Minutes of the University Senate Wednesday May 10, 2006

 

 

Present: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, C. Cherry, D. Close, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, M. Filippelli, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Gary, A. Hornof, H. Lin, R. Irvin, L. Karim, P. Keyes, N. Kinsey, L. LaTour, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, C. McNelly*, K. McPherson, C. Minson, L. Moses, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, T. Piering, G. Psaki, P. Rounds, G. Sayre, E. Scott, E. Singer*, J. Sneirson, P. Swangard, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle

 

Excused: S. Brownmiller, A. Djiffack, C. Ellis, J. Hurwit, J. Jablonski, L. Nelson, M. Pangburn, N. Tublitz

 

Absent: E. Chan, S. Holmberg*, L. Richardson, K. Sheehan, J. Stolet

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the University Senate was called to order at 3:07 by Senate President Peter Keyes.

 

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES

 

Minutes of the April 12, 2006 meeting were approved as distributed.

 

STATE OF THE UNIVERSITY

 

Remarks by member of the administration. President Frohnmayer was delayed in traffic traveling from Portland; his remarks were postponed pending his arrival and time available later in the meeting.

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Results of the faculty/staff spring elections. The secretary reported that the results from the recent faculty elections were posted on the senate web page and would be sent out by paper copy as well. She thanked everyone who participated, saying that nearly all positions are filled.

 

Schedule for remainder of the term. President Keyes reminder everyone that an extra senate business meeting is scheduled for May 24, with the main focus being the Senate’s action on the Diversity Plan. President Frohnmayer appointed a Diversity Advisory Committee charged with soliciting and hearing feedback on the draft that was released in March, and making recommendation for further revisions based on those comments. The recommendations for revision will be sent to the Executive Working Group for incorporation in to the final draft. A copy of the revised diversity plan, and memorandum explaining recommended revisions, will be available for senators’ review (and posted on the web) on May 14th with action on the Diversity Plan set for May 24th. The usual year end senate organizational meeting will take place the following week on May 31st in the Browsing room of Knight Library. In addition to the election of next year’s senate vice president, the meeting on May 31st will have a reception to honor the Wayne Westling Award recipient and to welcome new incoming senators.

 

 

COMMITTEE REPORTS

 

Undergraduate Council report concerning grade inflation. Undergraduate Council chairman Ron Severson began his report noting that council members Mark Thoma and Registrar Herb Chereck compiled the data for the trends in the report sent previously to senators titled Grade Inflation at the University of Oregon. The council would like comment on the report: is grade inflation a problem at the UO, and if it is a problem, what should be done about it. The council wishes to stimulate a campus wide discussion on the grade inflation issue. The report shows distribution of grades at different level classes and looks at data by various characteristics, faculty demographics, and compares the UO to national trends. Percentage of A’s is up by 10%, percentage of A and B’s increased by 7%, and undergraduate GPAs by 5.1%; the UO data are roughly the same as national trends.

 

Mr. Thoma commented on the lack of data available to do an in-depth study, so the report reflects the council’s best efforts at organizing and analyzing data. They choose to break data down by school or college (professional schools/colleges) within UO and by division within College of Arts and Sciences. Data was sampled over several years and by grade level, selecting the 20 largest courses that persisted across 4 time periods, hoping those were the most influential courses. Other caveats were that the course had to be graded and had to have at least 20 students enrolled. Unfortunately, AAA, Journalism, Education, and Business samples were too small. Education had been dropped from the individual unit reports because the programs had changed too much during the time period, but where possible, kept in the aggregate data.

 

Mr. Thomas remarked that the data in the report is meant to be a starting place for discussing grade inflation at the UO. He noted too, that percentages reflect change in percentage, not the percentage change. He suggested that individual units look at the numbers to help determine what is occurring in their units. Mr. Severson emphasized that the Undergraduate Council was only gathering data, that they had talked to various bodies, and that they believed that the causes for grade inflation may be departmentally specific.

 

A discussion followed. Senator Gordon Sayre, English, inquired if grade distributions correlated with the kinds of people teaching courses. Mr. Severson indicated that it might differ from department to department. Mr. Thoma indicated it was not studied statistically and hoped that the various departments would ask those questions. Mr. Severson indicated that at every presentation, the relations between grades and course evaluations had come up.

 

Senator Anthony Hornof, computer and information science, wondered if there was a link between higher grades and higher evaluations. Mr. Thoma indicated that the Undergraduate Council had not studied that question; they had not attempted to do anything at the individual instructor level. Vice President Jeanne Wagenknecht noted that the Teaching Effectiveness Program had gathered some data and urged the Undergraduate Council to look into the usefulness of their data. Mr. Severson noted that the Undergraduate Council had reported some things that other universities are doing. He discussed in some detail the policies that Princeton University had implemented. Senator Scott Maier, journalism and communication, inquired concerning how to “re-socialize students” about grade expectation in college versus high school, and noted that in many conversations had said to students that “C is not a failing grade” and “no I won’t change the grade”. It was noted that when this question was taken to students, that they had said faculty need to stand up to students and say “no”. Mr. Severson agreed that we needed to do better on that issue and noted that grade inflation at the UO is close to the national levels and also to the high school levels.

 

Senator Gina Psaki, romance languages, made the point that it is natural for grades to be higher at the 400 level as opposed to the 100 level, as there had been selective filtering going on. Senator Chris Minson, human physiology, commented that it was important to bring these issues up for discussion and thanked the Undergraduate Council. He wondered if some of the changes were demographic in nature; for example, the percentage of women had increased and women tend to get better grades. It was noted that institutional rules can change and thereby affect grade inflation. Mr. Thoma replied that they had made an attempt to look at student characteristics, but not gender. Mr. Severson concluded the discussion by urging those in attendance at the meeting to go back to their departments and talk about these issues. (For full text of the report, see http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen056/UGC-GradeInflation8Mar06.pdf See also additional information provided at the Senate.)

 

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Motion to confer degrees. Mr. Hal Sadofsky, mathematics, represented the Academic Requirements Committee and made the annual motion to confer degrees as follows:

 

The senate of the University of Oregon recommends that the Oregon State Board of Higher Education confer upon the persons whose names are included in the Official Degree List, as compiled and certified by the University Registrar for the academic year 2005-2006 and Summer Session 2006, the degree for which they have completed all requirements.

 

There was no discussion and the motion passed unanimously.

 

Motion to recommend 2006-8 committee appointments. Senate Vice President Jeanne Wagenknecht, who chairs the Committee on Committees, moved the approval of the committee's recommendations concerning 2006-8 university committee assignments. She thanked everyone who volunteered to serve on committees, and noted that the COC made an attempt to look at the amount of time service on the various committees entailed in order to make appropriate assignments. She noted that things could change over the summer, and if there were people who were disappointed that they were overlooked they should let the COC know.

 

The motion to approve the recommended committee appointments passed unanimously without further discussion.

 

Motion US05/06-9 – to adopt the revised Student Conduct Code. Senate President Keyes began with a brief historical review of the review process, noting that the process had gone on for over 10 years. Last’s year Conduct Code Committee had worked very hard in its attempt to finish it, but was at an impasse at year’s end. They presented their progress to date to the Senate at which time an ad hoc committee, chaired by Senator Lisa Freinkel, English, was appointed by then Senate President Marcus. The ad hoc committee worked throughout the year on the language and formatting. The revised code became public in February. With a lot of feedback, town hall style meetings and small group meetings were held before the ad hoc committee finalized the draft currently presented for discussion and a vote.

 

Senator Freinkel then presented the committee report, first reading from a prepared statement (see Appendix A). In brief, in 1994 the code had been revised concerning sexual misconduct off campus. The present code simply completes the work begun 12 years ago to bring the code into conformance with national standards. Jurisdiction is a major question: to what extent should the University deal with off campus behavior. Another major question deals with representation: should lawyers be allowed to represent (speak for) students at conduct hearings. Senator Freinkel noted that a large part of the discussion over the years concerned what we should think of ourselves as a community. She commented that the UO has a collective charge to nurture its community and cannot leave these values up to an external community.

 

Senator Jared Axelrod, ASUO, and who is ASUO president-elect, then read from a prepared statement (see Appendix B). He asserted that the current revised code under consideration needed to be improved, suggesting that it be referred to the Student Conduct Committee for further work. He said the further work could be completed in a single year (and would not take another 12 years). Senator Axelrod continued that he was troubled by the increase in administration authority in the code. He felt under the proposed code, students will have fewer rights and protections. He was concerned that they would lose the right to be represented by an attorney and also that the proposed code increased off campus jurisdiction.

 

Senator Freinkel then moved US05/06-9 as follows:

 

University Senate adopt the final draft of the revised Student Conduct Code.

 

Senate President Keyes opened the floor for discussion. The subsequent discussion was spirited and lengthy, dealing initially with the “legal representation” issue. Senator Freinkel explained that the desire was to move the code to a more educational environment where the students could tell their side of the story in a less adversarial, more conversational way. She noted that students have the right to have a lawyer with them as their advisor in a conduct hearing, but not to speak in place of the student. Mr. Chris Loschiavo, student judicial affairs, joined the discussion emphasizing that the university did not to be in the role of prosecutor. Senator Michael Filippelli, ASUO, also stated his concern that students would have less procedural protections and that the jurisdiction of the code has grown beyond the campus boundaries. Another student senator, Toby Piering, echoed this viewpoint with concern about the possible consequences and ramifications for students in a serious conduct hearing without a lawyer speaking for them. ASUO Senator Dallas Brown asked about the representation issue, wondering if there could be two different systems put into place. Mr. Loschiavo answered that it had been decided not to go in that direction. It is possible to have lawyers speak for each side if both parties agree, but it is such an adversarial process most people do not want to be part of it. He reminded the student senator that there is an appeals process, and, if that does not result favorably for the student, it can be taken into the court system.

 

A student senator asked why if the code permitted a lawyer to be present to provide advice, was it inappropriate to have a lawyer providing testimony and examination. Senator Freinkel noted that this topic had been considered by the Conduct Code Committee and rejected. She added that there were irreconcilable differences in philosophy at this point.

 

The rules were suspended to permit several students without access to the floor to speak. One student recounted his experience at the University of Minnesota where they had both an informal and a formal conduct code process. Senator Freinkel noted that this issue had been debated previously by the committee. Senator Psaki asked if the experience other universities have had with the best practices “model code” had worked. Mr. Loschiavo noted that he had professional and anecdotal evidence that it worked.

 

Student Steven Newman, Daily Emerald, was concerned the UO was putting this type of conduct code in place solely because everyone else was doing it. Senator Freinkel replied that was not the case; the changes proposed have been tried other places and seem to be working and fairer. The proposed changes are not radical. Ms. Laura Blake Jones, associate dean of students, noted that the vast majority of conduct cases do not go to a formal hearing (only 3 went to a formal process last year). A discussion was then held on record keeping and file retention. It was noted that the UO was not in compliance with state law at present: records have to be kept for up to 5 years after a student graduates in most cases, although in some cases records can be destroyed earlier. The code was revised to reflect appropriate compliance.

 

The role of the conduct coordinator (Mr. Loschiavo) was discussed, with emphasis that he does not develop policy. Senator Susan Gary, law, indicated that she supported the revisions in the conduct code, noting that there is a movement in the legal community away from litigated to alternative processes for dispute resolution. Another senator worried that in serious cases it was especially important that a student who could not speak for herself was permitted to have someone speak for her. She was concerned, too, about serious cases where consequences for behavior could also have criminal or civil consequences. Senator Freinkel responded that such cases were examples of why lawyers were permitted to be present.

 

As the hour growing late, the question was called. Senate President Keyes asked for a vote on the motion. A hand vote resulted in 24 in favor and 7 opposed. Several student senators then called for a “division of the house”. During a brief consultation on procedures with the Parliamentarian Paul Simonds, another senator asked for a roll call vote. The roll call vote again indicated 24 in favor and 7 opposed. Motion US05-06 – 9 to adopt the revised Student Conduct Code passed. (See Appendix C for the roll call vote.)

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The meeting was adjourned at 5:03 p.m.

 

 

Gwen Steigelman

Secretary

 

APPENDIX A – Statement from ad hoc Student Conduct Code revision committee chair Lisa Freinkel delivered during the debate in the UO Senate May 10, 2006 concerning the student conduct code

 

Times change. I'll be as brief as I can today, but I have a number of important points to make, and I hope you'll bear with me.

 

In 1996, I joined a Student Conduct Committee that was already in year two of the process of revising the student conduct code. That process had begun in 1994 with a very vibrant student-led initiative to revise the language in the code pertaining to sexuality. The students leading that initiative were concerned about what we would today call campus "climate" -- but that word wasn't much in circulation a decade ago. In those days there wasn't much of a sexual misconduct code, and there were no provisions enabling the university to address sexual misconduct off campus. And yet, as now, some 80% of students lived off campus. The students leading this initiative interpreted the University's inability to address almost all reported incidents of sexual assault as a lack of willingness to do so. As a lack of concern.

 

Let me pause here to make my first important point: the question of jurisdiction is first and foremost a question of paying attention. What conduct do we think that we, as a University -- as a community committed to the pursuit of knowledge -- ought to notice, to pay attention to? In the case of academic dishonesty we and every university and college in the country recognize that location does not matter. Wherever plagiarism is thought to occur, the University pays attention. Now, paying attention doesn't necessarily mean pursuing action -- it certainly doesn't mean imposing specific or indeed any sanctions in any given case. It just means that we as a community affirm that we ought to care.

 

And so in 1994, a large and committed group of students made the case that we ought to care about alleged acts of sexual misconduct involving our students even when they occur off campus. They argued that not to do so is itself a decision -- a form of action -- that has a deeply chilling affect not just on alleged victims of such misconduct, but on the University community overall. It was a political argument; it was in many respects a feminist argument. And in certain ways, the UO was a trailblazer. We got national press, we got lots of local attention, and we got some people really mad. At the same time, the code revision passed unanimously in the University Senate.

 

Times change. Now, a decade later, different students are suggesting not only that we resist finishing what we started in the 90s, but that we revisit even the logic of the sexual misconduct code. Let me make my second big point here: by extending jursidiction in the question of violent offenses, we are simply completing the work begun more than a decade ago. We are also keeping with national best practices. In the existing code, we read that sexual misconduct is "an offense the University of Oregon recognizes as an act of violence." Back in the mid-90s, the students and faculty of the Student Conduct Committee were already arguing that other serious acts of violence warrant the University's attention off campus. That these acts can also have a deep impact on campus climate, particularly because acts of violence often dovetail with social intolerance -- with forms of discrimination be they sexual, racial or class-oriented.

 

Jared Axelrod on behalf of the ASUO executive, the Office of Student Advocacy and the student members of the Student Conduct Committee has argued that the Conduct Code should be remanded to the SCC [Student Conduct Committee] for further consideration. I'm going to talk about this suggestion in closing, but as it comes to jurisdiction, where's the real point of contention here? It isn't the issue of violence itself; instead the problem lies in the ad hoc committee's deletion of a single phrase: "and the alleged victim is a member of the campus community." We've argued that the sexual misconduct code itself is not currently limited in this way -- to impact on campus community members only -- and that other acts of violence should be treated similarly. Again jurisdiction doesn't necessitate action; what it opens the door for is accountability -- attentiveness. Picture, for instance, a racially motivated attack, an attack of a white student on a non-student person of color. Jurisdiction is about accountability. It's about community standards.

 

Okay let me make two more points and then close. In the past few weeks you may have heard the phrase "double jeopardy" bandied about. Even the Office of Student Advocacy has agreed that double jeopardy is not what's involved in administering either the current or the proposed student conduct code. But, a key philosophic point is hidden under this misnomer and we need to address it. In the name of avoiding "double jeopardy" the suggestion has been made that we back away from any apparent overlap between the conduct code and criminal or civil law. It has been implied that it is unfair for a student to have to "pay twice" for a single action.

 

To heed this kind of objection would be absolutely disastrous -- not only reversing the Code as it has stood for more than 40 years, but utterly challenging the way that we think of ourselves as a campus community. A university is not a service-institution. It's not -- at least not yet -- an institution where we educators deliver our service, where students receive our goods, and where everybody lives their lives elsewhere. If that were our institution, then we wouldn't really need a code of conduct any more than a supermarket needs a code of conduct. We could just deliver our service and be done with it, referring all misconduct to the courts and to the police.

 

But that's not my picture of a University -- and, for what it's worth, I am not alone here. The overwhelming majority of campuses nationwide have codes like the one we're proposing. OSU and Portland State do; our comparator institutions do. And why? Because a university is not a supermarket --  it's a community dedicated to the advance of knowledge... to the furtherance of society and of civilization. And at the heart of its mission is the need to maintain an environment where the rights, dignity, welfare and freedom of all members are protected -- is held sacred. Only then can true learning flourish. It's because of the preciousness of this sense of community that arguments about campus climate get made to begin with.

 

So I ask you to consider this discussion of the conduct code as part and parcel of our collective charge of nurturing a healthy community by defining our essential values. Respect. Responsibility. Freedom of thought.

 

These are not values that we should or even can leave up to an external community to define and maintain.

 

My last point: this proposed language needs to be voted on today. We've spent twelve years -- and by we, I mean students, staff and faculty -- hashing out the terms of the Code. The most contentious issue -- the so-called question of representation -- was voted on and decided by the SCC. This is perhaps the most discussed piece of legislation that has ever come before the University Senate. These revisions spent years in committee before they came to the Senate. The Ad Hoc Committee spent 2 months soliciting feedback and responding point-by-point to all feedback solicited. We conceded major issues, revised more than 30 provisions in the Code. The document you have before you today is indeed the result of many years of discussion among many, many stakeholders and it represents a serious spirit of compromise and conversation. The problem has been that there exists a fundamental difference of opinion here: the Office of Student Advocacy, the ASUO executive that it advises, and the students appointed by the ASUO to the Student Conduct Committee, these bodies fundamentally disagree with the philosophy behind the revision process itself. These differences are irreconcilable. These are the differences that deadlocked the SCC for years. It's because of this deadlock that the code was taken out of the SCC and put in the hands of a Senate ad hoc committee. To send the Code back to the SCC would mean the death of this revision process.

 

And so the decision is yours -- is ours to make... as it should be, according to the University charter.

 

 

APPENDIX B – Statement from SenatorJared Axelrod, ASUO representative, delivered during the debate in the UO Senate May 10, 2006 concerning the Student Conduct Code

 

The current code makes a lot of improvements. Over the many years of debate and discussion regarding the update of the code, students and faculty have made beneficial changes. These efforts have not been futile; and students have been appreciative of the opportunity to provide feedback to the committee regarding code revisions.

 

Nevertheless, more changes needs to occur before this becomes a permanent document. We understand there is a need for haste to approve this document. However, as students, we believe it is the duty of the Senate to approve a sound document that would adequately represent the needs of the campus community.

 

Due to the following concerns, we respectfully request that the proposed code be sent back to the Student Conduct Code Committee so that a finalized, cohesive, and beneficial code may be developed:

 

1.     We are troubled by the increased university administration's authority over student conduct procedures and policies. The proposed code changes the Director of Student Conduct's responsibilities from administering the Student Conduct Program to the ability to develop policies and procedural rules for the administration and hearings board regarding the student conduct system.

2.     We are concerned about a lack of a statute of limitations of non-academic offenses. An indefinite period of time for bringing non-academic misconduct charges in fundamentally unfair.

3.     Under the proposed code, students will have fewer procedural rights and protections. In recent changes, students will lose their right to be represented by an attorney, students will lose the right to have their advisor directly question accusers and witnesses, and students will loose the right to file motions, request depositions, submit rebuttal evidence, and engage in other administrative hearing practices.

4.     The proposed code increases the university's off campus jurisdiction. The ad-hoc committee has expanded off campus jurisdiction to reach beyond conduct aimed at university community members.

5.     The proposed code will allow increased retention of student disciplinary records. Possibly one of the most unacceptable changes, the ad-hoc committee has removed any reference to a time period for disciplinary file retention, however, it does provide a process for ``voiding'' files, a power which resides solely in the hands of the Director of Conduct and Community Standards.

 

We ask that all University Senate members review the document for what it is and the affects it will have on students, and not how much time has been put into it. We recognize that many years has been spent updating this code, but please do not disregard these important aspects in the final stages of approval. Students should have these fundamental rights, and until these are replaced under this proposed code, students cannot willingly support this document. As student representatives, we insist that you do not approve this code that you have before you today.

 

 

APPENDIX C – Roll Call Vote on Motion US05/06-9 to adopt the revised Student Conduct Code

 

Those in favor: C. Cherry, S. Cohen, M. Dennis, A. Emami, L. Feldman, L. Freinkel, N. Fujii, S. Gary, A. Hornof, R. Irvin, H. Lin, P. Lu, S. Maier, A. Mathas, K. McPherson, L. Moses, J. Newton, V. Ostrik, G. Psaki, G. Sayre, J. Sneirson, J. Wagenknecht, K. Wagle (23 total)

 

Those opposed: J. Axelrod, D. Brown, M. Filippelli, N. Kinsey, L. LaTour, C. Minson, T. Piering (7 total)

 

(Note: the vote tally was revised from 24 to 23 in favor, and 7 opposed, when it was realized shortly after the meeting that President Keyes’ named had been inadvertently called during the roll call vote. The revision did not alter the outcome – the motion was passed.)


Web page spun on 22 May 2006 by Peter B Gilkey 202 Deady Hall, Department of Mathematics at the University of Oregon, Eugene OR 97403-1222, U.S.A. Phone 1-541-346-4717 Email:peter.gilkey.cc.67@aya.yale.edu of Deady Spider Enterprises