Tag Archives: front-page

US17/18-18: Proposed Changes to Multicultural Requirement

Date of Notice: January 10, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Lee Rumbarger; Multicultural Requirement Task Force


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the current multicultural requirement be replaced with two new requirements, one course in each category: 1) US: Difference, Inequality, Agency and 2) Global Perspectives.

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

Each course will undertake one or more of the following:

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

Each course will address:

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

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

Each course will undertake one or more of the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – April 25, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks: Senate President Chris Sinclair

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

3:10 P.M.   Business/Reports

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

4:00 P.M. Executive Session

Vote: Honorary Degrees

5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Feedback wanted: Conflicts of Interest

Dear Campus Community:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Cassandra Moseley
Sr. Associate Vice President for Research and Innovation


Draft COI Policy

Draft COI Procedures

Annual Committee Service Survey Closing Soon

UPDATE (Mon, Apr 16, 2018):

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

Name
Rank
Department

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

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

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

CORE Ed Council
1 Soc Sci faculty

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

Faculty Personnel Committee
1 faculty from Law
1 faculty from SOJC

Grad Council
1 TTF faculty from Business

Nontenured-Track Faculty Committee
3 Tenure-Track faculty

Ombuds
All seats

Respect & Community Values
1 Research faculty

ROTC
2 faculty

Undergrad Council
1 faculty from College of Design

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

 


Dear Campus Community,

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE FOR THE SURVEY.

Sincerely,

Chris Sinclair
University Senate President
Professor of Mathematics

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

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

Date of Notice: March 14, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Core Education Task Force


Motion

Section I

 

  1. 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.

  1. WHEREAS The combined curriculum common to all undergraduate degrees, the Core Education, should serve the mission of the university;
  2. WHEREAS Clearly articulated learning goals are useful for student success;
  3. WHEREAS Clearly articulated criteria for how a course meets learning goals is useful for UOCC course approval;
  4. WHEREAS Clearly articulated criteria for how a course meets learning goals are useful for assessment of student learning in that course;
  5. 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;
  6. WHEREAS Accreditation standards require that institutions demonstrate how their common curriculum supports their institutional mission.
  7. WHEREAS Accreditation standards require that the institution establish and assess student learning goals for its general education program.

Section II

  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. 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.
  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.
  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.
  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.

  • Explanation of issues
  • Evidence: Selecting and using information to investigate a point of view or conclusion
  • 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, Transforming
Written Communication

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

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

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

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – April 11, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks: Senate President Chris Sinclair
  • Remarks:  Melanie Muenzer, Associate Vice President and Vice Provost for Academic Initiatives

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

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

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

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

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

Nominations for a new Senate VP/President Elect

Dear Statutory Faculty:

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

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

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

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

Date of Notice: February 27, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Academic Council


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Date of Notice: February 14, 2018

Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsors:

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


Section I

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

Section II

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

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – March 14, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

3:35 P.M.   Business

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – February 28, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

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

3:25 P.M.   Business

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

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

  • Department Honors

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

Talk to your Dean at the Faculty Club

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

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

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

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

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

Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Provost Banavar

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

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

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

Thursday, March 15, 2018
President Schill

US17/18-08: Creation of Core Education Council

Date of Notice: January 22, 2018

Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate President


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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


Related Documents

Core Education 17 Point Chart – 01/31/2018

Redline– 02/08/2018

Clean Version – 02/08/2018

Redline– 02/14/2018

Clean Version – 02/14/2018

Redine-03/09/2018

Clean Version-03/09/2018


Date of Effectiveness:

1/17 Senate Presentation on Core Ed

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

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

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

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

Date of Notice: January 10, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

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


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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


Related Documents

HB 2998 Report – Final Commission

Outcomes and criteria for transfer of Gen Ed

Power Point Presentation – Jan. 17 2018

Senate Meeting Agenda – January 17, 2018

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

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

3:35 P.M.   Business

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

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

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

 

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

Date of Notice: November 15, 2017

Current Status: Approved January 31, 2018

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Senator


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

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

Report of the Senate Executive Committee

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

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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


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

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

 


Resolution language to be replaced by the above amended text:


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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


Related Documents:

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

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

Date of Notice: November 13, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


DRAFT

Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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

US17/18-01: Expedited Tenure Process

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

Date of Notice: October 4, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Boris Botvinnik (Math), Faculty Personnel Committee


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 


Expedited Tenure:  Miscellaneous Policies and Practices at Other Universities

 

University of Maryland

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

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

The review process would proceed as follows:

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

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

Penn State University

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

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

University of Virginia

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

 Policy Statement:

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

Expedited Review Procedures:

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

Promotion and tenure review requires:

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

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

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

Montana State University

Policy Title: Expedited Tenure Review at Hire

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

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

University of Arizona

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

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

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

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

Arizona State University

Policy Title: Tenure – Expedited Review for Tenure

Policy Statement:

Current Faculty

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

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

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

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

Decision

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

UC Santa Barbara

APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION POLICY

Professor Series

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

 

 

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 29, 2017

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

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

3:45 P.M.   Business

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

 

UO Common Reading Program

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

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

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

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

Common Reading Book Nominations currently under review.

1)      Exit West by Mohsin Hamid

2)      The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui

3)      Home Fire by Kamila Shamsie

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

5)      Salvage the Bones by Jesmyn Ward

6)      Homegoing by Yaa Gyasi

7)      No Longer At Ease by Chinua Achebe

8)      A Tale for the Time Being by Ruth Ozeki

9)      Lucky Boy by Shanthi Sekaran

10)   Under the Feet of Jesus by Helena Maria Viramontes

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

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

US17/18-02: 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:

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 15, 2017

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

4:00 P.M.   New Business

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

Senate Meeting Agenda – November 1, 2017

DRAFT

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

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

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

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

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

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

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

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

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.

Sincerely,

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 (mbolton@uoregon.edu), 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:

Personnel

  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

 

Dreamers Open Forum: Important Updates on Executive Orders

Faculty and staff invited to open forum on recent immigration rules changes.

UO faculty and staff are invited to an open forum to discuss the many challenges associated with recent federal changes in immigration rules. The event will be held on Tuesday, March 7 at the EMU Gumwood Room, 4:00 – 5:30 P.M.

Representatives from UO Human Resources, Academic Affairs, Federal Affairs, International Affairs and a local immigration law specialist will hold an open forum to provide insights and a formal space for faculty and staff to air concerns.

This event is open to all in the UO community.

Those interested in attending can RSVP through the UO Events Calendar.

University of Oregon Resources
Immigration FAQs

Update on Status of Executive Order
For Students
For Departments
For Employees
Responses to Immigration Enforcement
Allies and Supporters of UO’s Global Community
Allies and Supporters of UO DREAMers


Presidential Executive Order
White House: Office of the Press Secretary
1) Revised Travel Ban   (3/6/17)

2) Implementing Immediate Heightened Screening and Vetting of Applications for Visas and Other Immigration Benefits
…..(3/6/17)

For more information about DHS and the executive order, please visit: https://www.dhs.gov/executiveorders

Statement from APLU

APLU Statement on New Executive Order Temporarily Banning New Visas for Citizens of Six Countries (3/6/17)

Washington, DC – Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU) issued released a statement regarding President Trump’s new executive order that temporarily prohibits the issuing of new visas to citizens of six countries.