Category Archives: Motions

US19/20-16: Resolution to adopt an Open Access Scholarship Policy

Date of Notice: May 12, 2020
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Resolution
Sponsor: David Condon, Psychology
Margaret Sereno, Psychology
Miriam Rigby, Librarian
Beth Harn, College of Education
Andrew Kern, Biology
Franny Gaede, Librarian


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon is a public university dedicated to excellence in research and scholarship; and

1.2 WHEREAS commercial and society publishers have used copyright restrictions to limit the distribution and access to scholarly works; and

1.3 WHEREAS the Faculty of the University of Oregon believe it is important to make the products of that work widely and publicly available for the public benefit.

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate endorses a resolution supporting the development of an Open Access Scholarship Policy by the Senate Subcommittee on Open Access in the 2020-2021 academic year, per recommendations outlined in the Related Documents.


Related Documents

US19/20-15: New Program Proposal: Ph.D. in Bioengineering

Date of Notice: March 11, 2020
Current Status: Approved April 8, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Nathan Jacobs (Lecturer/Curriculum Director, Knight Campus), Jim Hutchison (Sr Assoc Vice President, Knight Campus)


Motion:

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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


Related Documents

Program Proposal – Ph.D. in Bioengineering
Due Diligence
UO-OSU Partnership Agreement
LOS-Joint Bioengineering Program to Graduate School
OSU-UO SPC Early Notice


OSU BIOE Grad Handbook
Berkeley BIOE Grad Handbook

US19/20-14: Policy on Search Procedures for Academic Administrator Positions

Date of Notice: March 18, 2020
Current Status: Approved April 8, 2020
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Elizabeth Skowron, Senate President
Elliot Berkman, Senate Vice President
Bill Harbaugh, Immediate Past President


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the University of Oregon does not currently have a policy on search procedures for hiring academic administrators with university-wide and unit-specific academic responsibilities; and

1.2 WHEREAS decisions around hiring processes reflect a university’s values around shared governance, professional excellence, rational decision-making, efficient and responsible management of resources, transparency, and affirmative action, diversity, and inclusion; and

1.3 WHEREAS searches for new academic administrators conducted with broad participation from faculty and the university community provide an appropriate voice for the university community in such decisions, lead to more informed decision-making, and help to position new hires for success by increasing community buy-in; and

1.4 WHEREAS Policies that outline hiring procedures for academic administrators are currently in place in many other AAU institutions; and

1.5 WHEREAS these procedures outline a set of guidelines grounded in best practices whilst also providing flexibility;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Policy on Search Procedures for Academic Administrator Positions delineated in the Related Documents for immediate implementation; and

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED that unless expressly renewed or modified by the Senate as Legislation signed by the University President, the policy shall automatically expire seven years after the effective date of the policy.


Related Documents

Policy – Search Procedures for Academic Administrator Positions

US19/20-10: Revisions to Expedited Tenure process

Date of Notice: January 22, 2020
Current Status: Approved February 12, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Jack Boss (Music, Chair of FPC 2018-2009)
Carol Silverman (Anthropology, Chair of FPC 2019-2020)
Elizabeth Skowron (Psychology, Senate President 2019-2020)


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Senate passed an Expedited Tenure policy for the University of Oregon in January 2018 (Policy 11.02.04); and

1.2 WHEREAS the university’s experience with the policy to date demonstrates that the policy provides the academic units with leverage when seeking to hire tenured faculty members whose credentials have been established through promotion and tenure processes at other research institutions; and

1.3 WHEREAS the policy has demonstrated that it significantly lessens the administrative burden at the unit and college levels for these tenure reviews; and

1.4 WHEREAS all ten cases of expedited tenure considered since January 2018 have had positive outcomes;

1.5 WHEREAS expanding the expedited tenure review process to include experienced associate professor candidates will likely result in additional faculty hiring advantages,

1.6 WHEREAS no unit or department thus far involved in an expedited tenure case has elected to reconsider its decision to use the expedited process after the Expedited Tenure Review Committee (a subset of the Faculty Personnel Committee) has completed its review, as provided for in the original policy; and

1.7 WHEREAS consistently staffing a complement of five Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC) members on the Expedited Tenure Review Committee (ETRC) has resulted in an unmanageable service burden on University FPC members; and

1.8 WHEREAS excellent teaching at the University must be consistently fostered and maintained; and

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the eligibility for expedited tenure review shall continue to include full professors and shall be changed to include associate professors who have been tenured and in rank for a minimum of three years, and

2.2 That new faculty who are hired through the expedited tenure process may be brought in as full professors or as associate professors, depending on their qualifications, and are brought in at no greater than their current rank (i.e., full professors or associate professors). For associate professors to be considered for a promotion to full will require the faculty member be reviewed by the full promotion and tenure process; and

2.3 That the final step of returning the completed review to the originating unit so that faculty members may reconsider their decision to recommend expedited tenure shall be designated as optional in the case of individuals appointed at the rank of full professor, enabling units that wish to retain this step to do so, whereas other units may elect to forego it, and

2.4 That the final step of returning the completed review to the originating unit so that faculty members may reconsider their decision to recommend expedited tenure shall be required in the case of individuals appointed at the rank of associate professor, with the unit faculty also required to vote on the decision to use expedited tenure, and

2.5 That the number of Faculty Personnel Committee members required constitute the Expedited Tenure Review Committee shall be changed from “five members” to “three to five members,” and

2.6 That the Expedited Tenure Review Committee shall always consider teaching evaluations of candidates, as available, in their review process for positions with significant any teaching responsibilities.


Financial Impact: Cost Neutral

US19/20-09: Accelerated Masters Programs proposal

Date of Notice: November 13, 2019
Current Status: Approved January 8, 2020
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Andy Karduna, Human Physiology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS an Accelerated Master’s Programs model presents an opportunity for high achieving students to link advanced undergraduate coursework with graduate coursework and degree completion, thus reducing the time and cost of earning a Master’s degree; and

1.2 WHEREAS Accelerated Master’s Programs can be used as a recruitment tool, helping to increase enrollment both at the undergraduate and graduate levels; and

1.3 WHEREAS Accelerated Master’s Programs are very common among UO’s peer institutions, including most AAU public universities; and

1.4 WHEREAS the Graduate School has been consulting with numerous stakeholders on campus, including the Registrar’s Office, Office of Student Financial Aid and Scholarships, Office of the Provost, Undergraduate Council, Graduate Council, Academic Council and Senate Leadership; and

1.5 WHEREAS the Undergraduate Council and Graduate Council have fully reviewed and endorsed the proposal for an Accelerated Master’s Program model.

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED, on the recommendation of the Undergraduate and Graduate Councils, the proposed Accelerated Master’s Program model is approved (see related documents for full details).


Related Documents

Accelerated Master’s Programs Model Proposal
Accelerated Master’s Programs Model Guidelines

US19/20-06: New Program Proposal: Data Science

Date of Notice: November 6, 2019
Current Status: Approved December 11, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Joe Sventek (Computer & Information Science), Bill Cresko (Biology)


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the recommendation of the Undergraduate Council to approve the new Bachelor’s degree in Data Science (please see related documents for program specifics).


Related Documents

Program Proposal
Academic Plan Template
DSCI Faculty
Other Similar Programs
UGDS Curriculum
Summary for Statewide Provost’s Council


Supplemental Materials

Due Diligence – Domain Emphases
Due Diligence – Program Level
Due Diligence – Multilisting Agreements

US19/20-04: UOCC rep to Graduate Council – voting status

Date of Notice: October 22, 2019
Current Status: Approved November 13, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Frances White, Chair of UOCC


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the Graduate Council frequently works on program and course approval with the UO Committee on Courses (UOCC); and

1.2 WHEREAS there is a voting ex officio seat for the UOCC Chair or designee on the Undergraduate Council to coordinate course and program approval processes with that body; and

1.3 WHEREAS the University Senate approved US15/16-18: Revision of the Membership of the Graduate Council, adding the Chair of UOCC (or designee) as a non-voting ex officio member, in part to establish consistency with Undergraduate Council processes;

Section II

2.1 BE IT THEREFORE MOVED that the University approves revising the UOCC Chair or designee seat on the Graduate Council from non-voting to voting.

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

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


Motion

Section I

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

Section II

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


Related Documents

Summer Term 2019 Preliminary Curriculum Report

US19/20-02: Revisions to Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee

Date of Notice: September 18, 2019
Current Status: Approved October 9, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Elizabeth Skowron, Senate President
Elliot Berkman, Senate Vice President
Sierra Dawson, Chair of CIET committee


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee (CIET) has broad relevance for and impact upon all UO faculty; and

1.2 WHEREAS the current membership criteria do not provide for consistent representation from all faculty units on campus; and

1.3 WHEREAS the faculty feedback and evaluation needs for different units on campus are varied;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the membership for the Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee be revised per the changes outlined in the Redline Draft of the committee’s 17 point chart (please see Related Documents).


Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee 17 point chart – REDLINE_September 2019

US19/20-01: Rename the NTTF Committee

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


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

Implementation Date: Immediate upon approval by University Senate


Related Documents

NTTF 2018-2019 Annual Report

Draft 17 point chart_Redline_Sept 2019

US18/19-20: Approval of 2019 Senate Award Nominees

Date of Notice: April 10. 2019
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Senate Exec Committee, Committee on Committees


Motion

Section I

1.1 Whereas the Senate Executive Committee, the Committee on Committees, and the 2018-2019 Classified and OA senators have deliberated and voted on the 2019 Annual Senate Award nominations.

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approve the respective nominees found in the Related Documents.


2019 Annual Senate Award Nominees

US18/19-15: New Program Proposal: Ph.D. in PPPM

Date of Notice: April 9, 2019
Current Status: Approved April 24, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Rich Margerum


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED that the University Senate approves the recommendation of the Graduate Council and the Graduate School to approve the Ph.D. in Planning and Public Affairs in the School of Planning, Public Policy and Management (please see Related Documents section).


Ph.D. in PPPM Proposal

US18/19-14: Phase out Current Student ‘Course Evaluations’ and Replace with Learning-Focused ‘Student Experience Surveys’

Date of Notice: March 19, 2019
Current Status: April 10, 2019
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching Committee


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS peer-reviewed research on the student evaluation of teaching has provided evidence that student course evaluations like those used at UO reflect bias with respect to gender and may reflect bias with respect to race, and that the numerical scores are statistically orthogonal to student learning; see for example the meta-analysis indicating student ratings are not related to student learning by Uttl, White and Wong Gonzalez (2017); the randomized, controlled, blind experiment related to gender bias by Boring, Ottoboni, and Stark (2016); and an online course experiment exposing gender bias by MacNell, Driscoll, and Hunt (2015);

1.2 WHEREAS in Spring 2017 the UO Senate initiated a multi-year effort “evaluating and improving course evaluations and peer reviews with respect to reducing biases and improving validity, with the goal of improving teaching, learning, and equity” – 2017 Motion to Create Teaching Evaluation Task Force;

1.3 WHEREAS guiding principles for this work have been to ensure teaching evaluation is fair and transparent; informed by data collected from peers, students, and instructors themselves; and based on clear definitions of teaching quality rooted in the university’s broad “inclusive, engaged, and research-led” pillars; and to ensure that instructors receive actionable feedback for their own purposes of continuous improvement;

1.4 WHEREAS in Spring 2018 the UO Senate adopted a Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching System, which approved centrally administered midterm student experience surveys (results only available to instructors) and course-level instructor reflection surveys (results included in instructors’ files), and forming and charging a standing committee with developing a new end-of-term student survey and addressing other issues related to the context, policy, and tools used in teaching evaluation;

1.5 WHEREAS in January 2019 the UO Senate voted unanimously to include in instructor files language that requires teaching be evaluated “primarily using peer reviews, instructor self-reflection, and substantive written comments,” and that “numerical student evaluations of teaching should not be used as a standalone measure of teaching quality for any university purpose” – 2019 Policy on Teaching Evaluation Disclaimer Language;

1.6 WHEREAS the evaluation of courses and instructors is the work of the faculty and unit leaders, and although student feedback about their learning experience may assist evaluators in that work, a Student Experience Survey is not a course evaluation in and of itself.

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED: beginning in Fall 2019, the University will phase out its current student “Course Evaluations” and replace them with an end-of-term “Student Experience Survey” and this process will be complete by Spring 2020.

2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Student Experience Survey will offer specific prompts for written student feedback, asking students to report how specific elements of the course—for example, course materials, feedback, organization, interactions with peers, and their own investment of time and effort—affect their learning experience. The Senate CIET Committee will develop procedures and guidelines regarding the addition of customized questions by units and/or instructors to the Student Experience Survey. The surveys will not ask generic evaluative questions such as “What is the quality of this instructor’s teaching?”

2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the information provided by the Student Experience Survey will not be used as a standalone tool to rate instructors for the purposes of merit, promotion, tenure or renewal, but rather as one source of information to be included, along with peer reviews and instructor reflections, etc., in the evaluation of instructors in light of their academic unit’s criteria for quality teaching.

2.4 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Senate’s Continuous Improvement and Evaluation of Teaching (CIET) Committee will continue to refine the Student Experience Survey and reporting forms in cooperation with departments, schools, and colleges. The Committee will make annual reports to the Senate about this ongoing work.

2.5 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Senate CIET Committee will develop procedures for determining whether to redact comments instructors have flagged as hateful or discriminatory.

2.6 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: In collaboration with the Office of Student Conduct, the Senate CIET Committee will develop procedures to ensure that students who have been found responsible for academic misconduct will be not be able to complete the Student Experience Survey for that course.

2.7 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Senate CIET Committee will continue to refine a protocol for instructors who wish to allow their students to complete the web-based Student Experience Survey in class. The Senate CIET Committee will also develop and disseminate materials (videos, handouts) that will help students provide feedback in the Student Experience Survey that is actionable, concrete, and focused on their learning experience.

2.8 BE IT FURTHER MOVED: the Senate CIET Committee, in collaboration with the Office of Institutional Research and the Office of the Registrar, will phase out the current numerical “P&T report” generated by the Office of the Registrar and replace it with a new annual report that combines information from the Student Experience Survey and Instructor Reflection in a format that, when combined with peer review of teaching reports, can be used by unit heads to evaluate instructors against the unit’s criteria for quality teaching. The committee will continue to study the issue of biases in student evaluations.

2.9  BE IT FURTHER MOVED: The Senate CIET Committee will produce recommendations for UO faculty search committees regarding materials they might request as evidence of teaching quality or promise above and beyond student ratings.

US18/19-12: Conflict of Interest, Conflict of Commitment, and Outside Activities policy revisions

Date of Notice: November 28, 2018
Current Status: March 13, 2019
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Elizabeth Skowron (Education and Senate VP)


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS a joint administrative and senate task force was charged by the University President and University Senate President with reviewing and revising the former “Conflicts of Interest, Potential” policy; and

1.2 WHEREAS University employees are encouraged to engage in outside activities that advance the mission of the University with the expectation that those activities be proactively disclosed if they would or could present a conflict of interest so they can be managed in a manner that protects integrity, ensures legal compliance, and promotes good stewardship of public resources; and

1.3 WHEREAS the University is prohibited from authorizing outside compensation that “does not comport with the mission of the public university or substantially interferes with an officer’s or employee’s duties to the university.” (ORS 352.232(2)); and

1.4 WHEREAS the current policy was first adopted in 1991, provides unclear guidance about permitted and unpermitted outside activities, currently overlaps unnecessarily with other policies specific to sponsored research, and is not clear which employee groups it covers, though state ethics law applies to all employees; and

1.5 WHEREAS the current policy addresses both conflict of interest and conflict of commitment; and

1.6 WHEREAS the joint Administration-Senate committee charged with this work sought to set forth principles that permit university employees to engage in activities outside the university while preserving their primary professional responsibilities to the university, and not interfere with academic and personal freedoms involved in choosing to engage in those outside activities;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the revisions to the existing policy “Conflict of Interest, Potential,” with this revised policy proposal entitled, “Conflict of Interest, Conflict of Commitment, and Outside Activities” as outlined in the Related Documents.

 


Related Documents

Amended on the floor: Final Draft (approved 03/13/2019)

 

US18/19-11: Requiring Canvas for Core Ed Courses

Date of Notice: January 16, 2019
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Core Education Council


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS The Core Ed Council voted unanimously in support of this motion on January 28, 2019; and

1.2 WHEREAS the high school to college transition is challenging to many students and performance in the first year is correlated with student success; and

1.3 WHEREAS LMS use is correlated with undergraduate student success; and

1.4 WHEREAS Canvas is FERPA compliant, and other cloud-based grading systems (Google Sheets, etc) may not be; and

1.5 WHEREAS Between Fall 2017 and Winter 2019, 40% of UO Core Ed Courses had not published their Canvas site; and

1.6 WHEREAS The motion is supported by the Deans Council;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that Instructors of Record in classes that count toward “core education” requirements (including Areas of Inquiry; Difference, Inequality and Agency; Global Perspectives; Writing, and BA/BS requirements) shall use, and make available the Learning Management System (LMS) site for the core ed class, prior to the first meeting, to students enrolled in the course.

  • At a minimum, the LMS site for a core ed class shall include information about what requirements the course satisfies, any Methods of Inquiry covered by the course, a course syllabus, any significant assessments, and students’ current performance in the course.
  • The Senate instructs the Core Ed Council to work with the Office of the Provost (and/or other administrative offices) to automate the insertion into the LMS sites of core ed courses the official course description approved by UOCC, any core ed requirements the course satisfies, the Methods of Inquiry and associated learning outcomes approved by UOCC and standard language regarding relevant university policies pertinent to students in core ed courses (AEC, student conduct code, etc). The Senate instructs the Core Ed Council to work with Libraries (and/or other administrative offices) to provide LMS training and support for instructors of courses which count toward core ed courses.

Implementation date: Fall 2020.

US18/19-10: Academic Continuity Plan policy proposal

Date of Notice: November 28, 2018
Current Status: Approved April 24, 2019
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Academic Council


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS in 2014 the Academic Integrity Task Force was tasked with evaluating the Fall 2014 Academic Continuity Plan and consulting with faculty, department heads and administrators to develop and implement plans to preserve academic integrity researching and drafting a report on academic continuity in the event of an emergency that causes significant academic disruption on campus; and

1.2 WHEREAS the Academic Integrity Task Force recommended that during Winter term 2015, the Senate President convene the Academic Council and charge that body with developing, in consultation with Academic Affairs and the President’s office, clear protocols for the involvement of the Senate and the relevant Senate committees in campus-wide academic planning and decision-making; and

1.3 WHEREAS the university is required by Federal financial aid requirements to demonstrate student academic progress through the issuance of final course grades, and the university does not currently have the ability to do that in the event of a significant academic disruption where some or all final grades cannot be issued; and

1.4 WHEREAS students may be negatively impacted in a variety of ways if they do not receive emergency grades during a significant academic disruption; and

1.5 WHEREAS the University Senate is the sole faculty governance authority over all academic matters as commonly understood in higher education, and as such has sole authority over the methods of instruction and awarding of grades; and

1.6 WHEREAS the Office of the General Counsel has raised no legal objections to the proposed policy (Memo fr: General Counsel, April 16, 2019) while stating that the President ultimately retains emergency authority over such matters; and

1.7 WHEREAS the Academic Council has now developed this Academic Continuity Plan and recommends its approval by the University Senate.

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that the University Senate approves the Academic Continuity Plan policy (Please see Related Documents below).


Related Documents

Academic Continuity Plan – FINAL (04/03/2018)
GTFF Written Response to Academic Continuity Plan 03/13/19
General Counsel Analysis Memo
Presidential Response

US18/19-09: Process for Undergraduate and Graduate Council approval when courses are not finalized

Date of Notice: January 16, 2019
Current Status: Notice Given
Motion Type: Legislation
Sponsor: Academic Council


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS Courses required for majors, minors, certificates or other transcripted credentials must have permanent rather than generic or experimental numbers, and

1.2 WHEREAS proposals to change transcripted credentials may need to temporarily include courses that are in the process of being regularized or changed;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the following clarification of the approval process to be added to the Procedures for curricular changes.

Clarification of process when changing or creating courses required for majors, minors, certificates, and specializations

A course may be offered under an experimental number for a maximum of three times, at which time it must be either submitted for permanent approval or dropped from the department course offerings. Experimental courses are afforded none of the rights that approved courses have (i.e., they cannot be listed as required courses in degree programs, cannot have pre-requisites, cannot have expanded course descriptions, cannot be designated as group-satisfying or multicultural-satisfying, etc.).

Regularizing or changing courses for proposed new majors, minors, etc.

Courses required for majors, minors, certificates or other transcripted credentials must have permanent rather than generic or experimental numbers. Proposals to the Graduate or Undergraduate Council to add new or change existing transcripted credentials should, therefore, endeavor to have new courses or revised courses approved before submission. In rare cases, expedited approval may be requested from the Council for proposals that temporarily include courses that are in the process of being regularized or changed. Such requests might happen, for example, in response to rapidly emerging opportunities. In order for expedited approval to occur, course proposals must be initiated in the Course Inventory Management system (CourseLeaf) in outline form but with sufficient detail that the UOCC can determine that these classes will likely be approvable when the final version is submitted by the proposer. The UOCC representative on the Council will then report either that 1) these courses are on track to be approved and can be included as temporary required classes so that the proposal can move forward for a Council vote, or 2) these classes are not ready and that the proposal needs to wait for these classes to reach this “likely approvable” stage before a vote can be taken.

US18/19-07: Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power: Sexual, Physically Intimate, or Romantic Relationships with Students

Date of Notice: November 1, 2018
Current Status: Approved January 30, 2019
Motion Type: Policy Proposal
Sponsor: Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (CSGBV)


Motion

Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence was tasked with revising the UO policy on intimate relationships on campus, in cooperation with the Office of General Counsel;

Section II

2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED the University Senate approves the Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power: Sexual, Physically Intimate, or Romantic Relationships with Students policy proposal (please see related documents below).


Related Documents

Policy Draft: REDLINE
Policy Draft: CLEAN
Policy Draft: REDLINE version 2… submitted as amendment

Drafts amended at January 30, 2019 Senate meeting: REDLINE, CLEAN

Oregonian Op-Ed and UO Senate Resolution

From: Bill Harbaugh <harbaugh@uoregon.edu>
Subject: Oregonian Op-Ed and UO Senate Resolution.
Date: July 8, 2018 at 8:52:09 PM PDT
To: gilleyb@pdx.edu

Cc: Chris Sinclair <csinclai@uoregon.edu>, ASUO President <asuopres@uoregon.edu>, Mike Schill <pres@uoregon.edu>, John Nicols <nic@uoregon.edu>, Chris Phillips <ncp@uoregon.edu>

Dear Professor Gilley –

I read your Oregonian Op-Ed today at https://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2018/07/oregon_campuses_need_intellect.html

There’s much I agree with. However I want to set the record straight regarding the UO Senate resolution that you mention. I was UO Senate Vice President last year (and am president this year), and I helped write the resolution. You seem to have mis-read it as supporting the “hecklers’ veto”. It does not. It clearly states:

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

This is the latest in a series of Senate actions that have all taken the same stand – supporting the rights of speakers, and protesters, to be heard. Here is the explanation I gave to the UO Board of Trustees last month:

… Second, I want to explain the Senate’s resolution “In Support of the UO Student Collective”. This is the group of students that disrupted President Schill’s “State of the University”speech in October.

… [UO President Schill] has said that with this resolution the Senate endorsed the sorts of disruption of classes by students who might object to something about the course content, as has occurred at other universities, such as Reed and Evergreen, where students have essentially shut down courses on particular subjects.

This is not at all what our Senate has endorsed. The resolution states clearly:

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

https://senate.uoregon.edu/entry/?Motions=US17/18-02

I’m not a lawyer, but this language is consistent with everything I understand about the First Amendment, everything I believe about academic freedom, and everything that UO’s other policies on these matters state. People have a right to speak, and those who object to that speech have the right to have their objections heard even if that disrupts and causes inconvenience for the speaker and the audience.

What those who object cannot do, and again I quote from our resolution, is prevent speakers from being heard and the audience from hearing what they have to say. 

Our resolution does not endorse the sorts of disruptions that prevent faculty, or our President, from teaching what they want to teach or saying what they want to say. It specifically speaks against that, only allowing “disruption” so long as that disruption doesn’t prevent the professor’s lecture, or for that matter the President’s talk, from continuing.

Our resolution does not endorse allowing the actions of the Students Collective taking the podium and shutting down President Schill’s address – although it does call for some leniency in their subsequent discipline, and some reforms to make sure free speech discipline cases are handled with special care. These were students, after all.

If this is not clear, please see the UO policy on Academic Freedom, which the Senate passed in 2014 and which the UO President signed, which states:

The University’s responsibility to help students to think critically and independently requires that members of the university community have the right to investigate and discuss matters, including those that are controversial, inside and outside of class, without fear of institutional restraint. It is the responsibility of speakers, listeners and all members of our community to respect others and to promote a culture of mutual inquiry throughout the University community.

Or see the UO Policy on Freedom of Inquiry and Free Speech, which we passed in 2010, which states:

The University supports free speech with vigor, including the right of presenters to offer opinion, the right of the audience to hear what is presented, and the right of protesters to engage with speakers in order to challenge ideas, so long as the protest does not disrupt or stifle the free exchange of ideas. 

(https://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/01-administration-and-governance/freedom-inquiry-and-free-speech)

I don’t see how the Senate and the faculty could be any more clear about our position, and I’m tired of hearing people misrepresent it. Though of course I’m open to any arguments, even disruptive ones.

Thank you. Questions?

I hope that this makes clear that this UO Senate resolution is not a good example of faculty opposition to free-speech, and that you will search for a better one to use instead.

I’m posting this on the UO Senate website, and I’m ccing professor Chris Sinclair (Math), who was Senate President when this motion passed, the current ASUO student president, UO President Mike Schill, as well as UO professors John Nicols (History) and Chris Philips (Math) since they are the UO NAS members that I know.

Thanks,

Bill Harbaugh
Economics Prof & Senate Pres
University of Oregon
http://senate.uoregon.edu

 

 

US17/18-21: Approval of Curriculum Report, Spring 2018

Date of Notice: May 1, 2018

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Spring 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review;

Section II

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

US17/18-16: Approval of Curriculum Report, Winter 2018

Date of Notice: January 3, 2018

Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: UO Committee on Courses


Section I

1.1 WHEREAS the UO Committee on Courses has submitted the Winter 2018 Preliminary Curriculum Report for University Senate Review;

Section II

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

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

Date of Notice: February 14, 2018

Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsors:

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


Section I

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

Section II

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

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

US17/18-08: Creation of Core Education Council

Date of Notice: January 22, 2018

Current Status: Approved March 14, 2018

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Chris Sinclair (Math), Senate President


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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


Related Documents

17 Point Chart – FINAL-03/09/2018


Date of Effectiveness:

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

Date of Notice: January 10, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

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


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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


Related Documents

HB 2998 Report – Final Commission

Outcomes and criteria for transfer of Gen Ed

Power Point Presentation – Jan. 17 2018

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

Date of Notice: November 15, 2017

Current Status: Approved January 31, 2018

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Senator


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

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

Report of the Senate Executive Committee

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

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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


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

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

 


Resolution language to be replaced by the above amended text:


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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


Related Documents:

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

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

Date of Notice: November 13, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


DRAFT

Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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

US17/18-01: Expedited Tenure Process

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

Date of Notice: October 4, 2017

Current Status: Notice Given

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Boris Botvinnik (Math), Faculty Personnel Committee


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

 


Expedited Tenure:  Miscellaneous Policies and Practices at Other Universities

 

University of Maryland

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

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

The review process would proceed as follows:

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

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

Penn State University

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

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

University of Virginia

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

 Policy Statement:

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

Expedited Review Procedures:

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

Promotion and tenure review requires:

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

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

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

Montana State University

Policy Title: Expedited Tenure Review at Hire

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

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

University of Arizona

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

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

Policy Statement:

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

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

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

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

Arizona State University

Policy Title: Tenure – Expedited Review for Tenure

Policy Statement:

Current Faculty

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

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

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

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

Decision

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

UC Santa Barbara

APPOINTMENT AND PROMOTION POLICY

Professor Series

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

 

 

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

Dear Senate President Chris Sinclair and Vice President Bill Harbaugh,

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

Sincerely,

Office of the President

[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” ]

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

Date of Notice: November 8, 2017

Current Status: Approved November 15, 2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Motion

Section II

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

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

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

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

Date of Notice: November 15, 2017

Current Status: Approved November 29, 2017

Motion Type: Resolution

Sponsor: Arian Mobasser, Student Senator


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

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

1.4 WHEREAS the preamble of the Student Conduct Code reads:

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

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

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

1.7 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Academic Freedom says

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

and

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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


Related Documents:

Oregonian Op-Ed  – July 2018

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

Date of Notice: May 17, 2017

Current Status: Approved May 24, 2017

Motion Type: Legislation

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


Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Notice Given: 02/27/2017

Current Status: Approved 03/15/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh (Economics)


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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


Related Documents:

Policy Concept Form

Draft Policy Proposal

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

UPDATE: New


Date of Notice: 02/27/2017

Current Status: Approved April 12, 2017

Motion Type: Legislation

Sponsor: Bill Harbaugh (Economics)


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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


Related Document:

Policy Concept Form

Policy Proposal

Summary of Changes

New 17 pt chart

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

1/30/2017: The administration will host a town hall Monday at 6PM, EMU Ballroom, on the Trump Travel Ban and the Sanctuary resolution implementation. http://around.uoregon.edu/content/campus-town-hall-address-questions-immigration

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

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

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

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

Date of Notice: 12/15/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Sponsor: Academic Council


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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

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

a) Lower-division professional-technical courses

b) Physical education and dance activity courses

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

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

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

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


Related Documents:

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

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

Date of Notice: 12/21/2016

Current Status: Approved 02/01/2017

Motion Type: Legislation

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


Motion

Section I

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

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

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

Section II

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


Financial Impact:


Related Documents:

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

LTS Syllabi

LTS Faculty

External Review

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

Complete Motion

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

IAAC motion amendments

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

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

Dear President Schill, Members of the Senate

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

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

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

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

MENS AGITAT MOLEM

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

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

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

Mens Agitat Molem – I believe – speaks for ALL of us – irrespective of our roles at the University of Oregon. The “life of mind” speaks to the intellectual discourse that ensues when we proudly serve as representatives when meetings convene, where the diversity of thought is shared, valuing equity and inclusion in a learning environment, regardless of classification. I have been inspired with Mens Agitat Molem, and many classified leaders have worked over the years with the strive that the University of Oregon remain faithful to the commitment in “the life of the mind” for which it stands for, and for the values in our mission statement not only to be meaningful and true in the experiences of classified staff who step forward to serve on committee, and in leadership roles the individual undertakes – but that the University of Oregon is as committed and faithful in the demonstration of fostering a campus climate and culture that upholds these in our policy on Community Standards Affirmation: https://policies.uoregon.edu/policy/by/1/01-administration-and-governance/community-standards-affirmation

We further affirm our commitment to:

· Respect the dignity and essential worth of all individuals.

· Promote a culture of respect throughout the University community.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More recently:

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT IS A POINT OF PRIDE, thanks to the leadership of Senate President Nathan Tublitz, that the UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award was created on February 9, 2011 with the following words http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/content/uo-senate-leadership-award-classified-staff

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

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

Note: You will note that there is much thought behind the issues we share of our experiences of the campus climate and culture that we strive and seek for in the acceptance speeches: http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/content/uo-senate-classified-staff-leadership-award

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Learning that our elected representative roles are excluded from the new restructure of IAAC comes yet as another disappointment. Johnny Earl, who is an elected representative on the IAC, is a past MLK award recipient who has served as a representative on the University’s Diversity Committee. In 2015, Senate representative John Ahlen, in his introduction of Johnny Earl as the Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award recipient, shared that Johnny worked the evening or graveyard shift – yet he continues to step forward into these leadership roles on his off time during the day because he values and truly cares about the University of Oregon and that for many classified staff, it takes resilience and courage to continue to work at making the University a great place to work – notwithstanding what we continue to encounter expressed in Dr Carla McNelly’s acceptance speech (http://oldsenate.uoregon.edu/files/CarlaClassifiedStaffAwardSpeech2011_0.pdf)

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

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

Respectfully,

Theodora

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


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

Stephanie P Testimony IAC support.doc

US14/15-67: Review of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 08/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Notice Given

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Motion

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


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

US14/15-66: Hiring of Academic Executive Administrators

Date of Notice: 07/01/2014

Motion type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Postponed until 01/13/2016

Sponsor: Senate Executive Committee


Motion

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


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

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

Date of Notice: 10/07/2016

Motion Type: Policy Proposal

Current Status: Approved 11/16/2016

Sponsor: Graduate Council

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