Category Archives: 2017-18

US17/18-02: Expedited Tenure Process

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, that 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 If a unit faculty votes to hire a new faculty member with indefinite tenure and the rank of full professor and the Dean of the relevant School or College agrees with the hiring recommendation, 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

2.3 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 faculty from the College of Arts and Sciences (one from each division) and two representatives from the faculty of the other schools and colleges. The members of this committee, to be called the Expedited Tenure Review Committee (ETRC), will be selected annually by the FPC; and

2.4 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

2.5 The Expedited Tenure Review Committee, upon completion of its review, will 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

2.6 The ETRC will determine what materials should be considered in their review, but such materials should generally include the candidate’s cv, all relevant research materials, a quantitative assessment of the candidate’s work and impact if available, and at least three external evaluations, which may be letters from application process, reports of oral recommendations made to the department, dean or member of the committee below or letters requested by them.


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.

US17/18-01: Affirmation of the Responsibilities of Faculty Regarding Curriculum

Date of Notice: October 11, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Rob Kyr (Music), Chair of IFS


Motion

Section I

1.1 Whereas the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities in the report titled “Standards for Accreditation” (Section 2.C.5) states “Faculty, through well-defined structures and processes with clearly defined authority and responsibilities, exercise a major role in the design, approval, implementation, and revision of the curriculum, and have an active role in the selection of new faculty. Faculty with teaching responsibilities take collective responsibility fostering and assessing student achievement of clearly identified learning outcomes.”

1.2 Whereas, in 2007, it is stated in ORS 352.010 in the section titled Status of Faculty, “The president and professors constitute the faculty of each of the state institutions of higher education and as such have the immediate government and discipline of it and the students therein…The faculty may, subject to the supervision of the [now defunct] State Board of Higher Education under ORS 351.070 (Board general powers as to higher education and institutions), prescribe the course of study to be pursued in the institution and the textbooks to be used.”

1.3 Whereas the AAUP has stated in Section 5 of its Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities, “The faculty has primary responsibility for such fundamental areas as curriculum, subject matter and methods of instruction, research, faculty status, and those aspects of student life which relate to the educational process…The faculty sets the requirements for the degrees offered in course, determines when the requirements have been met, and authorizes the president and board to grant the degrees thus achieved.”

Section II

2.1 Be it resolved that [the University Senate of the University of Oregon] affirms its dedication “…to fostering and sustaining the best, most rewarding pathways to opportunity and success for all Oregonians through an accessible, affordable and coordinated network for educational achievement beyond a high school diploma,” as stated in the HECC’s Vision Statement from its Strategic Plan (2016-2020).

2.2 Be it resolved that [the University Senate of the University of Oregon] affirms its commitment to working with our university administrations, with community colleges, with the HECC, and with the state legislature to achieve the fundamental goal of HB2998 to align transfer credits with degree pathways that will enable students to effectively transfer from community colleges into university programs of their choice.

2.3 Be it resolved that [the University Senate of the University of Oregon] affirms the right, the responsibility, and the obligation of the faculty to design, approve, and implement its institutional curriculum.

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)
  • US17/18-01: Affirmation of the Responsibilities of Faculty Regarding Curriculum; Rob Kyr (Music), President of IFS
  • 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