Category Archives: 2017-18

Senate Meeting Agenda – June 6, 2018

DRAFT

Location: EMU 214 (Redwood Auditorium)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate Vice President Bill Harbaugh
  • Update from Johnson Hall

3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, May 23, 2018

3:35 P.M.   Business

  • Spring 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of UO Committee on Courses
  • Vote: Vice President and President Elect for 2018-2019
  • Spring 2018 Elections & Appointments Results
  • UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust – Britt Johnson, AEI; Monique Balbuena, Clark Honors College; Kenny Jacoby, Palm Beach Post
  • UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration – Teri Rowe, Economics and Sociology
  • UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award – Jimmy Murray, Price Science Commons Library
  • UO Senate Wayne T. Westling Award – Frances White, Anthropology

4:50 P.M.   Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:50 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Awards Reception:

  • Part 1 – Refreshments and Snacks in the Redwood Auditorium, 4:30 – 5:30 P.M.
  • Part 2 – Drinks and hor-d’oeuvres at the Faculty Club*, Senate Awardees and guests welcome. 5:50 on, with a toast at 5:45 P.M.
    • * Enter through the front door of the Jordan Schnitzer Musuem of Art

 

US17/18-21: Approval of Curriculum Report, Spring 2018

Date of Notice: May 1, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Spring 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED the University Senate approves the Spring 2018 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.

Meet Vice Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Skowron (COE)

Dear Senators and members of the University community:

The election of the new University Senate Vice President and President-elect (one person, the VP becomes President at the end of spring 2019) will take place at the June 6 Senate meeting. The vote is among current Senators only.

To date we have one candidate: Elizabeth Skowron, Professor of Counseling Psychology and Human Services in the College of Education. Both Vice President Harbaugh and I have worked closely with Elizabeth on the Faculty Advisory Council and the Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee (of which she is current chair). In conversations in the Faculty Advisory Committee, Elizabeth has always presented a faculty-forward view of the university and has a demonstrated ability to argue on behalf of faculty. I trust the Senate will be in good hands under Professor Skowron’s leadership, and she has my endorsement. Bill Harbaugh, who will be president for 2018-19, also endorses her.

Elizabeth will address the Senate at the June 6 meeting. There will be an opportunity to ask questions of Professor Skowron after her address.

Chris Sinclair, outgoing Senate President
Bill Harbaugh, incoming Senate President

US17/18-20: PROCESS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF DIFFERENTIAL TUITION

Date of Notice: April 25, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: ASUO President Amy Schenk


Section 1.

Whereas historically similar approaches have been based on a desire to avoid putting undergraduate students in the position of making decisions about their major course of study based on the cost of tuition for coursework in that major, and

Whereas the Lundquist College of Business first proposed charging a differential tuition rate for its courses in 2016-17, but later withdrew its request in order to study the issue further, and

Whereas the University did not then develop a process for reconsidering its existing approach to differential tuition and no standards for evaluating specific differential tuition proposals were created, and

Whereas the Lundquist College of Business brought a reformulated differential tuition proposal to the Tuition and Fees Advisory Board for consideration in 2017-18, and

Whereas the Tuition and Fees Advisory Board could not reach agreement on LCB’s proposal and ended up making no recommendation to President Schill in support of or in opposition to this specific proposal, and

Whereas President Schill accepted LCB’s differential tuition proposal with some modifications and recommended that the UO Board of Trustees adopt it, and

Whereas at its March 2, 2018 meeting the UO Board of Trustees accepted President Schill’s recommendation and adopted a differential tuition rate for all undergraduate coursework taken in the Lundquist College of Business by an undergraduate student regardless of their major, school, or college, and

Whereas during the discussion at that Board meeting President Schill committed the administration to putting a plan and criteria for evaluating any additional differential tuition proposals in place before they are taken to the Board for consideration, therefore

Section 2.

Be it Resolved that the University Senate and the University administration will establish a task force to review the UO’s approach to undergraduate differential tuition. If the task force determines that the use of differential tuition may be appropriate, it will propose criteria for evaluating specific differential tuition proposals, and

Be it Further Resolved that this task force shall include 2 faculty members from CAS and 2faculty members from the professional schools and colleges, all selected by the University Senate President; 2 administrators involved with undergraduate education selected by the University President; and 3 undergraduate students selected by the ASUO. The faculty members must include at least one who is serving on the Academic Council and one who is serving on the Undergraduate Council. All task force members will be voting members, and

Be it Further Resolved that the task force shall produce a report and recommendations for the University President by November 15, 2018, and

Be it Finally Resolved that the University Senate requests departments, schools, and colleges will not put forward any differential tuition proposals and the Tuition and Fees Advisory Board, Tuition Advisory Council, and the university administration will not consider or recommend any such proposals until guidelines and/or policy is created regarding differential tuition.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 23, 2018

DRAFT

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
  • Institutional Hiring Plan; Jayanth Banavar

3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, May 9, 2018

3:35 P.M.   Business

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
4:40 P.M. Executive Session

Awards

5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 9, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:20 P.M. Approval of Minutes, April 25, 2018

3:35 P.M.   Business

4:50 P.M.   Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

US17/18-19: Implementing a System for the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching

Date of Notice: May 2, 2018

Current Status: Approved May 23, 2018

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh & Sierra Dawson, Teaching Evaluation Task Force


Section I

1.1 Whereas: On May 24th 2017 the Senate approved motion 17/17-28 to create a task force on student evaluations with the charge of “evaluating and improving course evaluations and peer reviews with respect to reducing biases and improving validity, with the goal of improving teaching, learning, and equity.” (https://senate.uoregon.edu/entry/?Motions=US16/17-28)

1.2 Whereas: While student evaluations of teaching can be an important tool for evaluating and improving teaching and learning, there is substantial peer-reviewed evidence that student course evaluations of the sort used at UO are biased with respect to gender and race, and that the numerical scores are orthogonal to measures of teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes. (See for example Uttl, White and Gonzalez (2016) at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191491X16300323?via%3Dihub)

1.3 Whereas: There is also scholarly evidence that, unless conducted by trained evaluators using consistent methodology, peer (faculty) reviews of teaching of the sort often done by UO departments are ineffective at evaluating teaching and do not provide useful feedback for improvement.

1.4 Whereas: While in the past UO has required that only signed written student evaluations be provided to department heads and review committees to be used in instructor review, the UO Office of General Counsel’s interpretation of the relevant law is that student classroom survey evaluations of a faculty member’s classroom or lab performance must be anonymous. (See letter from the UO General Counsel’s Office)

Section II

2.1 Therefore: The Senate directs the Committee on Committees to create and staff a Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee to include faculty, graduate student, undergraduate student, and ex-officio administrative representatives, and charged with collecting feedback from stakeholders and updating the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS) as needed. The 17-point chart is appended to this motion. Senate approval will be required for any changes in the CIETS except those involving the wording of questions or design of the instruments. described above.

2.2 Therefore: In Fall 2018 the committee will present to the Senate (for vote) a disclaimer for faculty personnel committees, heads, and administrators will stop using to include in reports, if those reports continue to use numerical ratings from student course evaluations in tenure and promotion reviews, merit reviews, and other personnel matters. If units or committees persist in using these numerical ratings, a statement regarding The disclaimer will address the problematic nature of those ratings, provide and an explanation for why they are being used despite those problems and include other available information regarding faculty teaching (e.g. peer reviews, student comments, faculty self-evaluations).will be included with the evaluative materials.

2.3 Therefore: As of Fall 2018 student evaluation surveys will be anonymous. Past faculty personnel committees, heads, and administrators will stop using signed written comments from previously collected student course evaluations can continue to be used in tenure and promotion reviews, merit reviews, and other personnel matters.

2.4 Therefore: Beginning with the Fall 2018 quarter, the University will stop collecting data using the current student course evaluations and will adopt the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), starting with the following elements:

  • A Midterm Student Experience Survey. This web-based anonymous survey will collect non-numerical course feedback that will be provided only to the instructor, for use in course improvement. (See spring 2018 pilot at https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6nCcC7UHM64Etil).
  • An End-of-Term Instructor Reflection Survey. To be completed Available for optional use by the instructor and to be used for course improvement and evaluation. (See winter 2018 pilot at https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_aa47C9OFZCiFt1r; and spring pilot as .pdf).
  • An End-of-Term Student Experience Survey. This web-based anonymous survey will collect non-numerical course feedback that will be used for course improvement and evaluation.

2.5 Therefore: The committee will be charged with bringing the Senate a motion regarding the end of term student evaluation survey in Fall 2018. The current Course Evaluations will stay in place until a new version is approved by the Senate.

2.6 Therefore: The committee will be charged with bringing proposals to the Senate for vote, no later than Fall 2019, motions on the following:

Notes:

Oregon Law on classroom evaluations by students

https://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/352.226

(9) Classroom survey evaluation by students of a faculty member’s classroom or laboratory performance shall be anonymous. The record of tabulated reports shall be placed in at least one of the files designated in subsection (4) of this section. All survey instruments used to obtain evaluation data shall be returned to the faculty member.

(10) A public university listed in ORS 352.002 (Public universities) and, after July 1, 1975, but before the date on which the public university obtained a governing board, the State Board of Higher Education and its public universities, offices, departments or activities, when evaluating its employed faculty members, may not solicit or accept letters, documents or other materials, given orally or in written form, from individuals or groups who wish their identity kept anonymous or the information they provide kept confidential.

GCO letter regarding ORS 352.226 (9) and (10)

17-part chart

CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT AND EVALUATION OF TEACHING COMMITTEE [Tier 1]

1) Name of Committee followed by [Committee Tier Number in brackets]:

Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee [Tier 1]

2) Brief Description:
The committee collects feedback on the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), makes minor changes to the instruments based on stakeholder feedback, and advises the Senate on significant changes as needed.

3) Background:
Created by Senate legislation US17/18-19: “Implementing a System for the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching” on May 23, 2018.

4) Charge and Responsibilities:
The committee collects feedback on the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System (CIETS), makes minor changes to the instruments, and advises the Senate on significant changes as needed. Any proposals for Senate action during an academic year should be proposed in writing no later than the beginning of Spring Term.

5) Membership Requirements:
Three to five faculty broadly representative by college, including at least one career instructional faculty, one tenured professor, and one Senator, appointed by the Committee on Committees. One graduate student, appointed in consultation with the GSA and the GTFF. One undergraduate student appointed in consultation with the ASUO. Ex-officio members to include designees from the Office of the Provost, the Registrar, and the Teaching Engagement Program.

6) Leadership Structure (Chair, Convener &/or Staff):
a) Chair: Elected
b) Convener: Office of the Provost ex-officio member
c) Staff: Office of the Provost

7) Election of Chair (quarter, week or “at the first meeting”):
Annually at the first meeting.

8) Length of Term:
a) Non-Students (faculty, OA’s OR’s, Classified): 2 years, staggered
b) Students: 1 year
c) Ex officio: indeterminate

9) Term Limits:
a) For the Chair: none
b) For Committee Members: none
c) Ex officio: none

10) Frequency of Meetings:
At least quarterly.

11) Workload Designation:
a) For the Chair: Tier 1
b) For Committee Members: Tier 1

12) Reporting Deadline(s):
The Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee shall report to the University Senate. At a minimum this report shall be in the form of an annual written report submitted by the Committee Chair to the Senate President and Senate Executive Coordinator no later than June 1. The committee shall also make additional written or oral reports to the Senate as necessary.

13) Current Members [Leave blank at present]:

14) Type:
Standing Committee

15) Category:
Academic

16) Selection Process:
Appointed

17) Additional Information:



Sample: Instructor Reflection

Sample: End-of-Term Student Experience

Jessica Roberts Candidate Statement 2018

While I am new to the UO, communications holds a special position in that we interact widely across campus. I feel this would be a particularly beneficial attribute if chosen for the OA council as it would allow me to take into account a number of points of view from OAs in a wide-variety of roles, which would then in turn help to inform me  to make the best and most representative decisions. I also feel that being new can bring an asset of objectivity and new eyes to old challenges and that could be a unique perspective to the group. Finally, I very much want to be a part of this community and become a true asset to our university. I have served on councils and advisory boards in all my previous jobs and cities, and am hopeful I can find a way to be of service to the UO as well.

Sara Stubbs Candidate Statement 2018

I have been at the University of Oregon for almost 10 years, and am currently serving as the Director of Customer Service and Support in Information Services. I am running for the OA Council because I am interested in continuing the work of improving relationships and communications across campus, and the council has proven to be a foundational aspect to accomplishing that. The challenges facing the University at this time including growth and the always present resource issues, will require collaboration and communication levels above and beyond what has been required previously. I believe I can both assist in and learn from what the OA Council has to offer in these areas and would be honored to serve the University in this capacity.

Jessica Cronce Candidate Statement 2018

Jessica Cronce is an Associate Professor in the Department of Counseling Psychology and Human Services in the College of Education and the Director of the Family and Human Services (FHS) undergraduate major. She joined the UO faculty in 2015. Her research focuses on the prevention of harms related to alcohol use, drug use, gambling, and other health-risk behaviors among college students and other young adults.

Jana Prikryl Candidate Statement 2018

My diverse job responsibilities, which include instruction, advising, and the administration of an undergraduate major provide me with the background and perspective to contribute in a meaningful way to the undergraduate council. My service on the UOCC, and my role as Director of the General Science program, have familiarized me with the UO policy implementation process. My interest in serving on the undergraduate council stems from a desire to advocate for our undergraduate students and contribute to the development of sensible policies that further our education mission.

Jagdeep Bala Candidate Statement 2018

I would like continue contributing to our University’s efforts to enhance undergraduate students’ achievements and successful transition to careers after graduation. This year, I am serving on the scholastic review committee, the academic council, and the student success advisor council. These engagements, together with work on the Student Success Advisory Council, Transfer Students Committee and Tyekeson work group over the last couple of years, have given me perspective, ideas and impetus that I would like to carry forward.

Arkady Vaintrob Candidate Statement 2018

I was a Director of Undergraduate Studies and a Chair of Scholarships and Awards committee in the Math department and served on the Undergraduate Council and the University Senate in the past. I am interested in strengthening undergraduate research and teaching at the UO.
Here are my preferences for the selected seats (in decreasing order): Undergraduate Council, Academic Requirements Committee, Committee on Scholarships, Study Abroad Programs Committee, Scholastic Review Committee.

Larissa Ennis Candidate Statement 2018

I’m hoping to get your vote for the Officers of Administration Council again in 2018. I am completing my first 2-year term as an OA Councilor, and in that time I have come to a greater understanding of the challenges facing OAs as the only unrepresented professional employee group on campus, and of the ways the OA Council can improve our standing. In the last year it has been my pleasure to play a key role in authoring the OA Council’s Workplace Climate survey, with the goal of creating a better workplace for all OAs at the University of Oregon. I hope to continue the work we started with the survey and continued with the listening tour, by creating an action plan and collaborating with campus partners to make real change happen for OAs. No campaign promises here, but I would be grateful for the opportunity to finish what we started—or at least make some incremental improvements in the lives of our colleagues. Thank you for your vote.

Joshua Gordon Candidate Statement 2018

Joshua Gordon is an Instructor of Sports Business at the Lundquist College of Business and the undergraduate program manager for the Warsaw Sports Marketing Center. He recently published a book on high performance organizational culture, The Sports Playbook (Routledge 2018) and advises intercollegiate athletic programs on issues around Title IX, hazing, and culture.

A leading business and legal strategist for more than twenty five years, Gordon is an experienced educator, consultant, negotiator, facilitator, and organizational capability builder. Gordon specializes in sports industry strategy and crisis management that builds upon a deep history of contexts that have included business-to-business, organizational change, energy, environmental, real estate and housing, family, and gang-related challenges. He is the founder and lead practitioner at the Sports Conflict Institute (SCI), which supports competitive goals in athletics through understanding, preventing, and resolving destructive conflict inside and outside the lines and specializes in building high performing team culture. He has presented to audiences that have included individuals and teams from the NCAA, NBA, NFL, MLS, NRL, MLB, USATF, USTA, PGA, LPGA, and ATP.

In addition to his career in conflict management and dispute resolution, Gordon is a competitive runner with recent Masters All-American performances in the mile, 3K, 5K, and 10K distances. He competes as part of the University of Oregon Running Club and the Bowerman Track Club.

Anne Laskaya Candidate Statement 2018

Assoc Professor whose main area is Late medieval Lit, but who has regularly taught women’s lit, world literature, and gen ed. I have served on the FAC during a time of incredible upheaval and transition from LaRiviere to Berdahl to Gottfredson and was co-chair of FAC in 2013. I have served on many committees, including Student Conduct, Appeals boards, Undergrad Council, Academic Requirements, various Senate committees, Committee on Committees, teaching awards, department review committees, various ad hoc committees, and more.

Jason Silveira Candidate Statement 2018

Jason Silveira teaches a variety of music education classes at the University of Oregon, and is also the conductor of the University of Oregon Symphonic Band. His research interests include music perception and cognition, psychology of music, teacher effectiveness, psychophysiological responses to music, and social justice. Dr. Silveira has been published in Journal of Research in Music Education, International Journal of Music Education, Psychology of Music, Journal of Music Teacher Education, Contributions to Music Education, Music Educators Journal, Research Perspectives in Music Education, and the Oregon Music Educator. He also served as Chair of the Affective Response Special Research Interest Group, and currently is Chair-elect of the Perception and Cognition Special Research Interest Group for the National Association for Music Education. Additionally, Dr. Silveira serves as editor of the Oregon Music Educator, and has served as an invited reviewer for Journal of Research in Music Education, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Psychology of Music, International Journal of Music Education, Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, and the National Association for Music Education.

Charles Martinez Candidate Statement 2018

I am Philip H. Knight Professor in the Department of Educational Methodology, Policy, and Leadership in the College of Education, where I also serve as director of the Center for Equity Promotion. I previously served from 2005-2011 as UO Vice President for Institutional Equity and Diversity and previously served on the UO Senate from 2012-2014. I have served on the UO FAC this past year, and hope to serve a regular term beginning in AY18-19.

Teri Rowe Candidate Statement 2018

I served 2012-2016 on the OA Council; 2 as Chair and have served the last two years on the Faculty Advisory Council as Chair and Co-Chair. I enjoy participating in service to the UO and would appreciate you vote for another 2 years. Please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have about my candidacy or your own interest in running for an elected office. Best, Teri

Jen Mirabile Candidate Statement 2018

Jen has worked at the University of Oregon since 2005. She currently works in central HR’s Programs and Services department managing the HR Partners network, TRP program, and Work-Life Resources. She currently serves as a member of the university’s Campus Family Alliance, Accident Review Board and the Student Academic Accommodation Committee. She is an active member of the College and University Professional Associate for HR and serves on the Western Region Board.

Nancy Nelson Candidate Statement 2018

Nancy J. Nelson, Ph.D., NCSP is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center on Teaching and Learning and core faculty in the Special Education and Clinical Sciences Department (C-NTTF). Dr. Nelson’s expertise lies in the development and efficacy testing of reading and math interventions, the use of multi-tiered systems of support to intensify academic supports for students on the basis of data, and the implementation of education technology in school systems.

Heather McBride Candidate Statement 2018

I’m a pro-tem writing instructor teaching freshman level writing classes. My interest in non-dominant American narratives has increased my awareness of the unreasonable expectations placed on women, non-binary people, and people of color both in the US and when traveling. As a result I have an interest in both addressing sexual and gender based violence and working with the Study Abroad Program.

Valerie Mickelson Candidate Statement 2018

Hi I am Valerie Mickelson and I have been employed at the UO for 4 years in Printing & Mailing Services. I am finishing my 1st term as a classified Senator and have learned a lot in the last 2 years and would love to continue to serve on the senate. I currently manage the UO Fleet Copier Program and the newly implemented Managed Print Programs in addition to working in the front office of Printing & Mailing. I am a two time UO Grad and feel blessed to now work for an institution that gave me so much during my tenure as a student.

Zach Fairchild Candidate Statement 2018

I have served the university in various roles, all as a classified staff member. I understand and value the diversity amongst our classifications, but also know the complications it brings to the work we do, how we go about accomplishing our work and the lines we sometimes have to draw with our CBA and management.

I have read and reread our CBA and always bring the classified voice to the table, in whatever roles I serve in, whether it be my daily work or committee/appointed commitments. Working for the division of student life, in my current role, I have a unique platform and have opportunities to work closely with decision makers and game changers across campus.

Holding relationships closely and building trust within the university has been my constant goal. Throughout my time at UO, I have been able to garner trust from management and HR, build strong bonds between my colleagues and constituents, and serve our students with the upmost pride and dedication in all I do.

I hope to serve the university community further in the coming weeks, months and years.

Jay Butler Candidate Statement 2018

Hi Everyone,
My name is Jay Butler and I currently work in the Payroll Department, in the Business Affairs Office. I am running for Classified Representative for UO Senate, as well as several Senate committees. I have been at UO for 8 years and have been involved in many facets of the university that make our campus so great. I have been a reliable substitute senator for the last two years for classified staff on the Senate. I have been involved with the Governor’s Food Drive each year. As a past volunteer for Food for Lane County, this is a cause close to my heart. I have worked tirelessly with the Zero Waste Program to help bring Deady Hall, Fenton Hall, and the Thompson University Center to become Zero Waste buildings, as well as promoting sustainability across campus. And last, the reason why I’m running. Over the past 8 years, 5 presidents, 5 contract negotiations, and the scare of striking, I feel it is now more important than ever to voice the ideas and concerns of Classified Staff. President Schill and the top administration continuously talk about Faculty and Students. But rarely do I hear the words “Staff” in there. I believe that we are an integral part of the university that is often overlooked and I look forward to engaging with the UO Senate on behalf of all of us. ~ Thank You.
Jay Butler

Lisa Wimberly Candidate Statement 2018

It is with great passion and enthusiasm that I respectfully submit my application to serve on the University Senate. The Senate has a long history of involvement with the University Community and I would like to be part of that involvement.
I have over 30 years of experience overall and 10 years at the University working in the nonprofit and volunteer committee sector promoting and advancing services, programs and policies that build and support the creation of a stable healthy community and University. Those that have worked with me over the years can attest to both my passion and involvement in public issues, advocacy and collaboration at the local and state levels.
Through my experience serving on multiple boards, committees and councils over the last 30 years, I have gained insight and a deep understanding of the many challenges and opportunities that our community grapples with on an ongoing basis. If elected to the Senate I promise to bring a deep commitment to contributing to the work as it moves forward to build a vibrant and effective voice for all.

Marie Swarringim Candidate Statement 2018

I’ve worked at the University of Oregon for nearly 10-years in a variety of positions from a administrative assistant to my current position as a Management Analyst. I enjoy working at the UO & serving on committees because of our diverse population & commitment to providing exceptional education opportunities for our students. My daughter is student at the UO which gives me a unique perspective as an employee. It’s always interesting to hear what our students experiences & concerns are.

Dan Shepard Candidate Statement 2018

I have been with the University now for nearly 4 years in my current position, which focuses heavily on the financial side of managing a department, as well a graduate coordinating. So, I am aware of the many challenges and opportunities facing departments from a classified perspective. Additionally, my relationship with the University, and academia in general, stretches back to my time here as an undergraduate beginning in 2003, and I am very cognizant of the issues faced by students here, and the issues they continue to face following graduation. My service goal would be to use my experiences to provide critical and thoughtful insight towards any issue that might come before the Senate.

Bill Madden Candidate Statement 2018

BS degrees in Art and Computer Science from Western Oregon University, 2011; held Electrical General Administrator’s License, WA; Electrical Contractor, Commercial & Industrial, 2.5 Yrs; Electrician Bonneville Pwr Admin, 32 Yrs; Web Application Developer 6 Yrs.; serve on CASIT Equity, Diversity, Inclusion Committee 1Yr. Extremely interested in participating in decision making concerning: growth, development, student & staff diversity/acceptance, and promotion of the UO.

Don Dixon Candidate Statement 2018

Known for wearing bow ties and unique hats, Don has spent a decade in the IT field. He has earned the nicknames “Dapper Don” and “Cool Hat Guy” for his gregarious demener and welcoming personality. He began his IT career at Best Buy, where he began as a seasonal Computer Sales Specialist. After the holiday rush, Don was soon promoted to the Best Buy for Business Department, where he became one of the top salesman in the company. As a Business professional, he began taking training in both PC and Mac repair and set-up, as well as computer security and networking. He moved into the Geek Squad, where he spent almost 4 years, working both in the store and as an on-site technician. Don has also worked for the Social Sciences Instructional Lab, where he helped oversee the everyday workings of three computer labs ranging from 10 to 33 computers. Don was a student worker for CASIT before graduating with his degree in General Social Sciences (Focus in Crime, Law, & Society) and has been a full time staff member and ITC for the CASIT Help Desk since October of 2014.

Sharece Bunn Candidate Statement 2018

Sharece is passionate for social justice and equity and says that her passion for cultural and ethnic diversity stemmed from growing up in Dayton, Oregon where she learned from her peers who migrated to and from Mexico with the seasons. Sharece holds a B.A. in English from Northwest Nazarene University, an M.S. in Journalism from the University of Oregon, and an Ed.M. in College Student Services Administration from Oregon State University. Sharece has twice served as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Ukraine and loves to travel the globe and meet new people. In her spare time, she enjoys reading, writing, wandering around with her camera, and going on mini adventures around Oregon.

Monica Bray Candidate Statement 2018

Degree History
PhD, Political Economy and Public Policy, University of Southern California
MA, Economics, University of Southern California
BA, Sociology, University of California San Diego
Bio
Monica Bray oversees the Graduate Programs Office at the Lundquist College of Business. Prior to coming to the University of Oregon, she worked in the private and public sectors for more than twenty years and has a broad background in higher education, financial management, policy analysis, strategy and international affairs. Previously, she was an Assistant Professor of Economics and Research Methods at California State University, Monterey Bay, where she taught finance and accounting for the Executive MBA Program and served as the Director of the Master of Public Policy Program. She was also the Director of Career Services at USC Price and an Adjunct Professor of Finance at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. In addition, Bray had an extensive career in financial services and wealth management, working with some of the most respected financial institutions in the United States. She has also served as a strategic consultant for more than a decade.

Angela Long Candidate Statement 2018

Angela Long is Director, Health Initiatives, at the University Health Center. She is responsible for advancing the health of UO students by managing a team of professionals who maintain the electronic health record and information technology support; health promotion and prevention initiatives; HIPAA compliance, health center accreditation, medical records; marketing, communications, assessment; immunization compliance; and communicable disease outbreak preparedness. Serves as a member of the UHC executive and management teams. Collaborates with other campus leaders on alignment of prevention programs.

Cressa Perloff Candidate Statement 2018

Cressa Perloff holds an OA position as the Project Coordinator for Exploring Computer Science, a research project focused on equity in high school computer science education. She is also a graduate student in the Prevention Science M.S. program. Her former career was in the field of alternative math education, and she holds a BFA in Modern Dance. Cressa also consults regarding how to make programs, organizing structures, institutional culture, and events more inclusive and equitable, and she is engaged in various civil rights and community wellness projects at UO and around Eugene. She held the position of Event Coordinator for the ASUO LGBTQA3 in 2016-17 and is a founding member of Decolonizing Judaism.

She is excited about the opportunity to bring these perspectives and experiences to the UO Senate. She has an interest in helping UO policies, practices, and statements align with an ethic of maintaining a welcoming, safe, equitable university environment for all our community members.

Jill Martineau Candidate Statement 2018

Hello, my name is Jill Martineau and I am the Conduct and Care Coordinator for the Office of the Dean of Students at the UO. As a new employee of 5 months, I hope to get involved in committees and groups that represent the larger institutional mission. I look forward to finding ways to create on-going success and development for our students. As an added bonus, I would have the opportunity to meet new colleagues and work collaboratively in addressing certain challenges and turning them into opportunities for growth and improvement. I look forward to engaging with others across the institution.

Melina Pastos Candidate Statement 2018

With a more than 15-year career in higher education, the breadth of my work has included international program management at UC Berkeley, Native student retention at the University of Alaska, instruction at a tribal college, and most recently at UO, over 5 years in student advising. I also bring experience from the non-profit and business sectors and an interdisciplinary social science background. Attending Faculty Senate meetings this past year was a reminder to me that academic affairs and student affairs need to be in constant collaboration to complement each other’s efforts and build supportive relationships across campus units. Motivated by the goal of creating access and equity in education, UO’s Student Success Initiatives and Core Education Reform are some of the issues that interest me in serving on the Senate.

Brady Nittman Candidate Statement 2018

I arrived at the University of Oregon 2 years ago and currently serve as a Financial Analyst in the Budget and Resource Planning office. I have a diverse background in University finances and bring a strong analytical lens to my current role.

While working in the central budget office I have been exposed to many of the challenges Officers of Administration face on an institutional level. As the only unrepresented group on campus, it is imperative that we are unified and ensure our collective voice is heard.

I want to play an active role in driving improvement and positive change at the UO. The Officers of Administration Council provides the opportunity to make constructive contributions that will benefit all OA’s and the University as a whole.

Volya Kapatsinski Candidate Statement 2018

I grew up in Russia and was interested in linguistics from a young age. However, linguistics is a broad field that encompasses cultural, social, structural, and cognitive perspectives on language. My academic trajectory has taken me from the cultural side of this spectrum to the cognitive side. I started out interested in linguistic anthropology and the relation between language change and cultural change, then drifted into quantitative studies of language change in progress, then cognitive explanations for recurrent changes, and finally into the study of the cognitive processes assumed by such explanations. My current research brings together computational learning theory, language acquisition and historical linguistics to explain why language change around the world follows certain recurrent trajectories. The interdisciplinary nature of my academic experience has made me familiar with a broad range of research traditions, methods and publication venues, from sociolinguistics to cognitive science. I have reviewed articles for 19 journals, ranging from “Cortex” to “Language Variation & Change”. This breadth may serve me well on the FPC and the Library Committee. It may also help me contribute to the work of the Senate, especially as the university continues to develop and re-evaluate criteria for research productivity and research excellence.

Caroline Lundquist Candidate Statement 2018

I have been studying and teaching ethics for about fifteen years, having received my PhD in philosophy (specializing in ethics) from the University of Oregon in 2013. I worked at Lane Community College for several years, where I taught an array of philosophy courses, served on numerous committees, and developed LCC’s first Center for Teaching and Learning. I currently serve as the Associate Director of Carnegie Global Oregon, an ethics-based FIG and ARC here at the U of O. I also teach ethics class for the Department of Philosophy and the Clark Honors College. I volunteer extensively in the Eugene community, and co-lead a regular public philosophy discussion series at the Eugene Public Library.

I am especially interested in serving on any committees that address ethical questions and challenges. I am interested in finding ways to ensure that the University of Oregon’s policies and practices reflect the values of its community members, and would love to help faculty (and administrators whose work supports teaching and learning) to find ways to integrate ethics into the curriculum.

Pedro Garcia-Caro Candidate Statement 2018

Deeply committed to shared governance, a public university ethos, and administrative transparency, I have served in the Senate for several years and in other university-wide committees. I currently serve as Secretary for AAUP Oregon, and Direct the Latin American Studies Program. I am completing a book on cultural debates about mining in Latin America in the nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Vera Keller Candidate Statement 2018

I’m a historian of science specializing in the origins of experimental science in the early modern period. Before tenure, I did not engage in much University Service, only serving on the Student Health Advisory Comittee in 2012-2013. I’m now seeking to get involved. The following relate to the committees I suggested joining:Through my career at UO, I’ve engaged a lot with the library, especially SCUA. In graduate school, I’ve previously served as the LGBTQ+ representative to student government. And, while I haven’t run a Study Abroad program at UO, I’ve studied abroad myself, as well as been a fellow at numerous international academic centers.

Margaret Sereno Candidate Statement 2018

I am a member of the Psychology Department. My research, in the area of Cognitive and Perceptual Neuroscience, involves behavioral, brain imaging, and computational studies investigating the neural-basis of spatial, shape and fractal perception, as well as navigation and map reading. My background in Art inspires many of my research questions. Given the interdisciplinary nature of my research, I collaborate with colleagues across campus, nationally and internationally.

Spring 2018 Candidates and Statements

University Senate
*Statutory Faculty openings for 2017-2018 election cycle must come from tenured, tenure-track, officers of instruction and officers of administration with tenure in an academic department classifications.

College of Arts and Sciences – No more than two from any department

Natural Sciences – 5 faculty openings

1. Margaret Sereno, Psychology
2. Alan Rempel, Earth Sciences
3. Chris Sinclair, Mathematics
4. Michelle Wood, Biology
5. Lou Moses

Social Sciences – 2 faculty openings

1. Glen Waddell, Economics
2. Eileen Otis, Sociology
3.

Humanities – 5 faculty openings

1. Zhuo Jing-Schmidt, East Asian Languages
2. Volya Kapatinski, Linguistics
3. Caroline Lundquist, Geography
4. Pedro Garcia-Caro, Romance Languages
5. Michael Stern, German & Scandinavian Studies
6. Alejandro Vallega, Philosophy
7. Mark Whalan, English

Professional Schools

College of Design – 2 faculty openings

1.
2.

Lundquist College of Business – 2 faculty openings

1. Ali Emami, Finance
2. Robin Clement, Business

College of Education – 1 faculty openings

1. Elizabeth Skowron, Counseling Psychology

School of Journalism & Communication – 1 faculty openings

1. Christopher Chavez, Advertising

School of Law – No current openings

School of Music & Dance – No current openings

Clark Honors College – 1 opening

1. Vera Keller

UO Libraries -1 faculty openings

1.

Officers of Administration – 1 opening

1. Monica Bray, College of Business
2. Sharece Bunn, International Affairs
3. Jesse Conway, Research & Innovation
4. Angela Long, Health Center
5.Jessica Marquez, SOJC
6. Jill Martineau, Dean of Students
7. Thor Mikesell, SOMD
8. Brady Nittmann, Budget & Resource Planning
9. Melina Pastos, Undergraduate Studies
10. Cressa Perloff, Education Science Lab
11. Jessica Roberts, College of Education
12. David Salmon, Undergraduate Studies

ASUO Student Senators – 5 openings (selected by the ASUO)

Classified Staff – 2 openings

1. Jay Butler, Business Affairs
2. Don Dixon, CASIT
3. Zach Fairchild, Student Life
4. Angie Hopkins, CSWS
5. Bill Madden, CASIT
6. Valerie Mickelson, Printing & Mailing
7. Sarah Proctor, Libraries
8. Peggy Schneider, Parking & Transportation
9. Dan Shepard, Human Physiology
10. Marie Swarringim, Campus Planning
11. Louie Vidmar, SOJC
12. Lisa Wimberly, EC Cares


Elected Committees

Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence – 3 openings

1. Hayden Harker, Mathematics
2. Heather McBride, English
3. Mikhail Myagkov, Political Science
4. Nancy Nelson, Education
5. Mary Oberlies, UO Libraries
6. Ofer Raban, Law

Core Education Council (NEW)

College of Arts & Sciences

Natural Sciences – 1 opening

1. Edward Davis, Earth Sciences
2. Chris Sinclair, Mathematics

Social Sciences – 1 opening

1. Pedro Garcia-Caro, Romance Languages
2. Emily Simnitt, English

Professional Schools – 3 openings

1. Alison Schmitke, Education
2. TBD
3. TBD

Faculty Advisory Council

Career NTTF – 1 opening

Randy Sullivan, Chemistry

Humanities – 1 opening

1. Martha Bayless, English
2. Spike Gildea, Linguistics
3. Zhuo Jing-Schmidt, East Asian Languages
4. Volya Kapatinski, Linguistics
5. Tyler Kendall, Linguistics
6. Pedro Garcia-Caro, Romance Languages
7. Michael Stern, German & Scan Studies

Professional Schools (NTTF) – 1 opening

1. TBD

Officers of Administration – 1 opening

1. Jill Martineau, Office of Dean of Students
2. Thor Mikesell, Music
3. Jen Mirabile, Human Resources
4. Jessica Roberts, College of Education
5. Teri Rowe, Economics & Sociology
6. David Salmon, Undergraduate Studies
7. Sara Stubbs, Information Services

Professional Schools (TTF) – 1 opening

1. John Chalmers, Business
2. Alex Dossin, Music
3. Ihab Elzeyadi, Architecture
4. Fritz Gearhart, Music
5. Charles Martinez, Education
6. Kevin Nute, Architecture
7. Jason Silveira, Music

Faculty Grievance Appeals Committee – 2 openings

1. Burke Hendrix, Political Science
2. Dave Fowler, UO Libraries
3. Mary Grenci, UO Libraries
4. Peng Lu, Mathematics
5. Kevin Nute, Architecture
6. Ofer Raban, Law

Faculty Personnel Committee

College of Arts & Sciences – 4 openings

1. Marcin Bownik, Mathematics
2. Sangita Gopal, Cinema Studies
3. Volya Kapatsinski, Linguistics
4. Peng Lu, Mathematics
5. Carol Silverman, Anthropology
6. Caleb Southworth, Sociology
7. Michael Stern, German & Scan Studies
8. Stephen Frost, Anthropology

School of Law – 1 opening

1. TBD

School of Journalism & Communication – 1 opening

1. Donnalyn Pompper, SOJC

Graduate Council

College of Business – 1 opening

1. Hong Yuan

CAS  Humanities – 1 opening

1. Anne Laskaya, English
2. Fabienne Moore, Romance Languages

CAS Social Sciences – 2 openings

1. Burke Hendrix, Political Science
2. Jeremy Piger, Economics

School of Music & Dance – 1 opening

1. Leslie Straka, Music

Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee

Classified Staff – 1 opening

1. Don Dixon, CASIT
2. Zach Fairchild, Student Life
3. Lauren Goss, Libraries
4. Christina Green, Business Affairs
5. Angie Hopkins, CSWS
6. Marty Hurst, Educational and Community Supports
7. Bill Madden, CASIT
8. Valerie Mickelson, Printing & Mailing
9. Sarah Proctor, Libraries
10. Peggy Schneider, Parking & Transportation
11. Lisa Wimberly, EC Cares

Faculty – 1 opening

1. Curtis Austin, History
2. Charlie Butler, Journalism
3. Katherine Donaldson, Libraries
4. Dave Fowler, Libraries
5. Spike Gildea, Linguistics
6. Joshua Gordon, Business
7. Rebekah Hanley, Law
8. Hayden Harker, Mathematics
9. Burke Hendrix, Political Science
10. Kathleen Lenn, Libraries
11. Peng Lu, Mathematics
12. N. Christopher Phillips, Mathematics
13. Glen Waddell, Economics

Officers of Administration Council – 4 openings

1. Jesse Conway, Research & Innovation
2. Larissa Ennis, University Advancement
3. Angela Long, Health Center
4. Jessica Marquez, SOJC
5. Jill Martineau, Office of Dean of Students
6. Thor Mikesell, Music
7. Brett Moody, Office of Dean of Students
8. Brady Nittmann, Budget & Resource Planning
9. Cressa Perloff, Education Science Lab
10. Jessica Roberts, College of Education
11. David Salmon, Undergraduate Studies
12. Micah Sardell, Information Services
13. Sara Stubbs, Information Services

Promotion-Tenure-Retention Appeals Committee – 1 opening

1. Martha Bayless, English
2. Peng Lu, Mathematics
3. Carol Silverman, Anthropology

Undergraduate Council

CAS At Large – 2 openings

1. Jagdeep Bala, Psychology
2. Kathleen Freeman Hennessy, Computer and Information Science
3. Tyler Kendall, Linguistics
4. Hardiner Khalsa, Romance Languages
5. Craig Parsons, Political Science
6. Jana Prikryl, Biology
7. Caleb Southworth, Sociology
8. Michael Stern, German & Scan Studies
9. Randy Sullivan, Chemistry
10. Thomas Tasker, AEI
11. Arkady Vaintrob, Mathematics

CAS Humanities – 2 openings

1. Tyler Kendall, Linguistics
2. Harinder Khalsa, Romance Languages
3. Michael Stern, German & Scan Studies

CAS Natural Sciences – 1 opening

1. Jagdeep Bala, Psychology
2. Jana Prikryl, Biology
3. Randy Sullivan, Chemistry
4. Arkady Vaintrob, Mathematics
5. Craig Parsons, Political Science
6. Caleb Southworth, Sociology

College of Design – 1 opening

1. TBD

College of Education – 1 opening

1. Jessica Cronce, Family & Human Services

College of Business – 1 opening

1. Erin Cil, Business Analytics
2. Michele Henney, Business

School of Music & Dance – 1 opening

1. Drew Nobile, Music Theory
2. Jason Silveira, Music


Appointed Committees

Campus Planning Committee

College of Design – 1 opening

1. TBD

Faculty – 2 openings

1. Lowell Bowditch, Classics
2. Dean Livelybrooks, Physics
3. Krista McGuire, Biology
4. Edward Teague, UO Libraries
5. Rebekah Hanley, Law
6. Katherine Donaldson, UO Libraries
7. Marcin Bownik, Mathematics

 

Spring 2018 Senate and Committee Vacancies

Name Years Attributes
Campus Planning Committee 18-19 Appointed,Faculty,Design
Campus Planning Committee 18-19,19-20,20-21 Appointed,Faculty
Campus Planning Committee 18-19,19-20,20-21 Appointed,Faculty
Committee on Scholarships 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty,Law,Teaching
Committee on Scholarships 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty,Teaching
Committee on Scholarships 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty,Teaching
Committee on Scholarships 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Teaching,At large
Committee on Scholarships 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Social Sciences,Teaching
Committee on Scholarships 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Teaching,At large
Committee on Scholarships 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Education,Teaching
Committee on Scholarships 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,SOJC,Teaching
Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty
Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty
Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty
Core Education Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,Humanities
Core Education Council 18-19 Elected,Faculty,Natural Sciences
Core Education Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Social Sciences
Core Education Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Professional Schools
Core Education Council 18-19 Elected,Faculty,Professional Schools
Core Education Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,Professional Schools
Core Education Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Appointed,CAS,At large
Core Education Council 18-19,19-20 Appointed,CAS,At large
Core Education Council 18-19 Appointed,CAS,At large
Core Education Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Appointed,CAS,At large
Distinguished Teaching Awards Committee 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty,Teaching
Distinguished Teaching Awards Committee 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty,Teaching
Environmental Issues Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Environmental Issues Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Environmental Issues Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Environmental Issues Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Environmental Issues Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,OA
Environmental Issues Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Classified
Erb Memorial Union Board of Directors 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Erb Memorial Union Board of Directors 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Erb Memorial Union Board of Directors 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Erb Memorial Union Board of Directors 18-19 Appointed,Classified
Faculty Advisory Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,Humanities,TTF
Faculty Advisory Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,Professional Schools,Career,NTTF
Faculty Advisory Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,OA
Faculty Advisory Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,Professional Schools,TTF
Faculty Advisory Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,CAS,Career,NTTF
Faculty Advisory Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,TTF,Humanities
Faculty Grievance Appeals Committee 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty
Faculty Grievance Appeals Committee 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty
Faculty Personnel Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,CAS
Faculty Personnel Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,CAS
Faculty Personnel Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Law
Faculty Personnel Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,CAS
Faculty Personnel Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,CAS
Faculty Personnel Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,SOJC
Faculty Research Awards Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Research
Faculty Research Awards Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Research
Faculty Research Awards Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Research
Faculty Research Awards Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Research
Faculty Research Awards Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Research
Faculty Research Awards Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Research
Graduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,TTF,Social Sciences,Teaching
Graduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,TTF,Social Sciences,Teaching
Graduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,TTF,Humanities,Teaching
Graduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,Business,Teaching
Graduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,SOMD,Teaching
Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Classified
Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty
Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee 18-19 Appointed,Faculty
Library Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Library Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Library Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Library Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Library Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Nontenured-Track Faculty Committee 18-19 Appointed,NTTF
Nontenured-Track Faculty Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,NTTF
Nontenured-Track Faculty Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,TTF
Nontenured-Track Faculty Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,TTF
Nontenured-Track Faculty Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,TTF
Officers of Administration Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,OA
Officers of Administration Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,OA
Officers of Administration Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,OA
Officers of Administration Council 18-19,19-20 Elected,OA
Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group 18-19 Appointed,NTTF
Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group 18-19 Appointed,OA
Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group 18-19 Appointed,Classified
Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group 18-19 Appointed,TTF
Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group 18-19 Appointed,TTF
Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group 18-19 Appointed,Faculty
Ombuds Administrative Advisory Group 18-19 Appointed
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19 Faculty
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19 Faculty
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19 Faculty
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19 Faculty
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19 Faculty
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19 OA
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19 Libraries
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19 OA
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19
Presidential Task Force on Recognizing our Diverse History 18-19
Promotion-Tenure-Retention Appeals Committee 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,TTF,CAS
Respect & Community Values Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Respect & Community Values Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,OA
Respect & Community Values Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Classified
Respect & Community Values Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Research
Respect & Community Values Committee 18-19 Appointed,At large
ROTC Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
ROTC Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
ROTC Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Scholastic Review Committee 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty,Teaching
Senate Budget Committee 17-18,18-19 Elected,Tenured,Senator
Senate Budget Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Tenured,Senator
Senate Budget Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,NTTF,Senator
Senate Budget Committee 18-19,19-20 Elected,Senator
Senate Executive Committee 18-19 Appointed,Classified,Senator
Senate Executive Committee 18-19 Appointed,NTTF,Senator
Senate Executive Committee 18-19 Appointed,OA,Senator
Senate Executive Committee 18-19 Appointed,NTTF,Senator
Senate Executive Committee 18-19 Appointed,TTF,Senator
Senate Executive Committee 18-19 Appointed,TTF,Senator
Senate Executive Committee 18-19 Appointed,Research,Senator
Senate Executive Committee 18-19 Appointed,TTF,Senator
Student Conduct and Community Standards Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Student Conduct and Community Standards Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Student Health Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Student Health Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Student Health Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Student Health Advisory Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Student-Faculty Committee on Grievances 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Student-Faculty Committee on Grievances 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Study Abroad Programs Committee 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty
Study Abroad Programs Committee 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty
Study Abroad Programs Committee 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty
Study Abroad Programs Committee 17-18,18-19 Appointed,Faculty
Study Abroad Programs Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Study Abroad Programs Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Study Abroad Programs Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Study Abroad Programs Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty
Transparency Committee 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,Tenured
Undergraduate Council 17-18,18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Social Sciences
Undergraduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,Design
Undergraduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,CAS,At large
Undergraduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,Business
Undergraduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,SOMD
Undergraduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,Humanities
Undergraduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,Natural Sciences
Undergraduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,Education
Undergraduate Council 18-19,19-20,20-21 Elected,Faculty,CAS,At large
University Appeals Board 18-19 Appointed,Faculty
University Appeals Board 18-19 Appointed,Faculty
University Appeals Board 18-19 Appointed,Faculty
University Committee on Sexual Orientation Attraction Gender Identity and Expression 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Classified
University Committee on Sexual Orientation Attraction Gender Identity and Expression 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Classified
University Committee on Sexual Orientation Attraction Gender Identity and Expression 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,TTF
University Committee on Sexual Orientation Attraction Gender Identity and Expression 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,NTTF
University Committee on Sexual Orientation Attraction Gender Identity and Expression 18-19,19-20 Appointed,Faculty,TTF
University Committee on Sexual Orientation Attraction Gender Identity and Expression 18-19,19-20 Appointed,OA
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,CHC
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Natural Sciences
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Natural Sciences
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Humanities
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Humanities
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,SOJC
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Business
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Business
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Natural Sciences
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Humanities
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Humanities
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Education
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,OA
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Classified
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Natural Sciences
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Design
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Classified
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Natural Sciences
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Social Sciences
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Libraries
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Social Sciences
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Design
University Senate 18-19,19-20 Elected,Faculty,Humanities

US17/18-18: Repeal of Multicultural Requirement and Introduction of US: Difference, Inequality, Agency and Global Perspectives Requirements

Date of Notice: January 10, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Lee Rumbarger; Multicultural Requirement Task Force


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon has, since 1994, required two “multicultural” courses for a baccalaureate degree selected in two of three categories, American Cultures, International Cultures, and Identity, Pluralism and Tolerance.

1.2 WHEREAS the Black Student Task Force identified a shortcoming in the degree to which our curriculum raises as a central thematic focus the study of unequal power distribution and allows for attention to US histories and communities.

1.3 WHEREAS the University’s response to the Black Student Task Force included the formation of a faculty-student Ethnic Studies 101 Working Group in January 2016, which ultimately recommended a shared, across-the-disciplines approach to teaching about “inequality and injustice” and developing students’ “skills to navigate a diversifying world” (BSTF memo).

1.4 WHEREAS a 2016 joint committee of the Undergraduate Council and the University Committee on Courses expressed “dissatisfaction with the current categories and structure” of the multicultural requirement and identified a “diluting of the purpose and coherence of the requirement.”

1.5 WHEREAS the joint committee recommended updating the multicultural requirement category titles and descriptions to reflect “current scholarship in the field of critical multicultural education” and addressing an “imbalance in the categories” that means most UO students do not take American Cultures (AC) courses and, thus, “are not exposed to the critical conversations occurring in AC courses addressing a critical analysis of students’ cultural context and assumptions.”

1.6 WHEREAS a faculty group reporting to Undergraduate Council, the Working Group on Intercultural and Inclusive Teaching, met across the 2016-17 academic year and ultimately recommended learning outcomes, teaching strategies, and curricular and support structures it determined best suited for building faculty and student capacities related to critical multicultural education.

1.7 WHEREAS on November 11, 2016 the UO Senate resolved to “strengthen our curricula to reflect the diversity of peoples and cultures that have contributed to human knowledge and society, in the United States and throughout the world.”

1.8 WHEREAS the multicultural requirement can serve as an important model in a broader process to update UO’s general education requirements.

1.9 WHEREAS many of our comparator universities have replaced requirements that teach cultural pluralism and tolerance with programs that foster rich, often experiential engagement with both global cultures highly divergent from familiar US worldviews, and historical patterns of identity-based injustice and exclusion in the US.

1.10 WHEREAS Oregon State University, University of Massachusetts Amherst, University of California, San Diego, University of Vermont, Florida International University, and Pitzer College (among others) have enacted thoughtful requirements for understanding the United States and its cultural/racial histories, and for engaging the world. These examples inspire our efforts to rethink our own requirements.

1.11 WHEREAS the charge of the Undergraduate Council includes: (1) Review and promote the objectives and purposes of undergraduate education and assure that all policies and procedures, curricula, personnel and teaching decisions that affect undergraduate education are consistent and defensible with the institution’s undergraduate education mission as defined in the University’s Mission Statement and Statement of Philosophy, Undergraduate Education; (3) Formulate, monitor, and respond to general academic policies, especially those which have impact on undergraduate programs across the University.

1.12 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council passed this proposal to withdraw the UO multicultural requirement and replace it with Difference, Inequality, Agency: US and Global Perspectives on 18 April 2018.

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the current multicultural requirement be replaced with two new requirements, one course in each category: 1) US: Difference, Inequality, Agency and 2) Global Perspectives. that undergraduate students will take one course in each of two new categories: US: Difference, Inequality, Agency and Global Perspectives. These two courses will replace UO’s current multicultural requirement.

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that courses in the US: Difference, Inequality, Agency category formed in 2.1 will develop students’ analytical and reflective capacities to help them understand and ethically engage with the ongoing (cultural, economic, political, social, etc.) power imbalances that have shaped and continue to shape the United States. This engagement may also include the relation of the United States to other regions of the world. Each course will include scholarship, cultural production, perspectives, and voices from members of communities historically marginalized by these legacies of inequality.

Each course will undertake one or more of the following:

  1. Teach respectful listening and tools for ethical dialogue in order to expand students’ abilities to practice civil conversation and engage with deeply felt or controversial issues.
  2. Facilitate student reflection on their own multiple social identifications and on how those identifications are formed and located in relation to power.

Each course will address:

  1. Intersecting aspects of identity such as race, gender, sexuality, socioeconomic status, indigeneity, national origin, religion, or ability.
  2. The uses of power to classify, rank, and marginalize on the basis of these aspects of identity, as well as considerations of agency on the part of marginalized groups.
  3. Historical structures, contemporary structures, forms of knowledge, cultural practices, or ideologies that perpetuate or change the distribution of power in society.

2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that courses in the Global Perspectives category will foster student encounter with and critical reflection upon cultures, identities, and ways of being in global contexts. Each course will include substantial scholarship, cultural production, perspectives, and voices from members of communities under study, as sources permit.

Each course will undertake one or more of the following:

  1. Teach respectful listening and civil conversation as critical tools for collective student engagement with topics that are controversial today;
  2. Provide critical vocabulary and concepts allowing students to engage and discuss topics with which students may be unfamiliar.

Each course will engage with one of more of the following:

  1. Texts, literature, art, testimonies, practices, or other cultural products that reflect systems of meaning or beliefs beyond the US context;
  2. Power relations involving different nations, peoples and identity groups, or world regions;
  3. Consideration of hierarchy, marginality or discrimination based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, nationality, or ability (or some combination).

Note: Approved study abroad programs also fulfill the Global Perspectives requirement.

2.4 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that we recommend significant, faculty-endorsed professional teaching development opportunities to support the teaching of this key part of the curriculum and research on this pedagogy.

2.5 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that courses that fulfill the multicultural requirement in either the US or GP category will include on their syllabus a short rationale and shared set of student learning objectives, which may be augmented by individual faculty. The Senate Core Education Council will be charged with providing this language and refreshing it periodically as part of a continual process of improvement and evolution of the curriculum.

2.6 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that until current courses are resubmitted for approval for the new categories, all current AC courses will be placed in the new US category, all current IC courses will be placed in the new GP category, and all IP courses will be placed, by the UOCC, in either the new US or GP category depending on their primary body of illustrative material.

2.7 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the UOCC is charged with developing a process and timeline for the resubmission and approval of current courses. To ensure broad consultation and minimization of disruption to current departments and courses, the UOCC will propose a process and timeline to the Senate for review and approval in the spring 2018 curriculum report.

2.8 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Core Education Council is charged with exploring and potentially recommending optional further study options for each category, consisting of a menu of possible activities (experiential learning and service, research, advanced coursework) from which students select. The Core Education Council will also explore and recommend ways in which this further study should count toward degree requirements.

Should the Senate approve these requirements, the Senate Core Education Council will work with the Teaching Engagement Program and Undergraduate Studies to develop, for later consideration and approval by the Senate, the further study optional pathways, menu of approved optional activities, and how those activities would count toward degree requirements.

2.9 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the new requirements will be in effect in Fall 2019.


Presentation from 4/25 Senate meeting

Senate Meeting Agenda – April 25, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:10 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, April 11, 2018

3:10 P.M.   Business/Reports

3:50 P.M.    Open Discussion
3
:50 P.M.   Reports
3
:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
3:55 P.M.   Other Business

4:00 P.M. Executive Session

Vote: Honorary Degrees

5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Feedback wanted: Conflicts of Interest

Dear Campus Community:

We are seeking input on draft revisions to the “Conflict of Interest, Potential” policy and associated draft procedures. At this stage, these are very much discussion drafts and we would greatly appreciate input from the community so that we can further revise them.

The goals of this effort are to make the policy easier to understand, make it easier for employees to obtain approval for outside work, and ensure that the policy aligns with state law.

Please provide comments via this link by Friday, April 27:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_bsJEMUqBoPN3zsV

During the month of April, we have been attending a variety of standing meetings to obtain initial feedback on the drafts. After revising the documents based on this first round of feedback, we anticipate convening a diverse group of employees to provide further feedback and then submitting the revised policy through the standard policy process.

For your reference, you can find the current policy here: https://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/09-research/conflicts-interest-potential

Thank you for any time you are able to put into this during the busy spring quarter. I look forward to your feedback.

Sincerely,

Cassandra Moseley
Sr. Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation


Draft COI Policy

Draft COI Procedures

Annual Committee Service Survey Closing Soon

UPDATE (Mon, Apr 16, 2018):

We still need several folks to sign up for committee service. The survey is still open. If you have trouble with the “submit” button, please email the following to senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu:

Name
Rank
Department

At this time, no one has indicated interest in the following vacancies:

Campus Planning Committee
1 faculty from College of Design
1 Classified Staff

Committee on Scholarships
1 teaching Faculty from Law
1 teaching faculty from  Soc Sci
1 teaching faculty from Education
1 teaching faculty from SOJC
1-3 at-large teaching faculty

CORE Ed Council
1 Soc Sci faculty

Faculty Advisory Council
1 career NTTF from the Professional Schools (no more than 1 from same school, college or administrative unit)

Faculty Personnel Committee
1 faculty from Law
1 faculty from SOJC

Grad Council
1 TTF faculty from Business

Nontenured-Track Faculty Committee
3 Tenure-Track faculty

Ombuds
All seats

Respect & Community Values
1 Research faculty

ROTC
2 faculty

Undergrad Council
1 faculty from College of Design

University Senate
1 faculty from SOJC
2 faculty from Soc Sci
1 faculty from Libraries

 


Dear Campus Community,

Thank you to everyone who has already completed the survey regarding university service opportunities. Between the University Senate and several university committees, there are myriad ways for you to be involved in shared governance at the UO.

We know there are countless demands on your time, but encourage you to take a look at the opportunities to serve the UO through a committee or senate position. This type of service is extraordinarily beneficial to the institution.

Please respond by Thursday, April 12. Filling out the survey does not automatically put you on a committee or the ballot – we’ll follow up with you before doing anything official.

If you have any questions, please contact Betina Lynn, the Senate’s executive coordinator, at senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu.

CLICK HERE FOR THE SURVEY.

Sincerely,

Chris Sinclair
University Senate President
Professor of Mathematics

Bill Harbaugh
University Senate Vice President and President-elect
Professor of Economics

US17/18-17: Learning Goals for Methods of Inquiry

Date of Notice: March 14, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Core Education Task Force


Motion

Section I

1.1  WHEREAS The Mission of the University of Oregon is:

The University of Oregon is a comprehensive public research university committed to exceptional teaching, discovery, and service. We work at a human scale to generate big ideas. As a community of scholars, we help individuals question critically, think logically, reason effectively, communicate clearly, act creatively, and live ethically; and

1.2  WHEREAS The combined curriculum common to all undergraduate degrees, the Core Education, should serve the mission of the university; and

1.3  WHEREAS Clearly articulated learning goals are useful for student success; and

1.4  WHEREAS Clearly articulated criteria for how a course meets learning goals is useful for UOCC course approval; and

1.5  WHEREAS Clearly articulated criteria for how a course meets learning goals are useful for assessment of student learning in that course; and

1.6  WHEREAS The American Association of Colleges and Universities has developed nationally vetted learning goals and criteria for many categories of learning outcomes common between institutions; and

1.7  WHEREAS Accreditation standards require that institutions demonstrate how their common curriculum supports their institutional mission; and

1.8  WHEREAS Accreditation standards require that the institution establish and assess student learning goals for its general education program.

Section II

2.1  BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate establish the following categories of Learning Goals derived from the University Mission: Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, Written Communication and Ethical Inquiry. These categories of Learning Goals will be called Methods of Inquiry.

2.2  BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that when approving new courses which satisfy one of the Areas of Inquiry of Arts & Letters, Social Sciences and/or Natural Sciences, the UOCC will ensure that, in addition to the learning goals relevant to the Area of Inquiry(ies), courses will only be approved if they address learning goals from at least two Methods of Inquiry.

2.3  BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that when approving courses which satisfy one of the Areas of Inquiry of Arts & Letters, Social Sciences and/or Natural Sciences, the UOCC will require approved courses to address at least half of the criteria for the relevant Methods of Inquiry.

2.4  BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Core Education Council will develop and bring to the Senate for approval guidelines for assessing the learning goals in Methods of Inquiry.

2.5  BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Core Education Council will regularly review Methods of Inquiry and recommend changes to the Senate when appropriate.


Presentation with Methods of Inquiry

Learning goals (paragraph) and criteria (bullets) for Methods of Inquiry

Critical Thinking

Students will develop the skills and habits of mind necessary for the comprehensive exploration of issues, ideas, artifacts, and events in the evaluation and formulation of opinions and conclusions. Critical thinking requires students to question critically, think logically and reason effectively in the context of discipline-specific methodologies.

  • Explanation of issues, assumptions, or hyptheses
  • Evidence: Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion Using relevant and credible evidence, information, or hypotheses to describe, investigate or analyze a situation, or draw a conclusion.
  • Facility with methods of reasoning appropriate to the discipline (such as inductive, deductive, scientific, or esthetic reasoning, or statistical inference)
  • Modeling: Capturing the essentials of a situation in language or symbolism suitable for deriving conclusions about it.
  • Influence of context and assumptions
  • Student’s position (perspective, thesis/hypothesis)
  • Logical conclusions and related outcomes (implications and consequences)
Creative Thinking

Students will develop the capacity to combine or synthesize existing ideas, images, or expertise in original ways, and work in an imaginative way characterized by a high degree of innovation, divergent thinking, and risk taking.

  • Acquiring Competencies: acquiring strategies and skills within a particular domain.
  • Taking Risks: going beyond original parameters of assignment, introducing new materials and forms, tackling controversial topics, advocating unpopular ideas or solutions.
  • Solving Problems
  • Embracing Contradictions
  • Innovative Thinking: connecting, synthesizing or transforming ideas in discipline-specific ways.
  • Connecting, Synthesizing, Transforming
Written Communication

Through iterative experiences across the curriculum, students will develop the capacity to develop and express ideas in writing, to work in different genres and styles, work with different writing technologies, and mix texts, data, and images to effectively communicate to different audiences.

  • Context of and Purpose for Writing: considerations of audience, purpose, and the circumstances surrounding the writing task(s).
  • Content Development
  • Genre and Disciplinary Conventions: Formal and informal rules inherent in the expectations for writing in particular forms and/or academic fields
  • Sources and Evidence
  • Control of Syntax and Mechanics
Ethical Reflection

Students will develop the capacity to identify, examine, and critically revise ethical positions, map them onto larger ethical ideas (theoretical traditions, moral frameworks, prevailing social frameworks), and reflect on how decisions and actions (including, sometimes, inaction) shape our relations to others and self. Students will develop the capacity to articulate the ends sought in a range of endeavors in personal, social and professional contexts. Students will also develop concepts, practices, and other tools appropriate to valuing those ends in relation to their means of attainment and their impacts on self and others.

  • Awareness of one’s own values and capacities for self-questioning
  • Language and tools to examine ethical issues, including discipline-specific frameworks
  • Recognition of the presence of ethical issues, especially where typically neglected
  • Awareness of impacts of our decisions and actions (both personally and as members of groups)
  • Application of ethical inquiry to subject-specific issues

Senate Meeting Agenda – April 11, 2018

DRAFT

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:  Melanie Muenzer, Associate Vice President and Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives

3:30 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, March 14, 2018

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

4:45 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:45 P.M.   Reports
4:50 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion

  • Motion Intro: Multicultural Requirement; Lee Rumbarger
  • Motion Intro: Revisions to Faculty Research Awards Committee; Bill Harbaugh

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

Nominations for a new Senate VP/President Elect

Dear Statutory Faculty:

It’s time to start the annual process of electing a new Senate VP & President Elect. This is one position, elected by the Senate at its last Spring meeting. Any statutory (i.e. teaching) faculty are eligible to run (not just Senators) excepting those serving in administrative positions “above” that of department head.

Neither Chris nor I plan to run for the VP/Pres Elect position. We both agree it’s time for new Senate leadership to step forward.

Three year commitment: Continue reading Nominations for a new Senate VP/President Elect

US17/18-16: Approval of Curriculum Report, Winter 2018

Date of Notice: January 3, 2018

Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Winter 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED the University Senate approves the Winter 2018 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.

US-17/18-15: Revisions on Criteria for receiving Departmental Honors

Date of Notice: February 27, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Academic Council


Motion

Section I

1.1 Whereas: The Honors Task Force report, June 6, 2017, were presented to the Senate (June 9, 2017) and reviewed and discussed by Academic Council (February 27, 2018), and

1.2 Whereas: the Honors Task Force made a series of recommendations (appended), and

1.3 Whereas: these recommendations can be divided into those that can be addressed immediately (see 2.1 through 2.3), and others that require more preparation (see 2.4 onwards).

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that GPA-only based routes to departmental honors be eliminated effective Fall 2019, and

2.2 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that GPA levels for earning Latin honors be standardized so that they are the same across the quarters of a given academic year effective Fall 2018, and

2.3 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED a short document, hosted on the Registrar’s website, summarizing the existence and requirements of honors opportunities across campus will be centrally maintained for the University community and be made available to advisors, other support staff, and recruiters, and

2.4 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Academic Council engage relevant committees and councils to develop  broad summary language that articulates the principles guiding the purpose of departmental honors programs. This summary should then be reviewed and approved by the appropriate Senate committees and councils by the Senate, with advice from the appropriate Senate committees and councils.

2.5 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Office of the Provost work with colleges and departments that do not currently have an option to earn departmental honors to explore whether such a program would be appropriate as a way to better serve top performing students in their programs, and if appropriate to aid in the development of an honors program. that the Academic Council engage relevant committees and councils to develop guidelines to help articulate Clark Honors College honors and departmental honors thesis programs, including the use of a single project to count towards honors under both sets of guidelines. These guidelines will then be reviewed and approved by the Senate, with advice from the appropriate Senate Committees and councils.

2.6 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Office of the Provost work with departments to charge them with maintaining a transparent means of communicating accurate information about their honors programs. At a minimum, this should include published details of the existence and requirements for departmental honors on departmental or college websites and in the portion of the UO Catalog dedicated to their academic unit.

2.7 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the Office of the Provost give consideration on how to address recommendations 7 through 10 from the Appendix.

Continue reading US-17/18-15: Revisions on Criteria for receiving Departmental Honors

US17/18-14: Withdrawal of North Campus Conditional Use Permit

Date of Notice: February 14, 2018

Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsors:

●  Greg Bryant, Officer of Research Senator
●  Paul Cziko, Visiting Assistant Research Professor, Biology
●  George Evans, Professor, Economics
●  Dan Gavin, Professor, Geography
●  Lauren Hallet, Assistant Professor, ENVS and Biology
●  David Hulse, Knight Professor of Landscape Architecture
●  Bart Johnson, Professor, Landscape Architecture
●  Pat McDowell, Professor, Geography
●  Terry McQuilkin, Instructor, SOMD, and Classified Staff, UO Libraries, Senator
●  Brook Muller, Professor, Architecture
●  Kari Marie Norgaard, Associate Professor, ENVS and Sociology
●  Eileen Otis, Associate Professor, Sociology
●  Bitty Roy, Professor, Biology


Section I

  1. WHEREAS the University of Oregon has submitted an application for a Conditional UsePermit (CUP) from the City of Eugene that would allow future development of North Campus, including the construction of multiple buildings, roads, and playing fields on the University’s riverfront property located between the railroad tracks and the Willamette River (“the Riverfront”) (Ref. 1); and
  2. WHEREAS the Senate recognizes that the University has pressing need for improvements and developments south of the railroad tracks, but that the proposed facilities north of the tracks are not urgent, being contingent only on possible future increased student enrollment levels; and
  3. WHEREAS the Senate recognizes the special nature of the Riverfront in that, for more than thirty years, the university community has repeatedly opposed various development scenarios for the Riverfront, as demonstrated by three University Senate resolutions, an ASUO Student Senate resolution, and five lawsuits (three involving UO faculty and two involving UO students) (Ref. 2); and
  4. WHEREAS the University of Oregon Mission Statement proclaims that “We value the unique geography, history and culture of Oregon that shapes our identity and spirit. We value our shared charge to steward resources sustainably and responsibly” and also emphasizes the value of scholarship, experiential learning, and public service; and
  5. WHEREAS the University of Oregon Senate, as a partner in shared governance along with the Trustees, the President, the Administration, and the University Committees, is charged with furthering and defending the Mission of the UO, including as it relates to the use of campus real estate; and
  6. WHEREAS despite previous Senate resolutions, the UO administration developed and submitted the current plans for the Riverfront unilaterally, without formal notification, invitation to participate, or consent of the University Senate body–its partner in shared governance; and
  7. WHEREAS the more than 3,500 students and faculty that use the Riverfront annually for research and academic coursework (ranging from the natural sciences to art and sustainable design) will be adversely impacted by the proposed plan and were not consulted during the planning process (Ref. 3); and
  8. WHEREAS despite concerns repeatedly raised by the “Ecology” faculty focus group, including faculty currently using the Riverfront for educational purposes, the administration did not generate any non-playing fields options for consideration by the Campus Planning Committee; and
  9. WHEREAS the University failed to prepare (or make public) a standard cost-benefit analysis on a wide range of Riverfront use scenarios to assist rational decision-making (including assessment of the impacts on habitat, the amenity value to the UO community and the public, and opportunities for research and teaching) (Appendix 1); and
  10. WHEREAS, in the Riverfront, the University possesses a large, unique and valuable educational, ecological, and public asset along the third largest river in the Western US– which is listed as a National Water Trail, designated as one of our nation’s 14 American Heritage Rivers and parts of which are a National Natural Landmark (Ref. 4); and
  11. WHEREAS the University’s Riverfront is a unique and important ecological resource locally, statewide, and nationally, providing habitat (or potential habitat) for rare, recovering, declining, or endangered species of fish, birds, turtles and plants, and is the University’s only natural area (Ref. 5); and
  12. WHEREAS the Senate recognizes that future growth of the student body will increase demand for athletic fields for PE and Rec, club sports, and general student use, and these should be accommodated where they will not compromise or do harm to irreplaceable natural resources and related educational opportunities; and
  13. WHEREAS other notable AAU institutions have made strategic decisions to promote their university brand by restoring and enhancing their natural areas for research, education, and public enjoyment, thereby attracting and retaining faculty, students and staff (Ref. 6); and
  14. WHEREAS it is exceptional for a university to have such an extensive, undeveloped riverfront in close proximity to the center of an urban campus; and
  15. WHEREAS the Senate affirms that the Riverfront presents a unique and irreproducible opportunity to create both an iconic living laboratory for research and academic education, and a public space that demonstrates the University’s dedication to its educational mission, stewardship of natural resources, and a sustainable future (Ref. 7).

Section II

  1. BE IT RESOLVED that the University Senate calls upon the UO administration to withdraw the Riverfront property, north of the tracks, from consideration under the present North Campus CUP application, in order to allow further deliberations among and between the Senate, the Administration and the university community regarding the best use of this property; and
  2. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the City of Eugene determines that the Riverfront property portion cannot be withdrawn from consideration under the present North Campus CUP application, the Senate requests that the entire CUP application be withdrawn and the North Campus Plan re-envisioned; and
  3. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University Senate requests that the University of Oregon administration identify areas away from the Riverfront for future playing fields, and study the potential for increased sharing of current athletic fields between the Athletic Program, PE and Rec, and Club Sports; and
  4. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the University Senate moves that any future uses for the Riverfront make use of the unique features of the Willamette river and associated habitats, and should emphasize ecological restoration, nature experience, and academics that are closely aligned with the University’s mission of cultivating transformational leaders through experiential learning and public service, and stewarding its natural resources.

Continue reading US17/18-14: Withdrawal of North Campus Conditional Use Permit

Senate Meeting Agenda – March 14, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, February 28, 2018

3:35 P.M.   Business

4:50 P.M.   Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:50 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Meeting Agenda – February 28, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:20 P.M. Approval of Minutes, February 14, 2018 & Consent Calendar

3:25 P.M.   Business

  • Clark Honors College; Karen Ford, Divisional Dean for CAS Humanities
  • Discussion: Romantic Relationships; Sonja Boos
  • Motion Intro: Learning Outcomes; Chris Sinclair
  • Multicultural Requirement; Lee Rumbarger, Alison Gash, Avinnash Tiwari and Michael Hames-Garcia

4:50 P.M.   Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:50 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion

  • Department Honors

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

Talk to your Dean at the Faculty Club

It’s that time of year when we hope faculty will begin thinking about serving in the Senate or on one of the many Senate committees next year. And it’s always time to sit down and talk with your dean about how things are going in your school or college. So, the Senate has decided to combine the two by offering a series of school- and college-centered nights at the Faculty Club. You’ll be able to talk with your dean and we’ll tell you about ways you can provide service to the university through the Senate.

In addition, we’ve arranged for Provost Jayanth Banavar and UO President Mike Schill to have their own nights at the Faculty Club. All faculty are invited to attend on those nights.

These events will be on Wednesdays and Thursdays through the rest of Winter Term from 5 – 6:30 pm in the Faculty Club at the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art. Here’s the schedule so far:

Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Sarah Nutter, Lundquist College of Business

Thursday, February 22, 2018
Andrew Marcus, CAS
Hal Sadofsky, CAS Divisional Dean – Natural Sciences

Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Provost Banavar

Thursday, March 1, 2018
Bruce Blonigen, CAS Dean for Faculty & Operations
Phil Scher, CAS Divisional Dean – Social Sciences

Wednesday, March 7, 2018
Randy Kamphaus, College of Education

Wednesday, March 14, 2018
Juan-Carlos Molleda, School of Journalism & Communication
Christoph Lindner, College of Design

Thursday, March 15, 2018
President Schill

Senate Meeting Agenda – February 14, 2018

DRAFT

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, January 31, 2018

3:35 P.M.   Business

4:50 P.M.   Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:50 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion

  • ARC Colloquia; Chris Sinclair
  • Core Ed Learning Outcomes; Chris Sinclair

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

Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power: Sexual or Romantic Relationships with Students

At the recommendation of the Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, President Schill has signed a new temporary policy on Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power: Sexual or Romantic Relationships with Students.

The short version is:

It is a Conflict of Interest and abuse of power for: (1) faculty members and staff to engage in sexual or romantic relationships  (Relationships) with students enrolled in their classes or otherwise subject to their supervision or evaluation; (2) staff members to engage in sexual or romantic relationships with students subject to their supervision or authority; and (3) work supervisors to engage in sexual or romantic relationship with students subject to their supervision or evaluation. Conflicts of Interest can occur even when both parties have consented to the relationship.

The full policy is found at: https://policies.uoregon.edu/conflicts-interest-and-abuses-power-sexual-or-romantic-relationships-students

The CSGBV will be working on a permanent policy to replace this temporary one.


 

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 31, 2018

DRAFT

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, January 17, 2018

3:35 P.M.   Business

4:50 P.M.   Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:50 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion

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

US17/18-08: Creation of Core Education Council

Date of Notice: January 22, 2018

Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate President


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS Core Education (also referred to as general education) requires extensive faculty oversight that currently cannot be provided by existing Senate committees; and

1.2 WHEREAS Core Education needs revision and revitalization to better serve students and comply with accreditation standards; and

1.3 WHEREAS the University’s general accreditor, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) suggested the university form a faculty committee to perform the tasks described above;

Section II

2.1. THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate hereby creates the Core Education Council per the parameters laid out in the 17 pt chart in the Related Documents section below; and

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the Senate directs the Committee on Committees to set the length of initial terms for elected members of the Core Education Council in a manner which ensures minimal variation in the number of open seats on the Council in subsequent years.


Related Documents

Core Education 17 Point Chart – 01/31/2018

Redline– 02/08/2018

Clean Version – 02/08/2018

Redline– 02/14/2018

Clean Version – 02/14/2018

Redine-03/09/2018

Clean Version-03/09/2018


Date of Effectiveness:

1/17 Senate Presentation on Core Ed

Associate Vice Provost for Academic Excellence Ron Bramhall and the chair of the Senate Core Ed Task Force Chris Sinclair gave the presentation below to the University Senate in the 1/17/18 meeting.

This was the first of many discussions in the Senate this year on issues surrounding general education at the University of Oregon.

The Core Ed Task Force is interested in feedback from the university community regarding these discussions. Please leave comments here or email them to csinclai@uoregon.edu

January 31, 2018 Consent Calendar

Consent Calendar Process (Per US17/18-04)

1.1 WHEREAS any Senator may question an item’s inclusion in the Consent Calendar prior to the final vote. The Senate President shall ask the Senator to explain the objection and then shall ask if someone else wishes to second the objection. If so, an item shall be removed and shall come before the Senate for consideration instead as a regular, debatable motion under the Senate’s normal rules of order.

1.2 WHEREAS The Senate shall vote en bloc and without debate on any items on a Consent Calendar, except for any item that has been removed in accordance with paragraph 2.1.2.

1.3 WHEREAS Senators shall receive at least 5 business days’ notice of items placed on a Consent Calendar before that Consent Calendar may come before the Senate for approval. Such notice can be via email, via the Senate website and blog, or via other practical means for communicating with Senators.


APPROVED January 31, 2018

US17/18-09
3.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that University Senate approves the revisions of the  following policy per the draft compiled by the Senate Executive Committee in consultation with AVP Mariann Hyland (please see second link):
02.01.03 Faculty Merit Increase Factors (REVISE)
*** Draft Policy with Senate Exec proposed changes 
Provost Merit Raise Policy Guidelines

US17/18-10
3.2 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the REPEAL of OUS 01 Academic Calendar and the REVISIONS to IMD 2.025 Academic Calendar

Changes Coming to Common Rule Regulations for Human Subjects Research

 

Dear Research Community,

We received notice from the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and 15 other federal departments and agencies have announced an Interim Final Rule (IFR) that delays the revised “Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects” (also known as the Common Rule) which was scheduled to go into effect January 19, 2018.  The IFR delays the effective date and general compliance date of the revisions to the Common Rule to July 19, 2018.  For the full text of the federal register notice, click here.

Until July 19, 2018, institutions are required to comply with the pre-2018 Common Rule.  RCS has reviewed our most recently developed and issued materials to ensure only those that continue to comply with the pre-2018 Common Rule are available to the research community.

RCS will continue to keep the research community informed through our dedicated Revised Common Rule website.  Please feel free to contact Research Compliance Services with any questions.

We request that you share this message with your colleagues conducting human subject research to ensure they are informed of this news.

Thank you,
Research Compliance Services
researchcompliance@uoregon.edu
541-346-2510
rcs.uoregon.edu

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 atresearchcompliance@uoregon.edu or (541) 346-2510.

David Conover
Vice President for Research & Innovation,
dconover@uoregon.edu
541-346-2090

 

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


Motion

Section I

1.1 Whereas HB 2998 states “Community colleges and public universities listed in ORS 352.002 shall:

(a) Evaluate existing one-year curricula for students  at a public post-secondary institution of education who plan to  transfer to a different public post-secondary institution of education; and

(b) Establish a foundational curriculum, or foundational curricula, for the first year of coursework at public post-secondary institutions of education in this state.

(2) A foundational curriculum established under subsection (1) of this section must contain a minimum of 30 college-level academic credits.

(3) Students at a community college who complete a foundational curriculum established under subsection (1) of this section shall:

(a) Be able to transfer each academic credit  contained within the foundational curriculum from a community college to any public university listed in ORS 352.002; and

(b) Have each academic credit from the foundational curriculum be counted towards the student’s degree requirements at any public university listed in ORS 352.002., and

1.2 Whereas the existing AA/OT and OTM defines a 90 credit and 45 credit curriculum respectively with course attributes defined by Senate approved criteria and outcomes, and

1.3 Whereas these existing criteria and outcomes need updating, therefore,

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the Senate approves the Foundational Curricula approved by the Undergraduate Council on Jan 10th, 2018 and by the UOCC on Jan 12th, 2018, and

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that the senate approves the updating of the course criteria and outcomes as approved by the Undergraduate Council on Jan 10th, 2018 and by the UOCC on Jan 12th, 2018.


Related Documents

HB 2998 Report – Final Commission

Outcomes and criteria for transfer of Gen Ed

Power Point Presentation – Jan. 17 2018

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 17, 2018

DRAFT

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: Approved January 31, 2018

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Senator


UPDATE: Jan. 31, 2018 – From Senate Executive Committee

The Senate Executive Committee to whom was referred the Resolution of Senator Mobasser on the subject of the campus response to White Supremacist activity on campus, beg leave to submit the following report.

Report of the Senate Executive Committee

In consideration of the intent of Senator Mobasser’s original resolution, the accepted and proposed amendments of Senator Gary, Freyd and Garcia-Caro, and in consultation with these Senators and others from the constituencies represented by the University Senate, the Senate Executive Committee moves that the University Senate substitute the entire text of Senator Mobasser’s resolution with the following text:

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the Mission Statement of the University of Oregon states:

“We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community”; and

1.2 WHEREAS UO students have approached the UO administration with their concerns about UO policies and US policies that affect their well-being, safety, and academic success; and

1.3 WHEREAS White Supremacist speakers and White Supremacist groups have been increasingly present on the University of Oregon campus; and

1.4 WHEREAS White Supremacist groups have increased efforts to recruit on college campuses; and

1.5 WHEREAS far right and White Supremacist groups historically and currently leverage free speech rights to incite violence at public universities; and

1.6 WHEREAS a commitment to free speech carries a concomitant duty to speak out in defense of values of democracy and inclusivity against the forces of racism and White Supremacy; and

1.7 WHEREAS the history of White Supremacist organizations’ connection to violence against minority groups is unambiguous; and

1.8 WHEREAS the State of Oregon has a history of White Supremacist group activity; and

1.9 WHEREAS the Department of Homeland Security has stated that White Supremacist groups “continue to pose a persistent threat of lethal violence” to racial/ethnic/religious minorities; and

1.10 WHEREAS hate and bias incidents have increased by nearly 40% in Eugene, Oregon between 2015 and 2016, roughly half of which were racially motivated, as per the City of Eugene 2015 and 2016 Hate and Bias Reports; and

1.11 WHEREAS the UO campus still prominently displays signs and monuments that glorify white colonization and domination, while failing to do enough to honor the work and sacrifices made for justice and equity; and

1.12 WHEREAS, although campus has began to recognize people of color, women, and others of diverse backgrounds marginalized voices through actions such as the renaming of Dunn Hall to Unthank Hall and the naming of Kalapuya Ilihi residence hall, there is still more to be done.

Section II

2.1 BE IT RESOLVED that the UO Senate denounces the views and actions of White Supremacist, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazi groups as incompatible with the values of our university community; and

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

2.3 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that we request that the University President in consultation with the Senate President and student leaders, convene an ad hoc task force comprised of members from all campus constituencies to discuss, identify and propose campus education about the UO’s history as it relates to diversity and inclusivity, as well as recommend changes, modifications and additions to spaces and monuments which still narrate the campus along the lines of white supremacist mythologies.


UPDATE: Jan. 17, 2018 – referred back to Senate Exec Committee for further revisions – REDLINE VERSION

Section I

1.1  WHEREAS the Mission Statement of the University of Oregon states:

“We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community”; and

1.2 WHEREAS UO students have approached the UO administration with their concerns about UO policies and US policies that affect their well-being, safety, and academic success; and

1.3 WHEREAS White Supremacist speakers and White Supremacist groups have been increasingly present on the University of Oregon campus; and

1.4 WHEREAS White Supremacist groups have increased efforts to recruit on college campuses; and

1.5 WHEREAS far right and White Supremacist organizations groups historically and currently leverage used disingenuous appeals to free speech in order to gain access to rights to incite violence at public universities; and

1.6 WHEREAS other public universities have denied platforms to specific White Supremacist speakers/groups; and

1.6 WHEREAS a commitment to free speech carries a concomitant duty to speak out in defense of values of democracy and inclusivity against the forces of racism and White Supremacy; and

1.7 WHEREAS the history of White Supremacist organizations’ connection to violence against minority groups is unambiguous; and

1.8 WHEREAS the State of Oregon has a history of White Supremacist group activity; and

1.9 WHEREAS the Department of Homeland Security has stated that White Supremacist groups “continue to pose a persistent threat of lethal violence” to racial/ethnic/religious minorities; and

1.10 WHEREAS hate and bias incidents  have increased by nearly 40% in Eugene, Oregon between 2015 and 2016, roughly half of which were racially motivated, as per the City of Eugene 2015 and 2016 Hate and Bias Reports; and

1.11 WHEREAS the UO campus still prominently displays signs and monuments that glorify white colonization and domination, while failing to do enough to honor the work and sacrifices made for justice and equity; and

1.12 WHEREAS, although campus has began to recognize people of color, women, and others of diverse backgrounds through actions such as the renaming of Dunn Hall to Unthank Hall and the naming of Kalapuya Ilihi residence hall, there is still more to be done.

1.12 WHEREAS White Supremacist speech and organizing is a significant threat to our stated values, and members of our university community, especially marginalized demographics;

Section II

2.1 BE IT RESOLVED that the UO Senate denounces the views and actions of White Supremacist, White Nationalist, and Neo-Nazi groups as incompatible with the values of our university community; and recognizes their organizing on campus as a significant threat to the university community and our stated values; and

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

2.3 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that we request the University President, in consultation with the Senate President and student leaders, appoint convene an ad hoc committee task force charged with recommending the creation, placement, and wording of at least four plaques to be placed in relevant locations on campus (such as next to the Pioneer statues) designed to inform the community (consistent with our educational mission) about the history of white supremacy and/or its resistance on the University Campus, with the intention that the plaques will be in place by September 15, 2018. comprised of faculty, students, staff and administrators comprised of members from all campus constituencies to discuss, identify and propose campus education about the UO’s history as it relates to diversity and inclusivity, as well as recommend changes, modifications, and additions to spaces and monuments which still narrate the campus along the lines of white supremacist mythologies.

 


Resolution language to be replaced by the above amended text:


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS hate crimes have increased by nearly 40% in Eugene, Oregon between 2015 and 2016, roughly half of which were racially motivated, as per the City of Eugene 2016 Hate and Bias Report; and

1.2 WHEREAS White Supremacist groups have been allowed on the University of Oregon campus by the administration; and

1.3 WHEREAS White Supremacist speech and organizing is a direct threat to members of our university community, especially marginalized demographics;

Section II

2.1 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UO Senate denounces White Supremacist speech and organizing on campus as a direct threat to the university community; and

2.2 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the UO Senate urges University of Oregon administration to pledge that they will dissuade and minimize the impact of White Nationalists and other hate groups on this campus to the best of their ability.


Related Documents:

Flyer 1
Flyer 2
Flyer 3
Flyer 4
Flyer 5
White Nationalist Sticker
Student Collective Handout
White Supremacist Intelligence Memo
White Supremacist Infiltration doc
White Supremacist website

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


DRAFT

Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the University Senate’s bylaws allow for the adoption of internal procedures and special rules of order (see Sections 3.1 and 3.2); and

1.2 WHEREAS  a mechanism known as a Consent Calendar will expedite meetings by consolidating apparently non-controversial action items such as, but not limited to, minor university policy changes or enactments, the adoption of reports, or similar matters; and

1.3 WHEREAS a Consent Calendar is a common tool used by parliamentary bodies;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the University Senate hereby adopts, as a special rule of order, the use of a Consent Calendar as follows:

2.1.1 The Senate Executive Committee may place a matter on the Consent Calendar.

2.1.2 Any Senator may question an item’s inclusion in the Consent Calendar prior to the final vote. The Senate President shall ask the Senator to explain the objection and then shall ask if someone else wishes to second the objection. If so, an item shall be removed and shall come before the Senate for consideration instead as a regular, debatable motion under the Senate’s normal rules of order.

2.1.3 The Senate shall vote en bloc and without debate on any items on a Consent Calendar, except for any item that has been removed in accordance with paragraph 2.1.2.

2.1.4 Senators shall receive at least 5 business days’ notice of items placed on a Consent Calendar before that Consent Calendar may come before the Senate for approval. Such notice can be via email, via the Senate website and blog, or via other practical means for communicating with Senators. Such items shall also be listed in the Senate Agenda.

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


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon occasionally seeks to hire tenured full professors from other colleges and universities, and, in even fewer cases, seeks to hire researchers who are not faculty but are nevertheless outstanding in their fields; and

1.2 WHEREAS the standing of such possible new tenured faculty is verified in part by previous peer reviewed tenure and promotion processes or, in the case of researchers, by the national and international research community; and

1.3 WHEREAS the faculty of the tenure-home unit of the possible new faculty reviews each case and votes to approve the appointment, tenure, and rank of the candidate; and

1.4 WHEREAS the Faculty Personnel Committee of the University Senate represents the faculty in every promotion and tenure review case; and

1.5 WHEREAS the current system of review requires that any new hire, regardless of rank, be evaluated by the full tenure and promotion process, and

1.6 WHEREAS this system puts the University of Oregon at a competitive disadvantage when attempting to hire such faculty;

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate establish an expedited tenure review process that conforms to the following rules:

2.2 The expedited tenure process is not appropriate for faculty members or academic administrators who are currently employed and/or under contract at the University of Oregon.

2.3 If a unit faculty votes to hire a new faculty member at the rank of full professor, and votes to recommend indefinite tenure to the candidate based on the candidates’ application materials, and the Provost and the Dean of the relevant School or College agrees with the hiring and tenure recommendation of the unit, then the faculty and the Dean can forward the possible new faculty member’s dossier to the Faculty Personnel Committee for an expedited promotion and tenure review; and

2.4 The expedited review shall be conducted by a subcommittee of the Faculty Personnel Committee consisting of five members (with one member selected as chair by the subcommittee) and will include three FPC members from the College of Arts and Sciences (one from each division) and two FPC members from  the other schools and colleges. The members of this committee, to be called the Expedited Tenure Review Committee (ETRC), will be elected annually by the FPC. The ERTC will be composed with attention to equity, diversity and inclusion.  ETRC members shall recuse themselves from the consideration of tenure cases in their unit. Vacancies, including those that arise from recusals, will be filled by the FPC chair after consulting the FPC membership; and

2.5 The ETRC will be “on call” through the academic year and the summer term to review cases and make recommendations to the Provost. The ETRC will meet at least once each fall with the Provost to discuss process and standards and select a chair for the year; and

2.6 The ETRC, upon completion of its review, will report their recommendation to the hiring unit, and will provide the compiled tenure dossier, which shall include all information upon which they have made their recommendation, to the hiring unit. Relevant members of the unit, as specified by the unit governance documents, shall have three five business days after receipt of the dossier to change their vote for indefinite tenure and to notify the ETRC about any such changes.  The ETRC shall consider any changes to the unit tenure vote and either recommend to the Provost that the possible new faculty member should receive indefinite tenure and the rank of full professor or require that the faculty member be reviewed by the full promotion and tenure process; and

2.7 The ETRC will determine what materials should be considered in their review, but such materials must include at a minimum the following: candidate’s cv, all relevant research materials, a quantitative assessment of the candidate’s work and impact if available, and at least three five external evaluations, three of which may be letters from application process and at least two of which must be external evaluations (by letter or by a phone call conducted by a member of the ETRC). The latter two evaluators must be selected by the committee from a list of possible evaluators prepared by the hiring department(s) and not including anyone listed among the candidate’s references. The ETRC will carefully document any non-written evaluations for inclusion in the tenure dossier. The ETRC may request other information as it sees fit through the dean of the relevant school or college. Failure of a dean to provide requested information may result in the ETRC requiring the candidate be reviewed by the full promotion and tenure process.

2.8 Materials collected for each review will be available to all members of the FPC and FPC members may provide comments to the ETRC until the ETRC concludes its deliberations and makes its decision on the case.

2.9 The FPC shall be responsible for tracking when an individual is awarded tenure via the expedited process and will include in their annual report to the Senate the number of cases considered by the ETRC and the number of cases in which tenure was awarded via the expedited process.


Financial Impact: The process potentially saves time and other resources expediting the review of cases that are likely to be approved by a full review.

 


Expedited Tenure:  Miscellaneous Policies and Practices at Other Universities

 

University of Maryland

Policy Title: Appointment, Promotion and Tenure of Faculty – Expedited Appointments

https://pdc-svpaap1.umd.edu/policies/documents/APTManual.pdf (see page 15)

Policy Statement:

“In cases where a unit has identified a potential faculty hire it has reason to believe is highly competitive and warrants an expedited review (sometimes referred to as a “target of opportunity” appointment), the review process can be streamlined. To qualify for this streamlined process, candidates would be nominated by both the Chair and the Dean and approved by the Provost’s Office. Such candidates normally would hold tenure and the comparable rank at another institution. The streamlined process could also be used for scholars considered for administrative positions.

Appointments at this level for consideration of tenure could substitute three evaluative letters from the search process for the three external reviewers nominated by the candidate, and the candidate’s CV submitted in connection with the search may be used, and need not be signed.

The review process would proceed as follows:

  • 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

http://www.montana.edu/policy/faculty_handbook/standards_timelines.html

Policy Statement:

“The finalist for a tenurable faculty or administrator position who holds tenure at an accredited institution of higher education with comparable tenure standards is eligible for an expedited tenure review at the time of hire. With the agreement of the finalist, the provost will authorize the administrator of the relevant primary academic unit to forward the finalist’s application materials and any supporting materials to the unit’s promotion and tenure committee for consideration.

The primary review committee will forward their recommendation for successive consideration by the primary review administrator, the intermediate review administrator (if applicable), and the provost. The provost will assess the application materials and previous recommendations, and make a recommendation to the president.

If the president approves the award of tenure at hire, they will forward that recommendation to the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education for consideration by the Board of Regents at the next appropriate Board meeting. If the decision of the Board is favorable, the effective date of tenure will be recorded as the date of hire.”

University of Arizona

 Policy Title: Off-Cycle Review of Promotion and Tenure or Continuing Status

http://facultyaffairs.arizona.edu/off-cycle-review-promotion-tenure-continuing-status

Policy Statement:

“In exceptional circumstances, due to retention or pre-emptive situations, it may be necessary for department and colleges to review cases for promotion and tenure or continuing status outside the normal University review schedule.  The Department Head, with the endorsement and approval of the College Dean must seek permission from the Provost or his/her designee to initiate a candidate’s review outside the normal University cycle.  The Department Head and College Dean must articulate the circumstances prompting the request for an off-cycle review.

Having received permission to conduct an off-cycle review, both the Department and the College must follow their normal review process for reviewing promotion and tenure or continuing status.  This includes requesting and providing the requisite number of letters from external reviewers as set forth in the University of Arizona P&T and CS&P guidelines.

The College forwards the recommendations and appropriate documentation to the Office of the Provost. The Provost, with the Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs, will determine the final outcome of the review.

The agreement to offer expedited reviews is not to be included in offer letters to potential hires.  Only the Provost or his/her designee can approve the initiation of a candidate’s promotion and tenure or continuing status review outside of the normal University cycle.”

Arizona State University

Policy Title: Tenure – Expedited Review for Tenure

Policy Statement:

Current Faculty

The university reserves the right to conduct an expedited review for awarding tenure to a faculty member when such action will serve the best interests of ASU. The decision to conduct an expedited tenure review is an exception to the regular tenure review described above and will be approved only in extraordinary circumstances, which could include, but are not limited to:

  • 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.

Decision

The president of the university will make the decision to award or deny expedited tenure and appropriate faculty rank and will notify the provost of the university and dean orally as soon as possible after decision is made. The dean will notify the unit head and the faculty candidate as soon as possible thereafter. The president will provide a written notice of the decision within ten days to the same university administrators and the unit head and faculty member.

UC Santa Barbara

APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION POLICY

Professor Series

The [tenure and promotion] case may also be referred by the Chancellor to an ad hoc review committee. If such referral occurs, the review committee is appointed by the Chancellor or designated representative, upon nominations provided by the Committee on Academic Personnel. The members of the review committee will normally be of rank at least equal to that proposed for the individual to be reviewed. The Chancellor shall transmit to the review committee the recommendation file, including any information received subsequent to the department review, and a copy of the latest version of the President’s Instructions to Review and Appraisal Committees In accordance with these instructions, taking into account all the available evidence, the review committee shall make its evaluation of the case and submit its recommendation to the Chancellor who thereupon forwards the report and accompanying file to the Committee on Academic Personnel. The latter committee, on the basis of all available evidence, submits a comprehensive report and recommendation to the Chancellor. The ad hoc review committee and the Committee on Academic Personnel reports should not identify individuals who have provided confidential letters of evaluation except by code.

 

 

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.

Sincerely,

Office of the President

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 29, 2017

DRAFT

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 https://commonreading.uoregon.edu/roundhouse/). A list of past, current, and upcoming public events for the academic year can be found at https://commonreading.uoregon.edu/events/.

The Common Reading Selection Committee for 2018-19 invites input from Senate members on the current shortlist of nominated books based on the theme of transborder/transnational. A call for book nominations on this theme was sent throughout campus networks in October, and 46 nominations were received. Reviewing the nominations through the lens of the selection criteria, the committee determined that 12 of the nominations should go forward for the next round of review. Committee members are currently learning more about each of these books.

As part of the committee’s review process, we invite all Senate members to share insights on the list provided below. Comments can be shared via commonreading@uoregon.edu by Monday, December 4. Selection criteria are available at https://commonreading.uoregon.edu/about-the-common-reading/.

Common Reading Book Nominations currently under review.

1)      Exit West by Mohsin Hamid

2)      The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui

3)      Home Fire by Kamila Shamsie

4)      This Muslim American Life: Dispatches from the War on Terror by Moustafa Bayoumi

5)      Salvage the Bones by Jesmyn Ward

6)      Homegoing by Yaa Gyasi

7)      No Longer At Ease by Chinua Achebe

8)      A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki

9)      Lucky Boy by Shanthi Sekaran

10)   Under the Feet of Jesus by Helena Maria Viramontes

11)   They Leave their Kidneys in the Fields: Illness, Injury, and “Illegality” Among US Farmworkers by Sarah Bronwen Horton

12)   The Land of Open Graves: Living and Dying on the Migrant Trail by Jason De Leon

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


Motion

Section II

2.1 Hearing no objections, the University Senate confirms the following members of the Committee on Committees (CoC):

John Bonine, (Faculty) Law
Ben Brinkley (OA), CASIT
Lowell Bowditch (Faculty), Classics
Chris Chavez (Faculty), SOJC
Ali Emami (Faculty), Business
Rob Kry (Faculty), Music
Gordon Sayre (Faculty), English
Mike Strain (Research Faculty), CAMCOR
Holly Syljuberget (OA), Business Affairs
Chuck Theobald, LISB Staff
Annie Zeidman-Karpinski, UO Libraries

Bill Harbaugh, Ex Officio
Mariann Hyland, Ex Officio
Betina Lynn, Ex Officio

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


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the Mission Statement of the University of Oregon states: “We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community”; and

1.2 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Free Inquiry and Speech states “Free speechis central to the academic mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic society.” [Emphasis added]; and

“The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community.”; and

1.3 WHEREAS UO students have approached the UO administration with their concerns about UO policies and US policies that affect their well-being, safety, and academic success; and

1.4 WHEREAS the preamble of the Student Conduct Code reads:

“The primary mission of the Student Conduct Code is to set forth the community standards and procedures necessary to maintain and protect an environment conducive to learning and in keeping with the educational objectives of the University of Oregon. Founded upon the principle of freedom of thought and expression, an environment conducive to learning is one that preserves the freedom to learn — where academic standards are strictly upheld and where the rights, safety, dignity and worth of every individual are respected.” [Emphasis added]; and

1.5 WHEREAS overzealous disciplinary action against students may result in the repression of dissent and free speech and continues to harm these students’ academic success; and

1.6 WHEREAS UO officials have made public statements that may prejudice the adjudication of the alleged conduct code violations; and

1.7 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Academic Freedom says

“Members of the university community have freedom to address, question, or criticize any matter of institutional policy or practice, whether acting as individuals or as members of an agency of institutional governance.”

and

“These freedoms derive immediately from the university’s basic commitment to advancing knowledge and understanding. The academic freedoms enumerated in this policy shall be exercised without fear of institutional reprisal. Only serious abuses of this policy – ones that rise to the level of professional misbehavior or professional incompetence – should lead to adverse consequences.  Any such determinations shall be made in accordance with established, formal procedures involving judgment by relevant peers.”

and yet despite this requirement, relevant peers have not been involved in this conduct code judgement process.

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the UO Senate supports the rights of students to peacefully protest during university events, even disruptively, so long as those protests do not prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say; and

2.2  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate recognizes that the students involved in the protest at the State of the University Address succeeded in bringing significant matters of academic concern and student well-being to the attention of the university community, and that we urge that this be taken into consideration when judging their discipline cases; and

2.3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate calls on the the Student Conduct Code and Community Standards Committee to ensure that the Student Conduct Code is revised to include student peers in judgements on disciplinary cases involving free speech, as required by the Policy on Academic Freedom. Given the importance of free speech and academic freedom, the Senate urges the Committee to develop Student Conduct Code procedures distinct from standard discipline charges; and

2.4 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UO Senate urges the administration to cease the Student Conduct disciplinary charges process and pledges to support student protesters during the disciplinary appeals process; and

2.5 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Senate supports the conversations the administration has now initiated with the UO Student Collective and that the Senate will continue to provide a forum for all students.


Related Documents:

Oregonian Op-Ed  – July 2018

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 15, 2017

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

4:00 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, November 1, 2017

4:00 P.M.   New Business

4:45 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:45 P.M.   Reports
4:45 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

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.

Signed,

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

DRAFT

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

DRAFT

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

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

DRAFT

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