Minutes of the University Senate Meeting March 8, 2006

 

 

Present: Present: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, S. Brownmiller, E. Chan, C. Cherry, M. Dennis, A. DuFour, C. Ellis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, S. Holmberg, H. Lin, J. Hurwit, R. Irvin, J. Jablonski, L. Karim, P. Keyes, L. LaTour, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly, K. McPherson, L. Moses, L. Nelson, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, M. Pangburn, G. Psaki, L. Richardson, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Scott, E. Singer, J. Sneirson, J. Stolet, P. Swangard, N. Tublitz, J. Wagenknecht,

 

Excused: D. Close, S. Cohen, A. Djiffack, N. Fujii, S. Gary, A. Hornof, C. Minson,

 

Absent: K. Sheehan, K. Wagle

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

Senate President Peter Keyes called the regular meeting of the University Senate to order at 3:05 p.m. in room 282 Lillis.

 

Approval of the Minutes

 

Approval of the minutes from the November 30, 2005, January 11, 2006, and February 8, 2006 meetings were approved as distributed.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Update on the Ad Hoc Academic Excellence Committee. President Keyes noted that there have been several productive committee meetings, one of which included the new incoming Provost Linda Brady, to discuss the broad topic of academic excellence. The committee will be working with Provost Brady to determine the direction this committee will take in the coming academic year.

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Winter 2006 Preliminary Curriculum Report. In the absence of Committee on Courses chairman Paul Engelking, Registrar Herb Chereck brought attention to several changes/additions to the Winter 2006 Preliminary Curriculum Report: (1) on Page 4 under Linguistics, LING 602 will be listed under existing course changes instead of under new course with the request for a change of title from Supervised College Teaching to Supervised Teaching; (2) on page 11 under “Other Curricular Matters”, School of Law, the text “The Oregon University System has approved a Master of Laws (LL.M.) in Environmental and Natural Resources Law, effective fall term 2006,” was added; and, (3) the College of Education announcement to terminate the Early Intervention major in the College of Education was corrected to be effective fall term 2006 instead of winter term 2006. Hearing no further changes and with no further discussion, the motion to accept the Preliminary Winter 2006 Curriculum Report, as amended, was brought to a vote passed unanimously. (See http://www.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen056/W06FinalCurrRpt.htm for the final report.)

 

Senate ad hoc Student Conduct Code Committee (SCCC). Senator Lisa Freinkel, chair of SCCC, reported that the Student Conduct Code revisions, as circulated in their current draft review form, were begun at least 10 years ago. A numbers of issues have come up over the years, such as dealing with unwanted sexual contact, to prompt code revisions that better reflect the realities and problems of date rape, non-consensual sex, and sexual assault. Jurisdiction of the code was solely limited to campus. Discussions of the code as related to sexual misconduct lead to issues of broader jurisdiction in terms that included not only sexual assault, but also physical assault that happens off campus. Earlier Student Conduct Code committees concluded they could not make effective revisions in a piecemeal fashion, which prompted the need for an overall revision of the code. In the course of beginning these revisions, another somewhat contentious decision was made to move away from the standard criminal procedure and make a change from a single hearings officer with students’ prosecution and defense lawyers, and work toward using a panel of students and faculty. Ten years of revision process reflects the difficulties in re-drafting a large, complex document such as the conduct code.

 

Senator Freinkel noted that General Counsel Melinda Grier has reviewed the revisions to ensure their legality. The proposed new code is consistent with what is becoming “best practices” in universities across the country, and is acknowledged by attorneys and users of student conduct codes that the best model is an educational model (as compared with the current criminal model). Their consensus is that colleges and universities should take care of their own students’ conduct, and that an educational model is less formal and less intimidating. Ms. Grier continued adding that by removing the criminal overlay of the code, the hope is that students will not feel the need to obtain their own legal counsel; if a student is found responsible for code violations, sanctions imposed would be more conducive to a learning experience than a criminal procedure.

 

During a question and answer session, Priscilla Southwell, associate dean of CAS, stated that assault is a criminal offense; if a student engages in this type of activity and is not prosecutable by regular police off-campus, why should the UO be involved in dealing with it? Ms. Grier replied that definitions of assault behaviors in the student code and in the criminal code are note necessarily identical. Decisions to prosecute made by the police regarding assault, that is, violations of the criminal code, may well be violations of our student conduct code, but in different contexts. The decisions made by the state may not be the same decision that the university would make regarding acceptable student behaviors.

 

Other members of the SCCC, Bill Daily, business, Chris Loschiavo, student judicial affairs, and Laura Lawson, student member, highlighted some of the proposed changes to the code and put them in context. Mr. Daily reiterated the emphasis on moving toward an educational rather than criminal format as a means for dealing with violations. He noted that an attempt has been made to simplify procedures, and further, if the proposed revisions do not meet their intended purpose, they too, can be revised at a later time. Mr. Loschiavo noted that educational models of student conduct codes have stood up when tested in court proceedings. Such codes give students an opportunity to speak for themselves, which is learning experience. The revised code is written to treat all students the same way, with equal care, honesty, and dignity. He noted that the committee tried to take the adversarial nature out of the code to foster fact finding in order to make the best decisions. Ms. Lawson commented that students were included in the revision process, which was contradictory to assertions made in a recent Daily Emerald article that said students were not involved with the rewriting.

 

Senator Freinkel indicated that the committee plans to schedule small group meetings in April and one, or possibly two town hall meetings to have further feedback and to work toward achieving consensus on the draft revisions, with any changes integrated with the final proposed code that comes before the senate for a vote for adoption in May. (see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen056/CC-Concordance-14Mar06.html, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen056/CCDraft-14Mar06.html for the relevant text of the proposed code, and http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen056/CCSummary-14Mar06.html for a summary of the proposed changes.)

 

With the discussion winding down, President Keyes noted that the senate will use a second meeting in May on the 24^th as a business meeting and move the year end organizational meeting to May 31^st.

 

Diversity Plan Report. Charles Martinez, interim vice provost for institutional equity and diversity, presented an overview of a revised draft of the draft diversity plan released in spring 2005. He noted that a working group of 14 people, the Executive Working Group, contributed to the current draft. He emphasized that the document is a draft that represents diverse opinions, sets directions, empowers colleges and schools to do their own strategic planning, and is developmental in nature; thus, it does not address immediate problems but is a plan for the future.

 

Mr. Martinez continued that the draft is tied to the UO Mission statement in affirming the “ the principles of equality of opportunity and freedom from unfair discrimination for all member of the university community and an acceptance of true diversity as an affirmation of individual identity within a welcoming community..”. And further, the draft plan affirms the university’s commitment to equity, to diversity, and to the development of faculty and students who will participate in the global community. Mr. Martinez emphasized that the relevant diversity data (presented to the senate at an earlier meeting) and real life experiences of students demonstrate the need for the plan. He noted that it is a guiding document that sets minimum, not maximum parameters for effort, and mandates strategic planning at the school, college, and unit levels. Planning at these levels should include faculty, staff, students, and community-diversity representation to help guide the planning. He further stated that some new initiatives identified have resource implications, while others are cost neutral. His office is charged with reviewing existing resources and looking at their effectiveness and that they are used appropriately.

 

Mr. Martinez noted that each school, college, and unit would be responsible for submitting activity reports each year to the provost and him (the vice provost) documenting progress on strategic plans. In turn, the provost will prepare a written and oral report for the senate and larger public each year that summarizes individual reports, progress, and challenges. A full review of progress on outcomes for each strategic plan would occur every five years, with strategic plans consequently revised. The university’s plan also is to be reviewed and revised as needed every five years, with an ongoing climate review at least every two years. Timelines for these activities will be set by the provost and vice provost as stipulated along with the release of the final plan.

 

Mr. Martinez next noted the six main points of the plan: (1) developing a culturally responsive community, (2) improving campus climate, (3) building critical mass, (4) expanding and filling the pipeline, (5) developing and strengthening community linkages, and (6) developing and reinforcing diversity infrastructure. He pointed out that the term diversity is given a broad meaning to include differences such as those based on race, ethnicity, national origin or citizenship, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, economic class, and political affiliation or beliefs. Mr. Martinez acknowledged the controversial responses generated by the term “cultural competency” in the first draft. He said the Executive Working Group defined the term as an active and ongoing process of self-reflection, learning, skill development, and adaptation, practiced individually and collectively, that enables us to engage effectively in a culturally diverse community and world. Cultural competence allows us to recognize that our statements, convictions, and reactions are conditioned by the culture in which we live. It enables us to bring this knowledge to bear in out interactions so that we can to participate respectfully and effectively in out pluralistic university, state, county, and world. Mr. Martinez acknowledged a need for further conversation about the term’s meaning in higher education, and at the UO specifically; but he noted that the draft plan does not use the term, and neither dictates nor discourages use of term in college, school, or unit strategic plans. Mr. Martinez closed his presentation by saying that President Frohnmayer is now soliciting for members of a Diversity Advisory Committee, charged with getting feedback on the draft plan to the president with recommendations for consideration by the president into the final plan.

 

During the ensuing discussion, Mr. Brad Shelton, mathematics, commented that he appreciated the incredible amount of work that went into creating the new draft document. Senator Nathan Tublitz, biology, raised the issue of whether the senate procedures regarding the plan would be to adopt or to endorse the plan, feeling that the plan should be brought to the senate for its adoption. Lastly, a senator raised the point that the Westmoreland Housing issue, especially as it relates to the many minority students who live there, was not specifically addressed in the draft plan, which he felt should be included as a diversity issue. He further took issue with the overall intention of the plan, wondering if its intention was to reduce numbers of minority students and faculty who are overrepresented (in terms of their proportion when compared with other diversity groups). He opined that this aspect of planning was not addressed in the revised draft. Mr. Martinez replied that the plan provided no litmus test for “too many” of any one minority or diverse group, but felt there were provisions in the plan that addressed the broader community issues such as those generated with the proposal to sell Westmoreland. (See http://vpdiversity.uoregon.edu/DiversityPlan3-6-06.pdf for the text of the draft diversity plan.)

 

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

 

Motion US05/06-5 to provide emeriti faculty access to the senate floor and to introduce legislation. Senate President Keyes noted that a notice of motion given at the May meeting of last year’s senate, dealing with rights of emeriti faculty members to have access to the senate floor for discussions and to introduce legislation, had been mistakenly not carried over to the fall term. Consequently, the motion was now put forth as follows:

 

BE IT MOVED that emeriti faculty of the university have the right to introduce legislation and shall have the right to the floor on any matter under discussion in the University Senate.  

 

Parliamentarian Paul Simonds spoke against the motion, saying in essence that the retired emeriti faculty had plenty of opportunity for their input on senate and university matters when they were regular faculty members before their retirement. He stated that it was time for the current generation of faculty to move forward with their own agenda, discussions and legislation.

 

The rules were suspended to allow Frank Stahl, professor emeritus in biology, who was largely responsible for framing the motion and moving it forward. Mr. Stahl noted that when the senate was reconstituted into its current format, University Assembly members, which includes all faculty, were given the right to the senate floor and to introduce legislation. However, emeriti faculty members were not included as members of the assembly, and thus currently do not have the same rights as the regular (non-retired) faculty. Mr. Stahl felt this was an oversight, and thus he supports the motion to give emeriti faculty the right to the floor and to introduce legislation.

 

With the hour growing late and with a noticeable decline in attendance, there was a call for a quorum, which was met with 26 members still in attendance. However, Senator Peng, mathematics, then moved to table the motion until the April meeting in order to have time for a full discussion. The motion to table was put to a voice vote and passed. Motion US05/06-5 was tabled until April 12^th.

 

Before adjourning, President Keyes noted that there are two notices of motion listed under the new business section of the agenda; he will forward those motions to the senators in time for consideration at the April meeting.

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:09 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary of the Faculty