Category Archives: Motions

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

Dear Senate President Chris Sinclair and Vice President Bill Harbaugh,

Attached, please find a letter from President Schill regarding Senate Resolution US17/18-02. Please distribute this letter to the members of the University of Oregon Senate.

Sincerely,

Office of the President

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

Date of Notice: November 13, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


DRAFT

Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date of Notice: November 8, 2017

Current Status: Approved November 15, 2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Motion

Section II

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

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

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

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

Date of Notice: November 15, 2017

Current Status: Approved November 29, 2017

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Student Senator


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

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

1.4 WHEREAS the preamble of the Student Conduct Code reads:

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

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

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

1.7 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Academic Freedom says

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

and

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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


Related Documents:

US17/18-01: Expedited Tenure Process

[Scroll down to see expedited tenure policy synopsis for a selection of comparators]

Date of Notice: October 4, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Boris Botvinnik (Math), Faculty Personnel Committee


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 


Expedited Tenure:  Miscellaneous Policies and Practices at Other Universities

 

University of Maryland

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

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

The review process would proceed as follows:

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

For non-departmentalized Colleges, the review at the campus level should include a review by an ad-hoc committee formed by the Provost with a minimum of three persons drawn from members of the current University Appointment, Promotion and Tenure Review Committee.”

Penn State University

Policy Title: Promotion and Tenure Procedures and Regulations (full policy attached)

“An initial appointment at the rank of associate professor or professor may be made with grant of tenure, with the approval of the Executive Vice President and Provost and the President of the University in accord with University guidelines that prescribe immediate tenure reviews.” (See “Guidelines for Immediate Tenure Reviews”)

University of Virginia

Policy Title: Promotion and Tenure – Section 9: Expedited Review

 Policy Statement:

“Whenever possible, faculty promotion and tenure or new faculty hires should have tenure status reviewed or granted through the processes described above. When this is not possible and a rapid decision to hire with tenure is needed or a retention counter-offer with promotion and/or tenure must be made quickly, an expedited review may take place in accordance with the procedures described below.”

Expedited Review Procedures:

These procedures make it possible for faculty review to be completed in a compressed time period; they are not intended to bypass normal review processes.

Promotion and tenure review requires:

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

In expedited review, the chair and dean may appoint a sub-committee consisting of no fewer than three faculty members who are members of the department or school promotion and tenure committee or who usually participate in these decisions. The subcommittee reviews the nomination and provides the chair or dean with a decision in no more than three days. Once the provost receives the dean’s recommendation, the provost reviews the nomination and makes a decision as quickly as possible, generally within two weeks.

Materials submitted in a dossier for expedited review should be similar to those normally included in a promotion dossier, including a complete, detailed curriculum vitae. Three outside, arms-length letters, are acceptable, provided they address the candidate’s suitability for the faculty rank and tenure. A candidate’s cover letter or research plans may substitute for the usual statement in the dossier. While it is not necessary to include letters from UVA faculty colleagues or students, it is essential to include evidence of the faculty member’s teaching effectiveness. A summary of teaching evaluations from the University or the prior institution, teaching awards, and other documentation may provide evidence of effective teaching. Incomplete dossiers will delay review.

Montana State University

Policy Title: Expedited Tenure Review at Hire

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

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

University of Arizona

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

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

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

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

Arizona State University

Policy Title: Tenure – Expedited Review for Tenure

Policy Statement:

Current Faculty

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

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

ASU has no obligation to consider or approve an expedited review at the request of the faculty member even for the circumstances listed above. For information about the expedited review procedures, see P4, “Expedited Review for Tenure-Eligible Faculty Process Guide.”

Every effort will be made to conclude an expedited review within 21 calendar days following the initiation of the review or as soon as possible thereafter.

Decision

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

UC Santa Barbara

APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION POLICY

Professor Series

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

 

 

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

Date of Notice: May 17, 2017

Current Status: Approved May 24, 2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Sierra Dawson (Human Physiology) and Bill Harbaugh (Senate & Economics)


Section I

Whereas: While student evaluations of teaching can be an important tool for evaluating and improving teaching and learning, there is substantial peer-reviewed evidence from other colleges and universities that student course evaluations of the sort used at UO are biased with respect to gender and race and that the numerical scores are poorly correlated with teaching effectiveness and learning outcomes.

There is also scholarly evidence that peer (faculty) reviews of teaching may be ineffective at evaluating teaching effectiveness and giving useful feedback for improvement.

The Senate seeks to increase the validity and effectiveness of both student course evaluations and peer reviews, for the purposes of evaluation and improvement of UO’s teaching.

Section II

Therefore: The UO Senate seeks to improve UO’s methods of course evaluation and teaching reviews by moving that:

  1. The Senate creates a Teaching Evaluation Task Force, with membership and duration to be determined by the Committee on Committees, to include stakeholders from the faculty and administration, with the charge of evaluating and improving course evaluations and peer (faculty) reviews with respect to reducing biases and improving validity, with the goal of improving teaching, learning, and equity.

  2. The Senate authorizes the Teaching Evaluation Task Force to work with the Teaching Engagement Program to exempt a limited number of courses per quarter from the regular student course evaluation process for faculty participating in their programs, so long as reasonable alternative procedures for student input are in place and the results are communicated to the Task Force.

  3. The Teaching Evaluation Task Force is authorized to conduct temporary experiments with student course evaluations and peer reviews to begin as soon as Summer 2017. These experiments may include changes in the questions, format, timing, software, and incentives for participation of students. The Task Force will aim to report to the Senate on possible improvements to student course evaluations and peer evaluations by Fall 2018. The report will include analysis of gender and race bias in the traditional and experimental evaluations. All courses in these experiments will return to the current default course evaluation process by Fall 2018, unless the Senate acts otherwise to change that process. Stakeholders will be consulted before any experiments and before the Task Force’s report.

  4. The Teaching Evaluation Task Force will address the issues of academic misconduct and student evaluations raised by motion https://senate.uoregon.edu/2017/02/15/us1617-15-student-misconduct-and-teaching-evaluations-policy-propos in its reports and proposals to the Senate.


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

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

Notice Given: 02/27/2017

Current Status: Approved 03/15/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh (Economics)


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the naming, or renaming, of an academic unit is considered a major event in the history of the institution, requiring due consideration, appropriate due diligence, and consultation; and

1.2 WHEREAS currently there is no UO policy providing guidance and structure for this process;

1.3 WHEREAS the UO Board of Trustees has sole authority to name any campus, school, college, department or equivalent in recognition of an individual or organization;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approves the newly proposed Naming Academic Units policy as outlined in the Related Documents.


Related Documents:

Policy Concept Form

Draft Policy Proposal

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

UPDATE: New


Date of Notice: 02/27/2017

Current Status: Approved April 12, 2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh (Economics)


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the process of awarding honorary degrees has become confusing and overly proscriptive over time; and

1.2 WHEREAS some technical changes are needed to remove obsolete references to OUS; and

1.3 WHEREAS final approval of Honorary Degrees rests with the UO Board of Trustees;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University Senate approves the proposed Honorary Degree Policy changes as outlined in the related documents.


Related Document:

Policy Concept Form

Redline Policy Proposal

Clean Policy Proposal

Summary of Changes

New 17 pt chart – Redline

New 17 pt chart – Clean

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. http://around.uoregon.edu/content/campus-town-hall-address-questions-immigration

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

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

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

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

Date of Notice: 12/15/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Sponsor: Academic Council


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

a) Lower-division professional-technical courses

b) Physical education and dance activity courses

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

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

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

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


Related Documents:

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

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

Date of Notice: 12/21/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

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


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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


Financial Impact:


Related Documents:

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

LTS Syllabi

LTS Faculty

External Review

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

Complete Motion

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

IAAC motion amendments

From: Theodora K Ko Thompson <theoron@uoregon.edu>

EQUITY AND INCLUSION IN SERVICE AND LEADERSHIP AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OREGON

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

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: https://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/01-administration-and-governance/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 http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/content/uo-senate-leadership-award-classified-staff

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: http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/content/uo-senate-classified-staff-leadership-award

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 (http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/files/CarlaClassifiedStaffAwardSpeech2011_0.pdf)

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.

Respectfully,

Theodora

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

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


Motion

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


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

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


Motion

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


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

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

Date of Notice: 10/07/2016

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Approved 11/16/2016

Sponsor: Graduate Council

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