US17/18-07: Proposed Changes in Transfer Articulation from Community Colleges

Date of Notice: January 10, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Motion Sponsor: Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of Academic Council and UOCC


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

Outcomes and criteria for transfer of Gen Ed

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 17, 2018


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake Rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Chris Sinclair
  • Update from Johnson Hall

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

  • Committee Clean-up (re-stagger)
  • CORE Ed Council

4:50 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn


US17/18-06: Resolution denouncing White Supremacy & Hate Speech on UO Campus

Date of Notice: November 15, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Senator

In conversation with Senator Mobasser, the UO Student Collective,  Senate Exec and representatives of the administration, an amendment to the  divided resolution will be put in front of the Senate. The proposed amended text is:

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 campuses2; and

1.5 WHEREAS far right and White Supremacist organizations historically and currently used disingenuous appeals to “free speech” in order to gain access to public universities3; and

1.6 WHEREAS other public universities have denied platforms to specific White Supremacist speakers/groups4; 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”5 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 Reports6; and

1.11 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 White Supremacist, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazi groups and recognizes their organizing on campus as a significant threat to the university community and our stated values; and

2.2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the UO Senate urges the university administration and community to unite in solidarity against White Supremacist, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazi groups to protect our values, our position as an institution of higher learning, and to prioritize the safety of members of our community who are most affected by their actions and message of hate.

Resolution language to be replaced by the above amended text:


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

US17/18-04: UO Senate Adoption of Consent Calendar

Date of Notice: November 13, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee



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.

US17/18-01: Expedited Tenure Process

[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


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 (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:

  • the first-level review would take place per current practice in that unit;
  • a review by a three-person ad-hoc committee formed by the Dean (composed of current College APT Review Committee members);
  • a review by the College Dean; and
  • a review by the Provost and final decision by the President.

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 schools with departments, departmental faculty review,
  • chair recommendation to the dean,
  • school-level faculty review,
  • recommendation from the dean to the provost, and
  • review by the provost’s committee.

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

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

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:

  • the decision of the university to respond to an offer of other employment to a current faculty member whom ASU desires to retain
  • the receipt of an extraordinary award or honor by a faculty member that is likely to generate offers of employment or brings distinction to the individual and the institution
  • and other circumstances that the provost of the university determines warrant expedited tenure review.

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.


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


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.



Changes Coming to Common Rule Regulations for Human Subjects Research


Dear Members of the UO Research Community:

I am writing to provide you with information about changes coming soon in how human subjects research is regulated and how the university is preparing for these changes. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and 15 federal agencies issued a final rule revising the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the “Common Rule”) that safeguards individuals who participate in research.

Our office is working to prepare researchers for the implementation of these regulations. Most provisions will go into effect January 19, 2018.

The new regulations apply only to new studies approved or determined exempt after January 19, 2018.  

Studies either approved or determined to be exempt before January 19, 2018, must continue to comply with the pre-2018 rule.

Key changes in the revised Common Rule include:

  • Revisions and additions to the exempt review categories and the addition of a limited IRB review process for some exempt research
  • Changes to continuing review requirements, including elimination of continuing review for many studies that pose minimal risk to participants
  • Changes to the informed consent process and form, including a new requirement for presenting key information and a new requirement for clinical trials to post the informed consent form on a public website
  • Additional provisions for handling, storage and maintenance of identifiable information and biospecimens
  • Requirements for single-IRB oversight starting in 2020 for most collaborative research projects.  Note: NIH has separate single-IRB requirements for multi-center studies which go into effect in late January 2018.

Research Compliance Services (RCS), in collaboration with members of the Institutional Review Board, is working diligently to prepare our institution for these new regulations. I encourage you to check out our new Common Rule web page. This page provides:

  • The latest information about the 2018 Common Rule implementation
  • Specific information for existing studies about continued compliance obligations under the pre-2018 regulations and opportunities related to the revised Common Rule
  • Registration for an RCS general information session. These sessions will be held on:
    • Monday, January 8 from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. or
    • Thursday, January 11 from 10 a.m. to 11:30 a.m.

Like other universities, we are awaiting additional federal guidance on the implementation of these revised regulations. Once the agency issues guidance, UO may need to make additional changes to our processes and templates. I encourage you to stay tuned to our Common Rule web page for updates and new information. If you have an existing project, you can learn more about next steps on our Existing and Ongoing Research page. If you have additional questions, please contact Research Compliance Services or (541) 346-2510.

David Conover
Vice President for Research & Innovation,


President Schill’s Response to US17/18-02 Resolution to Support the UO Student Collective

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.


Office of the President

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 29, 2017


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Chris Sinclair
  • Remarks from Johnson Hall
  • College of Ed update: Dean Kamphaus

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


UO Common Reading Program

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 A list of past, current, and upcoming public events for the academic year can be found at

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 by Monday, December 4. Selection criteria are available at

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

US17/18-03: Confirmation of Committee on Committees members

Date of Notice: November 8, 2017

Current Status: Approved November 15, 2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


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

US17/18-02: Resolution to Support the UO Student Collective

Date of Notice: November 15, 2017

Current Status: Approved November 29, 2017

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Student Senator


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.”


“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:

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 15, 2017


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

Letter from Campus Leaders to President Schill and the Board of Trustees

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.


Imani Dorsey, ASUO State Affairs Commissioner

Michael Dreiling, President, United Academics

Jessica Neafie, President, Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation

Chris Sinclair, President, University Senate

Proposed Changes to the Student Conduct Code

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:

  1. The Student Conduct Code shall be responsible for recommending to the Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon policy or administrative changes in any aspect of the Student Conduct Program.

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 1, 2017


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate Vice President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks: Senate President Chris Sinclair
  • Remarks: Provost Banavar

3:30 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, October 18, 2017

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

  • Discussion: Expedited Tenure Process; Boris Botvinnik  (Math), Chair of Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC)
  • Report: Dean Andrew Marcus, College of Arts and Sciences
  • Report: Honors Task Force ;  Josh Snodgrass (Anth) and Jeremy Piger (Econ)

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

President Schill’s Op-Ed in the NYT: “The Misguided Student Crusade Against ‘Fascism’”

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

Letter from Senate President Sinclair to President Schill regarding potential discipline of student protestors.

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 18, 2017


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Chris Sinclair
  • Remarks: Invited Students
  • Remarks: Provost Banavar

3:30 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, October 4, 2017

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

  • Business: HECC; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of Academic Council
  • Business: Responsible Reporting; Darci Heroy (Title IX Coord.) & Missy Matella (General Counsel’s Office)
  • Business: Academic Freedom, Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Senate VP
  • Report: Update from Chief Carmichael (UOPD Chief) and the UOPD Student Assistants
  • Business: Senate Procedures

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

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.

Charge: Continue reading CORE Education Task Force

Diversity, Power, Agency Task Force

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 4, 2017


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Chris Sinclair
  • Remarks: New Provost Banavar
  • Remarks: President Schill

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

IDEAL Framework Implementation

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

Working Group Charges

Great moments in UO shared governance

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-Making Process (cheat sheet)

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.

Congratulations Senate Awards Winners!

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.

US16/17-29: Approval of Curriculum Report, Spring 2017

Date of Notice: May 1, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of the UO Committee on Courses


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:

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.

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

Call for Applications: Knight Campus Funding Opportunity for UO Student Outreach Programs

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 – Applicants will receive a response no later than Thursday, June 15, 2017. Questions should be posed via email to Moira Kiltie

Eligibility Criteria

  • The program must benefit matriculated (or recently admitted) UO undergraduates and/or graduate students.
  • The program must have a primary goal of enhancing the sciences through the development of academic and social environments that attract, retain, and inspire students from diverse backgrounds.
  • The program must have an element of student leadership and decision-making in planning and program implementation. Programs can be fully student-governed. The program must have at least one UO faculty member affiliated and actively involved in programming, implementation and oversight.
  • Programs must provide written evidence of institutional acknowledgement at the departmental/dean level. If space or other resources are required beyond what is requested in the proposal, the proposal must indicate how those needs are to be met and the institutional acknowledgement should address this issue as relevant.
  • Programs that are currently active with existing sources of funding must show how the Knight Campus funding will significantly increase the program’s impact and scale.
  • Proposed programs without current sources of funding must indicate other sources of potential support and status of request for additional funding if relevant.

Application Instructions

  • Provide lead contact name(s) for the program. At least one must be a UO faculty member.
  • Provide a one-page brief on the program highlighting the mission, goals and programmatic elements that will lead to the development of a successful program enhancing the sciences through creating academic and social environments that attract, retain, and inspire students from diverse backgrounds.
  • Provide a brief outline of the program costs including the period for which the costs will occur. Clearly indicate the amount requested from the Knight Campus.
  • List all faculty affiliated with the program and their department affiliation.
  • Provide information regarding additional funding sources and status of current outstanding requests for additional funding.

REMINDER: Application deadline is Friday, June 2 at 5pm. All applications should be submitted by email to

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 24, 2017

Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms); 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh (Sexual Violence, signed, to take effect 9/15. Update on plans to implement, and extend to other reporting.
  • Jessie Minton, new CIO
  • President Schill

3:35 pm    Approval of Minutes, April 26, 2017

3:36 pm    New Business

3:56 pm    Open Discussion

  • CAS shared governance update, Senate VP Chris Sinclair

3:59 pm    Reports

  • Senate Curriculum Committee and CAS CC (Frances)
  • BERT
  • FPC report, David Frank
  • Core Education Task Force Intro
  • Diversity Action Plan status
  • Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) – annual written report; Tim Gleason
  • Athletics Director (AD) – annual written report; Rob Mullens

4:39 pm    Notice(s) of Motion

4:40 pm    Other Business

Executive Session:

Vote on Awards

5:00 pm    Adjournment

US16/17-28: Create a Teaching Evaluation Task Force

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:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. The Teaching Evaluation Task Force will address the issues of academic misconduct and student evaluations raised by motion in its reports and proposals to the Senate.

Stakeholders include:
Provost and President
Deans and the CAS Dean’s Advisory Committee
United Academics, GTFF
The Faculty Personnel Committee
Teaching awards committees
The Registrar
Department Heads
General Counsel
Equity and Inclusion

US16/17-27: Department Status for the Cinema Studies Program

Date of Notice: April 24, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Type of Motion: Legislation

Sponsor: Academic Council


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

Cinema Studies Department Proposal

2017 UO Board Faculty Trustee nominees

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 <>; MOLLER Mary * 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


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.

Search committee for new AAEO Director announced

UPDATE: May 1, 2017

—–Original Message—–
From: Bill Brady
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 8:33 AM
To: Senate President <>
Cc: Senate Vice President <>; Senate Executive Coordinator <>
Subject: RE: AAEO Director search


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 Brady
Assistant Vice President, Employee and Labor Relations
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 <> wrote:

To: Bill Brady <>

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.


Bill Harbaugh
Senate President
Economics Professor
University of Oregon

AAEO Director search committee:

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

Here is a link to the posting for the position:

Senate Meeting Agenda – April 26, 2017


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake Rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 pm    Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Elections and awards; Chris Sinclair
  • Update: School of Journalism and Communication Dean Molleda

3:25 pm    Approval of Minutes, Apr 12, 2017

3:30 pm    New Business

4:10 pm    Open Discussion

4:11 pm    Reports

  • Accreditation; Ron Bramhall
  • Science Literacy Program, Elly Vandergrift & Judith Eisen
  • Grievance policies and procedures, Mariann Hyland, Bill Brady/Nancy Resnick
  • Faculty workload policies; Michael Dreiling (Sociology & United Academics) and David Cecil (United Academics)
  • Diversity Plans; Bill Harbaugh (Economics)
  • BERT TF report; Chris Chavez (Journalism)

4:58 pm    Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 pm    Other Business
5:00 pm    Adjournment


US16/17-24: Email Spam Filters

Date of Notice: April 11, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: N. Christopher Phillips (Math)


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:; information:; lists: and 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.

US16/17-23: Committee Term Limits Omnibus

Date of Notice: April 6, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math)


Section I

  • WHEREAS the Committee on Committees recently did an audit of committee service term limits and found many to be obsolete or prevent those with experience and qualifications to serve ; and
  • WHEREAS various committees were polled as to their preferences with many choosing to forego and/or alter these types of membership parameters;

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:

  • University of Oregon Committee on Courses
  • Scholastic Review Committee
  • University Library Committee
  • Study Abroad Programs Committee

College Diversity Plan drafts: CAS, SOMD, Law, …

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
Natural Sciences
Social Sciences

Snippet from Soc Sci:

School of Music and Dance:

Executive Summary
Diversity Action Plan


Law School:

Diversity Action Plan


College of Education:

Diversity Action Plan

Dear X: Letters from the Classroom

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):
Learn more about trED here:

US16/17-22: Proposal to Eliminate the Y Grade

Notice of Motion: March 24, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Frances White (Anthropology), Co-Chair of Academic Council


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

Proposal to Eliminate the “Y” Grade

Senate Meeting Agenda – April 12, 2017


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Elections; Senate VP Chris Sinclair
  • LCB update; Dean Nutter (Business)
  • Call for Senate Award Nominations; Kurt Willcox (Senate)

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

  • Grievance policies and procedures; Heather Quarles (Romance Languages)
  • Budget Metrics; Lisa Freinkel (VP for US) & Elliot Berkman (Psychology)
  • Course evaluations update; Bill Harbaugh (Economics)

4:58 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 P.M.   Other Business

5:00 P.M.   Adjournment


US16/17-21: Change to Article 3.11 Modification of the Senate By-Laws

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


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)


US16/17-20: Major Declaration Policy

Date of Notice: April 4, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

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


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

Major Declaration Policy Proposal

Nominations for 2017 Senate Awards Are Now Open

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:

Thank you for taking the time to help the University Senate recognize and celebrate those who contribute so much to our university community.


●   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.
Eligible for Award: Any administrator or other member of the UO community.

●   Wayne T. Westling Award

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.
Eligible for Award: Any faculty or staff member.

●   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.
Eligible for Award: All classified employees.

●   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.
Eligible for Award: All Officers of Administration.




2017-18 University Service Survey Open!

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:



Bill Harbaugh
University Senate President
Professor of Economics

Chris Sinclair
University Senate VP & President-Elect
Professor of Mathematics

Invitation to serve on the University Senate and university committees

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.


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

Search for Divisional Dean in CAS Social Sciences

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:

  • Must have broad experience with academic administration, preferably as department head, although center and program directors may apply,
  • Should hold the rank of full professor, although in rare cases, associate professors with strong administrative experience will be considered, and
  • Must have talents and academic values that are consistent with the highest goals and aspirations of our faculty and

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:

  • Qualifications for the job,
  • Reasons for wanting to serve as Divisional Dean,
  • Major challenges you envision the division encountering in the near future,
  • Your philosophy regarding helping the division become ever better, and
  • How you would promote diversity, especially among faculty, within the division and the

Please send nominations to me as soon as possible. Application letters should be sent to Miriam Bolton (, 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:

  1. Envisioning the future of the division in the context of the university’s mission and statewide and national forces affecting public higher education
  2. Working with divisional faculty and heads to understand strengths and challenges within the division and communicating those findings across the division and to university leadership
  3. Advocating for changes within departments and the College that sustain and enhance divisional departments’ national prominence and their attractiveness to students
  4. Leading the division during times of stress, which can range from severe budget constraints to GE strikes to outside political pressures
  5. Developing strategies for effective space use
  6. Serving as a divisional and college ambassador and advocate to groups within the university, including University Senate committees, Academic Affairs, Facilities Planning, and University Communications
  7. Serving as an ambassador to external members of the university community, including alumni, prospective students and their families, and funding agencies and foundations
  8. Collaborating with University Development staff to develop a vision for fundraising efforts and helping with those efforts
  9. Representing CAS and the Dean’s Office at key CAS- and University-wide events, particularly those connected to departments and programs in one’s division
  10. Participating in University-level committees (as assigned by the Dean) that are important to CAS and the future of the university, including such bodies as the Academic Leadership Team (ALT)

Management. The management issues coordinated by the DD are broad and diverse but are mainly connected to personnel and budget allocations:


  1. Department head and program director appointments
  2. Department head and program director training on appropriate procedures as needed
  3. Department head and program director point person for addressing unusual issues within the university as they occur
  4. Faculty hiring, including negotiating start-up packages, allocation of endowed chairs and professorships, and faculty partner issues
  5. Faculty leaves, including sabbaticals, fellowships, or leaves for personal or medical reasons
  6. Faculty and OA review, including promotion and tenure review
  7. Retirements, resignations, and tenure-reduction program agreements
  8. Retention counter-offer arrangements
  9. Faculty grievance (formal and informal) decisions, and support with mediation of other personnel issues
  10. Merit, equity, and other salary increase oversight for faculty and OAs
  11. Annual CAS awards and grants evaluation and selection Budget
  12. Budget allocations to departments and programs
  13. Resource allocation requests by departments and programs
  14. Disbursement of a modest discretionary account for special requests
  15. Resource allocation for other CAS-level programs, such as CAS program grants and allocation of CAS endowment funds for undergraduate scholarships

Other Duties. Divisional Deans are often assigned other duties, as needed.  These can include:

  1. Overseeing and mentoring University-wide candidates for a particular distinguished scholarship
  2. Overseeing the Dean’s Advisory Committee and coordinating the Dean’s staff in preparation of promotion and tenure cases
  3. Serving as the primary contact and coordinator for graduate education in the College
  4. Serving on high-level University committees and bargaining teams, including ex officio membership on committees relating to each division


Free Speech for student-athletes and the student press

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.


Bill Harbaugh Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon

On MondayJan 23, 2017, at 8:30 PM, Kevin S Reed <> 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 |

1/12/2017 update:

Register Guard reporter Austin Meek has a report on General Counsel Kevin Reed’s investigation of the Athletic Department here:

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:


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 <>

Subject: Free Speech for students and the student press

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

To: Kevin Reed <>

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, and the interview in which Mr. Jacoby explains the threat to take away his and other UO student reporters’s press credentials is here:

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

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

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

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


The latter policy states:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Harbaugh, Economics Prof., Senate Pres

Chris Sinclair, Assoc. Prof. Math, Senate VP

US16/17-19: A Resolution in Support of Transgender Students

Notice Given: 03/10/2017

Current Status: Approved 03/15/2017

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Alison Gash (Political Science)


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.

Senate Meeting Agenda – March 15, 2017


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • PAC12-ALC; Senate VP Chris Sinclair
  • State budget situation; ASUO President Quinn Haaga

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

  • RRWG policy update – plan to vote April 12; (Merle Weiner/Missy Matella)
  • Grievance policies and procedures; Heather Quarles (RL & UAUO), Mariann Hyland (VPAA) and Bill Brady (HR).
  • Senate Task Force on the Bias and Education Response Team & call for resolution on Academic Freedom (Final report); Chris Chavez (Journalism)

4:58 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

US16/17-18: New Policy Proposal: Recognition Naming of Academic Unit

Notice Given: 02/27/2017

Current Status: Approved 03/15/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh (Economics)


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:

Policy Concept Form

Draft Policy Proposal

US16/17-17: Proposed Changes to Honorary Degrees policy


Date of Notice: 02/27/2017

Current Status: Approved April 12, 2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh (Economics)


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:

Policy Concept Form

Redline Policy Proposal

Clean Policy Proposal

Summary of Changes

New 17 pt chart – Redline

New 17 pt chart – Clean

US16/17-16: Approval of Curriculum Report, Winter Term 2017

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


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:

Winter 2017 Preliminary Curriculum Report

Winter 2017 Final Curriculum Report

Dreamers Open Forum: Important Updates on Executive Orders

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

For more information about DHS and the executive order, please visit:

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.

Senate Meeting Agenda – March 1, 2017


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

  • Selection of common reading books and faculty/senate input; Lisa Freinkel

3:22 P.M.    Announcements

  • Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Upcoming Senate and Committee Elections, Senate VP Chris Sinclair
  • University Update: Budget and Budget Planning, UO President Mike Schill

4:20 P.M.    New Business

  • Honorary Degrees policy update proposal; Angela Wilhelms
  1. Policy Concept Form
  2. Redline version
  3. Clean version
  4. Summary of Changes
  • Naming Academic Units policy proposal; Angela Wilhelms
  1. Policy Concept Form
  2. Draft Policy

4:30 P.M.    More Reports

  • Student Evaluations Task Force update; Bill Harbaugh, (Economics)

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

Dreamers, Ducks & DACA Info-Session

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

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)

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

Date of Notice: January 18, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Sponsor: Huaxin Lin (Math)


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:

Power Point Statistical Data

President Schill drops policy proposal for TPM restrictions on free speech


From: Mike Schill <>

Subject: Time, Place and Manner rules

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

To: Chris Sinclair <>, William Harbaugh <>

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.



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

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

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

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

Submit your name for UO Board Faculty Trustee by Feb 28

From: UO Senate President <>

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 along with contact information. The Association of Governing Boards has a lot of information at  One recent AGB report, for example, is “Shared Governance: Is OK good enough?” at You might also want to contact Susan Gary or Board Secretary Angela Wilhelms at

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:

You will need to complete this form: and include a c.v., bio, and statement of interest. The application form is here:

The Board has posted this statement on the process: 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

New UO Provost Announced

Dear University of Oregon colleagues and students,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

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

To University of Oregon community members,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UO postpones plan to impose unacceptable Acceptable Use Policy

Dear Senators –

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

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

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

Meanwhile the current AUP remains in effect. It is at  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 It only applies to students. It is also very specific:

16. “Harassment” means:

a. Intentionally subjecting a person to offensive physical contact;

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

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

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

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

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

“threat of imminent physical harm”,

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

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


Bill Harbaugh, Senate Pres, Econ Prof

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

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

Date of Notice: 01/18/2017

Current Status: Approved 02/15/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Committee on Committees


Section I:

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

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

Section II

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

Related Documents:

Senate Committees with Term Limits – 02/08/17

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


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

1/30/2017: The administration will host a town hall Monday at 6PM, EMU Ballroom, on the Trump Travel Ban and the Sanctuary resolution implementation.

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

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

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

President Schill: Keep Deady name, add Black Cultural Center

Dear University of Oregon community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Michael H. Schill

President and Professor of Law


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

Date of Notice: 12/15/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Sponsor: Academic Council


Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

a) Lower-division professional-technical courses

b) Physical education and dance activity courses

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

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

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

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

Related Documents:

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

Senate Pres asks “Faculty” Athletics Representative for hospital report

Dear Professor Gleason – 

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

As noted in your appointment notice from Mike Gottfredson at “

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. 


Bill Harbaugh

Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon

Chief Information Officer finalists to visit campus

From this story on Around the O:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Closed search for new provost

Dear members of the University of Oregon community,

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

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

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

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

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


Michael H. Schill

President and Professor of Law

Geraldine Richmond, Provost Search Committee Chair

Presidential Chair and Professor of Chemistry

Open Mike: Balancing principles

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

Subject: Open Mike: Balancing principles

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

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law


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

Date of Notice: 12/21/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

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


Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

Financial Impact:

Related Documents:

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

LTS Syllabi

LTS Faculty

External Review

President Schill to work with Senate Budget Committee on new budget

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

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

Dear University of Oregon community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Michael H. Schill                          

President and Professor of Law   

Scott Coltrane

Provost and Senior Vice President        

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

Complete Motion

Update 11/30/2016:

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

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

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

Date of Notice: 11/28/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Committee on Committees


Section I

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

Related Documents:

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

Revised 17 pt. chart for SOAGIE_Jan. 31, 2017

Wabash Center of Inquiry Visits UO Senate

UPDATE April 2017: Memo from Wabash regarding recent UO visit.

Wabash Memo

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

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

Slides from the Wabash Center presentation to the UO Senate

Continue reading Wabash Center of Inquiry Visits UO Senate

Adminstration’s investigation of the halloween party Black doctor incident



Dear Colleagues –

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

11/13/16, 3:18 AM, “UO Senate President” <> wrote:

Dear GC Reed –

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

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

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

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

Complete Motion

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

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

Complete Motion

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

Volokh comments on TPM free speech constraints proposal

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

From: Kevin Reed []

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

To: Volokh, Eugene <>

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

Continue reading Volokh comments on TPM free speech constraints proposal

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


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

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

You’re invited to the new UO Faculty Club

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

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

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


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

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

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

Date of Notice: 10/01/2016

Current Status: Approved 11/02/2016

Motion type: Legislation

Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Chair of CoC


Section I

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

Section II

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

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

Financial Impact: Cost Neutral

Announcing the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact

Colleagues and Students,

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

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

US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 08/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Notice Given

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


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

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

US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 07/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Postponed until 01/13/2016

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


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

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

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

Date of Notice: 10/07/2016

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Approved 11/16/2016

Sponsor: Graduate Council

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

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

Date of Notice: 08/30/2016

Motion type: Legislation

Current Status: Approved 11/02/2016

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


Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

Related Documents:

Spatial Data Science & Technology Proposal

Spatial Data Science & Technology Exec Summary

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

Date of Notice: 09/21/2016

Motion type: Legislation

Current Status: Approved 10/19/2016

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Section I

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

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

Section II

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

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



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

Date of Notice: 09/21/2016

Motion type: Legislation

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

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


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.


Current bylaws, Article 3, from


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

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

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

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

3.3.1 Call to Order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.3.8 Other Business.

3.3.9 Adjournment.

Administration writes a “Statement of Principle Regarding Academic Policies”


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

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

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

From: Scott Coltrane
Sent: Sunday, October 2, 2016 9:48 PM
To:; 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 | 541-346-3186
202 Johnson Hall
1258 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403

Statement of Principle Regarding Academic Policies

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

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

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

Approved by President Michael Schill and Provost Scott Coltrane

August 2016


Miscellaneous Policy References and Citations

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Changes proposed for college teaching release policies

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

Info request:

From: UO Senate President <>

Subject: course release policy
Date: October 1, 2016 at 2:31:09 AM PDT
To: Andrew Marcus <>, Bruce Blonigen <>,, Terry Hunt <>,, Adriene Lim <>,,,
Cc: Chris Sinclair <>, Senate Executive Coordinator <>, Office of the Provost <>, Mariann Hyland <>

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.


Bill Harbaugh
Senate President
Economics Professor
University of Oregon

CAS response:

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

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,

AAA response:

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

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 Lindner
Dean and Professor
School of Architecture and Allied Arts
University of Oregon

Sexual Assault Reporting Forum

Sponsored by the Senate Responsible Reporting Work Group

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

3.           Student comments to the work group.

Information about support resources on campus will be available.




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

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

1.1      Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

2.1      October 5, 2016

3:05 pm    3.   State of the University

3.1 Remarks by Patrick Phillips, Interim Director of CASI

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm           5.1        New Chief of Police

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

4:55 pm    6.   Reports

4:55 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:55 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment



Senate Meeting Agenda – Oct 5, 2016

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

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

          1.1      Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

 2.1      May 25, 2016

3:05 pm    3.   State of the University

3.1      Welcome, President Michael Schill

3.2      Introductory Remarks, Senate VP Chris Sinclair

3:55 pm    4.   New Business

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

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

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

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm    6.   Reports

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

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

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

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

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

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

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

7.5.      New motions?

4:50 pm    8.   Other Business

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

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Deady and Dunn Hall denaming and renaming?


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

President Schill’s message to the University community on this subject is here:

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

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

The BOT website is here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 ( or at the check-in table at the meeting.

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

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

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

4. President’s Report: Michael Schill, President

Meeting Recessed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meeting Adjourned

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


From: Angela Wilhelms <>

Subject: Standing Meeting Reports

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

To: Senate President <>, Quinn Haaga <>

Cc: Amanda Hatch <>, Jennifer LaBelle <>

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!


 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.


Bill Harbaugh

Economics Professor & Senate President

University of Oregon

Navigating the New Senate Pages

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

We had two goals in mind for the new page:

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

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

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

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

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

Input sought on IT report and process

Begin forwarded message:

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

Subject: Input sought on IT report and process

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


Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President

Provost search committee named

President Schill’s 8/19 email.

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

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

Discussion on the denaming of Deady and Dunn Halls

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

Dear Campus Community,

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

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

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

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

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

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



See also:

Article in the R-G

Guest Viewpoint in the R-G

Letter to President Schill from the Executive Council of United Academics

Another Guest Viewpoint in the R-G

A note from Senate President Harbaugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note from Senate Vice President Sinclair

[updated 12/23/2016]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[old stuff below]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Senate Task Force on the Bias Response Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group

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


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.


  1. Merle Weiner, Professor, Law (Chair)
  2. Phyllis Barkhurst, OA, Director of 90by30, Co-Director of the UO Center for the Prevention of Abuse and Neglect
  3. Jennifer Freyd, Professor, Psychology
  4. Bill Harbaugh, Professor, Economics
  5. Darci Heroy, OA, Interim Title IX Coordinator
  6. Melissa Barnes, Psychology (grad student)
  7. Mckenna O’Dougherty, Women & Gender Studies (undergraduate student)

General Council Kevin Reed’s 8/19 email:

Dear Colleagues,

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

In summary, the emergency policy:

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

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


    Kevin Reed
    Vice President and General Counsel

Shared governance at the University of Oregon

Skip to toolbar