All posts by Chris Sinclair

2017-18, Blog

Meet Vice Presidential Candidate Elizabeth Skowron (COE)

Leave a comment

Dear Senators and members of the University community:

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

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

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

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

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/senate/files/2018/05/Skowron-statement-final-12lw1sr.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google” ]

2017-18, Blog

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

Leave a comment

Date of Notice: April 25, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: ASUO President Amy Schenk

Section 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 2.

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blog

Architecture Faculty Pen Open Letters to the Provost

Leave a comment

The Senate has been asked to publish this open letter from two faculty members of the Department of Architecture to the Provost. Our understanding is that the faculty are also collecting signatures for an additional longer letter.

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/senate/files/2018/04/Dear-Provost-Banavar-_draft-3.28_JY.VC_.JY-1dgp1me.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google” ]

2017-18, Blog

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

Leave a comment

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 →

2017-18, Blog, Motions

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

1 Comment

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 →

2017-18, Announcement, Blog

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

Leave a comment

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

The short version is:

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

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

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


 

2017-18, Blog

1/17 Senate Presentation on Core Ed

Leave a comment

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

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/senate/files/2018/01/Senate-Core-Ed-2f95mz8.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google” ]

2017-18, Blog, Consent Calendar, Policies

January 31, 2018 Consent Calendar

Leave a comment

Consent Calendar Process (Per US17/18-04)

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

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

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

APPROVED January 31, 2018

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

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

2017-18, Announcement, Blog, Communications

Changes Coming to Common Rule Regulations for Human Subjects Research

Leave a comment

 

Dear Research Community,

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Members of the UO Research Community:

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

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

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

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

Key changes in the revised Common Rule include:

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

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

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

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

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

 

2017-18, Blog, Communications, Free Speech, Motions, TPM speech restrictions

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

6 Comments

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

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/senate/files/2017/12/Schill-response-to-Resolution-US17-18-02-12.01.17-1-1i5xdae.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google” ]

2017-18, Athletics, Blog

Senator Ron Wyden Pens Letter to President Schill Regarding Administration Handling of Basketball Rape Allegations

Leave a comment

Please find President Schill’s response to Senator Wyden’s letter (below) asking for more information about the UO’s Student Conduct & Community Standards Committee  processes regarding a 2016 incident with a UO basketball player HERE.

 

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/senate/files/2017/11/20171103-Wyden-Letter-to-President-Schill-1-17ygs75.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google” ]

2017-18, Blog, Board of Trustees, Communications

Letter from Campus Leaders to President Schill and the Board of Trustees

Leave a comment

November 6, 2017

Dear President Michael Schill and Trustees of the University of Oregon:

We write in a unified voice as representatives of major constituencies at the UO to express our concern with the response of your office to the October 6, 2017 student protest of the State of the University Address. During the demonstration, activists took the stage and presented a list of demands created by a coalition of students. Your actions since this event have potentially endangered these students by calling out their actions in a national venue, and have escalated tensions in such a way as to obscure the concerns which precipitated the protest.

Since the protest, you have availed yourself of campus, community, and national platforms to express your voice and reading of events. This is in contradiction to the claim that you were silenced. Further, your New York Times OpEd obscured the nature of the tensions that energized the protest and narrowly framed the circumstances in an analysis of free speech devoid of any consideration of the relationship between power and access to platforms for speech. Any appreciation of academic freedom and free speech must grapple with power. For faculty and graduate instructors, it is understood that any privileged platform brings responsibilities to assure speech opportunities for all voices in the classroom, not just the more vocal, visible and privileged. The bedrock of civil society rests on the parallel notion that democracy works when spaces are available for all voices, even those viewed as disruptive, unusual, or repugnant. In hearing these voices, a collective adjustment to institutions can be advanced to include the marginalized or oppressed, and repugnant or bigoted views can be rebutted. Power and platform are at the center of our practical applications of free speech and academic freedom. So far, you have not given consideration to this important dimension of the subject.

The actions of your office, particularly your New York Times OpEd, have escalated tensions, and exposed our students to intimidation and ugly responses by online commenters. We find it disturbing that you did not anticipate this outcome. Under this national mockery, our students are castigated and put in a vulnerable position; they are denied an equivalent platform for their version of the events, and have lost any semblance of due process.

We understand and support your call for debate and discussion about what transpired on October 6th. We also recognize that in this debate, the student activist perspective matters and needs consideration.

That the protest lasted less than 15 minutes, and that there appeared to be only a slight effort to reclaim the stage by you or your staff, has left many wondering how much your departure from the room was pre-planned. Is discipline warranted if, as University President, you did not attempt to earnestly engage this minor protest?

Major public universities, especially ones in the throes of state disinvestment, rising tuition, privatization, and shifting priorities, routinely experience visible protest. This recent event is no different. Instead of a healthy campus conversation, your administration is pursuing sanctions. The threat of sanctions stifle this important conversation.

The October 30t h letter from Associate Director for Student Conduct and Community Standards, Katy Larkin, accused a number of students and non-students with misconduct charges in connection to this event. These accusations include “Disruption of University” and “Failure to Comply”. This effort to conduct a disciplinary investigation is rife with problems:

1 ) Factual ambiguities: you and your staff left the event within 10 minutes, never allowing for other outcomes through the duration of the planned event;

2) Anticipation of conflict, not engagement: your email and video are evidence that plans were made in advance of the scheduled speech and protest, suggesting that instead of dialogue, your office wanted to make an example of these students;

3) Lack of oversight: these charges were brought with no oversight by the Student Conduct and Community Standards Committee;

4) Intimidation : the disciplinary investigation letter is likely to be read as an intimidation tactic, contrary to the very values of academic dialogue that you advocated in your email to the campus and, implicitly, in the NYT OpEd;

5) Investigatory Errors: more transparency in the investigatory process is needed. Some of the students who received letters WERE NOT at the event, implying problems with the implementation of the process, and the surveillance of student social media activity by your administration;

6) Derailing due process: the options presented in the sanction letter to students (to accept the charges or contest them in a closed session administrative conference) is an embarrassment to due process as your administration has already implicated these students as guilty in the local and national media; and

7) Lack of just representation and counsel: the Office of Student Advocacy has denied fees-paying students advice, citing a ‘conflict of interest’ without explanation. These students were only given 7 days to respond, and this inability to seek out advice has severely hindered students’ ability to seek alternative counsel for this vulnerable situation.

In our view, this has gone too far. It is time to de-escalate. We ask that you cease the punitive measures against students and engage in a dialogue without the cloud of threat or intimidation. The UO Student Collective, which includes students who were involved in the protest, will have the floor to present their concerns to the University Senate on November 15. This is a much better venue for beginning a campus dialogue than the other highly constrained venue that you have pursued thus far.

Signed,

Imani Dorsey, ASUO State Affairs Commissioner

Michael Dreiling, President, United Academics

Jessica Neafie, President, Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation

Chris Sinclair, President, University Senate

2017-18, Announcement, Blog

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

2 Comments

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

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

Read more [here].

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

2017-18, Blog, Communications

Letter from Senate President Sinclair to President Schill regarding potential discipline of student protestors.

Leave a comment

Dear President Schill:

I’ve had a number of conversations around campus with both students and faculty regarding the student protest of the State of the University address.

Here are some reflections:

The statement from Tobin Klinger to the Oregonian  that the protest was in violation of the student conduct code is unhelpful and has irritated many faculty. Faculty see Klinger as an un-academic public relations spokesperson who has little credibility with the students or the faculty. However, he is an official spokesperson, and so we assume he was speaking for the administration. As such his statement could be taken as an abrogation of due process. This removes the veil of faculty oversight of student discipline, and there is simmering resentment that this power was taken from faculty by the Board of Trustees. Any unilateral administrative establishment of discipline on an issue that revolves around speech is a hornets nest that is best left un-kicked. We do understand that it may sometimes be necessary to “read the riot act” to students to notify them (or others) that continued assembly will be dealt with under the student conduct code.

My recommendation would be to have Tobin clarify his remarks and to state publicly that the university has no plans to charge any of the students in the protest with any conduct violation. Were actual conduct charges to be brought, I do not think you would have the support of the majority of the faculty nor students, and I think the Senate would react in a manner which you would find unproductive. A couple senators have already threatened a resolution to be introduced next Wednesday; we have a busy agenda that day and I would prefer to stay on task.

As you know, I have invited [the UO student collective] to come to the Senate for a brief 5-minute presentation followed by a 5-minute question and answer period. [The UO student collective] has not responded yet. In conversation with faculty, more individuals agree that this is the correct course of action for the Senate than agree with you that this is rewarding bad behavior. I will not argue that we are not rewarding bad behavior, because I see your point, but I think more people are moved by the argument that these students have fewer avenues to air their grievances than you or I, and that this was a legitimate protest.

I have been reflecting on my formal invitation of this student group to the next Senate meeting. Had I a do-over, I would take the advice of Frances White and merely indicate to this group that the Senate is a public forum on campus and that any group of students should be able to get on the agenda (with instructions on how to do so). This would allow the students an avenue for a public conversation without officially sanctioning it. I am unwilling to rescind my invitation to the student group, but I will hold onto this lesson for future use.

Thanks for considering my recommendations and for helping find a productive way out of this tricky situation,

—
Chris Sinclair
Assoc. Prof. Math
Senate President
University of Oregon

2016-17, Blog, Governance, Policies

Policy-Making Process (cheat sheet)

Leave a comment

Policy creation at the University of Oregon is designed to ensure that policies are adequately vetted by various stakeholders and subject-matter experts during the drafting process and before being implemented. The entire process is laid out in the Policy on University Policies. As the process can be rather elaborate, the Office of Secretary of the University has provided a helpful cheat sheet.

[embeddoc url=”https://blogs.uoregon.edu/senate/files/2017/06/Policy-Flow-Chart-June-2017-1u7sqo3.pdf” download=”all” viewer=”google” ]

2016-17, Blog

Congratulations Senate Awards Winners!

Leave a comment

UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust – Diane Dietz, Register Guard
UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award – Kurt Willcox, University Senate
UO Senate Wayne Westling Award – Jennifer Freyd, Psychology
UO Senate Officer of Administration Leadership Award – Lisa Raleigh, College of Arts & Sciences

The Senate also thanks Scott Coltrane and Paul Simonds for their distinguished service to the University of Oregon.

2016-17, Blog

Nominations for 2017 Senate Awards Are Now Open

Leave a comment

Nominations for 2017 Senate Awards Are Now Open

Each year, the University Senate recognizes four members of our community for their exemplary leadership and service.

Nominations for these awards are now open. Any member of the campus community may nominate an eligible faculty member, classified staff person, or officer of administration for these awards. You will find instructions about what to include with your nomination on each award’s webpage. We will present the awards in a formal ceremony at the University Senate meeting on June 7.

The deadline for all nominations is Tuesday April 25, 2017. Please send nominations to: senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu.

Thank you for taking the time to help the University Senate recognize and celebrate those who contribute so much to our university community.

THE AWARDS:

●   UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust

Purpose: Award is given to the person who has best exemplified the principles of shared governance, transparency, and trust during the past year. Established 2015.
Eligible for Award: Any administrator or other member of the UO community.

●   Wayne T. Westling Award

Purpose: Named in honor of Wayne T. Westling, Professor of Law at the University of Oregon from 1979-2001. Award is given for outstanding and long-term leadership and service to the university. Established 2001.
Eligible for Award: Any faculty or staff member.

●   UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award

Purpose: Recognize someone who is a leader in one or more of these areas – personal and professional development, a respectful work environment, or diversity. Must have made “a difference through their actions and through collaborative relationships.” Established 2011.
Eligible for Award: All classified employees.

●   UO Senate Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration

Purpose: Recognize exemplary service over a period of years and outstanding leadership. Must be committed to shared governance and participatory decision making and must foster inclusiveness, respect, and professional excellence. Established 2011.
Eligible for Award: All Officers of Administration.

 

 

 

2016-17, Announcement, Blog

2017-18 University Service Survey Open!

Leave a comment

Dear Campus Community:

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

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

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

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

CLICK HERE FOR THE SURVEY

Sincerely,

Bill Harbaugh
University Senate President
Professor of Economics

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

2016-17, Blog, Communications, Free Speech, Policies

President Schill drops policy proposal for TPM restrictions on free speech

13 Comments

2/14/2017:

From: Mike Schill <mschill@uoregon.edu>

Subject: Time, Place and Manner rules

Date: February 14, 2017 at 5:51:47 AM PST

To: Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, William Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>

Hi Bill and Chris,

After discussing the matter with you two, Kevin Reed and other senior staff, I have decided to withdraw our proposal for time, place and manner rules.  While I still believe that these rules are advisable to protect content neutrality, I am also convinced that we need to do more work in educating the community and building consensus around them.  The UO has no shortage of pressing issues, difficult problems and wonderful opportunities for us to work on together now.  Therefore, I am putting the time, place and manner proposal on hold for the foreseeable future.

Best,

Mike

12/07/2016: For informational purposes and background, please see previous senate motion:

This policy contains elements related to free speech activities on campus.

11/27/2016 update: After weeks of of not responding to Senate requests for an updated draft of the TPM free speech restrictions policy, General Counsel Kevin Reed has now submitted one to the administration’s Policy Advisory Council.

Continue reading President Schill drops policy proposal for TPM restrictions on free speech →

2016-17, Announcement, Blog, Communications

New UO Provost Announced

Leave a comment
Dear University of Oregon colleagues and students,

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

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

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

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

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


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


Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law 
2016-17, Announcement, Blog, Communications

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

Leave a comment
To University of Oregon community members,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you.
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law
2016-17, Announcement, Blog, Communications

Chief Information Officer finalists to visit campus

Leave a comment

From this story on Around the O:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-17, Announcement, Blog, Communications, Diversity, Free Speech, Inclusion

Open Mike: Balancing principles

Leave a comment

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

Subject: Open Mike: Balancing principles

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

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

 

2016-17, Announcement, Blog

Wabash Center of Inquiry Visits UO Senate

Leave a comment

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

Wabash Memo

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

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

Slides from the Wabash Center presentation to the UO Senate

Continue reading Wabash Center of Inquiry Visits UO Senate →

2016-17, Blog, Communications, Governance

Thinking about the Role of the UO Senate, by Craig Parsons

3 Comments

 

I am proud to be serving as a new UO Senator this year. Given some controversy over the Senate’s role in recent years, I want to think deliberately about how I see this body. I am writing this memo to clarify my views for myself, but I will share it to seek reactions that could sharpen (or change) my thinking.

Continue reading Thinking about the Role of the UO Senate, by Craig Parsons →

2016-17, Announcement, Blog, Communications

You’re invited to the new UO Faculty Club

Leave a comment

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

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

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

Colleagues,

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

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

Announcement, Communications, Motions

IAAC motion amendments

Leave a comment
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

Blog, Communications

Announcing the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact

Leave a comment

Colleagues and Students,

I have the immense pleasure of announcing that our dear friends Penny and Phil Knight have made an extraordinarily generous $500 million gift—the largest ever to a public flagship university—that will launch an initiative to rethink and reshape research at the University of Oregon. The Phil and Penny Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact will fast-track scientific discoveries into innovations, products, and cures that solve problems and improve our quality of life.

Continue reading Announcing the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact →

Announcement, Blog

SENATE MEETING AGENDA – OCTOBER 19, 2016

Leave a comment

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

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

1.1      Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

2.1      October 5, 2016

3:05 pm    3.   State of the University

3.1 Remarks by Patrick Phillips, Interim Director of CASI

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm           5.1        New Chief of Police

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

4:55 pm    6.   Reports

4:55 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:55 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

2016-17, Blog, Meetings

SENATE MEETING AGENDA – OCTOBER 5, 2016

1 Comment

DRAFT

Senate Meeting Agenda – Oct 5, 2016

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

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

          1.1      Introductory Remarks, Senate President Bill Harbaugh

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes

 2.1      May 25, 2016

3:05 pm    3.   State of the University

3.1      Welcome, President Michael Schill

3.2      Introductory Remarks, Senate VP Chris Sinclair

3:55 pm    4.   New Business

4.1      Discussion of Senate procedures and Handbook, Substitute Senator policy, new Executive Coordinator for the Statutory Faculty (Angela Wilhelms);  Bill Harbaugh, Senate President

4.2      Introduce Bylaws change: CoC membership; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP

4.3      Introduce motion to allow for the reordering of the Senate Agenda; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm    6.   Reports

6.1      Update from the Task Force on the Bias Response Team; Chris Chavez (Journalism), Co-Chair

6.2      Update from Responsible Reporting Work Group and recap of Student Forum (Sept. 30, 2016); Merle Weiner (Law), Chair

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

7.1      New Program Proposal: Spatial Data Science & Technology (Department of Geography); Undergrad Council

7.2      IAC/IAPAC & transition; Andy Karduna (Human Physiology) & Intercollegiate Athletics Committee

7.3      Introduce motion to allow for the reordering of the Senate Agenda; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP

7.4      Notice of motion on Bylaws change: CoC membership; Chris Sinclair, Senate VP

7.5.      New motions?

4:50 pm    8.   Other Business

8.1      Recruitment of a new COIA representative; Bill Harbaugh, Senate President

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

2016-17, Blog

Navigating the New Senate Pages

3 Comments

Welcome to the new University of Oregon Senate pages! We have archived the old Senate pages in their totality, and additional  archived information can be found on the Senate Archives page.

We had two goals in mind for the new page:

First was to organize the overwhelming amount of data on committees, meetings, motions and the individuals who make the Senate work.  We did this by building a new database—basically a spreadsheet with a number of tables and links recording relationships between the entries in the various tables.  This database exists not only to keep Senate leadership, staff and committees organized, but also to serve that data to the public via these pages.  Currently there are four main pages which access the database:

  • Committees A-Z: This page has a list of Senate standing committees as well as ad hoc Senate committees, Administrative Advisory Groups and other committees which impact the governance of the University of Oregon.  You can expand each committee entry to see the committee charge, who is currently on that committee as well as upcoming meetings and attachments.
  • Committee Members: Here you will find a list of all members of the University community that are serving on committees.  You can expand each record to see a complete list of the committee service being performed by the member.
  • Calendar: We store events in the database along with, when applicable, links to associated committees and/or attachments.  Clicking on an event in the calendar will give you additional information for that event.
  • Motions: Currently the motions table in the database (and hence on the Motions page) contains the complete text and associated documents for motions discussed in the Senate for the last couple of years.  We will be adding older motions (and new ones too!) as time progresses.  In the meantime, old motions can be found via links on the Senate Archives page.

Most data displayed from the database can be starred by clicking on the bullet next to the entry.  Starred entries can be viewed by clicking on the star in the main menu from almost any page.  You can also find your starred entries (if you have any) on the Starred page.

The second major goal for the new web pages was to provide a platform where members of the University of Oregon community can comment on the work of the Senate, or engage in topical conversation about our university.  This page was built using WordPress as a content management system.  This system is basically a blogging platform, and we have the ability to enable comments for almost any content visible on the site.  For the most part, we expect the conversation to be accessible either from the featured content on the front page (the six major tiles you see when you land on the page) and under the Blog tab.  To make comments you will log in with your DuckID, and your name will displayed with any comments you make.  Please be respectful.

If you have any questions or suggestions for improvement (or simply notice a mistake in the data served from the database) you can leave a comment on the Suggestions post.

Blog, Communications

Input sought on IT report and process

1 Comment

Begin forwarded message:

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

Subject: Input sought on IT report and process

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

 

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President

Announcement

Input sought on IT report and process

Leave a comment

Begin forwarded message:

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

Subject: Input sought on IT report and process

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

To: csinclai

Reply-To: provost

University of Oregon
A Message from the Provost and Academic Affairs

Dear Colleagues,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President
1258 University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1258
P: 541-346-3186 | F: 541-346-2023
You are being sent this message based on your affiliation with the University of Oregon.
Share this email:
social-email.png social-twitter.png social-facebook.png
This email was sent to csinclai@uoregon.edu.
To continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book.
Having trouble viewing this email? View this email online.
sz1y0g
2016-17, Blog, Communications

Provost search committee named

Leave a comment

President Schill’s 8/19 email.

From: “President Michael H. Schill” <pres>
Subject: Provost search committee named
Date: August 19, 2016 at 2:27:57 PM PDT

Dear Colleagues,

Choosing a provost is among the most important decisions a president will make for a university. The provost is the chief academic officer of the institution and, as such, the guardian of our most important functions—education and scholarship. We are fortunate that Scott Coltrane will have served in that role for more than three years, in addition to serving as interim president and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences since arriving at the UO in 2008. Now that he has announced he will retire in June 2017, it is vital that I select a worthy successor who will be my partner in advancing the University of Oregon.

I am pleased to announce that 17 people have been selected to serve on the Provost Search Committee, led by Professor Geri Richmond, to assist me in recruiting our next provost. I reached out to a broad representation of campus constituencies to develop the committee membership, which includes members of faculty, staff, students, and administration. I am grateful that everyone I asked to serve agreed to devote their time and expertise to this effort.

The names of the committee members are listed here on my website. Further updates will be posted on this site as we progress through the search process.

I thank Professor Richmond for taking on the task of leading this very important committee, and thank each member of the committee for their service to our university.

Sincerely,
Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law

Communications

Notice of Temporary Policy

Leave a comment

Begin forwarded message:

Dear Colleagues,

President Schill has approved emergency policy V.11.02 and associated changes to UO’s grievance policy and discrimination policy relating to the prohibition of discrimination and the process for responding to reports of prohibited discrimination. These temporary changes will be in effect for 180 days and provide needed clarification of who is a “responsible employee” and therefore required to report prohibited discrimination, including sexual harassment.

In summary, the emergency policy:
· Reinforces the expectation that all employees are required to communicate reports of prohibited discrimination, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, to:
o The Title IX Coordinator;
o The Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services; or
o The Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity.
· Clarifies that the following offices are “confidential resources” that can help connect students and employees with support services and help them navigate their options, without being required to report the alleged misconduct:
o The Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services;
o The University Health Center;
o Ombudsperson; and
o The University Counseling Center.
· Provides clarification regarding when a report made in a privileged context does not trigger a duty to report, including:
o Reports made to an attorney in the context of providing legal counsel (such as student legal services);
o Reports made by unit members to a steward of their union;
o Information shared in a public awareness event (such as “Take Back the Night”);
o Information received during an IRB approved research project; and
o Reports made by students in the context of an academic assignment.
· Provides a pathway for certain faculty or staff to receive training and authorization from the Title IX Coordinator to be exempt from the reporting requirement.

This emergency policy reflects the input of the University Senate’s Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, and incorporates many thoughtful suggestions made by stakeholders in three separate meetings of the senate as it debated, but was unable to enact a permanent policy this past spring.

President Schill and I have asked the senate to return to the task and make modifications that reflect sound policy and remain compliant with our legal obligations under Title IX. To that end, University Senate leadership have appointed a working group, led by Knight Professor of Law, Merle Weiner, to seek broader consensus on a legally sufficient policy.

It is my hope that the senate can run an open and transparent process, one that relies on subject-matter experts and finds a careful balance between supporting a student’s control of whether to initiate a formal response to an incident of sexual harassment or prohibited discrimination and the university’s need to receive information necessary to stop and prevent discrimination. If the senate once again is unable to pass a policy, or if the policy it crafts does not meet minimum legal requirements, the president will be prepared to act at the end of the 180-day life of this emergency policy.

Sincerely,

Kevin Reed
Vice President and General Counsel

Announcement

Notice of Temporary Policy

Leave a comment

Begin forwarded message:

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

2016-17, Announcement, Blog

Discussion on the denaming of Deady and Dunn Halls

Leave a comment

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

Dear Campus Community,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Mike

See also:

Article in the R-G

Guest Viewpoint in the R-G


Letter to President Schill from the Executive Council of United Academics

Another Guest Viewpoint in the R-G

Awards

Awards

The University of Oregon has a wealth of exemplary individuals who contribute to the success of our university. The Senate recognizes a few of them each year for their leadership and service through four major Senate Awards. These awards allow the Senate to highlight our shared values and those characteristics that enhance the experience of students, staff, and faculty.

2020 Award Recipients

UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency & Trust:
Jennifer Espinola, Law School
Chris Ruiz de Esparza, Law School
Sierra Dawson, Office of the Provost

Classified Staff Leadership Award:
Char Fentress, University Health Center
Cimmeron Gillespie, Campus Planning & Facilities Management

Wayne T. Westling Award:
Kassia Dellabough, College of Design

Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration:
Herlinda Leon, Romance Languages

Deadline for 2020-21 award nominations: TBD. All members of the campus community are able to nominate any eligible faculty member, classified staff person, or officer of administration for these awards. These awards will be presented at a formal ceremony at the June Senate meeting.

Nominations must be sent to: senatecoordinator@uoregon.edu.

Senate Awards:

UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust Wayne T. Westling Award Classified Staff Leadership Award Leadership and Service Award for Officers of Administration
Purpose: Award is given to the person who has best exemplified the principles of shared governance, transparency, and trust during the past year. Established in 2015. Purpose: Named in honor of Wayne T. Westling, Professor of Law at the University of Oregon from 1979-2001. He was recognized across campus for his unswerving and selfless commitment to faculty governance. Award is given for outstanding and long-term leadership and service to the university. Established in 2001. Purpose: Recognize an individual who is a leader in one or more of these areas – personal and professional development, a respectful work environment, or diversity. Must be a “change agent” who has made “a difference through their actions and through collaborative relationships.” Established in 2011. Purpose: Recognize exemplary service over a period of years and outstanding leadership. Must be committed to shared governance and participatory decision making and must foster inclusiveness, respect, and professional excellence. Established 2011.
Eligible: Any administrator or other member of the UO community. Eligible: Any faculty or staff member. Eligible: All classified employees. Eligible: All Officers of Administration.
Selection: Recommended by Senate Executive Committee; selected by members of the University Senate. Selection: Recommended by the Committee on Committees; selected by members of the University Senate. Selection: By the current and previous classified staff senators employed at the university. Selection: By the current Officers of Administration senators.
Criteria: This award will be presented to the individual who has best exemplified the values of trust, transparency, and shared governance in the past year.

Criteria:1) Exemplary service over a period of years to the university through participation in university committees, advisory bodies, or faculty elective positions, and

2) Inspired leadership and commitment to the principles of shared governance, participatory decision-making, and fostering a campus climate of inclusiveness and respect.

 Criteria:Award nominees should be leaders in one or more of the following categories:

Personal and Professional Development: Demonstrates leadership that promotes personal and professional development for Classified Staff in all areas of education, culture, and international awareness, as well as, fosters respect and understanding of the value of lifelong learning and inquiry in the development of all faculty, staff, and students.

A Respectful Work Environment: Demonstrates leadership, and the wise exercise of civic responsibilities in building a collaborative relationship between management, faculty, staff and students; an individual whose actions in cultivating and building respect and recognition make a difference toward a supportive and respectful workplace environment.

Diversity: Demonstrates leadership that embraces and respects the differences in each of us; a change agent whose actions demonstrate the commitment to make a difference and impact the lives of others, is true to the principles of equality of opportunity and freedom from unfair discrimination, and is committed to an open system of accountability and transparency in University operations.

 Criteria:Nominations will be evaluated by the OA Award Committee based on the following:

1) Exemplary service over a period of years to the university through participation in committees, advisory bodies, or elected positions, and

2) Inspired leadership and commitment to the principles of shared governance, participatory decision making, and fostering a campus climate of inclusiveness, respect, and professional excellence.

Process:Describe the specific actions or activities of the nominee that demonstrate their commitment to the values listed above. Describe in detail why you believe the nominee deserves this award.

Be sure to include: Nominee’s name, department/unit, and work phone number; their supervisor’s name and work phone number; your name, department, email address, and work phone number.

Please submit in Word or PDF format.

 Process: Nominations should include a statement that details the nominee’s leadership and service contributions to the university community. Please include a resume or curriculum vitae for the nominee, if appropriate. Additional letters of support for the nominee are welcome.

Be sure to include: Nominee’s name, department/unit, and work phone number; their supervisor’s name and work phone number; your name, department, email address, and work phone number.

Please submit in Word or PDF format.

Process: Describe the specific actions or activities of the nominee that demonstrate their leadership in one or more of the categories above. Explain in detail why you believe the nominee is deserving of recognition.

Be sure to include: Nominee’s name, department/unit, and work phone number; their supervisor’s name and work phone number; your name, department, email address, and work phone number.

Please submit in Word or PDF format.

 Process: Describe in detail why you believe the nominee is deserving of recognition.

Be sure to include: Nominee’s name, department/unit, and work phone number; their supervisor’s name and work phone number; your name, department, email address, and work phone number.

Please submit in Word or PDF format.

2016-17, Announcement, Blog, Free Speech, Inclusion

A note from Senate Vice President Sinclair

Leave a comment

[updated 12/23/2016]

The fallout from the black face halloween incident (BFHI) has divided our community at a time when it is least welcome. Higher education is, or soon will be, under an unprecedented assault from our own government. At this moment the BFHI-divided campus is in no position to present unified resistance to this threat.

Regarding the BFHI, I would suggest to the free speech folks (FSF) that sometimes words and actions are as terrifying and damaging as threats of physical harm. I would say this doubly so to FSF who, due to no fault of their own, have not had the experience of living outside the comfort of a social majority. To the social justice folks (SJF) I would suggest that sometimes damage inflicted is inflicted out of ignorance, and in such situations isn’t forgiveness (together with a liberal dose of education) warranted? I say this doubly to those SJF who do not understand that the no-prisoners response to the BFHI has many on campus afraid that one day they too may be run out of town on a rail for some ignorant, but well-meaning act.

To the FSF who demand that speech be without consequences, I cannot stand with you. The BFHI has clearly damaged our campus and each of us must be held responsible for our actions, well-intended or otherwise.

To the SJF who say there can be no forgiveness for this act, I cannot stand with you. If you believe the perpetrator here is irredeemable then you are as guilty of dividing our community as she is.

To those who know that this situation lies on the complicated boundary between competing ideals, I stand with you. I stand with you ready to find a path forward.

Finally, to the administration (JH), I’d like to introduce you to the Kobayashi Maru. Do I think your reactions to the BFHI have been stellar? No. However, I doubt that I could have done any better (at least without the benefit of hindsight). I will offer a few critiques. Hiding in the bunker of Johnson Hall and waiting for this to blow over (ahem, denaming Deady Hall) is not leadership. Releasing a public report on the BFHI three days before Christmas, may be smart, but it is not leadership. Leadership is putting forth a plan that addresses both the fears of the FSF and of the SJF, and secures us as an institution that is known both for our stalwart support of free speech, but also for our inclusion and compassion towards others of different backgrounds and narratives.

Here is what I hope. I hope that JH can address both the fear that minorities on campus harbor (especially given the recent election), but also the fear that pitchforks await the next unwitting purveyor of social ignorance. I hope that JH can find a way to reassure campus that they are strong supporters of both free speech and campus inclusion. Finally, I hope that JH together with the SJF can orchestrate a path forward for the perpetrator of the BFHI to be brought back into the fold of the university. This would be real, unifying leadership, of the sort we are going to need over the next few years.

If I can help in some regard, please let me know.
Chris

[old stuff below]

Welcome back for fall!  As I write this I am in the last throws of teaching an 8-week calculus course.  Teaching this summer has been a bit of a mixed bag.  On one hand, my students have been great and being on campus everyday has been good for planning the various projects and initiatives that are in front of the Senate.  On the other hand, stepping into the Senate VP role has been plenty of work on its own without the additional time in the classroom.  Regardless, it’s been a productive summer, and I’m glad to be able to elaborate on some of the things I’ve been working on.

First and foremost, is this new website.  While I didn’t mean for it to be as all encompassing as it turned out, the obvious solution to the mountains of human-generated data produced by and for the Senate was a relational database: basically a spreadsheet with recorded relationships between rows in different tables.  This database is still evolving and growing as we update past and future information about committees, those who serve on them, the reports they produce as well the motions and legislation moved in the Senate.  The goal of this database is to keep this information in one central repository from which we can query and serve on these web pages.  There will undoubtedly be hiccups in the delivery of this information, and the information itself may not yet be the most up-to-date.  If you see any errors, please let me know so that I can address it.

Several lives ago, during a brief stint as a graduate student drop out, I was a web developer for a government research lab.  Technology has changed a lot in the intervening 20 years, and it has been nice to revisit and update those skills.

Besides teaching and web development, I have also spent the summer meeting with Senate President Harbaugh, Senate Executive Coordinator Betina Lynn and Senate Program Assistant Kurt Willcox. They have helped get me up to speed on the ins and outs of the business of running the Senate, and in particular the constellation of committees, advisory groups and task forces where so much of the work of the University is done.  One of my overarching goals for the upcoming year is to build an organized view of the committees, what they do, and who serves on them.  I hope to make it easy for people to see what the committees are doing and provide mechanisms by which people can share their thoughts about this work in a constructive manner.

In order for this to be successful, I will need your help.  Please let me know what sorts of information are useful for you as a constituent of the Senate or as a member of a committee.  Visit this site often, and share your opinions on topics of interest.  If you are on the Senate, I implore you share your ideas and debate the issues of the day so that we can fully vet all policy proposals, legislation and resolutions in a thorough manner.

As particular issues arise, I’ll add my thoughts to this thread.  Until then, I’m going to enjoy the prospect of a few weeks of Eugene summer before the whirlwind of fall quarter begins.

Thanks for reading this far, and here’s to a productive upcoming academic year!

Chris

2016-17, Announcement, Blog

The Senate Task Force on the Bias Response Team

5 Comments

The Senate has formed the Task Force on the Bias Response Team.  There are available seats for representatives chosen by ASUO and the GTFF.

Read co–chair Chris Chavez’s letter:
Dear Senators-

I want to give you an update on the BRT task force. The charge of the Senate’s Task Force on the Bias Response Team is this:

National coverage of UO’s Bias Response Team (BRT) and similar efforts aimed at reducing campus bias have raised some concerns regarding the potential for negative effects on free and open classroom discussions. This task force is to assess the material and perceived impact of the BRT on faculty, student, and staff interactions, with a focus on the impact of the BRT on academic matters. The task force will first gather information about the BRT’s operations, including record-keeping. Then, based on the findings of this research and input from the Senate and the University community, the task force will work with the UO administration to ensure that the BRT functions so as to encourage both academic freedom and inclusivity.

The Task Force is chaired by Chris Chavez (Journalism) and Chris Sinclair (Math and Senate VP). The membership includes Rich Margerum (PPPM), Ofer Raban (Law) and Theodora Thompson (Classified staff in Admissions, and SEIU local President). There will be a few other members, including a student, who have yet to be appointed. The committee is advisory to the Senate, and will follow the Senate’s open meetings rules.

At the J-School town hall earlier this month VP Robin Holmes announced that she was reviewing the BRT and expected to make some changes. However I think it’s important that the Senate take the lead on this, and that we should do so with full knowledge of what the BRT does.
It’s to the credit of BRT coordinator Maure Smith-Benanti that her 2014-15 report on how the BRT tries to reduce biased behavior and language is one of the more transparent documents I’ve seen come out of the UO administration, and I’m optimistic that the BRT and VP Holmes’s office will share more with us. (See the BRT website and report at https://uodos.uoregon.edu/Programs/Bias-Response-Team/Annual-Reports.)
I expect that the task force will be able to collect some information over the summer and update the Senate on that information by early fall. If you have any information on the BRT I encourage you to email Chris Chavez and Chris Sinclair, at csinclai@uoregon.edu and cchavez4@uoregon.edu.
2016-17, Announcement, Blog

The Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group

Leave a comment

We’ve set up a working group to rewrite the Responsible Employees Policy, as follows. It is a small group, but it will consult with all Senate constituents.

Charge:

The Senate Responsible Reporting Working Group is tasked with drafting a new Responsible Employees Policy for the Senate and Administration to consider as a replacement for the current emergency policy. The working group will follow the Senate’s normal open meetings rules, and will solicit input broadly from the Administration, the Senate, and the university community, and will hold at least one town hall type meeting for this purpose. The working group may seek outside advice, particularly on considerations involving compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The draft policy sent to the Senate will be accompanied by a document explaining the rationale for the recommended rules and procedures.

Membership:

  1. Merle Weiner, Professor, Law (Chair)
  2. Phyllis Barkhurst, OA, Director of 90by30, Co-Director of the UO Center for the Prevention of Abuse and Neglect
  3. Jennifer Freyd, Professor, Psychology
  4. Bill Harbaugh, Professor, Economics
  5. Darci Heroy, OA, Interim Title IX Coordinator
  6. Melissa Barnes, Psychology (grad student)
  7. Mckenna O’Dougherty, Women & Gender Studies (undergraduate student)

General Council Kevin Reed’s 8/19 email:

Dear Colleagues,

President Schill has approved emergency policy V.11.02 and associated changes to UO’s grievance policy and discrimination policy relating to the prohibition of discrimination and the process for responding to reports of prohibited discrimination. These temporary changes will be in effect for 180 days and provide needed clarification of who is a “responsible employee” and therefore required to report prohibited discrimination, including sexual harassment.

In summary, the emergency policy:

  • Reinforces the expectation that all employees are required to communicate reports of prohibited discrimination, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, to:
    • The Title IX Coordinator;
    • The Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services; or
    • The Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity.
  • Clarifies that the following offices are “confidential resources” that can help connect students and employees with support services and help them navigate their options, without being required to report the alleged misconduct:
    • The Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services;
    • The University Health Center;
    • Ombudsperson; and
    • The University Counseling Center.
  • Provides clarification regarding when a report made in a privileged context does not trigger a duty to report, including:
    • Reports made to an attorney in the context of providing legal counsel (such as student legal services);
    • Reports made by unit members to a steward of their union;
    • Information shared in a public awareness event (such as “Take Back the Night”);
    • Information received during an IRB approved research project; and
    • Reports made by students in the context of an academic assignment.
  • Provides a pathway for certain faculty or staff to receive training and authorization from the Title IX Coordinator to be exempt from the reporting requirement.This emergency policy reflects the input of the University Senate’s Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, and incorporates many thoughtful suggestions made by stakeholders in three separate meetings of the senate as it debated, but was unable to enact a permanent policy this past spring.President Schill and I have asked the senate to return to the task and make modifications that reflect sound policy and remain compliant with our legal obligations under Title IX. To that end, University Senate leadership have appointed a working group, led by Knight Professor of Law, Merle Weiner, to seek broader consensus on a legally sufficient policy.

    It is my hope that the senate can run an open and transparent process, one that relies on subject-matter experts and finds a careful balance between supporting a student’s control of whether to initiate a formal response to an incident of sexual harassment or prohibited discrimination and the university’s need to receive information necessary to stop and prevent discrimination. If the senate once again is unable to pass a policy, or if the policy it crafts does not meet minimum legal requirements, the president will be prepared to act at the end of the 180-day life of this emergency policy.

    Sincerely,

    Kevin Reed
    Vice President and General Counsel

Governance

Governance at the University of Oregon

Leave a comment

The University of Oregon Senate is a partner in shared governance at the UO. We collaborate with the trustees, the president, and the administration as well as the university committees to further the mission of the UO. The Senate derives its authority from the Statutory Faculty, by virtue of the University of Oregon Constitution, and it expresses the faculty’s will on academic matters through legislation and policy proposals. Though its power derives from the faculty, the Senate draws its members from and represents the entire university community, including faculty, students, staff, officers of administration, officers of research, librarians. Given its broad representation across the university, the Senate can also express the will of the entire university through non-binding resolutions addressing issues that affect the community.


B8E0F6EF-0EA2-448E-9E2D-897336F55A89

The University of Oregon Constitution 

The University Senate Bylaws

The Policy on University Policies is maintained by the University administration.

Committees

Committees at the University of Oregon

The University has three distinct groups of University-wide committees which are filled through either appointment or election:

University Standing Committees
These committees are established by University Senate legislation and whose charges have broad relevance to and impact upon the general university community. University-wide issues include but are not limited to general academic issues, curriculum, campus governance, student and faculty affairs, international programs, university awards, and issues affecting campus atmosphere and diversity. University Standing Committees report to the Senate and in some cases also report to the administration based on their enabling legislation. These committees can be either appointed or elected.


5175633B-5689-4BB4-82E9-8167160FDB47

Administrative Advisory Groups
These groups are formed by administrators to advise the administration about a particular area of concern. Their membership and charge are defined by the administration in consultation with the University Senate. They also have an obligation to raise matters of concern to the University Senate and to keep the Senate apprised of major decisions.

External Boards
These boards are required by state or federal law or through the administrative rules of the state board to address issues of specific, non-academic concerns. Their membership and charge are defined by the administration in consultation with the University Senate. These boards report to the administration and will consult with the Senate on issues of campus-wide importance.

Internal Senate Committees
Internal Senate Committees consist of five committees charged with a variety of functions for the University Senate, including participation in: fiscal policy, advising the Senate President, making nominations, clarifying and/or proposing editorial changes to notice of motions, and oversight of the committee structure.

Announcement

Ombud search & Bias Response Team task force

Leave a comment

This is a quote from an email sent to 16-17 Senators from Senate President Harbaugh. -Ch

“The Senate is setting up a task force to study the administration’s Bias Response Team, which has recently been in the news. The charge is to collect information on what the BRT does, analyze the effect of the BRT on academic freedom and on campus climate, and make recommendations as to whether or not Senate action is needed.

Senator Chris Chavez (Journalism) has agreed to lead this task force. Chris led the J-School’s panel on the BRT on Monday, and I think did a great job ensuring that all perspectives were heard.

If you are interested in serving on this task force, or know of a constituent who might be, please email myself, Chris Chavez, and or CoC Chair Chris Sinclair. Keep in mind that the task force will do the bulk of its information gathering this summer, and then reach out to the broader campus in the fall for input.”