the order of Senate meeting agendas; Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate Vice President
3:45 pm 4.4 Vote: US16/17-02: Change to the Senate bylaws regarding the Committee on Committees membership; Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate Vice President
3:55 pm 4.5 US16/17-04: Revise charge and name of IAC committee; Andy Karduna (Human Physiology)
4:10 pm 4.6 Discussion: US16/17-03: New Program Proposal: Spatial Data Science & Technology (Geography); Alison Schmitke (Education), Chair of the Undergraduate Council
4:20 pm 5. Open Discussion
4:20 pm 5.1 New Chief of Police
4:35 5.2 IT Reorganization, Provost Coltrane (Power Point pdf), Interim CIO Chris Krabiel, Dean of Libraries Adriene Lim,Greg Bryant (Discussion points, Outline), Q&A
4:55 pm 6. Reports
4:55 pm 7. Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 pm 8. Other Business
5:00 pm 9. Adjournment
DRAFT
Senate Meeting Agenda – Oct 5, 2016
Location: Gerlinger Lounge; 3:00-5:00 pm
3:00 pm 1. Call to Order
1.1 Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh
3:05 pm 2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 May 25, 2016
3:05 pm 3. State of the University
3.1 Welcome, President Michael Schill
3.2 Introductory Remarks, Senate VP Chris Sinclair
3:55 pm 4. New Business
4.1 Discussion of Senate procedures and Handbook, Substitute Senator policy, new Executive Coordinator for the Statutory Faculty (Angela Wilhelms); Bill Harbaugh, Senate President
4.2 Introduce Bylaws change: CoC membership; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP
4.3 Introduce motion to allow for the reordering of the Senate Agenda; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP
4:20 pm 5. Open Discussion
4:20 pm 6. Reports
6.1 Update from the Task Force on the Bias Response Team; Chris Chavez (Journalism), Co-Chair
6.2 Update from Responsible Reporting Work Group and recap of Student Forum (Sept. 30, 2016); Merle Weiner (Law), Chair
4:45 pm 7. Notice(s) of Motion
7.1 New Program Proposal: Spatial Data Science & Technology (Department of Geography); Undergrad Council
7.2 IAC/IAPAC & transition; Andy Karduna (Human Physiology) & Intercollegiate Athletics Committee
7.3 Introduce motion to allow for the reordering of the Senate Agenda; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP
7.4 Notice of motion on Bylaws change: CoC membership; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP
7.5. New motions?
4:50 pm 8. Other Business
8.1 Recruitment of a new COIA representative; Bill Harbaugh, Senate President
5:00 pm 9. Adjournment
President Schill’s decision to dename Dunn Hall has been confirmed by the UO Board, as has his decision to delay a decision on Deady until the students are back on campus and can participate.
President Schill’s message to the University community on this subject is here: http://president.uoregon.edu/content/deady-and-dunn-halls-next-steps
We are opening this part of the Senate blog as a place for discussion on the potential denaming and renaming, so please add your comments.
The BOT website is here.
We’ve posted a more convenient version of their agenda below, and have opened up the comments for those with a UO email address.
Academic and Student Affairs Committee —8:30 am – September 8, 2016, Ford Alumni Center, Giustina Ballroom [Materials]
Convene – Call to order, roll call – Introductory comments and agenda review – Approval of June 2016 ASAC minutes (Action) – Public comment
1. Academic Program Review: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost; Susan Anderson, Senior Vice Provost
2. Student Success Initiatives: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost; Lisa Freinkel, Dean of Undergraduate Studies; Ron Bramhall, Assistant Vice Provost for Academic Affairs; Doneka Scott, Associate Vice Provost for Student Success
Finance and Facilities Committee — September 8, 2016 [Materials] 10:00 am – September 8, 2016
Convene – Call to order and roll call – Approval of June 2016 FFC minutes (Action) – Public comment
1. Quarterly and Year‐End Finance Report: Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and
Administration/CFO
2. Auxiliary Budget Review: Athletics: Rob Mullens, Director of Intercollegiate Athletics; Eric Roedl, Deputy Athletic Director
3. Capital Construction & Planning
‐‐Oregon Hall Renovation (Action): Jamie Moffitt, Vice President for Finance and Administration/CFO
‐‐Pacific Hall Renovation (Action): David Conover, Vice President for Research and Innovation; Bill Cresko, Professor and Associate Vice President for Research
4. UO Buildings – Energy Policies and Programs: Michael Harwood, Associate VP for Campus Planning and Facilities Management
Executive and Audit Committee —1:15 pm – September 8, 2016 Ford Alumni Center, Giustina Ballroom [Materials]
Convene – Call to order, roll call – Approval of June 2016 EAC minutes (Action)
1. Quarterly Audit Report and Amendment to Internal Audit Charter (Action): Trisha Burnett, Chief Auditor
2. University IT and Computing Priorities Update: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost; Chris Krabiel, Interim CIO; Adriene Lim, Dean of Libraries
Meeting Adjourns
Meeting of the Board — September 8-9, 2016 [Materials]
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 8 – 2:00 pm – Convene Public Meeting
– Call to order, roll call, verification of quorum – Approval of June 2016 minutes (Action) – Public comment
Those wishing to provide comment must sign up advance and review the public comment guidelines either online (http://trustees.uoregon.edu/meetings) or at the check-in table at the meeting.
1. Recommendation re Dunn Hall (Action): Michael Schill, President
2. Seconded Motions and Resolutions (Actions)
–Seconded Motion from FFC: Pacific Hall Renovation (pending September 8 committee action)
–Seconded Motion from FFC: Oregon Hall Renovation (pending September 8 committee action)
3. New Administrator Introductions: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost
4. President’s Report: Michael Schill, President
Meeting Recessed
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9 – 9:30 am – Reconvene Public Meeting
5. Presidential Assessment Report: Chuck Lillis, Chair; Ginevra Ralph, Vice Chair
6. AY16-17 Tuition and Fee Setting-Process: Scott Coltrane, Senior Vice President and Provost
7. Clusters in Focus
–Center for Genome Function: Eric Selker, Professor of Biology and Member of the Institute for Molecular Biology; Diana Libuda, Assistant Professor of Biology; Jeffrey McKnight, Assistant Professor of Biology
–Health Promotion, Obesity Prevention & Human Development: Beth Stormshak, Professor of Counseling Psychology and Human Services and Director of the Prevention Science Institute
8. Federal Funding at the UO: David Conover, Vice President for Research and Innovation; Jim
Brooks, Assistant Vice President for Enrollment Management and Director of Financial Aid and Scholarships
9. UO Portland – Update: Jane Gordon, Vice Provost for UO Portland
Meeting Adjourned
10/6/2016:
From: Angela Wilhelms <wilhelms@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Standing Meeting Reports
Date: October 6, 2016 at 2:08:43 PM PDT
To: Senate President <senatepres@uoregon.edu>, Quinn Haaga <qhaaga@uoregon.edu>
Cc: Amanda Hatch <ahatch@uoregon.edu>, Jennifer LaBelle <jlabelle@uoregon.edu>
Bill and Quinn,
I hope this email finds you both well and enjoying the start of another busy academic year!
Chair Lillis asked me to extend an invitation to both of you to present a standing report at the Board of Trustees meetings, beginning with the next meeting in December.
ASUO and University Senate standing reports were a part of board meetings during the first several meetings. However, they were removed from the agenda in favor of written reports when some presenters used the time to speak to the audience and rally crowds, rather than update the board on the progress and goings-on within the respective organization.
The Chair believes that we are past some of those practices, and he trusts that trustees can resume receiving updates from you (or your designees if you cannot attend) that are informative and insightful.
We ask that you still provide a written version of your report so that trustees can read it in advance and come prepared with any questions. The oral reports are scheduled for 5 minutes each, so you could easily include more detailed information in the written material. These are not intended to be two different reports.
Amanda will be in touch prior to each meeting with the time, and she’ll be your point of contact on logistics and details. Barring some reason to adjust the schedule, these will almost always take place near the very beginning of the meeting after public comment.
Let me know if you have any question!
Angela
P.S. Since the December meeting is in Portland, we will have a live teleconference feed to a room on campus so that the two of you, as well as people interested in making public comment, don’t have to travel to Portland. Amanda will have those details closer to time as well so that you can share it with your respective groups.
Angela Wilhelms
University Secretary
University of Oregon
O: 541.346.5561 | C: 503.931.5426
9/6/2016: Senate Pres Harbaugh letter to Board Chair Lillis
Dear UO Board Chair Lillis, and UO Trustees:
I am writing to you as UO Senate President. Last week the Board Secretary asked me to submit written comments to you for this week’s meeting, and then to answer questions at some point during the time you have set aside on your next agenda “for public comments”.
I refused, because I believe, as have all previous UO Senate presidents since UO independence, that our Board of Trustees should be willing to give the Senate some specific time on their agenda for discussing academic matters with them. I see that the UO student leadership also does not appear on your agenda. Apparently they have also been put in the public comment period.
This is not normal. The boards of governors of other AAU universities regularly set aside scheduled time on their agendas for the representatives of the faculty and the students – and what else is a university about? – to speak, ask questions of the board, and answer the board’s questions. (Besides, the comments from the public are often among the more interesting parts of the board meetings, and I hate the idea that the Senate’s time will take away from the public’s.)
The UO Senate has in past years scheduled time for both Chair Lillis and Trustee Ballmer to speak to us. The Senate made sure these presentations were well promoted, and that everyone understood their importance. Turnout was large and these interactions helped the faculty and the university understand the board, and built some trust in it. As Senate President I welcome requests from any trustee to speak, and I will treat them with the same respect that the Senate has done in the past.
In that spirit, I hope that your next agenda will explicitly schedule time for the Senate leadership to address the board and to ask and answer questions about academic matters. I promise to bring plenty to the table.
Yours,
Bill Harbaugh
Economics Professor & Senate President
University of Oregon
Welcome to the new University of Oregon Senate pages! We have archived the old Senate pages in their totality, and additional archived information can be found on the Senate Archives page.
We had two goals in mind for the new page:
First was to organize the overwhelming amount of data on committees, meetings, motions and the individuals who make the Senate work. We did this by building a new database—basically a spreadsheet with a number of tables and links recording relationships between the entries in the various tables. This database exists not only to keep Senate leadership, staff and committees organized, but also to serve that data to the public via these pages. Currently there are four main pages which access the database:
Most data displayed from the database can be starred by clicking on the bullet next to the entry. Starred entries can be viewed by clicking on the star in the main menu from almost any page. You can also find your starred entries (if you have any) on the Starred page.
The second major goal for the new web pages was to provide a platform where members of the University of Oregon community can comment on the work of the Senate, or engage in topical conversation about our university. This page was built using WordPress as a content management system. This system is basically a blogging platform, and we have the ability to enable comments for almost any content visible on the site. For the most part, we expect the conversation to be accessible either from the featured content on the front page (the six major tiles you see when you land on the page) and under the Blog tab. To make comments you will log in with your DuckID, and your name will displayed with any comments you make. Please be respectful.
If you have any questions or suggestions for improvement (or simply notice a mistake in the data served from the database) you can leave a comment on the Suggestions post.
Begin forwarded message:
From: “Office of the Provost and Academic Affairs” <provost>
Subject: Input sought on IT report and process
Date: August 26, 2016 at 10:48:30 AM PDT
Dear Colleagues,
The University of Oregon has been engaged in an ongoing conversation about improving information technology (IT) across campus. Having a robust, efficient, and secure IT system and structure is essential to the UO’s academic and research success and critical to serving students, faculty, and staff.
Over the last year we have conducted a series of assessments, begun developing an IT strategic plan, and started updating our policies. This work shows the UO must transform its IT system so that we have the appropriate infrastructure and staffing model to support our vital academic and research mission.
As part of these assessments, the UO commissioned a report by IT consultant Harvey Blustain, which is available on the provost’s webpage. The report suggests the best way to improve the IT support and operations is to consolidate the university’s fragmented technology resources and put in place consistent policies, procedures, and practices to increase efficiency and decrease institutional risk. Interim Chief Information Officer Chris Krabiel, Dean of Libraries Adriene Lim, and I have reviewed the report and believe it is a promising path forward for improving the UO’s IT systems and utilizing the skills of our many talented IT professionals.
I invite the campus community to read the report and offer feedback using this input form by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, September 30. Interim CIO Krabiel and Dean Lim will be engaging faculty and staff across campus in direct conversations to solicit more input. Additionally, in the coming weeks, interim CIO Krabiel will continue to meet with IT staff to review the report findings, answer questions, take input, and consider next steps. Additional information about the process, timeline, and proposed next steps is available here.
The input received from these discussions and from the comments form will be evaluated and used to finalize a recommendation to President Schill regarding next steps in improving services and further smoothing the transition process.
I thank the many people across campus who are working on this important IT transformation that will help position the UO for academic and research excellence. And I thank you in advance for your input and support of moving the university forward.
Sincerely,
Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President
President Schill’s 8/19 email.
From: “President Michael H. Schill” <pres>
Subject: Provost search committee named
Date: August 19, 2016 at 2:27:57 PM PDT
Dear Colleagues,
Choosing a provost is among the most important decisions a president will make for a university. The provost is the chief academic officer of the institution and, as such, the guardian of our most important functions—education and scholarship. We are fortunate that Scott Coltrane will have served in that role for more than three years, in addition to serving as interim president and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences since arriving at the UO in 2008. Now that he has announced he will retire in June 2017, it is vital that I select a worthy successor who will be my partner in advancing the University of Oregon.
I am pleased to announce that 17 people have been selected to serve on the Provost Search Committee, led by Professor Geri Richmond, to assist me in recruiting our next provost. I reached out to a broad representation of campus constituencies to develop the committee membership, which includes members of faculty, staff, students, and administration. I am grateful that everyone I asked to serve agreed to devote their time and expertise to this effort.
The names of the committee members are listed here on my website. Further updates will be posted on this site as we progress through the search process.
I thank Professor Richmond for taking on the task of leading this very important committee, and thank each member of the committee for their service to our university.
Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
President Schill sent this message to the campus community regarding the potential denaming of Deady and/or Dunn Hall. We will collate and share any opinions expressed here with President Schill regarding this decision or the process to arrive at it.
Dear Campus Community,
The University of Oregon is undergoing a self-examination of its policies and practices with respect to race and inclusion, similar to many other universities throughout the nation. Last year, a group of students under the banner of the Black Student Task Force (BSTF) presented me with a set of 13 demands that ranged from creating new programs and increasing African American enrollment to construction of a Black cultural center on or near campus. We continue to make progress on these issues as outlined in a letter to campus in spring. Today, I am providing new information and asking for input regarding the BSTF’s call to change the names of Deady and Dunn Halls because of the racist views and actions of the men for whom the buildings were named.
Earlier this year, I charged a committee—chaired by Associate Professor Charise Cheney and composed of faculty members, administrators, and students—to provide me with a set of criteria that would guide a decision to dename campus buildings. I considered the committee’s recommendations and, in a letter to the campus dated May 6, announced a set of criteria and processes. I asked three prominent historians to carefully review and investigate the historical records of both Deady and Dunn in relation to these criteria.
These three historians provided me with their report on August 5, which is available here on my website. As I requested, the report does not make recommendations about denaming either building. Instead, it carefully considers each criterion through a painstaking analysis of historical records and archives as well as relevant court cases.
The historians’ report is a sobering account of a tumultuous and difficult period in Oregon’s history. I encourage you to read the report and invite you to provide me with your views on whether one or both of the buildings should be denamed.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would provide me with your comments using this form by 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, August 24. Following this comment period, I will carefully consider the report and all the comments before announcing next steps, including the possibility of taking a denaming proposal for one or both buildings to the UO Board of Trustees at some point in the future.
I would like to thank the three historians for their expertise, time, and attention to this important issue. I also would like to acknowledge that the ultimate decision about whether to dename a building is exceedingly difficult and that the historical record in this case is a complicated one. Reasonable people, ethical people, well-meaning people will disagree about the right course of action. One of the things I have been most proud of during my first year as your president is that our community—led by our students—has approached some of the most painful issues facing our society with a tremendous level of commitment, care, and good sense. I am confident that as we move toward a decision on Deady and Dunn Halls, that level of wisdom and sense of community will continue to be in evidence.
Sincerely,
Mike
See also:
Letter to President Schill from the Executive Council of United Academics
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 senatepres@uoregon.edu (this is a new email address that will pass to future presidents and increase continuity) or at harbaugh@uoregon.edu.
[updated 12/23/2016]
The fallout from the black face halloween incident (BFHI) has divided our community at a time when it is least welcome. Higher education is, or soon will be, under an unprecedented assault from our own government. At this moment the BFHI-divided campus is in no position to present unified resistance to this threat.
Regarding the BFHI, I would suggest to the free speech folks (FSF) that sometimes words and actions are as terrifying and damaging as threats of physical harm. I would say this doubly so to FSF who, due to no fault of their own, have not had the experience of living outside the comfort of a social majority. To the social justice folks (SJF) I would suggest that sometimes damage inflicted is inflicted out of ignorance, and in such situations isn’t forgiveness (together with a liberal dose of education) warranted? I say this doubly to those SJF who do not understand that the no-prisoners response to the BFHI has many on campus afraid that one day they too may be run out of town on a rail for some ignorant, but well-meaning act.
To the FSF who demand that speech be without consequences, I cannot stand with you. The BFHI has clearly damaged our campus and each of us must be held responsible for our actions, well-intended or otherwise.
To the SJF who say there can be no forgiveness for this act, I cannot stand with you. If you believe the perpetrator here is irredeemable then you are as guilty of dividing our community as she is.
To those who know that this situation lies on the complicated boundary between competing ideals, I stand with you. I stand with you ready to find a path forward.
Finally, to the administration (JH), I’d like to introduce you to the Kobayashi Maru. Do I think your reactions to the BFHI have been stellar? No. However, I doubt that I could have done any better (at least without the benefit of hindsight). I will offer a few critiques. Hiding in the bunker of Johnson Hall and waiting for this to blow over (ahem, denaming Deady Hall) is not leadership. Releasing a public report on the BFHI three days before Christmas, may be smart, but it is not leadership. Leadership is putting forth a plan that addresses both the fears of the FSF and of the SJF, and secures us as an institution that is known both for our stalwart support of free speech, but also for our inclusion and compassion towards others of different backgrounds and narratives.
Here is what I hope. I hope that JH can address both the fear that minorities on campus harbor (especially given the recent election), but also the fear that pitchforks await the next unwitting purveyor of social ignorance. I hope that JH can find a way to reassure campus that they are strong supporters of both free speech and campus inclusion. Finally, I hope that JH together with the SJF can orchestrate a path forward for the perpetrator of the BFHI to be brought back into the fold of the university. This would be real, unifying leadership, of the sort we are going to need over the next few years.
If I can help in some regard, please let me know.
Chris
[old stuff below]
Welcome back for fall! As I write this I am in the last throws of teaching an 8-week calculus course. Teaching this summer has been a bit of a mixed bag. On one hand, my students have been great and being on campus everyday has been good for planning the various projects and initiatives that are in front of the Senate. On the other hand, stepping into the Senate VP role has been plenty of work on its own without the additional time in the classroom. Regardless, it’s been a productive summer, and I’m glad to be able to elaborate on some of the things I’ve been working on.
First and foremost, is this new website. While I didn’t mean for it to be as all encompassing as it turned out, the obvious solution to the mountains of human-generated data produced by and for the Senate was a relational database: basically a spreadsheet with recorded relationships between rows in different tables. This database is still evolving and growing as we update past and future information about committees, those who serve on them, the reports they produce as well the motions and legislation moved in the Senate. The goal of this database is to keep this information in one central repository from which we can query and serve on these web pages. There will undoubtedly be hiccups in the delivery of this information, and the information itself may not yet be the most up-to-date. If you see any errors, please let me know so that I can address it.
Several lives ago, during a brief stint as a graduate student drop out, I was a web developer for a government research lab. Technology has changed a lot in the intervening 20 years, and it has been nice to revisit and update those skills.
Besides teaching and web development, I have also spent the summer meeting with Senate President Harbaugh, Senate Executive Coordinator Betina Lynn and Senate Program Assistant Kurt Willcox. They have helped get me up to speed on the ins and outs of the business of running the Senate, and in particular the constellation of committees, advisory groups and task forces where so much of the work of the University is done. One of my overarching goals for the upcoming year is to build an organized view of the committees, what they do, and who serves on them. I hope to make it easy for people to see what the committees are doing and provide mechanisms by which people can share their thoughts about this work in a constructive manner.
In order for this to be successful, I will need your help. Please let me know what sorts of information are useful for you as a constituent of the Senate or as a member of a committee. Visit this site often, and share your opinions on topics of interest. If you are on the Senate, I implore you share your ideas and debate the issues of the day so that we can fully vet all policy proposals, legislation and resolutions in a thorough manner.
As particular issues arise, I’ll add my thoughts to this thread. Until then, I’m going to enjoy the prospect of a few weeks of Eugene summer before the whirlwind of fall quarter begins.
Thanks for reading this far, and here’s to a productive upcoming academic year!
Chris
The Senate 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.
Charge:
The Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group is tasked with drafting a new Responsible Employees Policy for the Senate and Administration to consider as a replacement for the current emergency policy. The working group will follow the Senate’s normal open meetings rules, and will solicit input broadly from the Administration, the Senate, and the university community, and will hold at least one town hall type meeting for this purpose. The working group may seek outside advice, particularly on considerations involving compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The draft policy sent to the Senate will be accompanied by a document explaining the rationale for the recommended rules and procedures.
Membership:
General Council Kevin Reed’s 8/19 email:
Dear Colleagues,
President Schill has approved emergency policy V.11.02 and associated changes to UO’s grievance policy and discrimination policy relating to the prohibition of discrimination and the process for responding to reports of prohibited discrimination. These temporary changes will be in effect for 180 days and provide needed clarification of who is a “responsible employee” and therefore required to report prohibited discrimination, including sexual harassment.
In summary, the emergency policy:
It is my hope that the senate can run an open and transparent process, one that relies on subject-matter experts and finds a careful balance between supporting a student’s control of whether to initiate a formal response to an incident of sexual harassment or prohibited discrimination and the university’s need to receive information necessary to stop and prevent discrimination. If the senate once again is unable to pass a policy, or if the policy it crafts does not meet minimum legal requirements, the president will be prepared to act at the end of the 180-day life of this emergency policy.
Sincerely,
Kevin Reed
Vice President and General Counsel
