Faculty Club Week II

Dear Colleagues,

Come on out to the Faculty Club this week–we’re open Wednesday and Thursday from 5 to 8:00.

It’s always fun & easy to pair JSMA events with a visit to the Faculty Club.  Wednesday our colleague Ina Asim (History) is giving a 5:30 talk right upstairs in the JSMA galleries, on “Reflections of the Cosmic Web: Intricate Patterns in Daoist Art.”  Drop in for a cosmic drink before or afterwards.  And later on, at 7:00 Wednesday, the Schnitzer Cinema series will be showing “Saving Brinton,” an intriguing film about the discovery (in an Iowa farmhouse basement) of a trove of early motion pictures, including “rare footage of Teddy Roosevelt, the first moving images from Burma, and a lost relic from special effects inventor Georges Méliés.”

Thursday we officially welcome new faculty with a ceremonial induction into the membership of the Faculty Club.  No, just kidding, there will be no ritual (and everyone’s automatically a member), but we will toast our new colleagues and briefly introduce each one.  Come and meet the rising stars of the UO!

Yours, James Harper
Chair of the Faculty Club Board


WHO: The UO Faculty Club is open to all UO faculty—tenure-track faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, library faculty, and OAs tenured in an academic department, as well as people retired from positions in these categories.  Eligible people may bring any guests they like.

WHAT: Cash Bar with beer, wine, liquor and non-alcoholic beverages; complimentary hors d’oeuvres.

WHERE: The Faculty Club meets in a designated room on the ground floor of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art.  Enter at the museum’s main entrance and turn right; the club room is right off the lobby.

WHEN: Wednesdays & Thursdays 5:00-8:00 pm.  We will meet through the last week of classes in Fall Term (i.e. through November 29); activity will resume in the Winter and Spring terms.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Faculty Club Board Chair James Harper (Dept. of the History of Art and Architecture), harperj@uoregon.edu

FAR Tim Gleason warns faculty about violating the NCAA cartel rules

You’d think a grown man like Gleason would have better things to do with his time, but apparently not. Presumably this comes out of this alleged track and field violation. No word yet on how much UO paid its outside lawyers to handle this, but rumor has it that the academic side will foot the bill.

And how’s this for self-contradiction:

“Athletic eligibility may never be a factor in any academic decision.”

“In classes with substantial class participation, project or lab work, appropriate accommodations may not be possible. In those instances, the student-athlete should be informed that the course is not a good fit in a term with significant travel.”


To:     UO Faculty
From:   Intercollegiate Athletic Advisory Committee (IAAC)
RE:       NCAA Academic Misconduct and Academic Extra Benefits

Student-athletes at the University of Oregon (UO) and all other member universities in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) are required to follow a number of rules and regulations that may not apply to other students. While most NCAA rules do not involve faculty in any significant way, the current rules concerning “academic misconduct” and “academic extra benefits” create the real potential for faculty to unintentionally contribute to violations that could jeopardize a student-athlete’s athletic career and result in sanctions against the university and athletic department coaches and staff.

In this memo, the IAAC briefly details these regulations and provides guidance concerning compliance with them. Please note that this information is shared with a full commitment to academic freedom and to the academic integrity of the University of Oregon. If you have questions now or later, please contact Tim Gleason, the UO Faculty Athletics Representative.

Academic Extra Benefits
Under NCAA rules, an academic extra benefit is “[s]ubstantial assistance or the granting of an exception that is not generally available to an institution’s students, which results in the certification of a student-athlete’s eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics or receive financial aid.”  A recent rule change extended the application of this rule to all university faculty, staff, and student employees. It is now possible for a university employee with good intentions and no connection to the athletic department to provide a student-athlete with an impermissible academic extra benefit.

There are two “bright lines” to keep in mind concerning academic extra benefits:

  1. Student-athletes may not be given special treatment simply because they are student-athletes.If you are considering an accommodation for a student-athlete and you have not offered and would not offer the same or a similar accommodation to another student, you should not offer it to a student-athlete.
  2. Athletic eligibility may never be a factor in any academic decision. If a student-athlete says that he or she needs to earn a certain grade to be eligible to compete, please inform the student-athlete that you cannot consider athletic eligibility in any decision.

Areas of special concern:

Academic Misconduct

At the UO, “‘Academic Misconduct’ means the violation of university policies involving academic integrity.” Examples include: intentional tampering with grades, resubmitting assignments for more than one class without the permission of the professor; intentionally taking part in obtaining or distributing any part of a test that has not been administered; cheating; plagiarism; knowingly furnishing false information to a university official; and fabrication.

While academic misconduct at the UO primarily focuses on student behaviors, it is possible that an instructor of record who engaged in fraudulent behavior, such as intentionally awarding a false grade or giving credit to a student based on the work of others in order to protect athletic eligibility, would be in violation of university policy. Such behavior may also be viewed as academic misconduct under NCAA rules.

In addition, it is possible for an instructor of record to unintentionally violate the NCAA’s impermissible academic extra benefits rules. There is a real potential for an NCAA violation that could result in sanctions for the university if, for example, an instructor of record knowingly or unknowingly failed to follow university policies concerning grading or believed that a student had violated the academic integrity provisions of the student conduct code and failed to follow university policies for reporting violations.

Student-athlete travel and class attendance/participation
Team travel will result in student-athletes missing classes in terms when their sport is in season. Because they are traveling for university-sponsored activities, faculty are strongly encouraged to make pedagogically sound and justifiable accommodations that will enable the student-athletes to be successful in the classroom, just as we would encourage such accommodations for other students traveling on university-sponsored activities. However, this request has limits and conditions:

  • Student-athletes are given a letter to share with instructors at the beginning of every term that reports when they will be traveling. It is the student-athlete’s responsibility to share this letter with his or her instructors and to discuss travel conflicts in time to arrange for appropriate accommodations.
  • In classes with substantial class participation, project or lab work, appropriate accommodations may not be possible. In those instances, the student-athlete should be informed that the course is not a good fit in a term with significant travel. Under no circumstances should the instructor offer an accommodation that is pedagogically unsound or that would be unavailable to other students.

Late Assignments
Student-athletes have very demanding schedules as they juggle athletic and academic demands. They are, of course, not unique on today’s college campuses. Many students are juggling competing demands. Student-athletes should be held to the same standards as other students who have professional or family obligations or who are traveling on university business.

Grade Changes
Any grade change for a student-athlete must be based on consistent criteria applied to all students in a class and should follow the guidelines and procedures for such grade changes published by the registrar.


Dear UO Faculty and Staff,

I am sending along an important memorandum to you that was written by members of the University of Oregon’s Intercollegiate Athletic Advisory Committee about NCAA rules as they pertain to academic misconduct and academic extra benefits for student-athletes.

While most NCAA rules do not involve faculty, the IAAC wants to make sure our faculty understand how these two areas can impact decisions you might make regarding the treatment of student athletes. Please take the time to read this important memo. If you have any questions, please contact Tim Gleason, the university’s Faculty Athletics Representative.

Thank you for your time and attention to this important matter.

Jayanth Banavar
Provost and Senior Vice President

Trump travel ban affects UO students

Brad Moore has the report in the Emerald here:

… The executive order forbids nationals from Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela and Yemen from entering the U.S.

According to Dennis Galvan, UO vice provost for International Affairs, there are approximately three to four dozen students at the UO from these countries.

The level of travel restrictions varies for each country on the list, ranging from banning all nationals — as is the case for North Korea and Syria — to only banning certain members of government, as is the case for Venezuela.

Although the ban is aimed at barring entry for people the Trump administration deems security threats, it often prevents travel to and from the U.S. for people who pose no threat, including some students, according to Galvan.

“The actual impact of the legally, narrowly constructed ban is one thing, and the chilling effect is another thing,” said Galvan. …

Heavily subsidized Duck Athletic program paid $3M for body-bag games

Henry Houston has the report in the Eugene Weekly:

UO spent more than any other Pac-12 college team this year for its nonconference schedule — sometimes scornfully called “body-bag” games because of the mismatch between teams. Bowling Green received $900,000, Portland State received $500,000 and San José State received $1.6 million, according to contracts obtained by Eugene Weekly. …

The high cost was an aberration of scheduling, says Eric Roedl, deputy athletic director at UO.

Originally, the UO was planning on playing Texas A&M instead of San José State, but a clause in that agreement allowed Texas A&M to back out if it left its football conference. In 2011, Texas A&M announced it would leave the Big 12 conference for Southeastern Conference. The university voided its contract with UO in 2016, Roedl says.

Other contracts obtained by EW have a penalty clause if the game is canceled. Texas A&M didn’t have one.

“It was a unique agreement,” Roedl adds. …

Whoops. Sounds like it’s going to be a while before the academic side can stop subsidizing them. I wonder if Roedl is going to hit up ASUO for another increase?

Faculty club is opening tonight, 5-8PM

WHO: The UO Faculty Club is open to all UO faculty—tenure-track faculty, non-tenure-track faculty, library faculty, and OAs tenured in an academic department, as well as people retired from positions in these categories.  Eligible people may bring any guests they like.

WHAT: Cash Bar with beer, wine, liquor and non-alcoholic beverages; complimentary hors d’oeuvres.

WHERE: The Faculty Club meets in a designated room on the ground floor of the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art.  Enter at the museum’s main entrance and turn right; the club room is right off the lobby.

WHEN: Wednesdays & Thursdays 5:00-8:00 pm.  We will meet through the last week of classes in Fall Term (i.e. through November 29); activity will resume in the Winter and Spring terms.

FURTHER INFORMATION: Faculty Club Board Chair James Harper (Dept. of the History of Art and Architecture), harperj@uoregon.edu

UO Senate Agenda for Oct 3


Location: EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
3:00 – 5:00 P.M.

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Bill Harbaugh
  • Remarks; Senate Vice President Elizabeth Skowron
  • Remarks; Provost Banavar
  • Remarks; Bob Guldberg (Knight Campus)

3:40 P.M.  Votes

3:45 P.M.   New Business

Discussion of upcoming policies, discussions and issues for fall quarter

4:45 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports

  • Status of committee reports and where to find them

4:55 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:56 P.M.   Other Business

  • Senate Retreat: October 31, 20185:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Good for Dana Altman! Federal prosecutors say Oregon, Creighton basketball programs may have paid recruits

Finally! I for one have been disturbed by the fact that he hasn’t come up in this investigation earlier. Surely a successful recruiter and coach like Dana Altman has figured out a way to pass at least a dribble of the millions UO pays him on to his volunteer “student-athletes”. Surely Oregon isn’t the only school where greedy coaches are able to keep all the NCAA cartel’s profits for themselves!

While the latest report is far from conclusive proof that Altman has been doing the right thing and sharing with his players, the latest news is good. Jeff Manning has the story in the Oregonian here:

Federal prosecutors in the basketball corruption trial that began Monday in New York reportedly told prospective jurors that 12 colleges could come up during the proceedings — the University of Oregon among them.

As first reported by Yahoo Sports, prosecutors wanted to disqualify any potential juror whose allegiance to a school might make them less than impartial. An Oregon-based Adidas executive and two others are accused of paying talented prep players to steer them to certain universities. …

But wait, there’s more. Oregonian reporter James Crepea:

The attorney for Adidas executive Jim Gatto claimed Oregon offered “an astronomical amount of money” in its recruitment of Brian Bowen before he signed with Louisville.

Gatto’s attorney, Casey Donnelly, made the remark, according to numerous reporters, during her opening statement in his trial, which began in the Southern District of New York on Tuesday. …

President Schill’s “Open Mike” addresses centralization goals

Dear University of Oregon community members,

When I arrived at the University of Oregon in 2015, I heard the same clear and overwhelming message from virtually every constituency I met with: the university needed strong, decisive, and consistent leadership from Johnson Hall. The faculty, staff, and alumni, along with our Board of Trustees, were not satisfied with the UO being known more for athletics and a recent incident involving sexual violence than our academics. These internal concerns were reinforced by an article published in the Chronicle of Higher Education my first year which pointedly bore the headline “An Academic Reputation at Risk.” The message was clear: we needed to focus on building excellence, which included both a greater emphasis on academic research and helping our students learn, graduate, and move on to successful and fulfilling careers—and we needed to do it right away.

After years of changes in our executive leadership and governance, our community was hungry for progress, but a simple question demonstrated the challenges that would need to be overcome in order to move the institution forward in a meaningful way. I had not even unpacked my boxes when I asked how many faculty members would we have in September. As it turns out, at the time no one kept that data in the central administration. To make matters worse, we didn’t have the ability, for a variety of reasons, to get the data in real time from individual academic units. My question and its answer, which encapsulated one of our greatest challenges, were just the first of many illustrations of the extraordinary decentralization of the University of Oregon circa 2015.

I asked more and more questions, and learned that five of our eight schools and colleges were spending more each year than they were taking in. I learned that, although some departments were experiencing significant drops in student demand, they continued hiring more teachers, all without oversight by Johnson Hall. Schools and departments spent millions of dollars on duplicative computer systems that did not speak to each other. Even more worrisome, those duplicative computer systems operated on an antiquated internet backbone that was in danger of collapse and which conveyed data at speeds so slow that it was faster for scientists to drive hard disks in their cars between Eugene and Portland than utilize our networks. For a rich university, this type of wasteful behavior might be a sustainable, albeit indefensible, use of resources. But not at the UO, where state funding regularly ranks among the lowest of its peer group.

We have taken a number of steps over the past three years to address some of those challenges and to make sure that we create a culture of transparency, efficiency, and accountability at the university. For example, we now have current information on faculty members, student credit hours, and faculty workloads down to the departmental level. This information is now available online. We also have developed a centralized and transparent process for determining tenure-related hiring. Rather than having academic departments fill slots each year based on who has retired or left the university, they make recommendations to their deans, who then make recommendations to the provost based on an assessment of overall needs in their schools and colleges. Following a collaborative discussion among all deans and a committee of senior faculty members informed by data on operational and mission metrics, the provost publishes a plan authorizing searches for all to see.

In terms of the budget, we have sought to ameliorate the havoc that changes in student demand and state retirement and health-care costs have had on our academic departments by changing our financial model. Rather than continue the old practice of tuition following student enrollments, with all costs for faculty and administration picked up by the schools and colleges, we created a new system in which we pay for all tenure-related faculty members centrally and make budgetary allocations to schools and colleges for the rest.

We have also taken steps to realign some administrative services. For example, rather than every administrative unit having its own independent communications staff, we have tried to improve collaboration and coordination and achieve economies of scale by moving to an integrated model. We have begun rationalizing IT services throughout the university to achieve better and more reliable service, greater data security, and hopefully some economies of scale. Most recently, we have realigned development staff to better meet the fundraising needs of the university. In the campaign extension, which I announced last week, 45 percent of the fundraising will be done centrally, largely out of the president’s office. At present, however, only 16 percent of the fundraisers report centrally. Obviously, some realignment of resources is necessary for us to be successful in raising money for university-wide priorities such as student advising, need-based scholarships, a new classroom building tentatively dedicated to environmental sustainability, and research initiatives.
When taken together, many of the changes we have made are quite significant, particularly in light of the historically decentralized nature of our university. While all of the practices we adopted exist among many of our peer universities, there is no denying that the results have been jarring for some members of our community. Indeed, some have talked about the “centralization” of authority in a way that suggests a zero-sum game—increased authority in Johnson Hall must necessarily come at the expense of our colleges, schools, and departments. I fundamentally do not see it that way.

I served as a dean for 11 years at two different universities prior to becoming president of the UO. For good or ill, I always try to view campus decision-making through my current lens as president as well as from the perspective of a dean or faculty member. To be candid, if I were wearing my dean hat, I would have mixed feelings about some of the changes we have made at the UO. I would greatly appreciate that the financial risk for tenure-related faculty members and their benefits has been lifted from my shoulders. I would also be relieved that the revenue of my college or school wasn’t solely determined by the course choices of undergraduate students. And, if my own and my faculty’s priorities aligned with central priorities, I would be delighted to participate in university-wide initiatives. On the other hand, I might not like the fact that the provost could second-guess my budgetary decisions. I would be frustrated that some services I consume would no longer be under my direct control. And, if my school or college’s programs did not align with central academic priorities, then I think I would feel left out or pressured to find ways to align. I also probably would not love being held accountable for a set of metrics that I approved, but perhaps never wanted.

A more robust role for the president and provost in academic matters might also implicate issues of shared governance. One of the great strengths of American higher education is that decision-making authority with respect to academic matters is shared among the faculty, deans, the president, and the provost. This is the way it should be. Curricular decisions, degree requirements, faculty qualifications, tenure decisions, and similar matters should require faculty approval. Similarly, research and creative work are not done by administrators; they are undertaken by academic faculty members and judged through peer review. Many folks outside academia are critical of shared governance and express frustration with the slow pace of change it often fosters. Nevertheless, I remain firm in my belief that this is the best system I know of to promote the creation of knowledge and its transmission to future generations, and I will work hard to make it more effective at the UO.

I am comfortable that the greater role Provost Jayanth Banavar and I are playing in our university is consistent with our joint commitment to shared governance and the appropriate role of faculty members as custodians of the institution’s academic mission. Each major initiative we have undertaken—whether it be the Knight Campus or the Data Science Initiative—as well as possible future initiatives in resilience and the humanities and social sciences have been conceptualized and are governed by our faculty. Before we created the new faculty hiring process and budget allocation process, our ideas were discussed and modified after many meetings involving faculty members, deans, and members of the University Senate. And now that those procedures are in place, every faculty slot the provost approves in the Institutional Hiring Plan has been proposed by the faculty and discussed by deans and faculty members.

Of course, there is no precise formula to determine the appropriate balance of decision-making authority in a university. It is fair to write that our old, extremely decentralized model was harmful to our mission and wasteful of resources. The point of shifting some of the administrative burden to Johnson Hall is to establish the capacity to steer our university toward the goals we mutually agree to pursue and to create more bandwidth for academic leaders to attend to core local unit activities. But we need to be careful that we do not go too far and lose sight of the fact that virtually all of the important work of scholarship and education takes place outside of Johnson Hall by our exceptional faculty members in our schools and colleges. Our deans and department chairs will always play the central role in setting local academic priorities, promoting world-class research, raising funds for these purposes, and serving the educational needs of our students.

As we begin the school year, I am excited about our future. As I meet with presidents and teachers around the nation, I hear them talking about our great faculty achievements, about our research initiatives, and about our students and the education they receive. I no longer hear about an “academic reputation at risk.” As Jayanth and I, along with our deans, lead the university, I commit that we will continue to seek out and listen to the views of all relevant constituencies, including the University Senate and the ASUO. While we might not do what every person or group wants, I also commit that we will be transparent and give reasons to support our actions.

Thank you.
Michael H. Schill, President and Professor of Law

For a thoughtful, intelligent post on Knight Campus,

try UO physicist Raghu Parthasarathy’s Eighteenth Elephant blog here. A snippet:

… Think small. Obviously, we should tackle areas that are important, but this in itself isn’t a sufficient criterion. If this adventure is going to have an impact, it needs to select areas in which relatively small-scale effort can pay off. What does “small scale” mean? I can’t remember the exact number, but the Knight Campus will have something like 50 faculty and their associated groups and support staff. This is great, but it’s not a national lab; it’s not even MIT. What’s more, while UO is quite strong in the sciences, it has no engineering departments — no bioengineering, no chemical engineering, etc. (Yes, it’s odd to have a research university with zero engineering in it…) As such it would be foolish to think we’ll make a big splash in many of the obvious grand challenges. We should, therefore, target goals that are important yet tractable, or ideas whose importance is not yet appreciated, so that small steps have a big impact. What could these be? Before getting to that…

Please comment there, not here.

Faculty union’s General Membership Meeting this Th, 5PM

General Membership Meeting

The first General Membership Meeting of the academic year will be this Thursday, September 27, 5-7pm in Gerlinger Lounge.

Avinnash Tiwari, our Politics Committee Chair, will talk through our endorsements, and specifically how they impact us as a University community. There are some tricky, and troubling, propositions he’ll summarize as well as give some brief insight into our candidate endorsements. He will also outline ways for all of us to get involved, including how the politics committee will help advance our shared interests.

Dave Cecil, our Executive Director, will discuss how we can use the 2018-19 academic year to formulate bargaining planks.


Welcome, and remarks from the President
Politics, how to get involved, and our endorsements
Organizing and Membership
Bargaining and Caucuses

Dinner and beverages provided.  Kids welcome.

Pres Schill lays out plans for extended fundraising campaign

Dear University of Oregon community members,

In October 2014, before my arrival on the UO campus, the university announced what was then an audacious goal of raising $2 billion to strengthen this institution in ways never before considered. It has been an honor to work alongside so many of you toward this unprecedented goal. Thanks to the incredible generosity of our alumni and friends, we have reached $1.87 billion and will, at some point over the next year, cross that $2 billion threshold. It has been a massive undertaking that has transformed this campus in amazing ways and created new opportunities for Oregonians. I am deeply grateful to the more than 95,000 donors who have contributed to the campaign.

However, we are already looking ahead. Borrowing a metaphor from our track and field heritage, we intend to sprint through the tape and keep going. As Bill Bowerman once said, “There is no finish line.” In that spirit, I am pleased to announce that the UO will extend our fundraising campaign by adding $1 billion to our goal.

Why are we extending the campaign instead of declaring victory? Simply put, each one of you has helped put the University of Oregon in a position where we enjoy incredible upward, positive momentum. As with all great universities, as we make progress we also see more opportunity. What once seemed unattainable is now within our grasp. Our donors have told us they are ready and willing for even more success. We want to harness this energy and raise the resources that will enable us to be among the very best institutions of higher learning in the nation.

The first focus of this campaign extension is fundraising hundreds of millions of dollars to secure access and success for students of all backgrounds.Over the past several months we engaged in strategic planning with deans, faculty, and other campus stakeholders to identify priorities, pockets of opportunity, and aspirational goals. Those conversations guided the creation of new fundraising targets, each grounded in our mission to be a great research institution that is committed to the success of our students. Here are some examples of what we will be asking our alumni and friends to support:

We will raise millions of dollars in sustaining support for PathwayOregon—a groundbreaking program celebrating its tenth year—that provides free tuition and fees for qualifying Federal Pell Grant-eligible Oregon residents. More than 5,000 students—over half of them first-generation college students and a large percentage of underrepresented students—have benefited from this program in the last decade, and we want to double, perhaps even triple, the PathwayOregon endowment to make it self-sustaining in perpetuity.

We will seek significant new resources for merit-based scholarships such as the Presidential Scholarship program, which awards up to $9,000 per year to high-achieving Oregon students.

To attract the best and brightest young scholars, we will seek additional scholarship support and prioritize reducing the higher differential tuition for the Robert D. Clark Honors College, which is ranked among the top 10 public honors colleges in the country.

The UO has always been a place that supports Dreamers and DACA students, many of whom are in this country and undocumented through no fault of their own, and whom do not qualify for federal aid. While the UO currently provides a track for these students to attend college, we will raise funds to reduce the cost of attendance for these amazing students, who deserve access to the same opportunities as their peers.

We will boost financial support for pipeline programs—such as the Summer Academy to Inspire Learning and Oregon Young Scholars—that demonstrate to young people throughout the state and nation that college education is within their reach.

We will help our students graduate on time and find jobs that will enable them to achieve their dreams. We will raise funds to support the expansion of advising and employment programs in our new Willie and Donald Tykeson Hall, with its emphasis on college and careers.

We will partner with donors to invest in experiential education programs to give undergraduate students hands-on learning and research opportunities that position them to quickly move into the job market.

We also want to build campus resources that optimize the learning experience to ensure that the next generation of UO students have the types of facilities and classrooms that will enable them to discover and grow. Our plan is to seek funds for a new 60,000-square-foot classroom and faculty office building tentatively earmarked for environmental and sustainability programming. In addition, we will raise money to complete the Black Cultural Center, which will break ground this fall, and ensure that we have the resources to support long-term staffing and programming in the new building.

But scholarships, advisors, pipeline programs, and new buildings are meaningless if they are not undergirded by world-class academic programs and faculty. We are fortunate that we have a strong academic foundation across campus. We want to further strengthen research by amassing resources for the Phil and Penny Knight Campus for Accelerating Scientific Impact and the new Presidential Science Initiative. This science initiative focuses on improving human life through the science of brains and behavior (neuroscience), chemical building blocks (material science), understanding and extracting knowledge (data science), and health and wellbeing (microbiome science).

We also will work with our faculty in the humanities and social sciences to identify interdisciplinary programs that could make enormous contributions to the state of humanistic knowledge. These efforts will magnify those of our deans to fundraise for faculty support and research facilities within their schools and colleges.
Our deans and campus leaders have worked hard to develop new fundraising priorities and goals in each of their units to take full advantage of the momentum of this campaign extension. I look forward to working with them and their many volunteers in achieving new levels of philanthropic support for their individual programs. As part of this work, we must achieve the goals of this campaign extension using existing resources. Last week, Vice President for Advancement Michael Andreasen unveiled a plan to reorganize development functions so that our limited personnel are assigned to support the areas that require the most effort.
New teams of central fundraisers will focus on access and student success, our classroom building and associated environmental research projects, and science initiatives.

The University of Oregon is at an inflection point. We are bending the arc of progress northward toward new levels of academic and reputational excellence. Extending the campaign by $1 billion is an important way to leverage the creativity, curiosity, talent, and innovation of our faculty, staff, and students across this campus in transformational ways; to send the message that we are bold, independent innovators who will not be defined by our history or preconceived notions of what it means to be a public university. This campaign extension is about engaging our exceptional faculty in further pursuit of academic excellence, providing new ways for our generous alumni, donors, and friends to support this amazing university, and telling the next generation of UO students that we are committed to giving them all the tools they need to be extraordinary.
I am excited to work with all of you to make these dreams a reality.

Michael H. Schill
President and Professor of Law