Category Archives: Announcement

Academic Council Message to Faculty


Dear Colleagues

On 6-2-20, the ASUO Executive began circulating an “Open Letter to the University of Oregon” that expressed great concern about fellow students, especially students of color, and the unprecedented stress they are experiencing as a result of the local and national unrest over George Floyd’s murder, combined with the pandemic. In that letter, they call upon professors and course instructors to make finals “optional and non-grade diminishing” as a show of empathy and support for students. You may already be aware of this as we’ve been hearing from faculty, and we know faculty are hearing from students about this so we wanted to offer guidance on academic options available to you.

Below, we outline the tools available to both faculty and students that provide flexibility for academic coursework during these particularly trying circumstances.

First, we want to acknowledge the extraordinary time we are in, and that this is undoubtedly affecting many students’ abilities to cope with the varying demands in their lives. We also know that this particular moment is having a disproportionately negative effect on Black students, and students of color in ways that few can truly comprehend.

And we know the same is true for faculty and GEs. In pivoting to remote instruction for Winter term finals and all of Spring term, you accomplished a feat that seemed impossible at the time. To accomplish that while dealing with your own challenges from working at home, caring for children or relatives, continuing your own schoolwork, or dealing with loss and uncertainty is nothing short of remarkable. On top of all of that, this national crisis is affecting many of you in ways many of us can’t truly know. As representatives of the Academic Council and as your colleagues, we stand with you and are eager to support you however we can.

With all of this, we aren’t quite done. We know we’ve asked a great deal from you and put boundaries around instruction that some of you disagree with. We are committed to balancing the many competing needs of faculty, GEs, and students. Today, we are coming to you again to ask for your help in supporting our students. For many of our students, you represent a safe space, a tether to some kind of normalcy, a sane voice of leadership or just someone to see and hear them. We are asking that you continue being that pillar of support for your students, and that you find ways in the closing days of this term to respond with empathy and flexibility. In that, we are echoing Provost Phillips’ recent plea for us all to provide comfort and care for our students and for each other. We’d also like to offer some specific guidance in response to the open letter from the ASUO.

While we are not asking at this late date for you to completely rethink how you approach the end of the term for projects or finals, we want to remind you of changes we’ve already made that allow all of us  the flexibility in closing out the term successfully.

The first specific ask is simply to hear your students. In many cases, they just need someone, you, to really hear what they are going through and offer a way through it. If they come to you for help, assume the best in them and listen. And then try to help them find solutions to get through the next thing. For many of your students, you will be the one that gets them through the next tough moment. This recent post from the Teaching Engagement Program provides some helpful ways to engage with students around the recent national events. Know that we ask this of you in the context of what is possible for you, given your situation – we do not mean to ignore the challenges and constraints you face, nor the important role you play in students’ lives.

Next, offer flexibility where it is possible and makes sense in your class. Again, assume the best intentions of your students and find ways to help where possible. To that end, here are some reminders of policies already in place, and suggestions for other ways to offer flexibility:

  • The Academic Continuity expectations in place state the following: “instructors may modify course expectations such that required work is reduced or grading schemes are adjusted provided they can still meet course learning objectives.” This gives latitude for instructors to make changes to the syllabus for the advantage of students even this late in the term.


  • Related to the point above, you can modify the final in terms of points, duration, format, or other ways that would ease stress on students. Consider the purpose of the final and how that might be accomplished in different ways.


  • You can make the final optional and allow students to accept their grade to date.


  • You can reopen closed assignments or extend assignment deadlines to provide opportunities for students.


  • You can waive late penalties or waive lowest grades for some assignments.


  • You can relax grading criteria, e.g., by lowering grade cutoffs.


  • Remind students that they have the P/N option available to them for all courses and have until July 16, 2020 to change from graded to P/N. This option can prevent a negative effect on their GPA.


  • As a last resort, you can grant an “Incomplete”. We note it as a last resort because it can create delayed work for faculty and students, and potentially delay students from moving on to higher level classes. We do want to clarify here that the incomplete policy says the following:

An incomplete may be issued when the quality of work is satisfactory, but some minor yet essential requirement has not been completed, for reasons acceptable to the instructor. Faculty and students should develop a contract outlining the requirements and specific deadlines for making up the incomplete. Contracts should be filed in the departmental office through which the course is taught.”

We interpret this to mean that the granting of an incomplete is at the discretion of the instructor. Instructors and GEs might consult with their heads if they offer the incomplete option and clarify who will grade the work when it is submitted.

These represent options for you to respond with empathy and flexibility. We encourage you to let your students know that you have received these messages and how you intend to respond.

We regret coming to you late in the term with this. But as with so much lately, the situation changes daily. Thank you for all you are doing to support our students. Please do not hesitate to reach out to the Academic Council at any time with your thoughts, concerns or questions.


Members of the Academic Council

Jagdeep Bala
Senior Instructor, Director of Undergraduate Studies, Psychology,
Chair of Scholastic Review Committee

Ali Emami
Senior II Instructor of Finance, LCB-Finance Department,
Chair of Senate Budget Committee 

Dorothee Ostmeier
Professor, German and Scandinavian, Folklore and Public Culture,
Chair of Graduate Council

Mike Price
Senior Instructor, Assistant Department Head, Mathematics,
Chair of Academic Requirements Committee

Jana Prikryl
Instructor/Advisor/Director, Biology and General Science,
Chair of Undergraduate Council

Margaret Sereno
Associate Professor, Psychology,
Chair of University Library Committee

Carol Silverman
Professor, Anthropology,
Chair of Faculty Personnel Committee

Emily Simnitt
Senior Instructor I, English,
Co-Chair of Core Ed Council

Christopher Sinclair
Associate Professor, Math,
Co-Chair of Core Ed Council

Elizabeth Skowron
Professor, Psychology,
Senate President

Frances White
Professor and Dept Head, Anthropology,
Chair of Committee on Courses
Chair of Academic Council

Janet Woodruff-Borden
Executive Vice Provost for Academic Affairs,
Office of the Provost

Ron Bramhall
Associate Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, Office of the Provost,
Provost designee



Academic Council: Updated Academic Continuity Expectations

The Academic Council met 4-22-20 to discuss academic continuity planning for the duration of the COVID-19 disruption. The Academic Continuity Plan approved by the Academic Council on March 4, 2020 ( remains in effect until the academic disruption is declared over by the Academic Council except as modified below. The modifications and new expectations below are in effect beginning Summer 2020 and until the Academic Council declares the end of the Academic Disruption or approves new modifications.

(Note: “Instructor” is used in this document to indicate “Instructor of Record”, which may be instructors or GEs.)

Assumptions Guiding These Changes

  • Changes made to Winter and Spring had to consider the fact that we had less time to plan, and were changing expectations for students and instructors that they had not accounted for
  • We know how summer term will operate and have time to plan for that
  • We will know more about how fall term will operate and will have time to plan for that
  • We have policies governing student engagement and contact hours and should follow those as closely as possible
  • Students will be able to make choices about summer and fall courses that account for their specific situation, so we need fewer accommodations and we will insist on our high expectations for courses
  • Some students will still be in less than ideal situations for summer and beyond, and Instructors should try to accommodate them  where reasonable
  • In a non-pandemic scenario, instructors of courses would have been expected to deliver content and engage with students during scheduled class times
  • In a scenario where all or some courses are remote, some instructors will be in less than ideal situations in terms of workspaces, teaching materials, and technology.

Modifications to Current Expectations

The following expectation from the March 4th Academic Continuity Plan is modified by the Academic Council as indicated below:

  • March 4, 2020 language: Requires instructors with attendance or participation polices to modify those such that attendance is not counted in grades and participation points could be made up or waived.
  • April 29, 2020 update: Instructors may count attendance and participation as part of the grade provided they have reasonable ways for students to complete make-up assignments for missed class sessions or participation points without loss of credit. Instructors must communicate these policies in their syllabi. Instructors who are unsure whether they are making reasonable accommodations should confer with their unit heads for guidance.

Continuation of Grading Policy Adjustments

The following grading policy adjustments approved by the Academic Council on March 25, 2020 for Spring term are continued by the Academic Council until modified or disruption is declared over. These adjustments are in effect for undergraduate and graduate courses except for graduate courses offered in the JD and LLM programs in the Law School, which are under a different policy passed by the Law School.

  • The deadline to change grade-optional courses from graded to P/N (pass/no pass) will be extended 30 days after the date that final grades are posted for that term.
  • The option to change from graded to P/N will be available for all courses that are designated as graded only and for grade optional courses.
  • Courses that are designated as P/N only will remain as they are. There will be no additional options for these courses.
  • Any course grade of P will be counted as a P* grade for the purposes of the policies below. This means that courses taken as P/N can count toward graduation requirements. Credits earned in courses offered only as P/N will use the P* designation.
    • Undergraduate: “Students must earn 168 transfer or University of Oregon credits with grades of A, B, C, D, or P*.”
    • Graduate Master’s degrees: “A minimum of 24 credits must be University of Oregon graded (not pass/no pass) credits.”
  • Instructors of record shall maintain letter grades throughout the term and record final course grades for students in all courses).
  • If a student chooses P/N by the deadline, grades will be recorded as follows:
    • Undergraduate: a P grade for a C- or above, and an N grade for a D+ or below.
    • Graduate: a P grade for a B- or above, and an N grade for a C+ or below.
    • Law: a P grade for a D- or above, and an N grade for an F.
  • Departments are asked to waive any requirements that (a) limit how P/N courses count toward the major; that (b) require specific grades for courses that count toward the major; or that (c) serve as prerequisites for other courses. This is especially important for cases where the lack of such a waiver will require students to enroll in an additional term or delay graduation for students. Departments are to report how they want P/N grades from any term during the disruption to count toward requirements to the Registrar’s Office by May 6, 2020. The Registrar’s Office will send a link to a webform for reporting this information. The Registrar’s Office will reach out to departments directly regarding prerequisites.

New Expectations

The following new expectations are approved by the Academic Council as of April 29, 2020 and effective beginning Summer 2020. These expectations follow two principles: first, that we have policies on student engagement and contact hours that instructors should follow, and, second, that we have time for students and instructors to plan for new expectations that will improve remote education in Summer 2020 and beyond.

  • Courses that were originally scheduled for online and coded with “V” (for virtual) shall be taught as planned.
  • It is expected that non-WEB courses shall provide live engagement during the scheduled meeting times as defined by the Student Engagement Inventory for the course. Instructors may make the following adjustments for courses that have to be offered remotely or partially remotely (some face-to-face and some remote):
    • Live engagement can take many different forms. For example, it might include a mix of content delivery, facilitated discussions on Zoom, facilitated discussion board discussions, breakout sessions for students on Zoom, group project time with the instructor available for guidance. The following are not suitable replacements for contact under current policy:
      • Posting of supplemental content materials
      • Announcements
      • Assignments
      • Office hours, online or otherwise
    • Whatever the mix, at least 50% of the live engagement should include planned and structured content delivery or discussion.
    • Where appropriate and possible, instructors should create opportunities for student-student interaction.
    • Whatever the mix, instructors should be available to students during each scheduled class period. If instructors are not going to be available during a scheduled class period, they should treat that as a “cancelled” class meeting and handle that as they would during a regular, non-remote term with appropriate notifications to students and anyone else as required by the department, and appropriate replacement of that instructional time.
  • Instructors should schedule and be available to meet during office hours outside the scheduled class time in accordance with department and/or school/college policies on office hours.

Technology Tools and Software
It is required that Canvas be used for all courses during the academic disruption. Instructors shall publish their Canvas sites and use them to post materials, collect assignments, provide alternatives to lectures/discussions for students who are absent from class, and post grades. Students and Instructors are required by university policy to use their Uoregon accounts for university business including instruction, and must not share their credentials with anyone.

Instructors may use other FERPA-compliant software to supplement Canvas use. These include the UO licensed versions of Office 365, which includes One Drive and Teams, Zoom and Dropbox. You can find out more about acceptable technology tools and software here:



Kristin Reagan Candidate Statement 2020

As a former U.S. Marine and National Guard veteran, I have been passionate about service to others throughout my lifetime.  After spending many years in undergraduate and graduate school, I learned of my love for higher education.  Coming to the University of Oregon had been a dream of mine, as I was born in Oregon and have family here, but spent the last 20 years in the Midwest.  Now I would like to take this opportunity to merge these two passions into one here at home, and begin service on the University of Oregon Senate.

I have been with the UO as a Fiscal Coordinator 2 since August of 2018, and would like to expand my footprint in a greater diameter, meet new people and provide service where it is needed.

Being a female veteran, I have experienced misogamy and discrimination, and the importance of diversity and inclusion throughout our shared community is the basis of our collaborative success.  Additionally, I am driven to assist others that do not have the resources for opportunity that are readily available to others.  Finally, I have much interest in sporting events, competition and athletic development despite gender-specific limitations.

I hold an MBA and have specialized experience in finance and taxation, which would allow me to be of assistance in financial and management issues with the UO Senate.  I also hold a MS in Sports Management, which has given me a unique skill set in sports law and finance.  Also, being a former personal trainer and competitor, I understand the unique skills needed to rise to the highest playing field, and I look forward to bringing these skills to the Senate.

Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to serving the University of Oregon!

Jeff Staiger Candidate Statement 2020

Jeff Staiger has been at the UO for 13 years, first as the Librarian for Romance Languages, and more recently as the Librarian for English, French, Italian, Philosophy and Classics.  He has a PhD. in English from UC/Berkeley, and received his BA in English/Classics from Williams College.  Before becoming a librarian, he taught English at both the high-school and university levels in Pittsburgh.  A member of the American Library Association and the Modern Language Association, he publishes in both the fields of Library Science and Literary Studies.  He is particularly interested in the place of the humanities in the university at a time of rapid change and even crisis in the humanistic disciplines.  He served on the Faculty Advisory Council from 2016-2018.

Kristy Bryant-Berg Candidate Statement 2020

I joined the University of Oregon Senate in April of 2019 after volunteering to fill an unexpected vacancy for a CAS Senate seat. Based on my subsequent experiences serving as a Senator over the past year, as well as several years serving on the University Committee on Courses and the English Department Council, I have found investment in shared governance to be meaningful, challenging, and enriching work. My strengths include being an attentive and inquisitive listener, as well as possessing a diligent work ethic. Having served in a variety of roles at University of Oregon where I began my first teaching work as a graduate student in 2002, I am particularly dedicated to advocating for equity and inclusion for faculty, staff, and students alike. I would be especially gratified to represent CAS Career Instructors’ perspectives and support our university-wide mission of inclusive, engaged, and research-led teaching, whether in face-to-face, remote learning, or online iterations.

Thank you for your consideration,


Jay Butler Candidate Statement 2020

As a current senator and member of the Senate Executive Committee, I have consistently and unabashedly demanded for equal representation of classified employees on everything from high level search committees to diversity issues. We demand to no longer be excluded, nor disregarded. Our voices should be heard, not ignored. Our viewpoints and contributions are valid and we need to be part of UO’s “Inclusion” policy. I take this extremely seriously.

In Solidarity, Jay Butler


  • UO Senate, Classified Senator – 2018, 2019, 2020
  • UO Senate Executive Committee – 2019, 2020
  • UO Senate, Environmental Issues Committee – 2018, 2019, 2020
  • VPFM (Vice President for Finance & Administration) Diversity Committee – 2019, 2020, 2021
  • DAP (Diversity Action Plans) Talks I, II, III, IV & V Workshops – 2018, 2019
  • Business Compute Challenge-Departmental Chair – 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018
  • Governor’s Food Drive-Departmental Chair – 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
  • Queer Ally Coalition Workshop & Training – 2019
  • Zero Waste Environmental Partner – 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
  • Banner 9 – pre-rollout Beta Test Partner – 2018, 2019
  • Contributor: (3) articles to Around the O
  • Contributor: (2) articles to Daily Emerald
  • Board of Trustees Round Table- Classified Representative – 2016
  • CGSBV (Committee on Sexual & Gender-Based Violence) Town Hall – 2018
  • DEI (Department of Equity & Inclusion) Understanding Implicit Bias Workshop – 2017, 2018
  • DEI Showcase Oregon Workshop – 2018, 2019, 2020
  • SRS (Safety & Risk Services) Active Threat Training – 2018
  • Search Advocate Training Workshop – 2019
  • Search Advocate Coaching Committee- 2019, 2020
  • Community of Practice Committee – 2020
  • Served on 4 different Search Committees (2 as a Search Advocate) – 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020
  • SEIU Elections Committee- 2019, 2020
  • Implicit Bias Training Workshop – 2017
  • Office Safety/Bystander Training – 2017
  • Payroll Website Redesign Committee – 2019, 2020
  • VPFA Everyday Inclusion- Led ‘Charged Language’ presentation/talk – February, 2020
  • VPFA Employee Spotlight – March, 2020
  • Sustainability Campus Award- nominated – 2020

UO Senate Message – Coronavirus update & planning

Dear UO Senators,

We are facing unprecedented times created by the novel COVID-19 pandemic. As you know, the University of Oregon is closely monitoring the global outbreak and is working in close coordination with local, state, and federal health officials to guide decisions about university operations. We encourage you to visit the UO COVID-19 (Coronavirus) Information website often for information, answers to frequently asked questions, and links to important resources.

Senate leadership is working with the Administration, to ensure that solutions and supports provided to faculty and students reflect the input of broad representation across campus.

We thank our Academic Council for its extraordinary efforts to create guidance on academic continuity planning, and the Office of the Provost for developing resources to facilitate high-quality remote instruction even in these difficult times (e.g., Academic Continuity Resources and Guidance for Faculty and Instructors). The Senate will do its best to support these efforts and the work of other administrators and faculty who are working to ensure operations are running as smoothly as possible for our students.

Within the University Senate, we are preparing behind the scenes to transition upcoming Senate meetings from in-person meetings in the EMU to a remote format for the foreseeable future. Thus, beginning in April, 2020 and until further notice, we will (1) hold senate meetings via remote teleconferencing using Zoom, and (2) reserve 30 minutes at the outset of each meeting for Open Discussions, after which we will proceed to other scheduled senate business. Please contact us to add a topic to the open discussion section and we will add it and invite relevant members of the administration to participate and/or field queries. Topics may include discussion about how instructors and students are dealing with remote instructional approaches, impacts on research and scholarship, supporting members of our university community, and so forth, and provide additional opportunities for information sharing, for example. As always, we welcome your suggestions for discussion topics.

Please feel free to reach out to us directly as well. We will continue holding weekly drop-in office hours on Wednesdays 10:00 to 11:30 AM, however effectively immediately, these will occur via zoom meetings through Winter term finals week, and resume during Spring term week 1:

You may also contact us directly as well at the email addresses below. Thank you for your participation in shared governance here at the University of Oregon.

Elizabeth Skowron, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Psychology President, University Senate

Elliot Berkman, Ph.D.
Associate Professor, Department of Psychology Vice-President/President-Elect, University Senate

US19/20-11: Approval of Curriculum Report, Winter 2020

Date of Notice: January 8, 2020
Current Status: March 11, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White, Chair of UOCC


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Winter Term 2020 Preliminary Curriculum Report for the University Senate Review.

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Winter 2020 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UOCC (please see related documents.

Related Documents

UOCC_Winter 2020 Preliminary Curriculum Report

Final Report

Academic Continuity Plan for the Coronavirus Health Emergency

Academic Council 2020


The Academic Council was convened on March 4, 2020 after the declaration of emergency on February 27, 2020 following the procedures described in the Academic Continuity Policy. The policy guides planning and decision-making in the event that a significant disruption to campus operations impedes academic activity. The goal of the policy is “to continue academic activities as much as possible and to mitigate the effects of a significant academic disruption, which include particularly grave academic and financial consequences for graduating students, international students, and students receiving financial aid.” The policy balances the principles of academic integrity, transparency for students, instructors, and staff, and fairness for students.

The Academic Council voted to approve the following guidelines for the duration of the coronavirus health emergency. These guidelines should be followed by course instructors in consultation with the Academic Continuity Team in their unit. The Academic Continuity Policy is clear that instructors of record (hereafter referred to as “instructors” which includes faculty and GEs) shall retain primary authority over how to manage their courses, assignments, instruction and grades, subject to the conditions described below.

During this time, Academic Council encourages us to come together to support our students and each other. During an emergency situation, it is important to be flexible, empathetic, and prepared to do a bit extra in the short run.

Academic principles to be followed:

In order to receive credit, the learning outcomes and goals of the course, as detailed in the approved course, must be met. The Instructor of Record (including any active additional Instructor(s) of Record) makes the determination about whether the learning outcomes have been met. The Academic Continuity plan allows for changes in various aspects in the way that course content is delivered, and the learning outcomes are achieved. If the instructor determines that the learning outcomes can be met with adjustments to the organization of the course, including reasonable modifications to the modality, delivery, and assessment practices, the instructor should make these changes under this emergency. Specific guidance on modifications is provided below.

Modality changes might include replacing lectures with video lecture replacements, changing methods of assessment (changing short-answer questions to multiple choice) and similar methods including those used as examples below during the duration of this emergency. The feasibility of such modality changes will be highly dependent on best pedagogical practices within the discipline concerned. Instructors should discuss such possibilities with their unit heads for guidance. If a unit head is unavailable, a unit head from a closely-aligned unit will be assigned. If the instructor determines that the learning outcomes cannot be met even with such adjustments, and the unit head concurs, then the completion of the course may be delayed until the missing instructional or grading work is completed.

Academic credit, and grades awarded to students for that credit, are based on delivery of course content in accordance with the learning objectives of the course and the assessment of the quality of student work in that course. As stated in the Academic Continuity Policy, as in any disruption, Instructors should endeavor to mitigate the effects of a significant academic disruption to ensure that the approved course content is delivered, and the appropriate assessment of student performance is undertaken.

The approved amount of student work for each course is listed in the approved Student Engagement Inventory (SEI). On average, for a 4-credit class, this totals 12 hours a week and includes 4 hours of lecture including discussion section or lab time for a lower level class and at least 3 hours for an upper level class. The remaining time is taken with other coursework such as readings and assignments.

Both delivery of content and assessment of student work can be impacted in an academic disruption. During any disruption, instructors should endeavor to ensure that the approved course content is delivered, and the appropriate assessment of student performance is undertaken by changes to the components of the SEI without significant increase or decrease in workload on the students enrolled in the course. Instructors may, for instance, reduce the number of assessed assignments by increasing work needed per assignment if they can still ensure sufficient assessment of learning outcomes. Instructors may also replace class time with out of class assignments that can meet the same learning outcomes. Finally, it may be possible for some class time and assignments to be missed, and still be able to fully assess learning outcomes by altering other assignments to include the missed class time or work.

During this coronavirus health emergency, the goals for academic continuity are:

  • To protect instructors, staff, students
  • To accommodate individual students and instructors who are ill or worried about contracting illness
  • To continue courses in the event of instructor absence or partial/complete campus closure

Therefore, the Academic Council has approved the following specific expectations for instructors.

During any term, including the current Winter term, the Academic Council:

  • Reminds instructors to work with their department head or supervisor as they normally would if they will need to miss class.
  • Reminds instructors to communicate to students in advance if class meetings are cancelled and let them know what work they should complete. The goal should be to continue instruction even if that has to be done by a replacement instructor and/or remotely.
  • Directs instructors that they cannot cancel courses. At present, campus is continuing courses as scheduled. Any decision to cancel courses will be made centrally.
  • Reminds instructors that they shall not ask students for doctor’s notes or other documentation to verify absences. Instructors shall have clear communication and make-up protocols in place for students to follow if they are going to be or have been absent. If a student is missing enough class that make-ups will be difficult and they are at risk of not passing, they should communicate with those students, and enlist advisors for help.
  • Requires instructors with attendance or participation polices to modify those such that attendance is not counted in grades and participation points could be made up or waived.
  • Informs instructors that they may modify course expectations such that required work is reduced or grading schemes are adjusted provided they can still meet course learning objectives.
  • Requires that instructors shall have make ups or alternatives to exams. If instructors will need support to manage an increased volume of make-ups, they should work with their department head, who will take guidance from the school/college Academic Continuity Team. In some cases, a grade of Incomplete may be used for make-ups that will take place after grades are due.
  • Requires instructors to provide clear, consistent, and specific communication to students about any modifications to the course and changes to assignments and deadlines. Instructors, as a matter of good practice, should provide clear and consistent expectations of course graders for timely grading and assessment of materials and recording of grades to the Canvas gradebook for students to see. Academic Council requires the use of the course Canvas site for all this communication.

In preparation for Spring and potentially Summer terms, the Academic Council:

  • Requires use of Canvas for courses starting in Spring term and for the duration of the academic disruption, as it will make adjusting for absences/campus closures easier. Instructors shall publish their Canvas sites and use them to post materials, collect assignments, provide alternatives to lectures/discussions for students who are absent from class, and post grades.
  • Asks instructors to explore options and tools to deliver their course content for an extended period on Canvas with either synchronous and/or asynchronous options. The Office of the Provost has created a resource page to help instructors ( This page will be continually updated.

Absence of Instructor of Record:

If an Instructor of Record is unable to continue as instructor, unit heads may appoint an additional Instructor of Record who will continue to deliver course content and follow the course structure and content as laid out in the syllabus and any other additional resources such as the Canvas site to the best of their ability. The original Instructor of Record remains on the course and when they return, the additional Instructor of Record is removed after the appropriate transition between instructors has been affected. The Instructor of Record will then complete the course and submit grades.

The additional Instructor of Record will follow the established syllabus, including delivery of course content in accordance with the learning objectives of the course and such assessment that falls within the timeline of the course. The additional instructor will not require additional work of the enrolled students beyond the level specified in the SEI or syllabus or change the methods of assessment.

Whenever possible, submission of final grades will be done by the original Instructor of Record. If the original Instructor of Record does not return before the end of the class, course grades should not be submitted by the additional Instructor of Record until Finals Week and all assignments and scheduled exams are due and have been graded.

When the original Instructor of Record returns, they will accept the work done by the students under the additional Instructor of Record and not require additional work of the enrolled students for the time the original Instructor of Record was absent. The returning Instructor of Record will assess, in coordination with the unit head, the degree to which the learning outcomes were achieved, and the student work was correctly assessed given this disruption. If the conclusion of the Instructor of Record and the unit head is that the additional Instructor of Record was unable to deliver course content or conduct assessment as specified, or an additional Instructor of Record was unavailable, the Instructor of Record and unit head may conclude that the course has not been completed. In this case, emergency grades, if available, may be used, or incompletes if appropriate, until such time as the course can be completed.

The instructional work required to complete the course will be conducted and compensated according to appropriate labor agreements and requirements. Upon completion, students will then receive regular (non-emergency) grades.

Absence of GEs that support a faculty instructor:

The impact of loss of GEs from a faculty-taught class will vary with the number of GEs, the amount of GE FTE, and duties of those GEs. Instructors of Record may be able to complete a course with minor losses of GE support, but it is expected that major losses of GE support will require some form of replacement. The amount of loss of GE support will be reflected in the total FTE and associated total of hours of work lost.

The Academic Council recommends that Instructors of Record impacted by the academic disruption through the loss of GEs who run discussion sections, labs, etc., consider modifying the modes of delivery of the course content, activities, and assessments that are required to meet the learning outcomes and goals of the course. It is good pedagogical practice to maintain a set of alternative assignments that can be used as “make-ups” if students have valid reasons for missing class. These make-up assignments may be an acceptable method of delivering course material in accordance with course outcomes that can be deployed if planned course activities cannot be completed for any reason.

The assessment of any assignments used to replace planned course activity should be equivalent to the originally planned assessment for the missing activity. For example, a discussion section normally run by a GE could be replaced with a worksheet if the GE is ill. This worksheet covers the same material and the grading of that worksheet should be equivalent to the grading of the discussion section exercise.

Graded assignments should not generally be replaced by non-graded assignments unless completion of an assignment can be seen as having learning value. For instance, students might be asked to complete a module in Canvas that automatically records a completion grade as a replacement for attending a discussion section. Instructor should consult with their unit heads for guidance. If replacement assignments need to be graded, this must be done by a qualified person, following all applicable labor laws and negotiated contracts. Graders must be appropriately qualified. If GEs are unavailable to hold labs or sections, students should be held harmless so that any student credit for attendance to labs or sections should be waived.


The Council will continue to meet to provide guidance about grading procedures (e.g., whether to enable emergency grades) should the disruption continue.

Personnel considerations

Additional and Replacement Instructors of Record must be qualified to teach the course. Departments should follow their criteria for level qualification to teach classes, such as in replacement teaching pools, that should be followed. Departments should also follow their normal criteria for graduate students to be instructors of record such as advancement to candidacy or seniority, etc. Work associated with a course that does not involve any instruction or assessment, such as taking attendance, proctoring exams, distributing materials, supervising room occupancy, etc., may be done by individuals not qualified to instruct and following all applicable labor laws and negotiated contracts.

Unit Heads must consider whether the workload required to meet the course learning outcomes is reasonable with respect to the job description of additional instructors of record and their other obligations.


Senate Meeting Agenda – March 11, 2020

UPDATE: For those who prefer to attend remotely, rather than in person, we have set up an alternate option via Zoom. Here are the details for accessing the meeting:

Topic: University of Oregon Senate Meeting (March 11, 2020)
Time: Mar 11, 2020 03:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting

Meeting ID: 245 214 867

Password: 945303

One tap mobile

+16699006833,,245214867# US (San Jose)
+19292056099,,245214867# US (New York)

Dial by your location

+1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
+1 929 205 6099 US (New York)

Meeting ID: 245 214 867

Find your local number:

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Elizabeth Skowron

3:10 P.M.  Approval of the Minutes

3:11 P.M.   State of the University

  • Provost Patrick Phillips
    • Coronavirus planning, updates; Andre LeDuc (CRO/AssocVP Safety & Risk Services), Cass Mosely (Sr Assoc Vice Pres Research), Ron Bramhall (Assoc Vice Prov Academic Exec)

3:45 P.M.   New Business

4:20 P.M.    Open Discussion

  • Updates: Search Guidelines for Academic Administrator Positions

4:40 P.M.   Reports

  • Scheduling adjustment –> 3:30 P.M., CIET/CAIT: Sierra Dawson (Assoc VP Academic Affairs), Lee Rumbarger (Assist Vice Provost TEP), Janet Woodruff-Borden (Exec Vice Provost for Academic Affairs)
  • Open Access; David Condon, Psychology; Presentation

4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:56 P.M.   Other Business

  • Legislative Updates; Melanie Muenzer

5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 8, 2020

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Elizabeth Skowron
  • Land Acknowledgment; Sam Norgaard-Stroich

3:05 P.M.  Approval of the Minutes

3:10 P.M.   State of the University

  • President Schill
  • Bob Guldberg, VP and Exec Dir Knight Campus

3:40 P.M.   New Business

4:30 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:35 P.M.   Reports

  • Legislative Agenda; Hans Bernard (Asst VP for State Affairs) & Libby Batlan (Assoc VP State & Comm Affairs)

4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:57 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

US 19/20-08: New Program Proposal: Bioengineering

Date of Notice: November 20, 2019
Current Status: Approved January 8, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Jim Hutchison (Chemistry & Biochemistry), Nathan Jacobs (Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact), Mike Hahn (Human Physiology)


Section I

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

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

1.3 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council has fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for a new Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering and recommend that the Provost forward it to the University of Oregon Board of Trustees, the statewide Provosts’ Council, Higher Education Coordinating Commission,and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities for approval;

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED, on the recommendation of the Undergraduate Council, the new Bachelor’s degree in Bioengineering is approved (please see related documents for program specifics).

Related Documents

Program Proposal
UGC Feedback
CAS Memo
Due Diligence

US19/20-07: Approval of Curriculum Report, Fall 2019

Date of Notice: November 13, 2019
Current Status: Approved December 11, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White, Chair of UOCC


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Fall Term 2019 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review.

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the Fall 2019 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses (please see Related Documents).

Related Documents

UOCC_Fall 2019 Preliminary Report

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 13, 2019

Note: Please review linked materials and provide any feedback to

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Elizabeth Skowron
  • Remarks; Senate Vice President Elliot Berkman

3:10 P.M.  Approval of the Minutes

3:15 P.M.   State of the University

  • President Schill
  • Tim Gardner, Knight Campus

3:30 P.M.   New Business

4:30 P.M.    Open Discussion

  • Committee on Recognizing our Diverse History: Updates (’10) and discussion (’20, time permitting); Melanie Muenzer (Assoc VP Vice Prov Acad Init)

4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:51 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 9, 2019

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

    • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Elizabeth Skowron

3:15 P.M.  Approval of the Minutes

3:15 P.M.   State of the University

    • Patrick Phillips, Provost and Sr Vice President; White Paper on 2019-2020 Academic Initiatives
    • Undergraduate Advising at UO; Kimberly Johnson, UGS Asst Vice Prov Advising (Presentation Slides)

4:00 P.M.   New Business

4:30 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:30 P.M.   Reports

4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:56 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

US19/20-03: Approval of Curriculum Report, Summer 2019

Date of Notice: September 25, 2019
Current Status: Approved October 9, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White, UOCC


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Summer Term 2019 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review.

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the Summer 2019 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses (please see Related Documents).

Related Documents

Summer Term 2019 Preliminary Curriculum Report

US19/20-01: Rename the NTTF Committee

Date of Notice: September 18, 2019
Current Status: Approved October 9, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Elizabeth Skowron, Senate President
Elliot Berkman, Senate Vice President
Beth Harn, Special Education and Clinical Sciences


Section I

1.1  WHEREAS, the Non-tenure Track Faculty Committee indicated the need to ensure inclusiveness of all long-term faculty (i.e., clinical professor, professors of practice, instructional, library, and research); and

1.2 WHEREAS, the committee will also be inclusive of limited duration faculty employees; and

1.3  WHEREAS, non-tenured faculty on campus have expressed concerns over being disrespected and seen as “less than” compared to their tenured colleagues;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the renaming of the Non-tenured Track Faculty Committee to “Career Faculty Committee.”

Implementation Date: Immediate upon approval by University Senate

Related Documents

NTTF 2018-2019 Annual Report

Draft 17 point chart_Redline_Sept 2019

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 22, 2019


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:15 PM   Approval of Minutes

3:16 PM     Business / Reports:

4:42 PM   Open Discussion
4:43 PM   Other Reports
4:44 PM   Notice(s) of Motion
4:45 PM   Other Business

  • Executive Session: Awards

5:00 PM   Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!

Thor Mikesell Candidate Statement 2019

I am interested in continuing my work with and on the OA Council representing the mutual interests of University of Oregon OAs. I am encouraged by the work OA’s perform across all units as we collectively strive to achieve excellence. This year the OA council has worked towards improving and strengthening our shared governance, worked towards clarification of roles and responsibilities, and have worked to develop meaningful paths of career development. While we have achieved many great improvements on behalf of all OAs, there is still a great deal of work to be done and I am eager to continue to build on our previous success.

Please consider me to represent your interests as a member of the OA Council.

Anna Duncan Candidate Statement 2019

I am running for Officers of Administration Council to support institutional change that makes OAs feel satisfied in their jobs. I have been an OA for over seven years. I have also been a UO undergraduate student (BA, magazine journalism – 2002), graduate student (Master of Public Administration – 2008), graduate employee, and classified employee. I serve on the HR Recruitment Implementation Advisory Workgroup and the IS Administrative Technology Domain subcommittee.

As a member of the Officer of Administration Council, I will advocate for rational and transparent changes, specifically:

Clear and transparent OA job families, career pathways, and salary bands: I support OA job families and salary bands that are clearly and publicly defined so that we know where we are, and where we can go from there.

Cohesive and intuitive software systems with sufficient documentation and support: Well-defined software development process is crucial. I have created precise software requirements, and written clear software instructions, at UO and in the nonprofit sector. I am excited to use my understanding to advocate for clarity and accountability in all UO software implementations.

Fair and reduced-bias hiring practices: I believe that artificial barriers to UO employment should be reduced, and eliminated. I have served on approximately 20 OA and classified search committees, and by late April will be a trained Search Advocate. I co-wrote with the CAS Dean’s Office Diversity Action Plan Working Group a report on the current state of, and recommendations for, diversity, equity, and inclusion in CAS’s hiring practices.

Policies that are applied consistently and fairly across employee groups and situations: We know this doesn’t always happen, despite our best intentions. I am determined in my efforts to improve this in my own job, and am ready to take this determination to all of campus.

Our university is in a time of many changes. We know that the more engaged we are, the less frustrating and demoralizing these changes will be, but not everyone has the time or the desire to be publicly involved. I am willing and able to be a public advocate for Officers of Administration and for change that is neither frustrating nor demoralizing. Thank you for considering me as a candidate for OA Council.

Daniel McCarville Candidate Statement 2019

Daniel McCarville is the senior analyst within the Office for Research and Innovation. His work focuses on using data to produce effective, efficient recommendations for our research enterprise. As both a career auditor and political scientist, he maintains a professional commitment to accountable, effective governance.

Prior to working for the University, he was legislative staff for the Kansas Legislature.His professional background includes budget process and policy making. He earned an M.A. in Political Science from the University of Kansas and is currently pursuing an M.S. in Educational Leadership from the University of Oregon’s EMPL program.

Joshua Gordon Candidate Statement 2019

I bring a decade of institutional experience and knowledge at the University of Oregon along with deep experience assessing student-athlete experience across the NCAA to ensure alignment with University Mission and Objectives. I have worked in both neutral and advisory capacities throughout university athletics, from an academic perspective.

Lynn Stephen Candidate Statement 2019

I would like to serve on the FAC. I have served one other time. I am an interdisciplinary scholar who has participated not only in my own department, Anthropology, but also in Ethnic Studies, WGSS, Latin American Studies and several research centers. I founded and directed the Center for Latino/a and Latin American Studies for 8 years, was a co-director of the Center for the Center for the Study of Women in Society, and also was at the Oregon Humanities Center. I have 20 years of experience at UO as a department chair, senior scholar, center director, and other roles. I look forward to bringing an interdisciplinary voice to the FAC spanning Social Sciences, Humanities, and Sciences. I have done a lot of thinking about issues across the University and look forward to provide this big picture perspective on the FAC. I am particularly interested in the future relationship between the Knight Campus and the rest of UO.

Katy Larkin Candidate Statement 2019

I have been working in the Office of the Dean of Students since October 2014 and am currently the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards. I am also an alumna (2010) from the College of Arts and Sciences. I am dedicated to the ongoing success and advancement of the University. I am also acutely aware of the significant impact of budget restrictions and balancing an ever increasing workload. I believe my knowledge and experience in policy development and analysis, as well as my student development and experience expertise, would serve me well in this role. For these reasons, I would like to be considered to represent the OA voice on the Faculty Advisory Committee.

Nina Fox Candidate Statement 2019

If elected to the Faculty Advisory Council, I am interested in hearing faculty opinion and counsel across the wide variety of affairs at the University. This appointment would allow me the opportunity to talk with and support faculty colleagues in shaping the academic initiatives at the University of Oregon. This would allow me to play an active role in supporting student success at the University of Oregon by collaborating with faculty colleagues to keep the student learning and research experience at the forefront of our endeavors.

If elected to the Officers of Administration Council, I am interested in advancing opportunities for growth and the development of a professional development track for this category of employee at the University. This appointment would allow me share ideas on growth and success for OA’s at the University of Oregon.

Stephanie Prentiss Candidate Statement 2019

I am currently the Vice President of SEIU Local 085/503 and I am very interested in participating within committees that provide opportunities for student success. Providing student success encompasses the equitable and fair working environment for classified staff. Without classified staff, our university and students will struggle to be successful. I believe that this is a cooperative between faculty and classified staff and in conjunction with students as well. I would very much appreciate the opportunity to serve on one of the committees offered, and would feel proud to represent the classified staff in doing so.

Don Dixon Candidate Statement 2019

Don started working for the University as a student worker for the Social Sciences Instructional Lab while working on his degree in General Social Sciences (Focus in Crime, Law, & Society). After graduation, Don has been a full time staff member and Desktop Support Technician for the CASIT Help Desk.

After working full time for almost 5 years, Don decided to get more involved in the University by joining the Traffic Advisory Board, which he has served on for the past few years. Don hopes to continue working on that committee and is excited to join other committees as needed.

Stephen Summers Candidate Statement 2019

I’ve had the unique experience of being both a student/researcher and an instructor/administrator at the University of Oregon, and I’m interested in using that perspective to help guide the institution’s future. Working with students representing diverse abilities, identities, and backgrounds compels me to help ensure their perspectives are likewise included in our institution’s future.

While teaching courses on memory, motivation, communication, and university success, I have become interested in both student psychology and the mentality of the university itself. I look forward to the opportunity to invest in the growth mindset of the campus at large.

Zak Gosa-Lewis Candidate Statement 2019

Having been employed by the University of Oregon for just over a year, I feel confident and comfortable in taking the next step in my involvement here on campus. As a young professional who very selectively chose to pursue employ at UO, I believe in our university and the community we belong to. We, as employees, have responsibilities to not just our students, but also to each other.

I believe it is now my time to take that next step in my responsibility and work for my fellow employees on the larger scale. I am hopeful that you will allow me to represent you and our peers to the best of my abilities.

Suzie Stadelman Candidate Statement 2019

Suzie Stadelman is the Education and Prevention Outreach Coordinator for the University Counseling Center. Formerly an undergraduate and graduate student at the UO, she joined the UCC as a staff member in 2013. Suzie is passionate about suicide prevention and mental health promotion and hopes to bring her expertise in these areas to committees, especially to help make the university a safe and inclusive place for students. She looks forward to working collaboratively and creatively to create positive, sustainable change.

Salmon Norgaard-Stroich Candidate Statement 2019

I am interested in serving on the University Senate and committees, focusing on inclusion, diversity, and equity. I believe the U of O does a good job serving students, but focusing on DEI is an important aspect of ALL of our work to better serve students marginalized by race, class, and gender oppression.

My work at the Outdoor Program focuses on connecting students to a ‘sense of place’ as a way to feel grounded, stay healthy, and experience the amazing environment Oregon has to offer. Our most important goal, however, is to build community. We have recognized that outdoor spaces (and many other spaces on campus) are dominated by white, CIS, and often male students and community members. In my work I am committed to building a more diverse staff, and to serving a more diverse student body, and to helping the University build its cultural competence as a whole.
Salmon Norgaard-Stroich
Assistant Director, UO Outdoor Program

Maggie Bosworth Candidate Statement 2019

Bio: Maggie Bosworth started with the University of Oregon and College of Education in 2015 and is currently the Executive Assistant to the Dean. She is also an alumnus of the University with a Masters in Industrial Relations. Maggie brings a numerous perspectives of the University as an alumnus, a parent of two students (’20 and ’22) and also as a staff member (both classified and now as an officer of administration).
I am interested in gaining a better understanding of the university and its mission while contributing to a more active role in its governance and operations.

Vera Sebulsky Candidate Statement 2019

As an OA and at my third Tier-1 research institution, I want to support UO’s elevation in academic prestige and student services success. My bicultural background and broad experience in student services and recruitment, interaction with faculty (engineering, business, and arts and sciences), and industry outreach have equipped me to give back to UO by suggesting practical ways we can improve the student and faculty experience.

I have worked collaboratively with research and teaching faculty, cultivated a positive student experience and increased programming, and surpassed student recruitment goals in the midst of limited resources and funding. I would advance a broader vision that drives recruitment and retention success by viewing each faculty member and prospective and current student as a valuable member of our community.

Higher education is changing quickly. I aim to be useful in supporting the University to stay relevant and sustainable in a rapidly changing technological landscape with evolving student needs. I will also advocate for UO’s capacity to lead in research excellence in a way it hasn’t yet realized.

Lynette Danley Candidate Statement 2019

Dr. Danley holds a Ph.D. in Higher Education Administration from the University of Iowa and an M.S. in Education from Drake University. Dr. Danley most recently worked as the Interdisciplinary Leadership Doctorate Program Coordinator and an Assistant Professor at Governors State University near Chicago. She has worked extensively in higher education, pipeline programs, and community organizing. She has published widely on higher education, particularly women and girls’ retention and persistence experiences throughout P-20 education.
Dr. Danley effectively collaborates with Deans, Chairs, Division Heads and Program Coordinators to plan and review curricular changes that best served the mission of the program and the enrichment of the academic experience for the students. Dr. Danley is capable in assisting in the development of curriculum and policies for programs. She has a proven record securing full-time faculty and adjunct faculty for assignments and addressing student related academic issues. Dr. Danley also understands instructional design and has the ability to develop face-to-face, online, and hybrid courses for undergraduate and graduate students. She taught courses for Colleges of Education, Arts and Sciences, as well as Honors Programs.
Dr. Danley’s tenacity and compassion to promote collaboration across colleges in order to grow and sustain programs has been met with considerable success. Both faculty and administration indicate their appreciation of her commitment to the continual improvement of holistic education for all students. Dr. Danley’s knowledge and experience of instructional technology is impressive. She understands the value of connecting students to course content and utilizes online instructional methods to increase faculty and students’ technological skills pertinent to their respective disciplines/programs.
At previous institutions, Dr. Danley effectively served on the following university-wide committees: Equity-Minded Planning Team, Graduate Council, Faculty Senate, Assessment 2 Committee, College of Education PEU, Division of Education Admissions Committee and Student Concerns Committee. Dr. Danley’s contributions to each of the committees reflected her enthusiasm to accomplish committee goals, solve challenging issues and bring fresh perspectives to the conversations. Dr. Danley’s ability to advocate for students and adhere to university policies demonstrated how she balanced the ethic of care with the ethic of justice.

Nicole Cartelli Candidate Statement 2019

I am excited to submit my intent to run for an elected committee at the University of Oregon. As a Eugene native and alumni, I was very grateful for an opportunity to further my relationship with the university as a human resources professional. I would be honored to share my skills and knowledge with the greater university community, and to learn more about how our campus works together to accomplish our mission of exceptional teaching, discovery, and service.

Participation as an elected member will not only inform my own work as a human resources professional, it will allow me a new and exciting opportunity to better serve an institution that has been a part of my life for such a very long time.

Jason Silveira Candidate Statement 2019

As an Associate Professor at the University of Oregon, I recognize the importance of shared governance and being a good citizen of the University. Further, as a tenured faculty member I feel it is my responsibility to take on more service commitments to better serve the needs of the University, the faculty, staff, and students as a member of these important committees. My approach to service is student centered, and I engage in service that promotes student development, promotes the institution, and promotes the profession. I have been active in my service to the School of Music and Dance serving on several standing committees and search committees. Recently my research and service have focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion in music education – specifically within the LGBTQ community. I currently serve on the Planning Committee for the LGBT Studies and Music Education Symposium, and will be hosting the conference at UO in summer 2020. I have been fortunate to be able to serve the profession, and I hope to have the opportunity to do so at the university level.

Colin Koopman Candidate Statement 2019

I strongly believe in shared governance and administrative transparency at public education institutions. Because of this, I have greatly valued my previous service on the University Senate, which provides an opportunity for both collaborative and open governance. I have served twice previously (taking a break between my two terms of service during a recent sabbatical year). If elected, I look forward to representing the Humanities and our interests once again.

In my service on Senate thus far I have dedicated my energies there to improving policies that come before the Senate by working with stakeholders and fellow senators both on the senate floor and outside of senate meetings. For instance, much of my work has involved clarifying needlessly confusing policy language. Oftentimes policies come to the senate with vague or ambiguous language that does not adequately represent the intentions of those crafting the policy nor the university goals that the policy is designed to achieve. I have also been involved with more substantive policy crafting, particularly around the following areas on which I have been directly involved in crafting legislation: data policies (including information privacy and data security policies), gender-based harassment policies (particularly in light of needs to achieve conformity with Obama-era Title IX guidance), sexual relations policies, and curriculum policies. Some of my work on these matters was informed by my research expertise in information ethics, political philosophy, and philosophy of law.

If elected, I hope to continue to pursue policy improvements in these and other areas. In addition, I hope to join with fellow senators in pressing for greater institutional transparency at UO, an area in which we have much room for (and I believe will for) improvement.

Michael Hames-Garcia Candidate Statement 2019

I have worked at the UO for nearly 15 years, having arrived as an associate professor in 2005. Shortly after arriving on campus, I did a good deal of service as a program and center director, a department head, and a member of the FPC, FAC, and Graduate Council. I have watched the university change significantly in recent years, both for the better and for the worse.

As an active member of our faculty union, as an advocate for faculty, students, and staff of color, and as someone who has been outspoken on issues ranging from campus sexual assault to financial and programmatic transparency at the UO, I hope to continue to do what I can to make this university more equitable, more accessible, more fair, and more just.

Anne Zemper Candidate Statement 2019

As an LGBTQ woman in science, I am particularly passionate about ensuring the equity and inclusion in not only my research program, but to also use my participation on committees and my position as a professor, to promote equity and inclusion wherever I can have influence. In this, I have participated in a number of programs at University of Oregon to introduce a wide swath of students to the excitement that I find inherent in the sciences. This includes lectures to undergraduate courses that introduce students to research, such as freshman interest groups and the honors college freshman research course. I have also given presentations at two UO programs designed to recruit under-represented groups to STEM programs, the SPUR program through Biology, which provides summer research opportunities, and the Preview Oregon program, which brings talented URM undergraduates to campus for several days to introduce them to the research environment. This past year, I was one of three faculty to sit on a Panel for the LGBTQ in STEM student group here, where we discussed LGBTQ-related issues dealing with Professionalism in Science.

I hope to be elected to be more involved in Equity, Inclusion and Outreach efforts across campus.

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 8, 2019


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

All times are estimates.

3:00 P.M.   Call to order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:10 PM   Approval of Minutes

3:11 PM     Business / Reports:

  • Update: Knight Campus and Bioengineering program; Patrick Phillips (Biology, Advisor to the President)
  • Report: Data Science Initiative; Bill Cresko (Biology, Office of the Provost)
  • Discuss: US18/19-18: Enhancing Engagement in Academic Governance; Elizabeth Skowron (Psychology, Senate VP)
  • Discuss: US18/19-20: Policy on Hiring and Promotion of Academic Administrators; Bill Harbaugh (Economics, Senate President)
  • Discuss: US18/19-19: Core Ed Distribution Requirements; Chris Sinclair (Mathematics)
  • Senate VP Elections: solicitation of self-nominees, election process, compensation; Bill Harbaugh (Economics, Senate President)
  • Report on Research Metrics and Faculty Tracking Software; Scott Pratt (Executive Vice Provost) and Ellen Herman (History, Office of the Provost)
  • Legislative Update; Melanie Muenzer (Assoc VP Vice Provost of Academic Initiatives)

4:35 PM   Open Discussion
4:36 PM   Other Reports
4:37 PM   Notice(s) of Motion
4:40 PM   Other Business

  • Executive Session: Honorary Degrees

5:00 PM   Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!

US18/19-19: Policy on Hiring and Promotion of Academic Administrators

Date of Notice: April 10, 2019
Current Status: Postponed on 05/22/2019
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh, Economics


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS  the University of Oregon does not currently have a policy on the hiring and promotion of Academic Administrators;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Policy on Hiring and Promotion of Academic Administrators as outlined in the Related Documents.

Policy on Hiring and Promotion of Academic Administrators proposal

US18/19-17: Updates to the General Limitations of the Bachelor’s Degree

Date of Notice: April 24, 2019
Current Status: Approved May 22, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Core Education Council


Section I

1.1  Whereas the University of Oregon has recently reconfigured the core ed requirements; and

1.2 Whereas the Core Ed Council “oversee[s] that part of the University curriculum which is
required of all undergraduate students”; and

1.3 Whereas Core Education Credits are defined to be those satisfying an Area of Inquiry (Social Sciences, Natural Sciences, and Arts & Letters), Writing, Global Perspectives and US-Difference, Inequality, Agency, and/or a Bachelor degree specific requirement.

Section II

2.1 Be it therefore moved that the existing General Limitations for the Bachelor’s Degrees found at under the heading “General Limitations” be replaced with the following General Limitations for Bachelor’s Degrees:

    1. A total maximum of 124 credits may be transferred from domestic, regionally accredited junior or community colleges and from international junior or technical colleges. Of the total maximum of 124 credits, only 90 credits may be transferred from an international junior or technical college.
    2. A maximum of 48 credits in law, medicine, pharmacy, chiropractic medicine, dentistry, non-academic technology or any combination may be used toward fulfilling total credit hours for bachelor’s degrees.
    3. A maximum of 24 credits may be used toward fulfilling total credits in the following areas (a,b,c, and d) with not more than 12 in any one area:
        1. Lower-division professional-technical courses;
        2. Physical education activity, Military Science activity (e.g. MIL 131 and 331), and dance activity (DANC) courses, except for dance activity courses for majors in dance;
        3. Music lessons Performance in Music (in any the subject code including MUP, MUS and MUJ), except for majors in music;
        4. Applied and/or experiential courses, academic support skills courses, non-academic field experience courses, or career and professional development courses.
    4.  For music majors, a maximum of 24 credits in music lessons performance (in any the subject code including MUP, MUS and MUJ) may count toward requirements for the BA or BS degree.
    5. For dance majors, a maximum of 36 credits of DANC may count toward requirements for the BA or BS degree.
    6. University of Oregon academic records are sealed thirty days after the official conferral date of a degree. After this date, changes to majors and minors, addition of departmental honors, removal of incompletes, grade changes, or other changes to an academic record cannot be made.
    7. When the University awards credits for Advanced Placement Program (AP), International Baccalaureate Program (IB), Cambridge Examination Program, the College-Level Examination Program (CLEP), and credit by examination (course challenge), these credits are counted toward the satisfaction of bachelor’s degree requirements–except residency and the 45 UO credits graded A,B,C,D. When the university grants credit for AP, IB, Cambridge, and CLEP examinations, pass (P*) credit is granted.
    8. For limitations related to repeated courses please refer to UO Policy on Repeatable and Non-repeatable Undergraduate Courses.
    9. Students may not receive credit for any course assessed as having substantially similar content as a course for which they have already received credit.
    10. Students may not receive credit for courses beneath their assessed competency level. Competency level can be assessed by various means such as placement scores, faculty/departmental assessment, etc.
    11. Student may not receive credit for courses that are designated by the department as regressive prerequisites for courses in which they are currently enrolled or have already received credit.
    12. Students must be enrolled with must have degree-seeking status in order to earn an undergraduate major, minor or certificate; undergraduate majors, minors and certificates must be completed at the time the degree is awarded.

2.2 Be it further moved, that the relevant academic unit will be involved in the determination of what credit/courses are restricted in points 9, 10 and 11 of 2.1.

2.3 Be it further moved that the “One Course” restriction under the existing Group Requirements be replaced with

“Students may use a maximum of 3 courses that have the same subject code(s) as their primary major (e.g. MUS, MUJ for music majors) to simultaneously count for both a student’s major requirements and Areas of Inquiry requirements.”

2.4 Be it further moved that, under Group Requirements for Specific Degrees, 1. Bachelor of Arts, Fine Arts, or Science, the language “Each group must include (a) at least two courses with the same subject code and (b) at least one course with a different subject code. No more than three courses with the same subject code may be used to fulfill the 45-credit requirement.” be replaced with:

Students must take courses in at least two subject codes in each Area of Inquiry. Students may use a maximum of 3 courses in any one subject code toward the total credits across all Areas of Inquiry.”

And that under Group Requirements for Specific Degrees, 2. Bachelor of Architecture, Fine Arts, Education, Interior Architecture, Landscape Architecture, Music, or Music in Music Education, the language “Each group must include at least two courses with different subject codes. Two groups must each include at least two courses with the same subject code. No more than three courses with the same subject code may be used to fulfill the total 36-credit requirement.” be replaced with:

Students must take courses in at least two subject codes in each Area of Inquiry. Students may use a maximum of 3 courses in any one subject code toward the total credits across all Areas of Inquiry.”

2.5 Be it further moved that the limitations in 2.1-2.4 be effective Fall 2020, and will go into effect for all students; students who were admitted under the existing rules/limitations may opt to have those limitations apply.

Effective date: Fall 2019 for incoming undergraduate students.
Passed the Core Ed Council unanimously on 4/24/2019.

Updated Draft  of Motion – May 20, 2019

Updated Draft – May 22, 2019

US18/19-18: Enhancing Engagement in Academic Governance

Date of Notice: April 30, 2019
Current Status: Approved May 22, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsors: Elizabeth Skowron, Professor, Department of Psychology, Senate Vice President
Lara Bovilsky, Associate Professor, Department of English, Graduate Council Chair
William Harbaugh, Professor, Department of Economics, Senate President
Frances White, Professor, Department of Anthropology, Academic Council Co-Chair & Chair, Committee on Courses


Section I

1.1  WHEREAS, the UO Senate passed legislation establishing the membership structure for each of the following Senate Committees (Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, Committee on Courses, and the Core Education Council); and

1.2  WHEREAS, the UO Senate President, Vice President, and Chairs of these academic senate committees would like to support communication and collaboration between these aforementioned committees and the UO Senate, in furtherance of shared governance; and

1.3  WHEREAS, the charge(s) for each of these Senate Committees (e.g., Graduate Council, Undergraduate Council, Committee on Courses, and the Core Education Council) do not designate a voting seat for a current member of the Senate;

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the UO Senate authorizes the incoming Senate President, in consultation with the respective Senate Committee Chair, outgoing Senate President, and Senate Executive Committee to: (a) solicit self-nominations from current UO senators, and (b) appoint or cause to be appointed, one senator to each of these four Senate committees to serve for a two-year term as a full, voting committee member, (c) where no senator is currently serving on said committee.  Senators eligible for appointment consist of members of the statutory faculty (TTF and Career).

2.2 If the selected individual is no longer serving in the Senate, for any reason, senate leadership in consultation with the respective committee chair will follow the procedures above in 2.1 to appoint a replacement from among current Senators.

Financial Impact: Cost Neutral

Appendix:  List of Academic Committees Relevant in this Policy

Graduate Council

Lara Bovilsky, Chair
Sierra Dawson
Erik Girvan
Burke Hendrix
Elim Hernandez-Santos
Andrew Karduna
Alison Kwok
Seth Lewis
Celeste Mena-Morales
Fabienne Moore
Jeremy Piger
Jana Prikryl
Nicholas Proudfoot
Phil Scher
Leslie Straka
Marcia Walker
Hailin Wang
Mark Watson
Angela Whalen
Janet Woodruff-Borden
Hong Yuan

Undergraduate Council

Maeve Anderson
Jagdeep Bala
Diane Bordenkircher
Ron Bramhall
Jessica Cronce
Dennis Galvan
Michele Henney
Kimberly Johnson
Harinder Khalsa
Kathleen Lenn
Kelli Matthews, Co-Chair
Drew Nobile
Daisy O’Lice-Williams
Craig Parsons
Julia Pomerenk
Jana Prikryl, Co-Chair
Lee Rumbarger
Caleb Southworth
Mike Urbancic
Frances White
Michelle Wood

Committee on Courses

Ron Bramhall
Kristy Bryant-Berg
Christian Cherry
Tom Greenbowe
Roberta Mann
Bil Morrill
Julia Pomerenk
Jana Prikryl
Scott Skelton
Mike Urbancic
Kathy Warden
Frances White, Chair

Core Education Council

Ron Bramhall, Co-Chair
Christian Cherry
Edward Davis
Kassia Dellabough
Dennis Galvan
Pedro García-Caro
Austin Hocker
Harinder Khalsa
Lori Manson
Julia Pomerenk
Lee Rumbarger
Alison Schmitke
Doneka Scott
Emily Simnitt
Christopher Sinclair, Co-Chair
Mike Urbancic
Carolyn Vogt
Kathy Warden
Nicole Wilson


Senate Meeting Agenda – April 24, 2019


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

All times are estimates.

3:00 P.M.   Call to order

  • University update: Provost Banavar
  • Introductory Remarks; Senate Pres Harbaugh
  • Senate committee review report: Senate VP Skowron

3:30 PM   Approval of Minutes

3:31 PM     Business/ Reports:

4:50 PM   Open Discussion
4:51 PM   Other Reports

  • Legislative update; Robert Garral (OtP)

4:58 PM   Notice(s) of Motion

  • Core Ed Distribution Requirements; Senator Chris Sinclair

4:59 PM   Other Business
5:00 PM   Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!

US18/19-16: Supporting the Other Academic Units and requesting more equitable expediture reductions

Date of Notice: April 18, 2019
Current Status: Approved April 24, 2019
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsor: Ed Davis, Senator


Section I

1.1  WHEREAS the University of Oregon’s mission statement says that it strives for, “… the generation, dissemination, preservation, and application of knowledge”; and

1.2  WHEREAS the Values enumerated in the mission statement include, “We value the unique geography, history and culture of Oregon that shapes our identity and spirit,” and, “We value our shared charge to steward resources sustainably and responsibly”; and

1.3  WHEREAS the Museum of Natural and Cultural History and the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art are both accredited by the American Alliance of Museums, reflecting the uniformly high quality of their curatorial practices, collections-based research, and public-facing outreach programs, placing them in the highest ranks of museums in the United States; and

1.4  WHEREAS the exhibits and collections at the Museum of Natural and Cultural History and the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art are used by faculty in allied units in the College of Arts and Sciences and the College of Design for both undergraduate education and original research; and

1.5  WHEREAS the Museum of Natural and Cultural History is the designated repository for anthropological and fossil collections in the state of Oregon and was recognized with a National Medal for Museum and Library Service in 2018; and

1.6  WHEREAS the Labor Education and Research Center has, for the last 42 years, strived to improve the lives of Oregon’s workers, their families, and their communities through integrated education, research, and public service that supports a strong, inclusive union movement; and

1.7  WHEREAS the Oregon Bach Festival has, for almost half a century, presented masterworks of J.S. Bach and composers inspired by his work to audiences in Eugene and across Oregon, offering educational opportunities, children and family programming, and community events, while supporting the academic mission of the School of Music and Dance; and

1.8  WHEREAS the University of Oregon must balance its budget through $11.6 million in expenditure reductions, but has chosen to reduce the budgets of these units by a combined $1.2 million, or 10% of the total of the University’s expenditure reduction, averaging out to 23% of the overall budgets of each of these units (including both UO funds and state allocations); and

1.9  WHEREAS the budget reductions of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art will be 15.1%, the Museum of Natural and Cultural History will be 16.6%, the Oregon Bach Festival will be 24.4%, and the Labor Education and Research Center will be 45% of each of their General Fund budgets.

Section II

2.1  THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Senate of the University of Oregon affirms the intrinsic value of the academic work of these units, recognizing that their work in preserving and educating Oregonians in the unique geography, history, and culture of Oregon is central to the University’s mission,

2.2  BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the disproportionate cuts to these units that serve to generate, disseminate, preserve, and apply knowledge of Oregon’s labor relations, arts, cultural history, and evolutionary and geological history, do not reflect an appropriate stewardship of those resources sustainably and responsibly. Consequently, we, the Senate, request that the University of Oregon rethink its plan for expenditure reductions to distribute them more equitably across all units.

Note: Technical change to 1.9 made 4/21, replacing “overall” with “General Fund”.

Senate Meeting Agenda – April 10, 2019


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to order

  • Remarks: President Schill
  • Introductory Remarks. To include budget crisis, our regional accreditor’s proposed changes to standards, University nominations survey, Dean’s nights at Faculty Club; Senate Pres Bill Harbaugh

3:30 PM   Approval of Minutes

3:30 PM     Business/ Reports:

4:50 PM   Open Discussion
4:51 PM   Reports

  • Legislative update, Melanie Muenzer (OtP)

4:58 PM   Notice(s) of Motion

4:59 PM   Other Business
5:00 PM   Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!

US18/19-13: Approval of Curriculum Report, Winter 2019

Date of Notice: January 16, 2019
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 Winter Term 2019 Preliminary Curriculum Report (Addendum 03/13/2019) for the University Senate review;

Section II

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – February 13, 2019

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

3:00 P.M.    Call to order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • University update: President Mike Schill

3:15 PM    Approval of Minutes

3:20 PM      Business/ Reports:

4:55 PM    Open Discussion
4:56 PM    Reports

  • Oregon Legislative updates: Melanie Muenzer, Robert Garral

4:58 PM    Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM    Other Business
PM    Adjourn to Faculty Club, all invited!

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 30, 2019

DRAFT (updated 1/30 and 1/29 regarding the sexual relationships policy and Teaching Evals disclaimer language)

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

3:00 P.M.    Call to order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:15 PM    Approval of Minutes

3:20 PM      Business/ Reports:

  • Discussion: US18/19-06: New Program Proposal: Ph.D. in Ethnic Studies; Lynn Fujiwara (ES), Ernesto Martinez (ES), Laura Pulido (ES) and Lara Bovilsky (Grad Council)
  • Vote: US18/19-07: Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power: Sexual, Physically Intimate, or Romantic Relationships with Students; Sonja Boos (German & Scandinavian), Jessica Price (General Counsel’s Office). NOTE from Senate Pres: This policy was given to the Senate by the CSGBV at our Jan 16th meeting. The text of that version of the policy is here.  CSGBV co-chairs Sonja Boos and Ib Gassama have been working with senators and CSGBV members on new language to incorporate issues raised in the Senate discussion. That revised version is here. At the Senate meeting I will ask for a motion to substitute it by amendment, so that we can proceed to debate this revised version, and consider any additional amendments from the floor.
  • [SUSPENSION OF RULES] Teaching Evals Disclaimer Language; Bill Harbaugh
  • Discussion: Carol Gering, New VP for Online & Distance Education
  • Vote:  US18/19-05: Changes to Department Honors Process; Ron Bramhall
  • Discussion: Process for new program approval when course approvals are pending; Frances White
  • Oregon Legislative updates; Melanie Muenzer

4:55 PM    Open Discussion
4:56 PM    Reports
4:57 PM    Notice(s) of Motion

  • Academic Continuity Plan; Frances White

4:54 PM    Other Business
PM    Adjourn

US18/19-06: New Program Proposal: Ph.D. in Ethnic Studies

Date of Notice: December 11, 2018
Current Status: Approved January 30, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Graduate Council
Lynn Fujiwara, Ethnic Studies
Ernesto Martinez, Ethnic Studies
Laura Pulido, Ethnic Studies


Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

Related Documents

M.A. proposal for HECC
Ph.D. proposal for HECC
Slide Presentation



Senate Meeting Agenda – November 28, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.    Call to order

3:05 PM Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:20 PM    Presentation on Teaching Evaluation reform; Ginger Clark, USC Associate Professor of Clinical Education and former Academic Senate President

3:50 PM      Business/ Reports:

  • Teaching Evaluation Warning Language; Bill Harbaugh (See below for draft language. Discussion, possible vote)
  • Vote: US18/19-02: Approval of Curriculum Report, Fall term 2018; Frances White (Vote)
  • Policy for faculty membership on committees, task forces and advisory groups; Bill Harbaugh (Presentation and discussion)

4:20 PM    UO’s legislative agenda; Libby Batlan & Hans Bernard, UO State and Community Affairs (Presentation and discussion)

4:40 PM.    UO’s new approach to Dual Career Support; Rhonda Smith & Melanie Muenzer, Provost’s Office (Presentation and discussion)

4:56 PM    Open Discussion
4:57 PM    Reports
4:58 PM    Notice(s) of Motion
4:59 PM    Other Business
5:00 PM    Adjourn

Draft: For discussion for Senate adoption per

Warning: Bias in Student Course Evaluations

Research has shown that student evaluations, particularly numerical ratings, are marred by bias against women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other groups, and are generally unrelated to teaching effectiveness. Despite these problems, numerical ratings using our current instrument may still be collected, and past numerical ratings may still be used in teaching evaluation. The UO Senate, in cooperation with the Office of the Provost, is revising UO’s teaching evaluation instruments and practices in response to this research. During this transition, numerical student evaluations of teaching should not be used as a standalone measure of teaching quality for any university purpose. Instead, teaching should be evaluated primarily using instructor self-reflection, peer reviews, and substantive written student comments, in alignment with the academic unit’s definition of teaching excellence as that is developed.


(Note: See Uttl et al. (2017), Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related, Studies in Education Evaluation, at


Senate Meeting Agenda – November 14, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks: Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks:  Provost Banavar

3:30 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, October 17, 2018 and October 31, 2018

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

  • Retreat Debrief (Presentation slides)
  • A policy for selecting faculty members for committees that are established by the administration
  • Undergraduate Council review of admissions policies
  • Consent Calendar
  • Discussion: Intimate Relationships Policy (with Town Halls input)
  • Brief presentation on UO Leadership Academy; Chris Ruiz de Esparza and Jennifer Espinola
  • Academic Council: Emergency and/or Contingency Planning
  • Discussion: Conflict of Interest/Conflict of Commitment Policy draft; Cass Moseley and Elizabeth Skowron

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 31, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks : Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:15 P.M.  New Business

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

US18/19-01: Approval of Online Sports Product Management program

Date of Notice: Oct 9, 2018

Current Status: Approved October 31, 2018

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Graduate Council


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the Graduate Council met on October 24, 2018, to discuss the proposal for a new online delivery mode for the existing Master’s of Science degree in Sports Product Management as attached to this motion; and

1.2 WHEREAS the Graduate Council deemed the proposal to meet the University’s standards for a graduate degree, and therefore voted to recommend that the Senate approve the proposed degree;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approves online delivery of the Master’s of Science degree in Sports Product Management, and authorizes the Provost to take the necessary steps to move forward with it.

ONLINE Sports Product Management proposal

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 17, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks and retreat plans: Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks: President Mike Schill
  • Remarks: ASUO President Maria Gallegos-Chacon

3:30 P.M.  New Business

4:45 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:55 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 3, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks; Senate Vice President Elizabeth Skowron
  • Remarks; Provost Banavar
  • Remarks; Bob Guldberg (Knight Campus)

3:40 P.M.  Votes

3:45 P.M.   New Business

Discussion of upcoming policies, discussions and issues for fall quarter

4:45 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports

  • Status of committee reports and where to find them

4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:56 P.M.   Other Business

  • Senate Retreat: October 31, 2018

5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Defacement/Improvement of University Mission Statement

From: Bill Harbaugh <>

Subject: Defacement/improvement of University Mission Statement

Date: August 23, 2018 at 9:13:55 PM PDT
To: Adriene Lim <>
Cc: Mike Schill <>, Jayanth Banavar <>, Ed Teague <>, Elizabeth Skowron <>, ASUO President <>, Chris Sinclair <>

Dear Dean of Libraries Lim –

I’m writing to you regarding the defacement (or perhaps it should be called an unofficial improvement) of “The Mission of a University” mural in the Knight Library, specifically the red-marker redaction of the words “racial heritage”. This is shown in the image below, which a UO faculty member sent me today.

Classes are not yet in session, so I have not been able to consult with the Senate on this. However my official view as Senate President is that this change is an act of historical significance and free-speech which should be preserved, or at least be prominently documented, so long as this mural remains on display.


Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate President
University of Oregon

Dean Lim’s Response

mission statement defacement


Senate Meeting Agenda – June 6, 2018


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


Senate Meeting Agenda – May 23, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Chris Sinclair
  • 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


5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate Exec Coordinator Betina Lynn talks about surviving Thurston school shooting

In the RG here:

… “I would love to move on, not have anxiety, go out to crowded places and be comfortable,” Lynn said. “I’m not hanging onto it. It’s hanging onto me.”

She recalls first trying to “have a life away” from that of a survivor of the Thurston shooting a couple years later, but “crashing hard” when the full impact of the incident hit her.

Lynn later enrolled at Lane Community College in 2003 and graduated from the University of Oregon in 2007 with a bachelor’s degree in ethnic studies with a minor in Spanish. The UO hired her not long after graduation, and she works as the University Senate’s executive coordinator.

She said she had an online exchange earlier this year with a person who said he needed a gun to feel safe in Eugene and that led her to be invited to speak at an anti-gun violence March for Our Lives rally on March 24.

She feels “inspired” by the group of students from Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla., who have taken a lead role in the national discussion on school shootings and gun violence, and she hopes their efforts may help them deal with the aftereffects of witnessing a mass killing.

“They’re not being silenced, and I think that is going to be helpful to their long-term healing,” Lynn said. …

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 9, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

3:20 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.” (

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

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
  • 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; 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:


Oregon Law on classroom evaluations by students

(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


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:

16) Selection Process:

17) Additional Information:

Sample: Instructor Reflection

Sample: End-of-Term Student Experience

Jessica Marquez Candidate Statement 2018

Jessica’s bright and beaming smile and friendly demeanor warms and welcomes students, staff, and faculty to Allen Hall. As the SOJC’s Human Resource Manager, with over ten years in the industry, Jessica has experience building policy from the ground up and knows how to bring creative cohesion into a complex office setting. With two young girls at home, she’s no stranger to managing a very busy work-life balance. With the interest in what’s best for students and employees, Jessica seeks to create a learning and working environment at the UO that leaves a positive, lasting impression.

Micah Sardell Candidate Statement 2018

Micah Sardell is the Director of Enterprise Systems at Information Services within the University of Oregon.  He has been an engaged, trusted, and customer-focused IT leader at the University of Oregon for the past 15 years and has served as a member of the OA Council for the past two years.  During his service on the OA Council he has held the OA Council leadership roles of OA Council Secretary and OA Council Co-Vice Chair.

Micah is seeking re-election to continue to serve the OA Community in a leadership role for the next two years.  During the upcoming two years he hopes to lead the completion of a final report and action plan as an outcome of the OA Council Workplace Climate Survey and Listening Tour exercises.  He will also continue to serve OA’s in a leadership capacity, highlighting OA employment issues through the connections he has developed with senior campus leadership.

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:

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:

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


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


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

All seats

Respect & Community Values
1 Research faculty

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



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


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


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

Senate Meeting Agenda – March 14, 2018


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


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


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:

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


Senate Meeting Agenda – January 31, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, 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


Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

Related Documents

17 Point Chart – FINAL-03/09/2018

Date of Effectiveness:

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

Dear Members of the UO Research Community:

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

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

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

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

Key changes in the revised Common Rule include:

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

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

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

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

David Conover
Vice President for Research & Innovation,


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

Date of Notice: January 10, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

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


Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

Related Documents

HB 2998 Report – Final Commission

Outcomes and criteria for transfer of Gen Ed

Power Point Presentation – Jan. 17 2018

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 17, 2018


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

3:30 P.M. Approval of Minutes, November 29, 2017

3:35 P.M.   Business

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

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

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


Senate Meeting Agenda – November 29, 2017


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

3:40 P.M. Approval of Minutes, November 1, 2017 and November 15, 2017

3:45 P.M.   Business

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


US17/18-05: Approval of Curriculum Report, Fall 2017

Date of Notice: November 1, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Frances White (Anth); Chair of UOCC


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Fall 2017 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate review;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED the University Senate approve the Fall 2017 Curriculum Report as submitted by the UO Committee on Courses.

UO Common Reading Program

Common Reading at the UO has been a campus-wide program in Undergraduate Studies since 2014.  Its goals are building community, enriching curriculum, and engaging research through the shared reading of an important book.

The selected book for 2017-18 is Louise Erdrich’s The Round House. Guest scholars and artists as well as UO faculty, staff, and students have been engaging with the book and its associated themes and contexts.  Curricular resources are available for faculty using the book in classrooms as well as discussion groups throughout campus (See A list of past, current, and upcoming public events for the academic year can be found at

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

As part of the committee’s review process, we invite all Senate members to share insights on the list provided below. Comments can be shared via by Monday, December 4. Selection criteria are available at

Common Reading Book Nominations currently under review.

1)      Exit West by Mohsin Hamid

2)      The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui

3)      Home Fire by Kamila Shamsie

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

5)      Salvage the Bones by Jesmyn Ward

6)      Homegoing by Yaa Gyasi

7)      No Longer At Ease by Chinua Achebe

8)      A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki

9)      Lucky Boy by Shanthi Sekaran

10)   Under the Feet of Jesus by Helena Maria Viramontes

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

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

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

Date of Notice: November 15, 2017

Current Status: Approved November 29, 2017

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Student Senator


Section I

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

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

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

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

1.4 WHEREAS the preamble of the Student Conduct Code reads:

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

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

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

1.7 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Academic Freedom says

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


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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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

Related Documents:

Oregonian Op-Ed  – July 2018

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 15, 2017


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

4:00 P.M.   New Business

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 1, 2017


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

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

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

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

4:30 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:30 P.M.   Reports
4:30 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:30 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

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

This month, a handful of student protesters at the University of Oregon blocked me from delivering my state-of-the-university speech, one of my jobs as president. I had planned to announce a $50 million gift that would fund several new programs. I ended up posting a recorded version of the speech online.

Armed with a megaphone and raised fists, the protesters shouted about the university’s rising tuition, a perceived corporatization of public higher education and my support for free speech on campus — a stance they said perpetuated “fascism and white supremacy.”

Read more [here].

Note that the Senate and Senate leadership do not necessarily endorse President Schill’s views in this op-ed.  However, I do believe this is an important conversation we need to have as a campus and I am boosting the op-ed in the spirit of continued dialog on the topic. -CDS

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 18, 2017


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

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

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

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

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

CORE Education Task Force

Core Education Task Force

Accreditors want us to have a faculty committee responsible for supervising the “Core Education” requirements of the university. Core Education is taken to include general education requirements, multicultural requirements, required writing courses, and BA/BS requirements. This may also include first year programs such as FIGs (Freshman Interest Groups) and ARCs (Academic Residence Communities). The Senate needs a task force to specify the scope of such a committee and how it relates to the existing academic committee structure.

Charge: Continue reading CORE Education Task Force

Diversity, Power, Agency Task Force

The Diversity, Power, Agency task force (DPA) has been asked to review the Multicultural Requirement (MCR) and make recommendations for updates/revisions. The following are excerpts  from the task force’s conversations thus far. This project is ongoing and feedback is encouraged. Continue reading Diversity, Power, Agency Task Force

Senate Meeting Agenda – October 4, 2017


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

3:45 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, June 7, 2017

3:45 P.M.   New Business

4:30 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:31 P.M.   Reports
4:32 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

IDEAL Framework Implementation

September 14, 2017

Bill Harbaugh
Senate Vice President

Dear Bill:

I hope that your summer has been restful and that your preparations for fall term are going smoothly.

As we look forward to the implementation stage of the Diversity Action Plans (DAPs), we are preparing an ecosystem of support that will facilitate the new programming as well as policies, partnerships, and innovations in our schools, colleges, and administrative units. The first step in this process is to reconfigure the University-Wide Diversity Committee (UWDC) as an infrastructure for IDEAL implementation, which will involve establishing and staffing a new committee and subcommittee structure. At that stage, we will need the participation of faculty, staff, GEs and students who are interested in this work. Attached, please find a table that we are using to guide the next phase of this process forward. The table lists the working groups being formed and their charges. The groups were selected based on tactics that appeared across multiple units’ DAPs.

I write today to ask for your assistance in identifying and recommending colleagues from the UO Senate, who can assist us in carrying out the next steps/working group charge for the following tactics:
* Climate Survey Development and Analytics
* Implicit Bias Professional Development*
* Evaluating Existing Workshops, Professional Development Programs/Gap Analysis*
* Recruiting Processes, Outlets, and Retention Tools*
* Professional Development Pilot Programs
* Leadership Succession Planning*
* Onboarding and Training for New Employees and New Supervisors*
While recommendations for service on any working group is welcome and appreciated, those groups flagged with an asterisk (*) are in the greatest need of membership.

As you recommend colleagues, please also suggest the capacity in which they might serve (committee member, chair, co-chair, etc.) Be assured that each of the committees and subcommittees will be staffed and supported by a DEI team member. It is our intent to ensure that meetings are carried efficiently and make the best use of committee members’ time and expertise.

It will be wonderful to get your feedback by September 30, 2017 so that we can include it in the proposed work plan for President Schill. Once we get approval from him, we will move forward to establish our working groups so that they are ready to begin meeting fall 2017. Let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Yvette M. Alex-Assensoh
Vice President for Equity and Inclusion

CC:      Chris Sinclair
Lesley-Anne Pittard
Vickie De Rose
Kelly Pembleton
Samantha Zysett

Working Group Charges

Great moments in UO shared governance

A helpful reader passes on what he swears are actual Faculty Assembly Resolutions from the 82-82 academic year archives:

Resolutions: “The Assembly politely requests the President to convey to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second their hearty congratulations on the glorious resolution of the Falklands crisis.”

“The Assembly equally condemns the Nicaraguan persecution of the Moskito Indians and the actions of those Americans who support murder and vandalism in Northern Ireland.”

“The Assembly supplicates the President to open meetings with the following prayer: O Almighty Lord God, who for the sin of man didst once drown all the world, except eight persons, and afterward of thy great mercy didst promise never to destroy it so again; we humbly beseech thee, that although we for our iniquities have worthily deserved a plague of rain and waters, yet upon our true repentance thou wilt send us such weather, as that we may receive the fruits of the earth in due season….Amen. (If the weather changes, the prayer for rain may be substituted.)

Meetings will conclude with the singing of the Star Spangled Banner.”

“Be it resolved, that structural incongruity is essential to a liberal university.”

“Though it may not be common knowledge, the Soviet Union, and Tsarist Russia before it, have had a dismal record of unprovoked attacks on weaker nations. (Insert here a history of Russia from any standard encyclopedia.) Accordingly, the Assembly earnestly exhorts the President of the United States to use the greatest circumspection in arms negotiations with the Soviet Union. (To be moved as a substitute for Professor Straton’s motion)””

“In view of the alarming incidence of Herpes, the Assembly strongly recommends to members of the University community who do not have the gift of continence that they confine their sexual activities to monogamous relationships, preferably within the bonds of holy matrimony. Furthermore, pitying the plight of university graduates who cannot get teaching jobs because of the decline in the school population, the Assembly recommends that, where qualifications are equal, preference in new appointments shall be given to candidates who give promise of raising large families; and to reconcile this principle with affirmative action, the Assembly urges free child care facilities for married faculty. (To be moved as a substitute for Professor Ryan’s motion.)”

Motion: “Be it moved, that one can of worms is equal to any other can of worms.”

IAAC Mtg – Update: Location change

The Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee’s June 12, 2017 meeting today at 3 P.M. has been moved to EMU 140 (Rogue Room)


Student-athlete travel – next steps

Academic performance of Student-Athletes – discussion of reports provided by IR and the FAR
Time demands – depending on how much time we have left, we can start a discussion of the time student-athletes are required to devote to activity directly related to their sport

Senate Meeting Agenda – June 7, 2017


Location: EMU 145 + 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 PM

3:05 PM   Call to Order

  • Intro, announcements; Senate President Harbaugh
  • Year-end wrap up; UO President Schill

3:20 PM:  Approval of Minutes, May 24, 2017

3:21 PM : New Business

  • US16/17-29: Approval of Curriculum Report, Spring 2017; Frances White (Anth), Chair of UOCC
  • Announcement of Election results & Confirmation of committee appointments
  • Election for 2017-2018 Senate Vice President & President Elect (Conducted by VP Sinclair)
    • Candidate statement: Bill Harbaugh, Economics
    • Other nominations, if any,  from the floor
  • UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust – Diane Dietz, Register Guard
  • UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award – Kurt Willcox, University Senate
  • UO Senate Wayne Westling Award – Jennifer Freyd, Psychology
  • UO Senate Officer of Administration Leadership Award – Lisa Raleigh, College of Arts & Sciences
  • Two recognition awards

4:26 PM: Open Discussion

4:27 PM:  Reports

4:28 PM: Notices of Motions

4:29 PM: Passing of the Gavel to new President Chris Sinclair

4: 30 PM: Adjourn

Senate Awards Reception:

  • Part #1 – Refreshments and Snacks in the Crater Lake Room, 4:30 – 5:15 PM
  • Part #2 – Drinks and hors-d’oeuvres at the Faculty Club*, Senate awardees and guests welcome . 5:00 on, with a toast at 6PM.
  • Enter through the front door of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art


Voting closes at 5PM Today for Senate & Committees

Please login to your Duckweb account to access the ballot.

You will see candidate options based on your rank/classification, i.e. tenure-track teaching faculty in College of Arts & Sciences-Natural Sciences, Officer of Administration, Classified Staff and so on.

Please contact if you have questions or problems accessing the ballot.

The election closes Friday, May 19, 2017 at 5 P.M.

Candidate Bio Information can be found below:

CAS Dean’s Advisory Committee

Natural Sciences – 1 opening

  • Hans Dreyer, Human Physiology
  • N. Chris Phillips, Math – Statement

Faculty Advisory Council

CAS-Tenure-Track Faculty-Humanities – 1 opening

  • David Wacks, Romance Languages – Statement
  • Gina Herrman, Romance Languages

CAS Tenure-Track Faculty – Natural Sciences- 1 opening

  • Louis Moses, Psychology
  • Graham Kribs, Physics – Statement
  • Marina Guenza, Chemistry – Statement

CAS Tenure-Track Faculty- Social Sciences – 1 opening

Libraries – 1 opening

  • Annie Zeidman-Karpinski – Statement
  • Katy Lenn

Professional Schools – 3 openings

Officers of Administration

  • Patrick Fletchall, Oregon MBA- Statement
  • Jill Elizabeth, Law School- Statement
  • Miriam Bolton, CAS Dean’s Office – Statement
  • Lara Nesselroad, UO Libraries – Statement
  • Stacy Williams-Wright, Research & Innovation- Statement

Faculty Grievance Appeals Committee

  • John Bellamy Foster, Sociology – Statement
  • Kevin Nute, AAA – Statement
  • Peter Gilkey, Math – Statement
  • Virginia Cartwright, AAA – Statement
  • McKay Sohlberg, Education – Statement
  • Cynthia Vakareliyska, Linguistics – Statement
  • Stephen Frost, Anthropology
  • Gina Herrman, Romance Languages

Faculty Personnel Committee

Business – 1 opening

  • Jiao Zhang

CAS – 2 openings

  • Marcin Bownik, Math
  • David Wacks, Romance Languages – Statement
  • Gina Herrmann, Romance Languages
  • Sean McClelland, AEI – Statement
  • Steven van Enk, Physics
  • Dejing Dou, Computer and Information Science

Education – 1 opening

  • Kent McIntosh, Special Ed – Statement
  • Marilyn Nippold, Communication Disorders

Graduate Council

Education – 1 opening

  • Lisa Mazzei, Ed Studies – Statement
  • Angie Whalen, Ed Psych – Statement
  • Wendy Machalicek, Special Ed

SOJC – 1 opening

Intercollegiate Athletics Advisory Committee – 2 openings

Officers of Administration Council – 4 openings

  • Janelle McCoy, Oregon Bach Festival – Statement
  • Patrick Fletchall, Business – Statement
  • Jill Elizabeth, Law School – Statement
  • Stephanie McGee, Internal Audit – Statement
  • Emily Farrell, Law School – Statement
  • Katie Bumgardner, Internal Audit – Statement
  • David Bartlett, Information Services – Statement
  • Dietrich Moore, Services for Student Athletes – Statement
  • Emily Williams, AAA – Statement

Promotion-Tenure-Retention-Appeal Committee – 2 openings

  • Cynthia Vakareliyska, Linguistics – Statement
  • David Jacobs, Music & Dance – Statement
  • Dejing Dou, Computer and Information Science
  • Gina Herrmann, Romance Languages

University Senate

AAA – 2 openings

  • Laura Leete, PPPM – Statement
  • Elisabeth “Liska” Chan, Landscape Architecture – Statement

CAS Humanities – 3 openings

CAS Natural Sciences – 4 openings

  • N. Chris Phillips, Math – Statement
  • Hans Dreyer, Human Physiology
  • Margaret Sereno, Psychology – Statement
  • Anthony Hornof, Computer and Information Science
  • Adrienne Huxtable, Human Physiology
  • Tom Greenbowe, Chemistry – Statement
  • Carrie McCurdy, Human Physiology
  • Mike Hahn, Human Physiology

CAS Social Sciences – 3 openings

  • William Harbaugh, Economics – Statement
  • Katie Meehan, Geography
  • Nelson Ting, Anthropology
  • John Bellamy Foster, Sociology – Statement
  • Madonna Moss, Anthropology – Statement
  • Daniel Buck, Geography
  • Jane Cramer, Political Science

Education – 2 openings

  • Marilyn Nippold, Communication Disorders
  • Sylvia Thompson, Special Ed
  • John Seeley, Special Ed

Law – 1 opening

Library- 1 opening

Music and Dance

Non-Tenure-Track Research Faculty – 1 opening

Classified Staff

  • Paula Seeger, UO Libraries – Statement
  • Marie Swarringim, Campus Planning, Design & Construction – Statement
  • Zach Benedict, AEI – Statement
  • Terry McQuilkin, UO Libraries – Statement
  • Jay Butler, Business Affairs Office – Statement

Officers of Administration – 2 openings

  • William Blood, Intercollegiate Athletics – Statement
  • Cheryl Ernst, AEI  – Statement
  • Keith Frazee, Enrollment Management – Statement
  • Stephanie McGee, Internal Audit – Statement

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 24, 2017

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

3:00 pm    Call to Order

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

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

3:36 pm    New Business

3:56 pm    Open Discussion

  • CAS shared governance update, Senate VP Chris Sinclair

3:59 pm    Reports

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

4:39 pm    Notice(s) of Motion

4:40 pm    Other Business

Executive Session:

Vote on Awards

5:00 pm    Adjournment

2017 UO Board Faculty Trustee nominees

5/8/2017 update:

Dear Senators: Here is the latest info I have on the Faculty Trustee nomination process:

On Behalf Of CAPPS Lindsey D * GOV
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2017 2:14 PM
Cc: Angela Wilhelms <>; MOLLER Mary * GOV <>
Subject: Thank you for applying – University of Oregon Board of Trustees

Good morning,

Thank you for applying to serve on the University of Oregon Board of Trustees. We will be appointing this position over the next few months, with Senate Confirmation to follow in September of this year. In the meantime, we will soon reach out to schedule individual interviews with each candidate. We are not seeking additional applications at this time.

Thank you,

Lindsey Capps

Chief Education Officer |

Education Policy Advisor to Governor Kate Brown

Senate Pres Harbaugh


Dear UO Community:

Here are the application materials and statements for the 5 nominees for UO Board Faculty Trustee. The Senate leadership will poll the faculty members of the Senate this week on the nominees and we will send that information to the Governor’s Office, along with our recommendations.

Bill Harbaugh, Senate President & Econ Prof.

Lillian Duran (Associate Professor of Special Ed & Clinical Sciences) Application Materials

Statement: As the first generation in my family to attend college I am acutely aware of the challenges many young adults must overcome to be able to pursue higher education. The University of Oregon represents opportunity, hope, and prosperity to thousands of students every year and it employs and produces some of the most renown scholars in the country. I am honored to be a new faculty member in the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences and am excited at the opportunity to serve the University on the Board of Trustees. My interest comes from a desire to support the continued excellence of the institution and to support innovation and growth as the university continues to evolve to remain a leader in higher education. I was a special education teacher for 10 years before pursuing my PHD. My area of research focuses on developing educational assessments and interventions for young children who speak languages other than English at home. I am dedicated to supporting, diversity, equity, and inclusion both in my professional and personal life and I will bring this dedication and focus to the Board. I appreciate this opportunity to be considered for the Board of Trustees and look forward to many years ahead as an active and engaged member of the UO community.

Marina Guenza (Professor of Chemistry) Application Materials

Statement: The University of Oregon is in a moment of transformation, facing many challenges but also many emerging opportunities. With a new governance structure in place, a dynamic President, and a newly hired Provost, and with the development of the new Knight campus, the University of Oregon is experiencing an exciting moment of transformation and grow. Establishing the right balance between supporting research excellence and providing a first rate education within current economic constraints is one of the many challenges that our University faces. In a continuously changing environment, faculty, staff, administrators, and students are working together to make the U of O an excellent, inclusive, and welcoming place to work and to study. In this framework, the Board of Trustees is an essential component to the institution, as it provides support to the work of the President.  As a member of the Board, I will have the opportunity to bring the voice of the faculty into the many complex governance challenges, while facilitating the connection between the university’s governing body and its shared governance institution. It would be a honor for me to serve.

Laura Lee McIntyre (Professor of School Psychology) Application Materials

Statement: I am a professor in school psychology and head of the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences at the University of Oregon. My research focuses on promoting positive child and family outcomes for children with developmental and behavioral problems through family- and school-based interventions. I have been at the University of Oregon since 2009 and have served on the University Senate, University Faculty Personnel Committee, Research Advisory Board through the Office of the Vice President for Research, and nationally as president of the American Psychological Association’s Division on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities/Autism Spectrum Disorders. I have won awards for my research, teaching, and service. Through my engagement in leadership and service at UO, I have learned more about the strengths and challenges of our academic programs, departments, schools and colleges, and university at-large. For example, I currently serve on the University Senate and the University Faculty Personnel (FPC) Committee. Both of these positions have expanded my perspective of university wide issues that are germane to the health and functioning of our university. Issues pertaining to promoting research excellence through rigorous promotion and tenure evaluation (through my work on the FPC) to issues of academic matters, transparency, and shared governance (through my work on the University Senate) are at the heart of these committees. I have both national leadership experience and local board of director experience. To that end, I understand the important fiduciary responsibility associated with the UO Board of Trustees. I believe that my extensive University of Oregon service, commitment to excellence in higher education, and focus on issues of equity and inclusion make me a strong candidate for this position.

Barbara Mossberg (Professor of Practice, Honors College) Application Materials

Dear Governor Brown and Oregon Community,

I deeply appreciate and am excited by the opportunity to explore with you the possibility of my serving in the role of Faculty Trustee for the University of Oregon Board of Trustees. Towards that end, I am attaching my Statement of Interest, a curriculum vita, and resume (which is the on the official pages of the University of Oregon Clark Honors College Core Faculty). This latter is a short bio, teaching philosophy, excerpted cv and teaching info of interest to prospective students, parents, and advisors. 

I would be happy to meet with you or anyone engaged in the decision about this appointment, in person, or in whatever forms are most convenient, including on line. I would also be happy to provide you with additional materials, including references from our students, colleagues, staff, and parents of my students (who write and meet with me); since I have colleagues from my earliest days at the university in the 1970s and 1980s, colleagues through the past forty years, and new peer relationships now in the last few years, I can include examples for you from each category. I also can provide you examples of published work on arts and sciences approaches to higher education leadership and work with governing boards, and narratives of my work to represent the culture of UO.  I stand by to help however I can in this process.

One of the things I most love about this opportunity to serve UO by engaging productively and collaboratively with our Board is bringing to bear the experience Oregon first launched me in–the interaction with our community in business, civic leadership, education, arts, media, law, healthcare, and culture–around a common cause of the greatest solution for society, higher education. I know from my over forty years in our community and representing higher education that we face a host of issues. However, for dealing with the most critical and urgent needs of democratic society, we have solutions that involve the most conscientious, generous, civic-minded, creative, earnest, and devoted citizens from every sector, at every level, and these coalesce in higher education. 

I see enormous stakes in the governance of UO, and I would love to serve at this threshold moment for the University as we move into the emergent science initiatives, increased dedication to diverse and inclusive learning culture, support for creative and innovative curriculum, and greater engagement across disciplinary and cultural lines. It is a tremendous moment for the University in identifying resources and will. I have represented Oregon so long, the state and character of our people, that you will forgive my optimism and belief that there is a reason Henry David Thoreau said in the 1840s as he developed a groundwork for the inextricably connected civil liberties and human rights, and environmental legislation: “I will walk towards Oregon.” There is something here that makes for national models and hope. I would love to help give voice to this.

Joe Sventek (Professor of Computer Science) Application Materials

Statement: In a career spanning nearly 40 years, I have held both technical and financial leadership roles in industrial and academic settings. Since arriving at UO in September 2014, I have led major initiatives for the VPRI and Provost, and have been a Wise Head adviser to the CAS Dean, in addition to my roles as Professor and Head of the Computer and Information Science Department. At HP Laboratories, I successfully created a new company to produce products based upon research in my unit, thus creating jobs and tax revenue in the state of California; this startup company, TimesTen Performance Software, was acquired by Oracle for ~$500M in 2005.  From my leadership positions in academia, I have gained an excellent understanding of the strategic challenges facing universities, in general, and UO, in particular. I also have direct experience with shared governance, having been a member of Senate at my previous institution. All through my career, I have tried to benefit my unit while contributing to the success of the overarching enterprise. If given the opportunity, I will bring all my skills, experience, and energy to being an effective trustee, as well as work with the Senate in order to represent UO faculty concerns in board deliberations.

Zoltan Varga Candidate Statement 2017

I was born and raised in Germany (Hungarian descent), studied at the University of Basel, Switzerland, where I obtained my Diploma and PhD in Cell Biology/Neurobiology. I was a post-doc in Prof. Westerfield’s laboratory at the UO between 1995 – 1999, then returned to the University of Freiburg, Germany, Department of Biology/Developmental Biology, as Junior Research Group Leader. In 2004, I returned to Eugene to work at the Zebrafish International Resource Center. I also serve on the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the UO.

Jack Boss Candidate Statement 2017

Jack Boss is Professor of Music Theory and Composition in the School of Music and Dance, and has been teaching at the U of O since 1995. His research focuses on analyzing the music of Arnold Schoenberg. His book “Schoenberg’s Twelve-Tone Music,” published by Cambridge University Press in 2014, was given the Wallace Berry Award by the Society for Music Theory.

David Jacobs Candidate Statement 2017

David Jacobs is the music director of the University of Oregon Symphony and teaches graduate courses in conducting. He has presented internationally and published in peer-reviewed journals relating to musical hermeneutics, semiology, and pedagogy. As a partitioner, he is credited on three commercially released recordings and has conducted professional orchestras on three continents.

Emily Farrell Candidate Statement 2017

Emily Farrell joined the University of Oregon School of Law as Associate Director for Career Planning and Professional Development in 2016. She was previously a general legal practitioner, whose specialty areas included trusts and estates, probate, business, real estate, and landlord/tenant law. While Emily greatly enjoyed managing a successful legal practice, she returned to the University of Oregon because she is passionate about sharing her experience in order to help facilitate continued growth and success of students, alumni, and the University as a whole.

Emily returned to Lane County in 2003 and is extremely dedicated to her community. She has volunteered consistently for the past number of years with Lane County Legal Aid and Advocacy Center’s Senior Law Clinic, presently serves on the Board of Directors for both the HIV Alliance and Lane County Bar Association, and has enjoyed working with the Oregon State Legislature.

As a “Double-Duck,” Emily earned both her undergraduate and Law degrees from the University of Oregon.

Charles Butler Candidate Statement 2017

I am an instructor in the School of Journalism and Communication completing my second year at the UO. Prior to coming to the UO, I was an adjunct journalism instructor back east at Lehigh University and Ursinus College. I have been a magazine writer and editor for much of my career. I have written for the New York Times, Runner’s World, and Fortune, among other publications. I have written two sports-oriented books. One with Olympic swim coach Bob Bowman (of Michael Phelps fame) and one with a triathlete who suffered life-threatening injuries before returning to competition. — Charlie Butler

Susan Sokolowski Candidate Statement 2017

Susan Sokolowski, PhD, has over 25 years of performance sporting goods experience, working cross-functionally between footwear, apparel and equipment in creative and strategic roles. Her work is holistic in nature, where consideration of the athlete’s body form, performance, psychology, sport, materials and styling are addressed to develop game-changing innovation solutions. She is specifically focused on issues surrounding design of products for special populations, including women, children, and disabled athletes. Susan has been recognized internationally for her achievements in design and innovation, including over 35 utility and design patents, awards from the United States Olympic Committee and Volvo, and featured product design at the Design Museum London. A motivational coach and mentor, Susan is committed to inspiring students in product design, development and business. Susan is a graduate of the University of Minnesota (PhD), Cornell University (MA) and the Fashion Institute of Technology (BFA).

Recent news/press: UO duo’s design makes final round of Department of Defense research competition; New sports product design students already creating, fabricating, winning; UO product design teams take top prizes at QuackCon; Women’s Olympics uniforms topic of UO professor’s research; cUriOus: Students Designing Sports Gear (Jefferson Public Radio), Playing on the Team: Sports Branding and Design

Seth Lewis Candidate Statement

Seth Lewis is the founding holder of the Shirley Papé Chair in Emerging Media in the School of Journalism and Communication, having joined Oregon in 2016. Previously, he was an associate professor at the University of Minnesota. His research and teaching focus on the social implications of media technologies, particularly in the context of journalism.

Lara Nesselroad Candidate Statement 2017

I am a big fan of people being supported in being their best selves, and in helping augment the voices of people who are not being heard. That’s true in pretty much any context, and is probably more relevant than information about my work and educational history, but I am an UO alum (English, 1992) and I’ve been staff and then OA since 1991.

Miriam Bolton Candidate Statement 2017

I have previously served on the OA Council (four years; three as chair); Served on the Senate Executive Committee (three years) and on the Campus Planning Committee (three years). In addition, I was the 2015 University Senate award for Distinguished Service and Leadership. My experiences across campus as an employee and a non-tradition student provides a unique perspective. I believe that I can be of service to the President and Provost on the Faculty Advisory Committee.

John Bonine Candidate Statement 2017

I am willing and interested in continuing to serve as Senator from the Law School. I have served on the University Senate Executive Committee for several years, advising various Senate Presidents in our bi-weekly meetings. I regularly volunteer for ad hoc working groups and committees set up by the Senate or administration, including ones involving reporting of sexual assault, confidentiality of student medical information, writing of the University Constitution, academic freedom, and others. I consider service to be an important part of my contribution to the law school and university.

McKay Sohlberg Candidate Statement 2017

McKay Moore Sohlberg is the director of the Communication Disorders & Sciences program in the College of Education. In that position I am the academic advisor to 60 graduate students annually and am interested in service that allows me to apply skills to help students and faculty work collaboratively and fairly to solve issues that arise in the course of study and work.

Deanna Linville-Knobelspiesse Candidate Statement 2017

Deanna Linville is an Associate Professor in Counseling Psychology and Human Services as well as the program director for the Couples and Family Therapy graduate program. She has been at the University of Oregon since 2003 and has been actively involved in service to her home department and college as well as at the university level. Deanna is an intervention researcher focusing on reducing health disparities and developing/testing innovative solutions to issues impacting families such as eating disorders, violence and chronic illness. Deanna is an advocate for ensuring a quality educational experiences for all students as well as shared governance at all levels of the institution.

Rich Margerum Candidate Statement 2017

I have been at the University of Oregon since 2001, where I am a Professor and Head of the Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management (PPPM). My research focuses on collaborative governance, particularly as it relates to metropolitan planning and environmental management. I have served on the University Senate since 2012 and served on numerous committees at the School and University levels.

Joshua Razink Candidate Statement 2017

After graduating with a Master’s of Science in 2011 from the UO I became the lab manager and then director for the Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM) lab in the Center for Advanced Materials Characterization at Oregon (CAMCOR). CAMCOR is a high tech extension service under the office of the Vice-President of Research and Innovation (VPRI). I have also served as a member of the representative assembly for United Academics since its inception.

Greg Bryant Candidate Statement 2017

As the current NTTF Research Senator, I’ve spent two years working towards genuine shared governance on issues of importance to the whole community. This included resisting tendencies towards managerialism and administrative asymmetric action, and instead promoting principles of broad community collaboration, operational transparency, and personal agency.

Kathy Stroud Candidate Statement 2017

Kathy Stroud has been the Geography/Maps/GIS subject librarian at Knight library for more than 6 years. She has a Masters in Library and Information Science from the University of Maryland where she also completed Master’s Level coursework in Geography. She received her BS in Biology/Ecology from Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Prior to becoming a librarian she worked as an environmental scientist in the Washington, DC area. She is interested in promoting a diverse, welcoming, sustainable environment at the UO. Service on the Environmental Issues Committee would take advantage of experience working in environmental impact and assessment.

David Ketchum Candidate Statement

David is the Head, Access Services at UO Libraries. He has over 16 years of academic library experience spanning access services, technical support, reference, and instruction. David volunteers at the Edison Elementary School library in Eugene, and is professionally active. He has presented at numerous international, national, and regional conferences, and is a member of several professional organizations and round tables including the American Library Association, Association of College and Research Libraries, and the GLBT Round Table. David also serves on the Northwest Interlibrary Loan and Resource Sharing Conference Board, as well as the Editorial Advisory Board for the “Advances in Library Administration and Management” publication. His professional interests include library management, resource sharing, and assessment, and he spends much of his free time adventuring in the mountains with his kids.

Anita Weiss Candidate Statement 2017

As a professor of International Studies, my expertise lies in comparative development, gender & development and political Islam. I will be in Pakistan the second half of fall term and all of winter term on a Guggenheim Research award – so if elected to the IAC, can attend meetings through October and then again in Spring. I will happily follow issues through the internet and weigh in on matters while I am away. I have long believed we need to build better bridges between Academics and Athletics at the UO, and have enjoyed my prior service on the IAC.

Colin Koopman Candidate Statement 2017

I served as a humanities faculty representative on UO Senate from 2014-2016. During that time, I spearheaded successful legislation on data policy issues in concert with UO’s Chief Information Security Officer and our former VP for Information Services. I also worked with a team of fellow senators to craft legislation on a suite of curriculum policy issues. If elected, I look forward to returning to the Senate in September following my sabbatical break year. If elected, I will bring to the Senate a focus on enhanced institutional transparency and an attention to crafting legislation that is clear, fair, and equitable. My research focuses on issues of deliberative democracy, information privacy, and data politics.

Margaret Sereno Candidate Statement 2017

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.

Tom Greenbowe Candidate Statement 2017

Thomas Greenbowe has developed and implemented a blended guided-inquiry approach to teaching and learning general chemistry using the Science Writing Heuristic (SWH) and Process Orineted Guided Inquiry (POGIL) formats. Over the past forty years, he has facillitated over seventy workshops for science teachers and chemistry faculty in the USA and internationally, including Canada, New Zealand, Croatia, and United Arab Emirates. His chemical research education group’s web-based computer simulations are being used by over 2,000 chemical educators and their students around the world. Over the past twelve years, he has served as a Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning (POGIL) and SWH workshop facllitator for chemistry faculty across the USA. He has 36 years experience working with chemistry teaching assistants (graduate students) to provide effective classroom and laboratory instruction. Greenbowe and his colleagues have published over 50 papers about chemical education issues and research in the Journal of Chemical Education, Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Journal of College Science Teaching, and the International Journal of Science Education and has received NSF and DOE funding to support his research. Over the past forty years he has presented over 1,000 invited talks at professional meetings. Greenbowe was elected Chair-elect (2007), Chair (2008), and Immediate Past Chair (2009) of the Division of Chemical Education, American Chemical Society. He was elected Chair of the 2009 Gordon Research Conference on Chemical Education Research and Practice. He served as the General Chair of the (2004) 18th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education and is the co-Program Chair for the 2020 26th Biennial Conference on Chemical Education. Greenbowe served as on the ACS Board of Trustees Examination Institute (2007 – 2009), served on several ACS General Chemistry Exam committees, including the Laboratory Practical Exam Committee, and served as the Chair of the 1995 ACS General Chemistry Examination and the 2015 ACS General Chemistry Conceptual Examination. He served as a member of the College Board, Advance Placement Chemistry Test Development Committee (2007 – 2012). He has served as an AP Chemistry Reader, Table Leader, and Question Leader (2008-2016), including serving as Question Leader on the 2016 AP® Chemistry Reading. His efforts in assessment of chemistry have directly impacted over 500,000 students.

Thomas Greenbowe has received several major awards and recognitions for his teaching and contributions to chemistry education: 2014 American Chemical Society George C. Pimentel Award in Chemical Education; 2014 American Chemistry Society Northeast Section James Flack Norris Award for Excellence in the Teaching of Chemistry; 2013 American Chemical Society Fellow; 2013 American Chemistry Society Mid-West Regional Anne McNaley Volunteer Award.

Mike Price Candidate Statement 2017

I have been an NTTF instructor at the University since 2005, and took on the assistant department head role in 2009. I take seriously the University’s mandate to provide high quality instruction to undergraduate and graduate students and am happy to serve on inter-departmental committees that further this mission, as well as the University’s other critical responsibilities to our academic community.

William Blood Candidate Statement 2017

My name is William (Billy) Blood and I joined the University of Oregon (UO) as Assistant AD of Budget & Finance in September 2016. Prior to becoming part of the UO family, I was the Associate AD of Internal Affairs & CFO for Florida Gulf Coast University (FGCU). The following link provides further information regarding my professional experience ( I am very interested in serving on the Ombuds AAG and University Senate committees. After reviewing each opportunity, I feel my experience would positively impact and contribute towards each committees’ goals. While at FGCU I served on the Staff Advisory Council (SAC), which is similar to the OA Council at UO. I served in the Treasurer and Vice President roles for SAC and was responsible for creating the Professional Development Program that provides funds for colleagues who cannot afford to attend development opportunities ( I also served on University committees appointed by the Provost including the Safety & Facilities Committee, Budget Committee, and the Planning & Budget Council ( Currently I serve on the Community & Inclusion Committee and Sustainability Committee for Athletics and would love the opportunity to serve the campus community through the Ombuds AAG and University Senate. Thank you for your consideration and Go Ducks!

Paula Seeger Candidate Statement 2017

As a library worker, I strongly believe in dissemination of information and communicating shared governance activities with those I represent. Since I am new to the UO campus, I bring fresh eyes and an attitude of curiosity to question “the way we’ve always done things” in order to transform into more efficient and transparent operations and service. My previous experience with university governance at other institutions has prepared me for the camaraderie I hope to enjoy at UO.

Stacy Williams-Wright Candidate Statement 2017

I am a dependable, solutions driven director with deep knowledge of university finance and budget, research core facility administration, payroll and human resources administration, supervision/operations management, and project management. I have spent the last fifteen years at the University of Oregon and have been fortunate to grow through serving in five positions with progressively responsible experience during these years. Prior to UO service I worked in corporate, legal and academic settings; including assisting the Dean of the OSU Honors College in Corvallis. I currently serve on the Faculty Advisory Council as I was asked to fill in after an elected OA stepped down. I would enjoy continued service in this position and to serve a full term to help provide feedback as needed in the exciting and challenging situations we will face in the next two years at the institution.

Marie Swarringim Candidate Statement 2017

I’ve worked at the UO for nearly 9-years starting as an Office Specialist working my way up to an Executive Support Specialist. I have lived in Lane County my entire life and care deeply about the University of Oregon and the surrounding community. My child is student at the UO as well so I have a great interest in the UO being a top University that’s welcoming to everyone. I believe it’s a privilege to serve on UO committees and a great opportunity to give back to the University.

Terry McQuilkin Candidate Statement 2017

An employee of UO Libraries since 2000, I manage the day-to-day operations in Knight Library’s Audio & Video Room and provide specialized reference assistance in the area of music. As a member of the Lending Services unit, I help train student assistants and permanent employees, and maintain some of the library’s public web pages.

During my 17 years of employment at the University of Oregon, I have served on numerous library committees; I also served on the UO’s Committee on Sexual and Gender Based violence. I take a strong interest in a wide range of university-wide issues. I have attended numerous UO Senate meetings as an observer, and regularly read the Senate minutes. When appropriate, I have reached out to the classified staff senators to ask questions, share concerns and suggest actions. If elected or appointed to a committee to the UO Senate, I pledge to be proactive in dialoging with classified staff members throughout the UO community.

Before joining the staff of UO, I earned a graduate degree in music at the University of Oregon. I also serve as a part-time instructor (NTTF) in the School of Music & Dance.

Stephanie McGee Candidate Statement 2017

My career at the University of Oregon began in Human Resources where I worked in Employee and Labor Relations gaining an understanding of the campus culture and climate. I am now an Internal Auditor with the Office of Internal Audit. Both of these positions provided me the ability to gain a broad understanding of the campus community as well as challenges and opportunities faced by staff on campus. I value my work for the university because I have a lifelong commitment to higher education.
I have been an elected Officers of Administration (OA) representative on the University Senate on campus since 2015 and am seeking to continue to represent and be a strong voice for OA’s into the new term. I am honored to have been chosen to serve as a voice for OAs across campus. So far, I have been an active participant in the Senate serving on the Executive Committee, Senate Budget Committee, Rules Committee, President’s Ad Hoc Budgetary Advisory Committee, Senate Nominating Committee, and evaluating the election policies and procedures for the Senate via an informal Elections Committee. I continue to provide input to the creation of the Senate Handbook. In all of these roles, I have represented the University of Oregon OA’s to the best of my ability and have been an active voice in committees. During this time, I advocated for the inclusion of OA representation on committees without current representation from OAs.
As a member of the campus community with a BBA in Accounting and a JD in law, I understand and enjoy working on policies and budgets. I am extremely familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order, which the Senate currently uses to conduct business. I have become very familiar with both the Constitution, which grants the University Senate authority, and the Bylaws, which outlines the processes and procedures that the Senate will use to operate.
I desire to continue to advocate and represent OA’s in new Senate business as well as the opportunity to bring some works to conclusion. It is essential to have an OA voice on the Senate and I would welcome the opportunity to continue the work I have already started on behalf of OAs. I believe I can continue to be a strong and effective advocate for all of us. Thank you in advance for your support.

Janelle McCoy Candidate Statement 2017

McCoy also enjoyed a distinguished career as a mezzo-soprano, performing with leading orchestras, including the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra under the baton of such celebrated conductors as Robert Spano, Donald Runnicles, and the late Robert Shaw. Early in her vocal career, she was the recipient of numerous Young Artist awards. She served cantorially in Ft. Myers, FL for several years, and continued in that role at synagogues in Philadelphia and Chicago.

Keith Frazee Candidate Statement 2017

I currently serve as an OA senator, and I am seeking reelection to continue representing OAs. My position with Orientation Programs provides me an intersection with many different academic and administrative departments throughout the UO, which gives me a wide perspective to represent OAs in the senate. I’ve learned a great deal, and I’d like to continue to serve the university in this way.

Cheryl Ernst Candidate Statement 2017

As a designated Ops, AEI spans both extensive student services and academic programs. We house the largest concentration of international students on campus in Agate Hall, and we continually seek ways to ensure that their needs are being met. As ED, I work closely with faculty and staff in the AEI and with our many partners across the UO campus. We operate as a UO department but also have to view ourselves through an entrepreneurial lens.

Search committee for new AAEO Director announced

UPDATE: May 1, 2017

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


The committee is finalizing its lists of candidates it would like to invite to campus.  We expect to bring three qualified candidates to campus in mid to late May.  Each candidate will give a public presentation that will be open to the campus community.  We are creating a page which will be hosted on the HR website that will include background information on the position, the candidates’ on-campus schedules, their CVs, and a survey where community members may provide feedback.

Hope this information is helpful.

Warm Regards,


Bill Brady
Assistant Vice President, Employee and Labor Relations
Office of Human Resources
677 East 12th Avenue, Suite 400
5210 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-5210

On Sunday Apr 30, 2017, at 9:34 PM, UO Senate President <> wrote:

To: Bill Brady <>

Hi Bill –

I’m writing as Senate President, to ask for an update on the search for a new AAEO director, particularly posting of finalists info, and opportunities for Senate constituents to meet the finalists.


Bill Harbaugh
Senate President
Economics Professor
University of Oregon

AAEO Director search committee:

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

Here is a link to the posting for the position:

Dear X: Letters from the Classroom

Please join us for a special spring event that we hope will serve as a powerful launch for UO’s efforts toward core curriculum re-design: “Dear X: Letters from the Classroom.” The performance of actual letters from UO students and faculty offers a unique and concrete anchor for discussion about transforming our undergraduate education.

Students: bring your friends, bring your instructors!

Faculty, advisors, staff: bring your colleagues, bring your students!

This conversation is for all of us.

April 18, 4-6pm in the Global Scholars Hall (GSH 123)
You can reserve your spot here (and forward the link to others you invite):
Learn more about trED here:

2017-18 University Service Survey Open!

Dear Campus Community:

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

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

The deadline to respond is Friday April 14.  Filling out the survey does not automatically put you on a committee or the ballot – we’ll follow up with you before doing anything official.

Please contact us if you have any questions. The best email to use is Betina Lynn’s, the senate executive coordinator:



Bill Harbaugh
University Senate President
Professor of Economics

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

Invitation to serve on the University Senate and university committees

Dear colleagues,

Achieving academic excellence is a top priority for the University of Oregon. We are energized by our new leadership, historic philanthropy, and extraordinary faculty hires as they drive us toward even greater excellence. An important way we can continue improving teaching and research quality on our campus is through faculty service in a healthy shared governance structure.

As a result, we encourage you to serve the UO through participation in the University Senate or on a university committee. We know faculty members are busy, and appreciate the myriad of demands on your time. Yet, we encourage you to consider service with one or more of these important bodies. To learn more about these opportunities, we invite you to join us at a University Senate reception on Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 5:00 pm in the EMU’s Crater Lake Room.

There will be light catering, brief introductions by President Schill and Senate President Harbaugh, as well as an opportunity to mingle and ask questions about the various service opportunities available to you.

There will soon be an online form available where you can indicate areas of interest and self-nominate for elected positions, so please keep your eyes open for that.


Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President and Professor of Sociology

Bill Harbaugh
Senate President and Professor of Economics

Chris Sinclair
Senate Vice President and Professor of Mathematics

Search for Divisional Dean in CAS Social Sciences

Dear UO Community:

March 22, 2017

To:                     CAS Social Sciences Faculty
From:                W. Andrew Marcus, Tykeson Dean of Arts and Sciences
Subject:            Divisional Dean for the Social Sciences

Professor Carol Stabile, Interim Divisional Dean for Social Sciences, will be leaving her position with the University on June 30, 2017 to take over the headship of the Department of Women’s Studies at the University of Maryland. She has displayed a tremendous commitment to academic excellence while also retaining a keen understanding of the difficult choices we must make in these times of budgetary constraints. I have learned a great deal from Carol during her time in the dean’s role; a time that has seen some tremendous hires within the Social Sciences Division and the launching of an internal cluster on African American Studies. I am particularly grateful for her contributions to our college given the last minute manner in which I approached her about the position and her knowledge that this would be a temporary role. All of us in the dean’s office have been beneficiaries of Carol’s wealth of experience, direct problem-solving approach and good humor. Simply put, we will miss her.

I am now seeking your advice and comments in identifying our next Divisional Dean for Social Sciences from among our current faculty. Candidates:

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

I have appointed an advisory committee of CAS faculty to review nominations and applications and provide consultation to me for this selection. As is standard practice, the committee has two heads from within Social Science and one from outside the division. The committee includes Jocelyn Hollander (Chair), Frances White and Li-Shan Chou. I am grateful that they have agreed to screen applicants and evaluate their qualifications for the position.

I hope to select an incoming Divisional Dean for Social Sciences by the beginning of May so that we can plan for a smooth transition.  The new Divisional Dean will begin a three-year term on July 1, 2017.

Applicant letters should be no longer than three pages in length and address:

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

Please send nominations to me as soon as possible. Application letters should be sent to Miriam Bolton (, along with a current c.v., no later than Friday, April 14. If you are interested in the position and wish to speak with me before you apply, please let me know.

Position Description:

The Divisional Dean (DD) position is the primary designee/delegate for the Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences in almost all matters involving the administration and oversight of departments and programs in the DD’s assigned division (humanities, natural sciences, or social sciences).  The DD is the first contact for department and program heads for all Dean-level issues, coordinates Dean-level decisions with the Dean and the Dean for Faculty and Operations, and then helps communicate these decisions to departments and programs in their division.

Strategic Vision. The DD takes the major leadership role in working with department heads, faculty, and other Deans to identify and articulate the strategic vision for the future of the division and the College.  The DD is an ambassador for their division and the College-at-large. Examples of key activities connected with this responsibility are:

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

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


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

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

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


Free Speech for student-athletes and the student press

3/19/2017 update with link to General Counsel’s report:

I’m still waiting for the administration to provide the Senate with a copy, but I got this version from a Emerald student journalist and it looks legit: 

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab


Comments on the report and suggestions for next steps for the Senate to take are welcome. In the past I would have send this to the IAC, but given the new IAAC’s restricted charge I’m considering setting up a Task Force on Free Speech to deal with it.

Bill Harbaugh

1/23/2017 followup:

Dear GC Reed – 

I’m writing as Senate President, to ask you for an update on your investigation of the Duck AD for potential violations of UO’s free speech and academic freedom policies.


Bill Harbaugh Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon

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

I’m in deep interview mode.  Coming along swimmingly.

Kevin S. Reed | Vice President and General Counsel

Office of the General Counsel

219 Johnson Hall | Eugene, OR 97403-1226

(541) 346-3082 |

1/12/2017 update:

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

12/1/2016 update: 

Yesterday I received an email from President Schill saying that he would instruct GC Reed to investigate these athletic department free-speech issues, and report to him. I assume that the Senate will also be given this report.

I’ve already talked with several current and former Duck sports reporters, who told me about many other potential similar violations of UO free speech policies by the Athletic Department in recent years, with respect to both student-athletes and student and professional reporters.

One noted the #blacklivesmatter protest by Dana Altman’s student-athletes during the National Anthem, reported by Tyson Alger in the Oregonian here:


Altman chewed out his players and wouldn’t let them talk to the press afterwards.

The Senate will continue to look into these free speech issues.

From: UO Senate President <>

Subject: Free Speech for students and the student press

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

To: Kevin Reed <>

Dear General Counsel Kevin Reed:

We are writing you as President and Vice President of the Senate, regarding media reports that UO Athletic Department AAD Dave Williford told Oregon Daily Emerald sports editor Kenny Jacoby and other UO student-journalists that he would take away their Athletic Department issued press credentials, if the Emerald went ahead with their story on alleged assaults by UO football players. The news reports also say that the UO Athletic Department has a policy requiring that student-athletes not talk to the press without the Athletic Department’s permission.

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

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

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

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

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


The latter policy states:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Harbaugh, Economics Prof., Senate Pres

Chris Sinclair, Assoc. Prof. Math, Senate VP

President Schill emails UO in support of transgender students

Dear members of the University of Oregon community,

The University of Oregon is proud to be a welcoming and inclusive campus that supports the rights of every member of our community, including people of all genders and gender identities. 

Recently, there have been events that have left many transgender students and members of the faculty and staff within our community feeling concerned and vulnerable. This is not acceptable, and I want everyone to know that the UO will continue to be a place where anyone can live and study in safety, with dignity, with authenticity, and in an environment that is free from discrimination. We remain committed to providing safe and equitable access to all of our programs, activities, and facilities regardless of gender identity or expression. 

The UO respects everyone’s right to self-determination and to live as their true selves, and in support of that commitment our institution continues to offer gender-neutral housing and bathroom options, gender-neutral support and education services, and programs that honor people’s pronoun and name preferences. As our Title IX coordinator recently stated in this message, our commitment to the fundamental protections of Title IX remain unwavering. I hope that those who need support will take advantage of the wealth of resources that are provided at the UO.

I want to reassure all of our students, the faculty and staff, and visitors to our campus that you are, and remain, welcome here at the University of Oregon and an important part of our community.

Best regards,

Michael H. Schill

President and Professor of Law

Senate Meeting Agenda – March 15, 2017


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

3: 15 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, March 1, 2017

3:15 P.M.   New Business

4:20 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:21 P.M.   Reports

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

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

New UO Provost Announced

Dear University of Oregon colleagues and students,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

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

To University of Oregon community members,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UO postpones plan to impose unacceptable Acceptable Use Policy

Dear Senators –

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

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

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

Meanwhile the current AUP remains in effect. It is at  It is a bit dated, but seems far preferable in terms of its protections. For example, here is the Prohibited Conduct section:

Current language: “The University Conduct Code, OAR 571-21-030, also applies to electronic forums. The code prohibits, among other things, lewd or indecent conduct, threat of imminent physical harm, sexual or other harassment, stalking, forgery, intentional disruption of university services, and damaging or destroying university property. Similarly, the code’s prohibitions against illegal discrimination, including discriminatory harassment and sexual harassment, also apply to electronic forums.”

The University Conduct Code is actually the Student Conduct Code, at It only applies to students. It is also very specific:

16. “Harassment” means:

a. Intentionally subjecting a person to offensive physical contact;

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

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

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

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

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

“threat of imminent physical harm”,

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

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


Bill Harbaugh, Senate Pres, Econ Prof

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

Loader Loading...
EAD Logo Taking too long?

Reload Reload document
| Open Open in new tab


Senate Meeting Agenda – February 1, 2017


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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Senate VP Chris Sinclair, Upcoming Senate & Committee Elections
  • Mattie Orrit, Exec Coord for PAC12 Academic Leadership Coalition

3:20 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, January 18, 2017

3:25 P.M.   New Business

4:00 P.M.   Open Discussion

4:20 P.M.   Reports

  • Retention; Doneka Scott (Undergraduate Studies)
  • “Rhabdo” incident; Tim Gleason (Journalism), Faculty Athletics Representative

4:58 P.M.   Notices(s) of Motion

“Condemnation of the university’s findings regarding political expression by faculty members.” Ofer Raban (Law)

4:59 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M. Adjourn


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

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

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

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

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

President Schill: Keep Deady name, add Black Cultural Center

Dear University of Oregon community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Michael H. Schill

President and Professor of Law


Reset the Code

A message from Professor of Advertising Deb Morrison:

Greetings during Week 2 and all it brings!

I wanted to share with some leaders of our campus the work being done by our student agency, Allen Hall Advertising. 

Their initiative to bring civility to discussions, social media, conversations during tumultuous times is bringing visibility to our SOJC program as well as the University. The project is described here and in installations at the EMU. Our students have worked tirelessly to make this happen, working last term and over break. 

Our mission: we want discussion and disagreement to happen without name-calling or derision but based on facts and mutual respect. Real conversation. Let’s leave the toxicity and “comments section” approach of most social forums behind. We need your help to ensure civility and to model this approach.

We’ve had over 10,000 hits on the site from 25+ countries. I’ve just received two requests from other universities for use of the initiative and conceptual thinking. We’ll be sharing that material with Boston University and others soon.

Tom McDonnell, UO manager of creative services and the advisor for the agency, has arranged for our student leadership to present to OSU later in the term. He has done a tremendous job in mentoring these students.

Local news stations have covered it and we’re talking with Communication Arts, Adweek who will then help spread the word to large outlets like The New York Times and Washington Post. We’ll be working with our alum who work in those media organizations to get coverage.

Here’s the request: in our interviews with media, I’d like to be able to state that our administration and campus leaders actively support the project and concept. This can be done through social media or in statements and conversations. Support from Johnson Hall administration and University Senate leaders would be appreciated and make a statement. Thanks to you who have already done so.

Thanks for listening. 

By the way, we are exceptionally proud of our advertising students. This is what they will continue to bring to the world as they enter the profession.


Deborah Morrison PhD

Carolyn Chambers Distinguished Professor of Advertising

Director of Advertising

University of Oregon |  School of Journalism and Communication

Advertising + Brand Development

331 Allen Hall    Eugene, Or 97403




Deborah Morrison


Senate Pres asks “Faculty” Athletics Representative for hospital report

Dear Professor Gleason – 

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

As noted in your appointment notice from Mike Gottfredson at “

The FAR is responsible for ensuring the academic integrity of the intercollegiate athletic program, promoting the well-being of student athletes, and supporting institutional oversight of athletics compliance and student eligibility.

I’m sure you’ve read the stories in the Oregonian and the Washington Post regarding the hospitalization of at least 3 UO students after football workouts.

I am asking you to investigate this situation, provide a preliminary written report to the Senate Executive Committee by Jan 24th, and appear at the Feb 1 Senate meeting to answer questions. 


Bill Harbaugh

Senate President, Economics Professor, University of Oregon

Chief Information Officer finalists to visit campus

From this story on Around the O:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your chance to talk to UO Trustees

Dear Colleague,

I’m writing to you as the faculty member on the UO Board of Trustees. At previous board meetings, the trustees have met in small groups with faculty to talk about opportunities and challenges the university faces and ways the faculty can be involved in improving and strengthening the university (and, of course, ways the faculty already works to strengthen the university). The trustees have been enthusiastic about these discussions, and we are planning another one for the March board meeting – and you’re invited.

Each meeting will include 2-3 trustees and 8-12 faculty members depending on how many people sign up. These discussion sessions are planned for 12:00 – 1:00 pm on Thursday, March 2. Lunch will be provided. If you cannot attend this time, there will be future opportunities.

These will not be public meetings (there will not be a quorum present), so faculty members and trustees should feel able to share their thoughts and concerns about the university more directly.

If you are interested in participating in the March 2 discussions, email Amanda Hatch in the board’s office ( no later than February 17. Please include your name, phone number, department or program, and years of service. My goal is to create groups representing a wide array of experience and fields of study, and consisting of faculty who have perhaps not yet been exposed to the board. Amanda will compile RSVPs for me, and we will follow up directly with individuals about participation and logistics. If we get more than we can accommodate this time, we’ll keep all names for future opportunities.    

Thanks so much. I have been impressed with the enthusiasm of all of the trustees and their desire to help strengthen the university. I think these discussions will continue to be a great way for the trustees and faculty members to learn more about each other and share ideas about the university.


Susan Gary


Closed search for new provost

Dear members of the University of Oregon community,

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

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

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

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

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


Michael H. Schill

President and Professor of Law

Geraldine Richmond, Provost Search Committee Chair

Presidential Chair and Professor of Chemistry

Open Mike: Balancing principles

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

Subject: Open Mike: Balancing principles

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

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law


President Schill to work with Senate Budget Committee on new budget

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

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

Dear University of Oregon community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Michael H. Schill                          

President and Professor of Law   

Scott Coltrane

Provost and Senior Vice President        

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

Date of Notice: 11/28/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Committee on Committees


Section I

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

Related Documents:

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

Revised 17 pt. chart for SOAGIE_Jan. 31, 2017

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 18, 2017


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

3:00 P.M. Call to Order

Introductory Remarks: Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Senate President

Approval of Minutes: November 16, 2016 and November, 30, 2016

3:10 P.M. New Business

  1. Discussion: US16/17-12: New Program Proposal: M.A. in Language Teaching Studies; Sara Hodges, Associate Dean of Grad School,  Scott L. Pratt, Dean of Graduate School and Lara Bovilsky (English), Chair of Graduate Council
  2. Discussion: US16/17-13: Amendment to the Credit-Bearing General Limitations to the Bachelor’s Requirements policy proposal; Frances White (Anthropology), Co-Chair of the Academic Council
  3. Discussion: Change the Policy on Policies to state that the UO President has the authority to enact temporary policies on other than an emergency basis?
  4. Discussion: US16/17-11: Clarify and Codify the University Committee on Sexual Orientation, Attraction, Gender Identity, and Expression
  5. Discussion: Repeal committee service term limits?
  6. US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators; Senate Executive Committee (Please review Current Policy)
  7. US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators; Senate Executive Committee (Please review Current Policy)

4:20 P.M. Reports

  1. Presidential Response to US16/17-07: Student Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Violence Complaint and Response policy; General Counsel, Kevin Reed
  2. Report: Bias Response Team task force ; Chris Chavez(Journalism), Chair of BERT Task Force
  3. Report: Roger Thompson on admissions (Enrollment Management et al.)

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

4:59 P.M. Other Business

5:00 P.M. Adjourn


Wabash Center of Inquiry Visits UO Senate

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

Wabash Memo

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

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

Slides from the Wabash Center presentation to the UO Senate

Continue reading Wabash Center of Inquiry Visits UO Senate

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

Date of Notice:10/16/2017
Current Status:  Approved 04/12/2017
Motion type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Senate Responsible Reporting Work Group


Section I

1.1   WHEREAS, it is important that students, faculty, and staff clearly understand options available for dealing with instances of sexual and gender-based violence; and

1.2   WHEREAS, seeking assistance and reporting are two such options; and

1.3   WHEREAS, existing University of Oregon policy on these matters was last adopted in 2004; and

1.4   WHEREAS, new guidance has been provided by the U.S. Department of Education¹s Office of Civil Rights, especially since 2011; and

1.5   WHEREAS, the University President enacted an emergency policy in February 2016 on these matters; and

1.6   WHEREAS, Title IX of the Education Act of 1972 was adopted to ensure equality in education and to remove gender-based impediments to academic success; and

1.7   WHEREAS it is clear that academic success is an academic matter as commonly understood in education; and

1.8   WHEREAS, the University Senate voted against a proposal for a permanent policy that a committee offered in May 2016; and

1.9   WHEREAS, the University President enacted a new emergency policy in August 2016 on these matters while encouraging the Senate to continue its work on a permanent policy; and

1.10   WHEREAS, the Responsible Reporting Work Group (RRWG) includes faculty, students, and administrators who have worked collaboratively to write a new policy, including consultation and public forums with others concerned with a potential policy; and

1.11   WHEREAS, the RRWG developed the following statement of principles to guide its work:

1) Be consistent with the core mission of the UO
2) Be based on data, when that data exists.
3) Be guided by the spirit of Title IX: to protect educational equity.
4) Do no harm.
5) Recognize that student survivors are adults and have autonomy.
6) Respect academic freedom.
7) Protect from liability University employees who are acting pursuant to the policy.
8) Stay grounded in the reality of how the University deals with reports of sexual violence.
9) Be cognizant of the legal and national context in which the policy will operate;

Section II

2.1   THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the following policy be adopted by the University Senate and forwarded to the University President for his consideration and approval (see Related Documents section):

Financial Impact:

The overall financial impact is uncertain. Implementing the policy will involve employee training, but training is already required under the law and existing policy.  The existing website will need updating, but UO already has knowledgeable staff for this work. The policy recommends, but does not require, that UO provide an reporting escrow system, at an unknown cost. On the other hand, by establishing reasonable reporting rules for employees we expect, but cannot ensure, that it will reduce UO’s exposure to legal damages related to non-compliance.

Related Documents:

Proposal: April 2017

You’re invited to the new UO Faculty Club

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

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

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


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

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

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

Date of Notice: 10/01/2016

Current Status: Approved 11/02/2016

Motion type: Legislation

Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Chair of CoC


Section I

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

Section II

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

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

Financial Impact: Cost Neutral

IAAC motion amendments

From: Theodora K Ko Thompson <>


Dear President Schill, Members of the Senate

I respectfully seek reconsideration that classified staff representation be included in the new IAAC structure. I thank members of the senate who have expressed speaking on our behalf, sharing concerns about not having a classified staff member on the new committee in advocating for the continued inclusion of our membership.

It is my hope that the experiences I share will lend context to the value of classified staff voice, participation and inclusion in roles we have the interest to step forward, and to serve.

Public speaking does not come easy for me. As I’d expressed to a past Director of Employee Relations, “I am much more fluent in writing than when I speak. Writing is my forte given that I was raised to be “seen not heard.” It takes a lot out of me to speak publicly and with my stepping into leadership roles, it’s a challenge I take on to compel myself to work at expressing myself verbally. The level of comfort at public speaking and in verbal expression remains a professional development effort, if you will.”

When President Schill and I met the first time, I was not prepared for the question to express my thoughts about what makes the University of Oregon great. I would like to offer the following in answer to that question, to lend context to the value of classified staff service and representation on committee, why we seek to be dignified and respected for the opportunities that are offered to serve and why equity and inclusion in out classified representation matters.


MENS AGITAT MOLEM the words inscribed in the University of Oregon’s Great Seal “Mind move mountain” are words of the university’s motto that is “a reminder of the power of learning and of the university’s commitment to the life of the mind.

In our new mission statement, are these words we state as our values:

We value the passions, aspirations, individuality, and success of the students, faculty, and staff who work and learn here. We value academic freedom, creative expression, and intellectual discourse. …”

Mens Agitat Molem – I believe – speaks for ALL of us – irrespective of our roles at the University of Oregon. The “life of mind” speaks to the intellectual discourse that ensues when we proudly serve as representatives when meetings convene, where the diversity of thought is shared, valuing equity and inclusion in a learning environment, regardless of classification. I have been inspired with Mens Agitat Molem, and many classified leaders have worked over the years with the strive that the University of Oregon remain faithful to the commitment in “the life of the mind” for which it stands for, and for the values in our mission statement not only to be meaningful and true in the experiences of classified staff who step forward to serve on committee, and in leadership roles the individual undertakes – but that the University of Oregon is as committed and faithful in the demonstration of fostering a campus climate and culture that upholds these in our policy on Community Standards Affirmation:

We further affirm our commitment to:

· Respect the dignity and essential worth of all individuals.

· Promote a culture of respect throughout the University community.

· Respect the privacy, property, and freedom of others.

· Reject bigotry, discrimination, violence, or intimidation of any kind.

· Practice personal and academic integrity and expect it from others.

· Promote the diversity of opinions, ideas and backgrounds which is the lifeblood of the university.

As I’d expressed in correspondence related to the new title of the UO Senate Community Values Committee:

“…The new title of UO Senate Respect and Communities Values Committee reflects and shows relevance upon the historical significance that came about from student action of values for a campus climate of a learning organization such as the UO should be about, and be not only for the present, but importantly, inherent values of leadership for the greater community at large as well. These values cannot remain simply on a plaque, but that they are a set of values we carry with ourselves in the work we do…”

Classified employees who desire to serve, take on leadership roles, aspire to learn, receive training, earn a degree – should not only be denied these opportunities to be engaged in the learning environment at the University, but to be respected no less differently or less deserving of the dignity and respect of their service and leadership. The “inconvenient truths” of classified staff experiences in expressing interest to step forward include:

· In my first term as an elected senate representative I shared with Senate President Nathan Tublitz that a former senator was being discouraged from serving again. This was when serving on the Senate was two hours of meeting time in a month.

  • It was hard to maintain membership for the classified staff who served on the Classified Staff Training and Development Advisory Committee, a Senate Advisory Group. Members of the committee would meet for one and half hours during their lunch period twice a month; staff reported experiencing difficulty and taken to task for the extra half-hour.

More recently:

  • The interest to serve on the Safety Committee and Sexual Assault Task Force has been discouraged. The Traffic Appeals Board, an Administrative Advisory Group that used to hold regular meetings, but from I learned, would meet on an adhoc basis, perhaps once a quarter. Staff have shared that they put themselves on the line when the response to these expressed interest to serve is to use vacation time if they are so inclined to pursue the endeavor; it is not uncommon as well that the integrity of their interest and their experience to serve on committee to contribute to the intellectual discourse is also taken to task.

I recently provided feedback that I was glad to serve on the Ombuds Search Committee where I learned to better understand the processes of Affirmative Action in the hiring and search processes, notwithstanding that after twenty two years of service, this first opportunity to serve on a search committee was not with the department I’d dedicated years of service.

Against the tide, the pool of these experiences are these redeeming points of our experiences to the question what makes the University of Oregon great:

IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE, thanks to the leadership Ed Singer, the classified represntative on the Senate that the three senate representatives for classified representatives are not token representatives on the Senate, that the Senate passed the motion to dignify and respect classified representatives as equal members with voting rights in our shared governance.

“In 1995, the University of Oregon’s governance was restructured and the University Senate was created. Note the term “University Senate.” The University Senate was to be inclusive. Faculty, Officers of Instruction, Librarians, Officers of Administration and Students were included in the membership. For some reason, Classified Staff was not included. We suspect that this was an oversight.

This omission was partially correct in 2002 when three Classified Staff were added to the Senate membership. They were added, however, without voting privileges”

IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE, thanks to the leadership of Senate President Nathan Tublitz, that the UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award was created on February 9, 2011 with the following words

It is a point of pride that we are reportedly the only university in higher education that has a shared governance system which includes representatives from all of the stakeholders on campus including faculty, non-­tenured track instructors, officers of administration, librarians, students, and classified staff. Leadership, in the framework of a dynamic and evolving organization, is complex and multifaceted. What lies dormant within each of us is our potential to make a difference, make change, and impact the lives of others. That which lies within each of us is our capability and potential to become a change agent.

“Character cannot be developed in ease and quiet. Only through experience of trial and suffering can the soul be strengthened, ambition inspired, and success achieved.” Helen Keller

Note: You will note that there is much thought behind the issues we share of our experiences of the campus climate and culture that we strive and seek for in the acceptance speeches:

IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE, thanks to the leadership of Senate President Kyr who showed he valued the voices of staff who fear to speak or fear to step forward in the hostile work environments they work, in the plea conveyed in Dr Carla McNelly’s acceptance speech, that :

“…in the summer of 2010 the UO Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Respectful Workplace was formed. The committee included all campus stakeholders, to make recommendations to the UO Senate regarding a campus wide cultural shift for a respectful workplace. The committee reviewed UO policies, Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA), state and federal laws, and policies at other institutions of higher education. In the Spring of 2014 an Ombuds Program was established.

It is the inclusion of our participation that has served to benefit the campus community, that we take pride in the collaborative effort that brought about the Ombuds office and the Ombuds program for the safe place and resource for the campus community.

IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE that Kurt Krueger, a classified staff on the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, who served six years on committee, served successfully as Chair of the committee.

THESE POINTS OF PRIDE – to be heard, to be respected, that we are included – the dignity and pride that comes with stepping forward – are roles that are meaningful demonstrations of OUR faith that the University will value these words:

“We value the passions, aspirations, individuality, and success of the students, faculty, and staff who work and learn here”

We take our appointed and elected roles seriously; we value these opportunities to be included. There is dignity and pride that comes with the classified staff’s desire to serve, to step forward to serve the University of Oregon – to bring that which is unique of our individuality to the intellectual discourse on any issue.

Learning that our elected representative roles are excluded from the new restructure of IAAC comes yet as another disappointment. Johnny Earl, who is an elected representative on the IAC, is a past MLK award recipient who has served as a representative on the University’s Diversity Committee. In 2015, Senate representative John Ahlen, in his introduction of Johnny Earl as the Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award recipient, shared that Johnny worked the evening or graveyard shift – yet he continues to step forward into these leadership roles on his off time during the day because he values and truly cares about the University of Oregon and that for many classified staff, it takes resilience and courage to continue to work at making the University a great place to work – notwithstanding what we continue to encounter expressed in Dr Carla McNelly’s acceptance speech (

The disinvestment in education – the tug and pull between academics and athletics – has contributed to the tension within the IAC over the years that it is sad that there is today this revised motion that speaks of a compromise for a functional committee with some representation arrived at, at the expense of excluding classified staff representation.

I respectfully submit Stephanie Prentiss’s testimony that she sent to Lois Yoshishige to be shared with Johnny and I when she learned of the motion to exclude our representation. I respectfully submit that there is value to see meaningful worth in classified staff representatives’ ability and capacity to serve on the IAAC, that our perspective and input will lend to the rich intellectual discourse toward academic excellence.



Theodora Ko Thompson, UO BA ’04, MS ’07
Admissions Specialist
Office of Admissions
University of Oregon
240 Oregon Hall
1217 University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403-1217
E-Mail: theoron
Telephone: (541) 346-1301
UO Admissions toll-free number:
1-800-BE-A-DUCK (800-232-3825)
Fax: (541) 346-5815

Go, Go Yonder. Further. Farther.
Learn a new language and get a new soul.” Chinese proverb
Le monde est un livre dont chaque pas nous ouvre une page“…”The world is a book; each step opens a page for us” – Alphonse de Lamartine, Voyage en Orient VIII
One’s destination is never a place but rather a new way of looking at things” -Henry Miller

Stephanie P Testimony IAC support.doc

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 30, 2016


Location: EMU 145 & 146 CRATER LAKE Rooms
3:00-5:00 PM

3:00 PM  Call to Order

Introductory Remarks:

Bill Harbaugh (Economics & Senate President)

Approval of Minutes for Nov 16, 2016 – (postpone until Jan 18)

3:10 PM New Business

  1. Vote: US16/17-10: Approval of Curriculum Report, Fall Term 2016; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of UO Committee on Courses
  2. Vote: US16/17-04: Revise Charge and Name of IAC Committee; Andy Karduna (Human Physiology)

3:40 PM Reports

  1. Update on Accreditation update: Ron Bramhall (AVP for Academic Excellence).
  2. IFS & PAC12-ALC: Robert Kyr (Music)
  3. Governor’s Campus Safety Workup Report; Robert Kyr (Music)
  4. IT Reorganization; Greg Bryant (College of Ed)

3:55 Open Discussion

A “facilitated conversation” on General Education; Charles Blaich and Kathy Wise from the Wabash Center of Inquiry (  They have conducted empirical research designed to learn what teaching practices, programs, and institutional structures support liberal arts education, and develop methods of assessing liberal arts education. Sponsored by Lisa Freinkel and Ron Bramhall.

Slide Presentation

4:55PM  Notice(s) of Motion
4:57PM  Other Business
5:00PM  Adjournment


Senate Meeting Agenda – November 16, 2016

DRAFT (revised Wednesday 11/16/2016)

Location: EMU 214 (REDWOOD Auditorium); 3:00-5:00 pm

Call to Order (3:00 PM)

Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

Approval of Minutes from Oct 19, 2016 and Nov 2, 2016

New Business (3:15 PM)

1. Vote: US16/17-05: Graduate Online & Hybrid Courses policy proposal; Scott Pratt (Philosophy & Graduate Council)

2. Vote: US16/17-07: Student Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Violence Complaint and Response policy proposal; Merle Weiner (Law) & the Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group

State of the University update (3:40 – 4:00)

Mike Schill (UO President)

More New Business

Motion to suspend the rules and allow debate and vote on both:

3. US16/17-08: Reaffirming our Shared Values of Respect for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; Senator Pedro Garcia-Caro (Romance Languages) et al. 

4: US16/17-09: Declaring UO a Sanctuary Campus; Lynn Stephen (Anthropology) et al.

Open Discussion

Reports (4:45 PM)    

1. Update on Accreditation update: Ron Bramhall (AVP for Academic Excellence).

2. IFS & PAC12-ALC: Robert Kyr (Music)

3. Governor’s Campus Safety Workup Report; Robert Kyr (Music)

4:55 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

 4:57 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment


Senate Meeting Agenda – November 2, 2016


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

3:00 pm        Call to Order

1.1      Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:05 pm        Approval of Minutes

2.1      Oct 19, 2016

3:10        State of the University

3.1      A brief update from President Schill

3:30 pm        Reports

Update on UO Board of Trustees: Susan Gary, Kurt Willcox, and Will Paustian

3:45 pm    New Business

4.1   Vote: US16/17-06: Approve Revised Committee on Committees Membership; Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate Vice President

4.2   Vote: US16/17-04: Revise Charge and Name of IAC committee; Andy Karduna (Human Physiology), immediate past chair of IAC

4.3    Vote: US16/17-03: New Program Proposal: Spatial Data Science and Technology (Geography); Allison Schmitke (Education), Chair of Undergraduate Council and Chris Bone (Geography)

4.4    Discussion: US16/17-07: Student Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment and Violence Complaint and Response policy proposal; Merle Weiner (Law), Chair of Senate Responsible Reporting Work Group

4.5     Discussion: US16/17-05: Graduate Hybrid and Online Courses policy;  (Graduate Council)

4:50 pm    Open Discussion

5.1   Gen Ed Reform introduction

4:57 pm    Notice(s) of Motion

4:58 pm    Other Business

4:59 pm    Adjournment

2017 Faculty Research Award applications due Nov. 28

Sent on behalf of Lynn Stearney, Director, Research Development Services, Office of the Vice President for Research & Innovation

Please distribute this announcement to your faculty.

The Vice President for Research & Innovation invites faculty from all academic disciplines to apply for 2017 Faculty Research Awards.

The purpose of the Faculty Research Awards program is to stimulate research by providing faculty with support for research expenses including travel, summer stipend, equipment, supplies, contractual services, shared facility use, and graduate or undergraduate student research assistance.

Faculty Research Awards are eligible for funding up to $5,500. 

    The deadline for receipt of 2017 Faculty Research Award proposals is 5:00 PM, November 28, 2016.

Awardees will be notified in late February or early March, 2017.  Projects should begin by July 1, 2017, and be completed by June 30, 2018.  Final reports are due by July 31, 2018. 

Guidelines and the application form are available online on the Research Development Services website.   

The Faculty Research Awards Committee, composed of faculty designated by the University Senate, will evaluate proposals on the basis of their intellectual or artistic merit and make recommendations to the Vice President for Research & Innovation. 

An information session on the Faculty Research Awards will be held on Monday, October 31 2016, from 12:00 – 1:00 in the Mt. Hood Room of Peace Health North, 677 East 12th Avenue.   This session will provide an opportunity for prospective applicants to ask questions about eligibility, proposal requirements, award conditions or any other aspects of the Faculty Research Award program. 

Questions should be directed to Research Development Services,

US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 08/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Notice Given

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


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

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

US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 07/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Postponed until 01/13/2016

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


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

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


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

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

1.1      Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

2.1      October 5, 2016

3:05 pm    3.   State of the University

3.1 Remarks by Patrick Phillips, Interim Director of CASI

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm           5.1        New Chief of Police

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

4:55 pm    6.   Reports

4:55 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:55 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Input sought on IT report and process

Begin forwarded message:

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

Subject: Input sought on IT report and process

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

To: csinclai

Reply-To: provost

University of Oregon
A Message from the Provost and Academic Affairs

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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


Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President

1258 University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1258
P: 541-346-3186 | F: 541-346-2023
You are being sent this message based on your affiliation with the University of Oregon.
Share this email:
social-email.png social-twitter.png social-facebook.png
This email was sent to
To continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book.
Having trouble viewing this email? View this email online.

Notice of Temporary Policy

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kevin Reed <ksreed>
Date: August 19, 2016 at 11:33:34 AM PDT
To: Senate President <senatepres>, Senate Vice President <senatevp>, ASUO President <asuopres>, “Leslie Wolgamott” <lwolg>, Penny Daugherty <penny>, “Sheryl Eyster” <seyster>, Sara Hodges <sdhodges>, “Nicole Commissiong” <nrc>, Jamie Moffitt <jmoffitt>, “Kenneth Doxsee” <doxsee>, Nancy Resnick <nresnick>, “Robin Holmes” <rhholmes>, Tobin Klinger <tklinger>, Sam Hill <samhill>, Missy Matella <mmatella>, John Bonine <jbonine>, Ibrahim Gassama <igassama>, “Jocelyn Hollander” <jocelynh>, “alai” <alai>, Carol Stabile <cstabile>, “C.J. Pascoe” <cpascoe>, Priscilla Yamin <pyamin>, Jennifer Burton <jenb>, Terry McQuilkin <tmcq>, Sophia Albanis <salbanis>, Mandy Gettler <mandyl>, Panhellenic Council President <phcpres>, Maxwell Lehman <mlehman2>, Sammy Cohen <scohen2>, Melissa Barnes <mbarnes5>, Renae DeSautel <desautel>, Randy Sullivan <smrandy>, Jen Reynolds <jwr>, Title IX Coordinator <titleixcoordinator>, Sandy Weintraub <sandyw>, Caitlin Corona <ccorona>, Lance Englet <englet>, Karen Ford <fordk>, “Jennifer Freyd” <jjf>, “” <>, Andrea Herrera <aherrera>, “Dee Dee Kintz” <ddkintz>, Sandra Martinez-Modesto <sandram>, Robert McCullum <rmac>, Victoria Ryan <vryan>, “janeward9” <janeward9>, “Juwaan Williams” <juwaanw>
Cc: Kevin Reed <ksreed>, President Michael Schill <pres>
Subject: Notice of Temporary Policy

Discussion on the denaming of Deady and Dunn Halls

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

Dear Campus Community,

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

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

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

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

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

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



See also:

Article in the R-G

Guest Viewpoint in the R-G

Letter to President Schill from the Executive Council of United Academics

Another Guest Viewpoint in the R-G

A note from Senate President Harbaugh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A note from Senate Vice President Sinclair

[updated 12/23/2016]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[old stuff below]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Senate Task Force on the Bias Response Team

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group

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


The Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group is tasked with drafting a new Responsible Employees Policy for the Senate and Administration to consider as a replacement for the current emergency policy. The working group will follow the Senate’s normal open meetings rules, and will solicit input broadly from the Administration, the Senate, and the university community, and will hold at least one town hall type meeting for this purpose. The working group may seek outside advice, particularly on considerations involving compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The draft policy sent to the Senate will be accompanied by a document explaining the rationale for the recommended rules and procedures.


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

General Council Kevin Reed’s 8/19 email:

Dear Colleagues,

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

In summary, the emergency policy:

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

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


    Kevin Reed
    Vice President and General Counsel

Ombud search & Bias Response Team task force

This is a quote from an email sent to 16-17 Senators from Senate President Harbaugh. -Ch

“The Senate is setting up a task force to study the administration’s Bias Response Team, which has recently been in the news. The charge is to collect information on what the BRT does, analyze the effect of the BRT on academic freedom and on campus climate, and make recommendations as to whether or not Senate action is needed.

Senator Chris Chavez (Journalism) has agreed to lead this task force. Chris led the J-School’s panel on the BRT on Monday, and I think did a great job ensuring that all perspectives were heard.

If you are interested in serving on this task force, or know of a constituent who might be, please email myself, Chris Chavez, and or CoC Chair Chris Sinclair. Keep in mind that the task force will do the bulk of its information gathering this summer, and then reach out to the broader campus in the fall for input.”