May 10, 1996
MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE: MAY 8, 1996
ROLL CALL:
Present---Anderson-Inman, Belitz, Bennett, Bybee, Clark, Davis, DeGidio,
Dugaw, Engelking, Gibson, Girling, Haynes, Holland, Hurwit, Isenberg, Kevan,
Kintz, Lesage, Leavitt, Park, Ryan, Soper, Tedards, Tublitz, Watson, Wood.
Excused---Blandy, Moreno, Owen, Ravits, Welch, Westling.
Absent---Ferguson, Harvey, Maxwell, Schachter.
CALL TO ORDER
Senate President Paul Simonds called the meeting to order at 3:10 p.m.,
in 110 Fenton Hall. The minutes of the April 10, 1996 meeting of the Senate
were approved.
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Jack Rice, a member of the Faculty Advisory Council, was recognized
to introduce the following motion in the name of the Council.
Motion concerning Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
The purpose of the proposed legislation is to set forth a policy structure
that assists in the systematic and equitable evaluation of both teaching
and learning, and in the encouragement and reward of good teaching at the
University of Oregon. The recommendations set forth below grew out of the
report of the Teaching Workgroup of 1993, and have been modified and enhanced
by the Faculty Advisory Council.
This motion proposes to repeal the present legislation of December 6,
1978 concerning Student Evaluation of Teaching and to replace that legislation
with the following.
Legislative history:
ORS 351.065 (f) (g) and OAR 580-22-090 (d)
Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
Preamble:
To define expectations regarding student course evaluations at the University
of Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty reviews and the promotion,
tenure and post-tenure review process.
Certain aspects of teaching, such as the ability to create a positive
learning environment, are appropriately and necessarily assessed through
student evaluations. Evaluations provided by students can be effectively
used by all faculty to gain insight into their teaching, and to identify
ways to improve their classroom performance. Evaluative data provided by
students include 1) results from quantitative questionnaires and 2) signed,
written student evaluations.
University Assembly legislation of December 6, 1978 pertaining to student
evaluations is hereby repealed effective July 1, 1996.
I. Quantitative Student Evaluation of Teaching and
1. Quantitative questionnaires shall be used to evaluate all courses
taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty with enrollments greater than
10 students.
2. The statistical analysis of course evaluations shall include the
mean raw scores for all questions relevant to teaching and learning. The
reports shall also include z-scores, or other valid mechanisms, which compare
each course and/or instructor to the composite scores of the entire department.
Where feasible, departments are strongly encouraged to include z-scores
or other comparators to course offerings of a similar size and level, and/or
to the same or similar courses in recent years.
3. Departments are responsible for constructing and administering their
own student evaluation forms; departments are encouraged to construct questionnaires
consisting of a relatively small number of questions addressing the important
components of teaching in the particular discipline. The only university-wide
requirement is that all questionnaires must include at least the following
two questions:
a) In comparison to other courses of this size and level, how do you
evaluate this course?
b) In comparison to other instructors teaching courses of this size
and level, how do you evaluate this instructor?
Data from these two questions are to be made centrally available to students.
4. Students shall be clearly informed, either verbally or through instructions
on the quantitative questionnaire, that results of their evaluation play
an important role in faculty development, in future promotion and tenure
decisions and in post-tenure reviews.
II. Written Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
1. Written comments shall be solicited from students in all courses,
regardless of enrollment size.
2. Students shall be clearly informed, either verbally or through instructions
on the form used for written comments, that results of their evaluation
play an important role in faculty development, in future promotion and tenure
decisions and in post-tenure reviews. The forms must indicate that only
signed evaluations may be used in promotion/tenure and post-tenure reviews.
(ORS 351.065 (f) (g)).
3. The forms used for student comments shall clearly state that the
faculty member responsible for the course will have access to the written
comments, but only after the grades for the course have been submitted.
III. Procedure for Administration and Use of Student Evaluations.
1. All final course evaluations are to be conducted either in class
during dead week, or during the period of time allocated to the final examination.
2. Evaluations are to be conducted by a person other than the faculty
member. The faculty member must not be present during the evaluation.
3. Students must be given sufficient time to complete quantitative questionnaires
and write evaluative comments if they desire.
4. Upon completion of the evaluation, all forms (quantitative and written)
must immediately be returned to the department office.
5. Forms containing written comments are to be sorted into signed and
unsigned groups. The signed forms are to be copied for use by the department.
6. After grades have been submitted and the computer analysis of the
quantitative questionnaires has been completed, the results of the quantitative
evaluation, the original signed written evaluations, and all unsigned evaluations
are to returned to the faculty member. (ORS 351.065 (f))
7. The department archives the statistical results and the copies of
signed written evaluations for use in future faculty evaluations.
8. One copy of the statistical results of each course evaluated shall
be placed in the permanent personnel file of the person being evaluated.
9. All materials related to the evaluation of teaching are to be included
as supplementary materials in the promotion and tenure file, and are to
be carefully reviewed at the department and school/college level.
Senator Davison Soper, Chair of the Senate Rules Committee, was recognized
to present the required fiscal impact statement. Senator Soper acknowledged
the assistance of the other Rules Committee members (Senators Marie Harvey
and Anne Leavitt) as well as Ms. Patricia Gwartney, Chair of the Senate
Budget Committee.
Student Evaluations
5000 courses per year to be evaluated
x (0.5 hr secretarial time x 20 $/hr
+ 0.5 hr faculty time to evaluate results x 50 $/hr) = 175 k$/yr
At present about 50% of the courses are evaluated. Because some of the
costs will not be doubled with the doubling of the number of courses being
evaluated the added cost will be approximately 90 k$/yr over what it presently
costs.
Senator Leslie Bennett, Library System, brought up the fact that the costs
given by Senator Soper did not include the cost of providing access to the
printouts by the Knight Library. The printouts are not uniform, and the
information is not uniform. It is difficult to provide guidance in the use
of the forms. It might be better for the Senate to think of ways of providing
access that would be more effective and useful to the users. Senator Soper
stated that the mechanical processes were not a part of the fiscal impact
statement as it is a "hidden cost" and should be addressed at
another time.
The debate on the motion centered on I. 2. and the "z-scores."
Senator Julia Lesage, Humanities, introduced an amendment to the I. 2.,
but withdrew her amendment when it was found to not be accurate. Mr. Martin
Wybourne, Chair of the Faculty Personnel Committee, introduced the following
amendment to I. 2.
.... teaching and learning. The report shall include raw mean scores
for the faculty member and the department. It shall also include other
valid mechanisms which compare each course and/or instructor to composite
scores of the entire department. Where feasible, departments are strongly
encouraged to include raw scores and comparators to course offerings of
similar size and level and/or to the same or similar courses in recent years.
Mr. Rice defended "z-scores" as very useful if used appropriately.
These scores can send up a warning flag that something is amiss and thus
alert a department head to possible problems in the instructional mission
of that department. Mr. James Isenberg, Natural Science, stated that the
scores can be misread and cause improper conclusions to be drawn. Comparators
are needed--various senators agreed--but not through the use of z-scores.
In an answer to a question from Ms. Lorraine Davis, Vice Provost, Mr. Wybourne
stated that z-scores could be used if they are used properly. The qualification
for z-scores comes under the words "other valid mechanisms" in
the proposed amendment. Senator Diane Dugaw, Humanities, asked what a "valid
measurement" was--who would bring scrutiny to the measurement.
Without dissent the amendment was accepted. The amended motion was now
presented for a vote and it was approved without dissent.
Note added 9 June 2008. This motion has been superceeded by
US078-19.
The final motion
now reads:
Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
Preamble:
To define expectations regarding student course evaluations at the University
of Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty reviews and the promotion,
tenure and post-tenure review process.
Certain aspects of teaching, such as the ability to create a positive
learning environment, are appropriately and necessarily assessed through
student evaluations. Evaluations provided by students can be effectively
used by all faculty to gain insight into their teaching, and to identify
ways to improve their classroom performance. Evaluative data provided by
students include 1) results from quantitative questionnaires and 2) signed,
written student evaluations.
University Assembly legislation of December 6, 1978 pertaining to student
evaluations is hereby repealed effective July 1, 1996.
I. Quantitative Student Evaluation of Teaching and
1. Quantitative questionnaires shall be used to evaluate all courses
taught by tenured or tenure-track faculty with enrollments greater than
10 students.
2. The statistical analysis of course evaluations shall include the
mean raw scores for all questions relevant to teaching and learning. The
report shall include raw mean scores for the faculty member and the department.
It shall also include other valid mechanisms which compare each course
and/or instructor to composite scores of the entire department. Where feasible,
departments are strongly encouraged to include raw scores and comparators
to course offerings of similar size and level, and/or to the same or similar
courses in recent years.
3. Departments are responsible for constructing and administering their
own student evaluation forms; departments are encouraged to construct questionnaires
consisting of a relatively small number of questions addressing the important
components of teaching in the particular discipline. The only university-wide
requirement is that all questionnaires must include at least the following
two questions:
a) In comparison to other courses of this size and level, how do you
evaluate this course?
b) In comparison to other instructors teaching courses of this size
and level, how do you evaluate this instructor?
Data from these two questions are to be made centrally available to students.
4. Students shall be clearly informed, either verbally or through instructions
on the quantitative questionnaire, that results of their evaluation play
an important role in faculty development, in future promotion and tenure
decisions and in post-tenure reviews.
II. Written Student Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
1. Written comments shall be solicited from students in all courses,
regardless of enrollment size.
2. Students shall be clearly informed, either verbally or through instructions
on the form used for written comments, that results of their evaluation
play an important role in faculty development, in future promotion and tenure
decisions and in post-tenure reviews. The forms must indicate that only
signed evaluations may be used in promotion/tenure and post-tenure reviews.
(ORS 351.065 (f) (g)).
3. The forms used for student comments shall clearly state that the
faculty member responsible for the course will have access to the written
comments, but only after the grades for the course have been submitted.
III. Procedure for Administration and Use of Student Evaluations.
1. All final course evaluations are to be conducted either in class
during dead week, or during the period of time allocated to the final examination.
2. Evaluations are to be conducted by a person other than the faculty
member. The faculty member must not be present during the evaluation.
3. Students must be given sufficient time to complete quantitative questionnaires
and write evaluative comments if they desire.
4. Upon completion of the evaluation, all forms (quantitative and written)
must immediately be returned to the department office.
5. Forms containing written comments are to be sorted into signed and
unsigned groups. The signed forms are to be copied for use by the department.
6. After grades have been submitted and the computer analysis of the
quantitative questionnaires has been completed, the results of the quantitative
evaluation, the original signed written evaluations, and all unsigned evaluations
are to returned to the faculty member. (ORS 351.065 (f)(g))
7. The department archives the statistical results and the copies of
signed written evaluations for use in future faculty evaluations.
8. One copy of the statistical results of each course evaluated shall
be placed in the permanent personnel file of the person being evaluated.
9. All materials related to the evaluation of teaching are to be included
as supplementary materials in the promotion and tenure file, and are to
be carefully reviewed at the department and school/college level.
Peer Evaluation of Teaching and Learning
Preamble:
To define expectations regarding evaluation of teaching by faculty peers
at the University of Oregon, especially as they relate to annual faculty
reviews and the promotion, tenure and post-tenure review process.
University teaching and student learning encompass much more than the
hours faculty members spend in the classroom. Teaching also involves keeping
up with the field, planning lectures, creating instructional materials,
constructing tests, grading papers, advising students, participating in
tutorials and formal teaching committees, working with graduate students,
supervising graduate teaching fellows, conducting office hours, and participating
in professional development programs. Because many aspects of teaching
remain invisible to students, their evaluations alone are inadequate to
provide comprehensive and convergent evidence of teaching effectiveness.
In addition to student assessments, evaluations need to be obtained from
individuals who both understand the subject matter and recognize the intellectual
effort and pedagogical merit involved in various instructional activities.
Thus, the evaluation process should include peer reviews from colleagues
who are in a position to compare a particular teaching effort--content,
methods, emphasis and so forth--with other possible ones. Classroom visitations
or videotape reviews are encouraged as part of the peer review process.
I. Establish a Policy Requiring Peer Reviews of Teaching.
1. Beginning with the 1996-97 Academic Year, each tenure-track faculty
member shall have at least one course evaluated by a faculty peer during
each of the three years preceding the faculty member's promotion/tenure
review. In most cases, this shall be the third, fourth and fifth years
of the probationary period.
2. Beginning with the 1996-97 Academic Year, each tenured faculty member
with rank of Associate Professor shall have at least one course evaluated
by a faculty peer every other year until promotion to Full Professor.
II. Establish Criteria for Peer Evaluations.
1. Peer reviewers shall approach teaching assessment with the same kind
of open, reasoned discussion that reveals the quality of other scholarly
endeavors.
Specific criteria for peer reviews should reflect , but not be limited
to, five important aspects of teaching:
a. The intellectual content of the material taught, including relevancy,
breadth, depth.
b. The instructor's grasp of the material; ability to present course
content clearly and logically, to place specific material within thematic
contexts and to demonstrate the significance and relevancy of course content.
c. The instructor's ability to engage and challenge students and to
teach critical thinking and questioning skills.
d. The instructor's ability to provide intellectual inspiration and
leadership and to awaken new interests.
e. The instructor's use of innovative approaches to teaching and/or
use of instructional technology to enhance the learning process.
III. Procedure for Conducting Peer Evaluations.
1. Courses to be evaluated shall be determined by the department head
in consultation with the faculty member being evaluated. In selecting
courses to be evaluated the department head shall plan to achieve a mixture
of courses (lower division, upper division, and graduate-level courses).
2. Faculty chosen to conduct peer evaluations shall be tenured and hold
an academic rank higher than that of the faculty member being evaluated.
Evaluators shall be selected by the department head in consultation with
the faculty member being evaluated.
3. Evaluations shall include, but need not be limited to, teaching materials
(syllabi, exams, student performance, etc.) and at least one classroom visit.
4. A written report, addressing the criteria outlined above (section
II) shall be prepared and signed by the evaluator. The report shall indicate
if the classroom visit(s) was spontaneous or arranged in advance with the
faculty member being evaluated.
5. The department shall archive the written evaluations for use in future
faculty evaluations.
6. One copy of the peer evaluation shall be placed in the permanent
personnel file of the person being evaluated.
7. All reports of peer evaluations shall be included in the faculty
member's promotion and tenure file, and are to be carefully reviewed at
the department and school/college level.
Senator Soper was recognized to present the fiscal impact statement.
Half of 364 assistant professor, associate professors, and instructors
each year.
180 evaluations/yr
x10 hr/evaluation
x50 $/hr
90 k$/yr
As in the student evaluation presentation this is a simple order magnitude
estimate, intended to be accurate to within a factor of two only. The peer
evaluation has not been uniformly done in the past so this cost would be
new.
The motion was passed without dissent.
President Simonds recognized Mr. Steven Chatfield, Chair of the Committee
on the Curriculum. Mr. Chatfield introduced the following motion.
The University Committee on the Curriculum moves that the Senate considers
and acts on curriculum reports monthly; therefore changing Article VI, Section
6.1.3 of the Senate ByLaws to read as follows:
6.1.3 Reports of the Committee on the Curriculum: The University Senate
considers and acts on these reports. They are sent to each member of the
Senate in advance of the Senate's monthly meetings. Senators are expected
to read the documents and to prepare comments, or recommendations prior
to the meetings. Reports are filed as a motion by the chair of the committee
who also defends them during Senate debated. The motion on the reports
requires no second. [RONR, p. 35] Senate action is not limited to voting
on the motion. The Senate is expected to clarify, to make inquiries, to
propose changes or additions or deletions, or to make motions to amend the
reports if necessary, and to vote on the amendments, etc. The Senate takes
final action on these reports.
Mr. Chatfield explained the reasoning behind the motion as an attempt to
make curriculum establishment, disestablishment, revision, etc., more efficient
and user friendly. Much of what the committee does can be done on this
campus and does not need to go to the Chancellor and on to the OSSHE Board.
Under this legislation it will be possible to have a change in the curriculum
take effect within one or two quarters and not two years, which is the usual
time period presently. In no way does this motion alter the required pattern
for curriculum action, i.e., 1) department or program, 2) college or school,
3) University Committee on the Curriculum, 4) University Senate, 5) Office
of the President. Under this motion once approved by the President, curricular
changes will take effect immediately, with one exception: the removal of
a course from satisfying a university or general-education requirement.
While this type of change can be approved any time, it will not take effect
until the beginning of the next fall term.
Senator Cynthia Girling, AAA, questioned President Simonds about the motions
requirement of acting on the proposals monthly. She said the Senate Executive
Committee had wanted the proposal changed to "quarterly" as this
would be a more useful time period for action and reflection. Senator Anne
Leavitt, Officers of Administration, moved that the word "quarterly"
be placed at the end of the first sentence following the word "reports."
Mr. Chatfield stated that the Committee he chairs had not problem with
this amendment and he supported the motion to amend. The amendment passed
without dissent.
The motion, as amended, was now on the floor and it was approved without
dissent. The entire motion, as amended, now replaces the previous Senate
Bylaw of 6.1.3. That Bylaw now reads:
6.1.3 Reports of the Committee on the Curriculum: The University Senate
considers and acts on these reports quarterly. They are sent to each member
of the Senate in advance of the Senate's monthly meetings. Senators are
expected to read the documents and to prepare comments, or recommendations
prior to the meetings. Reports are filed as a motion by the chair of the
committee who also defends them during Senate debate. The motion on the
reports requires no second. [RONR, p. 35] Senate action is not limited
to voting on the motion. The Senate is expected to clarify, to make inquiries,
to propose changes or additions or deletions, or to make motions to amend
the reports if necessary, and to vote on the amendments, etc. The Senate
takes final action on these reports.
President Simonds now recognized Senator Cheyney Ryan, Humanities, to introduce
the following policy statement. President Simonds explained that this was
not a motion and would not require a vote of approval or disapproval. However,
President Frohnmayer did want the Senate to discuss the policy statement
thoroughly and to make suggestions for altering or strengthening the statement.
At the conclusion of all discussion on the policy statement the Senate
would be asked to vote on the endorsement of the policy in its final form.
UNIVERSITY OF OREGON POLICY ON SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS
WHICH CREATE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
and ABUSES OF POWER
Rationale
It is in the University of Oregon's interest and promotes its educational
mission to provide clear direction about the professional risks and serious
harms which are associated with sexual relationships in which a power differential
exists between the parties involved. The University is committed to fostering
the development of learning and working environments characterized by professional
and ethical behavior and free from discrimination. Sexual relationships
between representatives of the University and people over whom they have
supervisory or evaluative power involve unethical conflicts of interest
and abuses of power
Faculty members exercise power over students, whether in evaluating them,
making recommendations for their future studies or employment, or in conferring
or withholding other academic benefits. Staff members also exercise power
over students who rely on them for assistance and guidance in dealing with
a variety of issues including securing financial aid, housing, employment,
scheduling classes, social activities and when conferring or withholding
other benefits University life. Supervisors exercise supervisory or evaluative
power over employees whom they supervise by giving them work assignments,
performance appraisals, salary adjustments, and conferring or withholding
other employment benefits.
Sexual relationships between a faculty member and a student, a staff member
and a student, or between employees are unprofessional when a faculty member,
staff member or employee has supervisory or evaluative power over the other
party to the relationship. Such relationships greatly increase the chances
that the faculty member, staff member, or work supervisor will abuse, or
appear to abuse, his or her power by sexually exploiting the other party
to the relationship. The power differential in the professional relationship
makes a student's or subordinate employee's consent to the sexual relationship
inherently suspect.
Moreover, such unprofessional behavior creates conflicts of interest which
may affect other members of the University community. It places the faculty
member, staff member or work supervisor in a position to favor the interest
of the other party in the relationship at the expense of others. It also
implies that conferring or withholding benefits is contingent on sexual
favors.
THEREFORE, it is an unethical conflict of interest and abuse of power
for: faculty members to engage in sexual relationships with students enrolled
in their classes or otherwise subject to their supervision or evaluation,
even when both parties appear to have consented to the relationship; staff
members to engage in sexual relationships with students subject to their
supervision or authority, even when both parties appear to have consented
to the relationship; work supervisors to engage in sexual relationships
with employees subject to their supervision or evaluation, even when both
parties appear to have consented to the relationship.
Definitions
As used in this policy:
appropriate arrangement means an action reasonably calculated to remove
or substantially mitigate a conflict or potential conflict of interest or
abuse of power, taking into account the interests of the University, the
parties to the relationship, and others actually or potentially affected.
These actions may include, but are not limited to: moving a student to another
section of the same class; appointing a different faculty member to serve
on a thesis, dissertation or other evaluative committee; moving a supervisor
or employee to another position of the same or comparable status and duties;
establishing alternative means of evaluation of academic or work performance
conflict of interest means incompatibility of the interest of the University
in securing detached, objective performance of instructional, supervisory
or other duties with the personal interest of the faculty, staff or supervisor
involved in a sexual relationship with a person he or she supervises or
evaluates.
faculty or faculty member means all those who have teaching/ research
responsibilities at the University, and includes officers of administration
and graduate students with teaching responsibilities.
power means the real or apparent authority or ability of an individual
to confer or influence the academic, employment or other benefits of another
including, but not limited to: giving grades, evaluating performance, awarding
financial benefits, writing recommendations for future employment or academic
endeavors, or provision of University services or activities.
staff or staff member means all University employees who do not hold academic
rank.
supervisor or employee with supervisory responsibility means all employees
who exercise responsibility for assigning work to another, evaluating the
performance of another, or otherwise making decisions that affect the terms
and conditions of another's employment at the University.
sexual relationship is a relationship of a sexual nature which goes beyond
what a reasonable person would believe to be the bounds of a professional
relationship.
POLICY
A. Faculty/Student Relationships
Within the Instructional Context:
No faculty member shall initiate or acquiesce in a sexual relationship
with a student who is enrolled in a course being taught by the faculty member
or whose academic work (including work as a teaching assistant) is supervised
or evaluated by the faculty member. Such a relationship constitutes an unethical
abuse of power and creates a conflict of interest. A faculty member who
fails to make immediate appropriate arrangements to remove or substantially
mitigate the conflict of interest violates his or her ethical obligations
to the student, to other students, to colleagues, and to the University.
Outside the Instructional Context
Sexual relationships between faculty members and students occurring outside
the instructional context are not per se unethical; however, they may, in
certain circumstances result in unethical abuses of power and conflicts
of interest. Particularly when the faculty member and student are in the
same academic unit or in units that are academically allied, sexual relationships
may be, or appear to be, exploitative. In such situations faculty members
should be careful to distance themselves from any decisions that may reward
or penalize students with whom they are sexually involved. Failure to withdraw
from, or substantially mitigate conflicts of interest in, activities or
decisions that may reward or penalize a student with whom the faculty member
has, or has had, a sexual relationship violates his or her ethical obligation
to the student, to other students, to colleagues, and to the University.
B. Staff/Student Relationships
Consensual sexual relationships between staff and students are unethical
and constitute a conflict of interest where the staff member has supervisory
or evaluative power over the student. Failure to withdraw from, or substantially
mitigate conflicts of interest in, activities or decisions that may reward
or penalize the student with whom the staff member has, or has had, a sexual
relationship, violates his or her ethical obligation to the student, to
other students, to colleagues, and to the University.
C. Supervisor/Employee Relationships
Consensual sexual relationships between supervisors and other employees
are unethical and constitute a conflict of interest where the supervisor
has supervisory or evaluative power over the employee. A supervisor who
fails to withdraw from, or substantially mitigate conflicts of interest
in, activities or decisions that may reward or penalize the employee with
whom the supervisor has, or has had, a sexual relationship violates his
or her ethical obligation to the employee, to other employees, to colleagues,
and to the University.
D. Complaint Procedure
Complaints alleging a violation of the University of Oregon Policy on
Sexual Relationships shall be handled in accordance with appropriate grievance
procedures established for complaints under OAR 571-03-025. Complaints alleging
a violation of this policy may be initiated either by the less powerful
party to the relationship OR by third parties who believe they are adversely
affected by the relationship (e.g., other students in the class, other employees
in the unit). Consent shall not be considered a defense to a complaint filed
under this policy. In assessing the evidence in such a complaint, the individual
with the status or power advantage shall have the burden of establishing
by clear and convincing evidence that no sexual relationship occurred.
E. Sanctions
Only the party with evaluative, supervisory or other power is subject
to sanction for violation of the Policy on Sexual Relationships. The following
sanctions may be imposed when a faculty member, staff member, or supervisor
is found to have violated the Policy on Sexual Relationships. When imposing
such sanctions, documentation of prior appropriate arrangements to remove
or substantially mitigate the conflict of interest may be taken into account
in determining the severity of sanction, if any. This list is not intended
to be exhaustive and more than one sanction may be imposed for any single
offense: Oral reprimand;
Written reprimand placed in the permanent personnel file of the offending
faculty member, staff member or supervisor;
Reassignment of duties (e.g., teaching or service duties);
Reduction in salary;
Suspension without pay;
Dismissal for cause.
F. Assistance/Intervention
If any member of the University community enters into a sexual relationship
that constitutes an unethical conflict of interest and abuse of power as
described above, the party in the instructional, supervisory or otherwise
evaluative position shall make immediate and appropriate arrangements to
eliminate or substantially mitigate the conflict of interest. That party
is strongly encouraged to seek the assistance of their department head,
dean, supervisor, or the Office of Affirmative Action & Equal Opportunity
in making such arrangements.
If any party involved in a sexual relationship with another member of
the University community is in doubt as to whether a professional power
differential does exist, they are strongly encouraged to consult with their
department head, dean, supervisor, or the Office of Affirmative Action &
Equal Opportunity.
Disclosures during consultation shall be confidential to the extent possible.
No action will be taken which could result in sanctions unless and until
a complaint is filed by either the less powerful party to the sexual relationship
OR by a third party who claims to have been adversely affected by the sexual
relationship.
The following are suggested changes/modifications/clarifications made by
the Senators and members of the University Assembly during the discussion
on this policy.
1. The policy should clarify the articulation of this policy with other
grievance procedures now enforce at the University.
2. Clarify the definition of Administrative Officers.
3. Explain spousal relationships within the context of the policy when
spouses are involved.
4. Make it clear as to who can file a complaint, especially as it involves
a third party.
5. "Substantial mitigation" should be included in each section
where applicable and relate the words to Section F.
6. In Section D the burden of proof is on the accused. This should be
modified from "clear and convincing evidence" to "a preponderance
of evidence." (This would apparently reduce the burden of proof from
100% unlikely to 51% unlikely.) A reasonable standard must be established
to protect against false accusations and relationships that are over or
ended.
7. Policy should address abusive relationships.
8. Policy should address staff/management-student relationships when a
power relationship exists.
9. Policy should address spurious complaints.
10. Ultimate control over publicity concerning unproven charges should
be addressed. Both parties should be barred from seeking publicity or making
public statements.
11. Conflicts of interest must be expanded and explained more fully.
12. Section D: "consent shall not be a defense." This should
be re-thought as consent could be a worthy defense.
13. Faculty-Faculty relationships is missing and should be addressed.
(It was pointed out the UO already has a policy on this subject. Perhaps
a reference to that policy is needed here.)
14. Some thought should be given to the establishment of a less formal
route for students to follow as this formal route creates a single route
that might not fit all complaints or complainants and might introduce unnecessary
anxiety.
The Senate made clear that it was not at this time endorsing the policy
as reviewed and through a vote requested that the policy be brought back
to the Senate for review prior to posting. The concerns listed above were
not those of single individuals but had widespread support from the Senators
and the members of the University Assembly in attendance. The Senate is
strongly in favor of the establishment of a policy in the area addressed
by the policy, however.
Overall the discussion indicated a need for a policy in this area and agreement
with Senator Ryan who stated that the establishment of professional ethics
in this area are overdue--for the protection of the student as well as the
employee.
It is anticipated that an open forum for all of the University will be
held prior to the posting of this policy by President Frohnmayer.
FAREWELL
Senate President Paul Simonds noted that this was his last meeting as the
presiding officer of the Senate. His two years in the Senate has been spent
as President and he was the initial President of the "New" Senate
established under the faculty governance legislation of May 1995 as enacted
by the University Assembly. President Simonds thanked the members of the
Senate for its hard work, attention to the process of governance and interest
in serving the University in a governance role. His remarks were met with
a strong show of appreciation through applause from the Senators and visitors.
ADJOURNMENT
The business of the meeting having concluded the Senate adjourned at 5:10
p.m.
Keith Richard
Secretary