FINAL: Senate motion to support Collective students passes 23-21

Update with text as passed by the UO Senate:

After a full, frank, and extended discussion led by Senate President Sinclair (Math) – with UO President Schill, Provost Banavar, and many UO Collective students  present – the Senate voted 23-21 today to pass a revised version of US17/18-02: RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE UO STUDENT COLLECTIVE. This resolution was regarding disciplinary charges for Student Conduct Code violations brought by the administration against students who had protested at, and disrupted, President Schill’s October 6th State of the University Address.

This resolution had been presented to the Senate and posted on its website for review two weeks ago. Yesterday afternoon President Schill and Provost Banavar sent a letter to the Senate responding to it. The UO Student collective took this response to heart, in part, and redrafted their motion last night and this morning, taking out some of the parts the President and Provost found objectionable and making general edits and explanation. The Senate received that revision shortly before the meeting today.

The revised resolution was considered under a suspension of the normal rules, given the fact that time was of the essence, since the Student Conduct Office had given the students charged with disciplinary violations a firm deadline of December 8th to decide on how to respond to the charges, the students had exams, and that the next Senate meeting was not until January.

After voting to suspend the rules with the required 2/3 majority, a motion was then made to divide the resolution, separating the parts on the student conduct process from the parts asking the administration to condemn speech by white supremacists. This passed with considerable support.

The Senate then spent about 30 minutes discussing the student conduct part of the resolution. The resolution was read out in its entirety twice – once before division, and once after.

Some Senators urged the Senate to delay, arguing that this was too little time to consider. Others argued that the students had been given a deadline and the Senate needed to act today.

Provost Banavar asked the students if they would be satisfied if the administration would extend the Dec 8th deadline. The students asked if the Provost could promise such an extension. He said he could not.

Senate VP Harbaugh (me) relayed that he had just been told by the Dean of Students that the Student Conduct Office had failed to make recordings or verbatim transcripts of the student conduct hearings held so far (and had prevented the students from making recordings), despite that fact that verbatim transcripts were required for appeals of conduct violations. Whoops.

The Senate extended the time for debate several times. One OA Senator said that the OA’s would feel that passing the resolution would be taken as an attack on the OA’s who have the difficult job of enforcing student conduct code violations. This was received with respect.

One Senator, from the law school, argued for delay and more deliberation, until next quarter. This same Senator had been on the UO Board of Trustees as its sole faculty member when they passed their 2014 motion taking authority for Student Conduct away from the faculty. At the time she raised no objection with the board that the Trustees were given that motion only shortly before their meeting, and she did not even bother to inform the faculty or the students that the motion was coming. The Greeks had a word for this: hypocrisy.

One Senator raised the point that the motion could be taken as supporting students rights to disrupt classrooms. This did not get a lot of resonance with the faculty, who are quite experienced at turning student disruptions into teachable moments. Many of us even enjoy it. Here’s hoping VP Kyle Henley and the administration’s PR machine do not decide to give Duck spokesman Tobin Klinger instructions to go to the press with that canard.

At 4:56 the vote was called, and the motion passed 23-21. Here’s the final text as passed, absent footnotes. It should all be on the Senate website Th AM:


Section I

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

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

1.2  WHEREAS the UO Policy on Free Inquiry and Speech states

Free speech is central to the academic mission and is the central tenet of a free and democratic society.” [Emphasis added];


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

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

1.4 WHEREAS the preamble of the Student Conduct Code reads:

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

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

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

1.7 WHEREAS the UO Policy on Academic Freedom says

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


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

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

Section II

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

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

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

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

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


Having spent more than the expected time on the discussion and debate of this resolution, the Senate then adjourned, putting off the remainder of the agenda until January.

Continue reading

Senate live-blog: Expedited tenure, Student Collective, VP for Eq & Incl

Update: page down for Student collective motion etc.

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

Introductory Remarks; Senate President Chris Sinclair

“Standard Operating Procedures” are not policies and cannot be used to restrict free speech and don’t let the administration tell you otherwise.

Remarks: Mike Schill, University President

Pres Schill is back from DC and the AAU meetings, with a report on the tax bill. The upshot is that it will be bad for higher ed by removing deductions for student loans and making graduate student tuition remissions taxable. It will also reduce the incentives for charitable deductions, and make profits on sales of Duck crap taxable. The excise tax on large endowments will not affect us. While Mike does not mention it, the legislation will also reduce incentives to give to athletics – which should be good for the academic side.

Mike also announces how he will spend the very excellent $50m gift that he tried to tell UO about last month, before the student collective shouted him down. No interruptions from the Senate though, as he explains that he will spend it on matching gifts for faculty chairs and a major new School of Ed initiative to work with Oregon high schools to increase the number of low-SES students going to college. Also a big-data initiative, a media center for science, and funding for the new Black Cultural Center.

He also says that he will not be involved in the student conduct code discipline process, and gives some conciliatory words to the students.

Remarks: Scott Pratt, Executive Vice Provost

Brad Shelton is now in charge of the faculty hiring plan. Yikes.

Remarks: UO Student Collective

Sorry, I’m listening, not live-blogging. Watch the video.  Video feed.

4:00 P.M.   Approval of Minutes, November 1, 2017

4:00 P.M.   New Business

Vote: US17/18-02: Expedited Tenure Process; Boris Botvinnik (Math), Scott Pratt (Provost’s Office)

Long discussion, ably led by Boris Bottvinik (FPC chair and Math). Whatever the Senate decides, it certainly has not been hasty. Straw poll shows about half the senate is in favor, 5 or so against, and about half undecided. More debate in two weeks.

Vote: Confirmation of Committee on Committees members


DAPs; VP Yvette Alex-Assensoh, Office of Equity & Inclusion

The “Diversity Action Plans” were part of the fallout from the Halloween incident. Imposed as a top down requirement from the President’s Office and the VPSL, the process was badly mangled. Eventually a consultant was brought in, and then a team of faculty and administrators, led by Karen Ford, spent most of the summer trying to patch them up. The VPSL – who was on the job market during much of this process – then tried to get UO to hire an “Executive Coach” to help her explain these to the faculty. When JH found out (via this blog) they cancelled the bidding.

After objections were raised about the first round, CAS tried again, with a relatively open process for its DAPs. Dean Andrew Marcus held three town halls, at which the plans were heavily criticized by staff, faculty, and students as unfunded mandates that would lead to more administrative bloat and more window-dressing. Plans, info and transcripts here.

I had high hopes for this VPSL when she first came to UO as a replacement for Charles Martinez. She promised transparency and that she would hire an analyst to study what was working at UO to improve diversity, and what was not working. But things have not gone well. Her office has had extraordinarily high turnover, has never been transparent with the Senate, and has spent its efforts on window dressing like the IDEAL plan – pages and pages of buzzwords, with no action.

I hope she will be able to explain this morass to the Senate, as well as give us some evidence that the millions we’ve spent on her office has done something to help our students, and tell us how she now plans to use the $2.5 million in reserves her office is sitting on to help the colleges pay for the administrative busy-work that the DAPs will now require:

4:45 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:45 P.M.   Reports
4:45 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion

From the Student Collective:











Resolution to Support the UO Student Collective

Proposed: November 15th, 2017 Proponents: UO Student Collective


1.1 WHEREAS the following is one of the official values of the UO: “We value our diversity and seek to foster equity and inclusion in a welcoming, safe, and respectful community.”

1.2 WHEREAS students have repeatedly approached the UO Administration with demands and concerns about policies and patterns of practice that jeopardize the well-being, safety, and success of students.

1.3 WHEREAS the Administration at the UO has not adequately prioritized the demands of its students to address these concerns.

1.4 WHEREAS the Administration has retaliated against student protesters and student dissent by actively pursuing student conduct charges and imposing sanctions on students for protesting.

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

1.6 WHEREAS the retaliation described in 1.4 causes stress and anxiety to students, disrupts their academic efforts, and functions as repression of dissent and free speech.

1.7 WHEREAS the Student Conduct process has been carried out with clear bias; the students were declared guilty by the administration on public news outlets before charges were made.

Background: The Administration has ignored the requests and

needs of the students and is now charging them with Student

Conduct violations for protest and dissent.










1.8 WHEREAS the Student Conduct Code reads that students accused of violations can expect the procedural protection of “[being] informed of the information upon which a complaint is based,” yet students were denied information regarding how the conduct process was initiated.

1.9 WHEREAS the Student Conduct Code outlines a “student’s right to assistance” and that this may include an attorney, yet the university has yet to offer reasonable options in lieu of ASUO legal representation or advising, which has been withheld.

1.10 WHEREAS the student conduct hearings offered occur behind closed doors, do not include a scribe or other form of reliable record-keeping, disallow recording, and rely on a decision- making body of a single person.

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

1.12 WHEREAS White Supremacist groups have been allowed and

welcomed on Administration.

the University of Oregon campus by the

1.13 WHEREAS White Supremacist speech is a direct threat to members of our university community, especially marginalized demographics.


2.1 BE IT RESOLVED THAT the UO Senate urges the Administration to cease the Student Conduct disciplinary charges process and pledges to support student protesters during the disciplinary appeals process.

2.2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the UO Senate supports the pursuit of collective student action and ongoing conversation with the UO Student Collective regarding avenues for creating meaningful structural change.

2.3 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the UO Senate denounces White Supremacist speech and organizing on campus as a direct threat to the university community.

2.4 BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED THAT the UO Senate shall urge President Schill to pledge that he will use his position of power to deny White Nationalists and hate groups a platform on this campus to the best of his ability.

4:50 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

Senate to meet today, Wed Nov 1 3-5PM

Presumably the 4:30 open discussion will focus on the student conduct code charges that the administration is pressing against the UO Collective Students. There will also be important info about upcoming decisions on expedited tenure and undergraduate honors. Livestream:

Agenda from

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

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

Introductory Remarks; Senate Vice President Bill Harbaugh

Apparently Harbaugh has nothing to say. A first.

Remarks: Senate President Chris Sinclair

Students should be heard, so should administrators, and we will hear from both today.

Remarks: Provost Banavar

Supports Expedited Tenure proposal, wants to see Honors proposals.

3:30 P.M.   Approval of MinutesOctober 18, 2017

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

  • DiscussionExpedited Tenure Process; Boris Botvinnik  (Math), Chair of Faculty Personnel Committee (FPC)
  • Report: Dean Andrew Marcus, College of Arts and Sciences
  • ReportHonors Task Force ;  Josh Snodgrass (Anth) and Jeremy Piger (Econ)

4:30 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:30 P.M.   Reports
4:30 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:30 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

UO Senate Agenda, UOPD Chief announces Tazers and semi-auto rifles

Update: While I am not sure the AR-15’s, Tazers, ducked-up trucks are an improvement, Chief Matt Carmichael has done an enormous amount to improve the UOPD. And he’s somehow done it without spending any new UO money, so far:

4:25PM It’s taking him quite a while to get around to it, but I think Chief Carmichael will eventually announce that UOPD has already or will soon introduce new weapons to campus: Tazers and semi-automatic rifles.

4:35PM UOPD will introduce Tazers, arguing they are an alternative to police having to shoot people. UOPD will also have body cameras, activated by Tazer activation.

4:37PM UOPD will also introduce “patrol rifles” with high capacity clips and ammo that can penetrate body armor. These will be kept locked in gun safes in the patrol cars.

4:41PM UOPD and Duck Athletics will get a bomb-sniffing dog, and hire a handler.

October 18, 2017 The meeting is 3-5, the faculty club is open 5-7 W, Th & 4-6Fr.
Location:  EMU 145 & 146 (Crater Lake rooms)
Agenda Minutes |  Watch

3:00 P.M.   Call to Order

  • Introductory Remarks; Senate President Chris Sinclair
  • Remarks: Invited Students
  • Remarks: Provost Banavar

3:30 P.M.   Approval of MinutesOctober 4, 2017

3:30 P.M.   Business/Reports

  • Business: HECC; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of Academic Council
  • Business: Responsible Reporting; Darci Heroy (Title IX Coord.) & Missy Matella (General Counsel’s Office)
  • US17/18-01: Affirmation of the Responsibilities of Faculty Regarding Curriculum; Rob Kyr (Music), President of IFS
  • Business: Academic Freedom, Bill Harbaugh (Economics), Senate VP
  • Report: Update from Chief Carmichael (UOPD Chief) and the UOPD Student Assistants
  • Business: Senate Procedures

4:50 P.M.    Open Discussion
4:50 P.M.   Reports
4:50 P.M.   Notice(s) of Motion
4:50 P.M.   Other Business
5:00 P.M.   Adjourn

UO kicks off Constitution Day festivities with warning from Prof Frank Stahl

Sorry, long post, which includes a letter on internal threats to the principle of shared governance from Professor Emeritus of Biology Frank Stahl, and information on the 2012 threat from the administration to dissolve the UO Senate and Faculty Assembly.

Five years ago on Dec 15th 2011 the UO Faculty Assembly ratified the UO Constitution, codifying the roles of the Senate and the Faculty Assembly in shared governance. President Lariviere signed it on Dec 15th, as his last official act:


To mark the 5th anniversary, Professor Emeritus of Biology Frank Stahl sent this letter on his concern that the closed Faculty Advisory Council may subvert the open processes of the Senate:

On Constitution Day, the Old Man Reflects on Governance

The University of Oregon Charter dictates that the President and professors share the responsibility for governing the University: “The President and professors constitute the faculty of the University, and, as such, shall have the immediate government and discipline of it and the students therein…” (Oregon Revised Statutes, ORS § 352.010; originally section 14 of Law No. 9, Oregon Laws 1876)

Over the years, University governance drifted away from the requirements of the Charter, until, in November, 2008, a letter from the Oregon Department of Justice (DoJ) ( condemned the UO’s entire governance structure as being in violation of that law.

The DoJ letter prompted the University to create a University Senate with governance authority (and broad membership) subject to oversight by an Assembly (comprised exclusively of Statutory Faculty). These governing bodies, and the relations between them, were defined in a Constitution that prohibited the Senate from delegating any of the governance authority entrusted to it.

UO Constitution, Section “7.1 … The governance authority conferred upon the University Senate may not be delegated in whole or in part to any officer or committee of the University Senate or to any other body.”

However, the Senate does appear to have delegated governance authority to its Faculty Advisory Council. This Council (FAC) has all the trappings of a branch of governance and is insulated from all oversight (December 15, 2015, Senate meeting). Officially, the FAC is charged with being “…responsible for providing the President and other Administration officials with faculty opinion and counsel on the wide range of university affairs.”  It is composed of elected faculty members, the Provost and Assistant Provost, the ASUO President and a couple of elected Officers of Administration as well as the Senate President and Vice President and, of course, the University President. It is allowed to operate in secrecy. The FAC’s charge naively states, “The FAC is purely advisory…”

But, what is the reality of the FAC?  Its composition gives it the gravitas of a governance body, and the FAC has labeled itself as a component of governance: “It [the FAC] is a key arm of shared governance.” (End of year FAC report, June 2013.)  One might say, “If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck … “

Harm to the Senate: By looking like a powerful secret body, the FAC attracts governance activists. In so doing, it starves the Senate of candidates, weakening that body. The harm done to the Senate doesn’t end there.

Conflicts of Interest: As ex officio members of the FAC, the Senate President and Vice President are confidential advisors to the University President. At the same time, the Senate Officers have been elected, by the Senate, to openly serve the Senate in its role as the channel by which the Faculty can make its wishes known and acted upon. Do you think that being in service to both the President and the Senate creates the potential for conflict of interest?  You can bet your old Nike AJs it does!

Presidential Interference in the Senate? An early, post 1996, Senate President asserted (to me) that a University President sought to manipulate Senate activities by pressuring him.  Later, in 2002, a President pressured the individual Senators ( to forgo both debate and voting on a certain resolution.

Subsequent examples of apparent presidential interference in the operations of the Senate are only inferred and best left unsaid.  However, the charge of interference gains credibility by the recent public testimony of a former Senate President that the University President does, indeed, interfere with the Senate (at 2:18;50 of the video at

      The President is, of course, free to influence the Senate by making his views known. He can efficiently do that by addressing the Senate in open forum. (That’s why the Constitution made him a non-voting member of the Senate.)  But influence becomes interference if the influence is concealed under a cloak of confidentiality, which is handily available in the FAC.

What can the Senate do to help secure a future for open, shared governance? Deep-sixing the FAC would be the best solution. The gains in the goal of transparent, constitutional governance are obvious. The losses include the FAC members’ weekly(?) hot lunch in the JH conference room.

         A less draconian step would be the removal of Senators from the FAC. This simple step would both reduce the FAC’s temptation to act as a governance body and would eliminate the lever by which the President can exert cryptic control of the Senate. It would also relieve the Senate Officers of the obligation of performing as Confidential Advisors to the President, freeing them to more fully serve the Senate.

The future of our Constitutional shared governance depends on acceptance of the Senate as the University’s sole body of internal governance. The Senate can achieve that acceptance only by freeing itself from control by the FAC. Go, Ducks!

Speaking for myself, I disagree that there is a conflict between faculty participation in open shared governance via the Senate and the closed (but elected) Faculty Advisory Council. I think they are complementary, and the more overlap between the two bodies the better. While President Michael Schill has done a lot to promote shared governance through the Senate, and make it more effective, I think future threats to shared governance with some future president are more likely to come from some future administration appointing un-elected faculty to its own “Advisory Groups”.

The extreme case would be this secret plan devised by former GC Randy Geller under Interim President Bob Berdahl. The Senate only found out about this plan from the fortuitous release of the digital Presidential Archives, or as current Deputy GC Doug Park calls it, “The Incident”:

1/4/2015: The UO administration’s secret plan to abolish the UO Senate

UO Matters operatives have obtained a “confidential” memo from former UO General Counsel Randy Geller to former Interim President Bob Berdahl, recommending that Berdahl abolish the University Senate and prohibit most faculty members from being members of the Faculty Personnel Committee, Faculty Advisory Counsel, Student Conduct committee, the Intercollegiate Athletics Committee, etc.

Geller made this recommendation three weeks after the administration admitted defeat over the faculty union. The full memo is here. As you can see it advises:

1) abolition of the current UO Senate and all its committees;

2) creation of a new faculty-only Senate, limited to making recommendations to the administration;

3) membership on key committees to be restricted to non-bargaining unit faculty; and

4) other committees replaced by “administrative advisory groups” serving at the president’s pleasure.

Screen Shot 2015-01-03 at 6.16.48 PM

Screen Shot 2015-01-04 at 1.00.28 PM

Screen Shot 2015-01-03 at 6.18.06 PM

Screen Shot 2015-01-03 at 6.18.32 PM

Geller’s proposal seems insane, but key parts of it have already been implemented, and it seems the likely source for the statements Interim President Coltrane made at the December emergency Senate Exec meeting about the need for changes in faculty governance “given our new unionized environment”. Coltrane has kept the administrative advisory groups that Bob Berdahl and Mike Gottfredson set up to replace Senate committees, such as the President’s Advisory Group on Intercollegiate Athletics, the Budget Advisory Group, and the Public Records Administrative Advisory Group.

Coltrane has also been working with new UO AVP Chuck Triplett (the former OUS apparatchik who helped Pernsteiner fire Richard Lariviere) and new University Board Secretary Angela Wilhelms to set up a President-appointed Policy Advisory Committee, and revoke the faculty authority that has existed since the founding of the University of Oregon and which is a normal part of faculty governance at other universities. …

UO Senate blog open for comments on teaching release policy, academic matters definition, mandatory reporting, etc.

The new Senate blog is part of the new Senate website at The blog link is in the upper right hand corner. Anyone can see everything, and anyone with a email can post comments – your email address will show up as “author” (there’s a log in screen first, for commenting.)

UO Board meetings video: Senate myths, Divest UO, Deady denaming, etc

The UO BOT does not post videos of the board meetings – so UO Matters operatives will do it for them. More to come. (Links fixed, thanks.)

Randy Sullivan’s farewell speech to the Board: “Six Myths the UO Trustees believe about the University Senate” starts at

Faculty Union President Michael Dreiling explains to the Trustees how UO gives its students education in science, finance, and politics – and they’re now using it to fight for CO2 reductions. Starts at, the students follow Dreiling.

UO alumni and faculty use the Black Students campaign to rename Deady and the Boards public comment period to teach us all a little Oregon history. Starts at I’m hoping history lessons will become a regular part of the board meetings. I’m working on a talk about Treetops, Phimister Proctor, and Irene Hazard Gerlinger.

ASUO Student Government President Helena Schlegel – chased off the board by Chair Chuck Lillis – returns for a postscript. starts at

Today: Senate to elect new VP, awards, remarks from Pres Schill, reception

After informative statements from both candidates, and questions, the Senate elected Chris Sinclair as VP and President Elect.

Video from last week’s meeting is here:

Senate Meeting Agenda May 25, 2016. 

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:00pm    1.   Call to Order

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes 2.1      May 18, 2016

3:05 pm    4.   New Business

3:05 pm          S.1      [Suspension of the Rules] Report: “Academic Continuity;” Academic Integrity Taskforce

3:20 pm          4.1      US15/16-30: Addendum to Spring 2016 Curriculum Report: Minor Changes to the MA/MS in Folklore:Public Folklore track; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of the Curriculum Committee

3:25 pm          4.2      US14/15-40: To Promote Representative Attendance at Senate Meetings; Senate Executive Committee

3:35 pm          4.3      US15/16-31: Announcement and Confirmation of Spring 2016 Committee Appointments; Committee on Committees

3:45 pm          4.4      Election of the Senate President-elect (Vice President) for 2016-2017

Chris Sinclair
Associate Professor
Rich Margerum
Professor/Dept Head
Planning, Public Policy & Management
Candidate Statement Candidate Statement

After informative statements and questions, the Senate elects Chris Sinclair as VP and President Elect.

3:55 pm          4.5      Year – end remarks by President Schill

Thanks to Randy Sullivan for doing the difficult job of Senate VP so well. Generally pleased with the progress over the past year.

4:15 pm          4.6      UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust: Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics)

4:25 pm          4.7      UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award: Dorothy Attneave, Campus Planning, Design &  Construction

4:35 pm          4.8      UO Senate Wayne Westling Award: Robert Kyr, Professor (School of Music & Dance)

4:45 pm          4.9      UO Senate Officer of Administration Leadership Award: Kimberly Johnson, Office of Academic Advising

4:55 pm          4.10    Passing of the Gavel to the Incoming Senate President Bill Harbaugh (Economics); Randy Sullivan (Chemistry), Outgoing Senate President

4:55 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:55 pm    6.   Reports

4:55 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:55 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

5:00 – 6:00 pm          Senate Awards Reception – same location

Senate meeting Wed 5/18 on Mandatory Reporting

Live-blogging will be light.

Watch Live

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 18, 2016

3:30 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:30 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:30 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes 2.1      May 11, 2016

3:32 pm    4.   New Business

3:32 pm            4.2     US15/16/-25: Scheduling of Examinations Policy; Undergraduate Council and Senate Executive Council. Passes unanimously

3:37 pm            4.3     US15/16-24: Major/Minor/Certificate/Program Course Overlap Policy; Undergraduate Council. Passes unanimously

3:42pm             4.4     US15/16-23: Responsible Employee Policy; Committee on Sexual & Gender-Based Violence

The Senate blog has many statements and comments, here.

3:50: Clarifying amendments pass unanimously. The Senate is now working on the version here.

Koopman (Philosophy): Introduces a sunset clause for 12/15/2016, arguing that the policy is important, affects many campus groups, and many different kinds of interactions, and that the Senate needs to ensure that all stakeholders are involved and all issues considered.

Sunset clause passes 27-10. Discussion of main motion resumes.

Koopman lays out the issues:

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 5.19.40 PM

He then proceeds to use this to show that mandatory reporting does not need to be universal, and shows the internal contradictions of the proposed policy.

5:30: The policy fails, 15 to 16.

4:50 pm            4.4     US15/16-26: Approval of Curriculum Report, Spring Term 2016; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair, Committee on Courses. Passes unanimously.

4:55 pm            4.5     US14/15-40: To Promote Representative Attendance at Senate Meetings; Senate Executive Committee. Held over.

5:00 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5:00 pm    6.   Reports 6.1      “Academic Continuity,” Academic Integrity Taskforce. Held over.

5:15 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

5:15 pm    8.   Other Business

5:30 pm    9.   Adjournment

Live-blog: Senate meets on Mandatory Reporting / Responsible Employee policy, course overlap

The focus of the meeting was the new “Responsible Reporting Policy”. There was lots of interesting debate, some amendments, and a decision to hold an additional Senate meeting next Wednesday the 18th to continue working on this policy.

DRAFT  Senate Meeting Agenda – May 11, 2016

2015-2016AgendasWatch LiveUniversity Senate Blog

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:00 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:00 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes  2.1      April 20, 2016

3:02 pm    4.   New Business

3:02 pm            4.1      US15/16-29: Repeal of Obsolete OUS Academic Policies; The Senate Curriculum Matters Policy Working Group and the Senate Executive Committee

Discussed at the last meeting, passes unanimously.

3:07 pm            4.2      US15/16-27: Revision of Academic Classification and Rank policy; Senate Employment Matters Work Group and Senate Executive Committee

Dreiling: Asked Triplett that the policy include links to the TRP and emeritus policies. Sullivan: It will.

Passes unanimously.

3:12 pm            4.3      US15/16-28: Revision of Sabbatical Leave policy; Senate Employment Matters Work Group and Senate Executive Committee

Passes unanimously.

3:15 pm            4.4      US15/16-23: Responsible Employee Policy; Committee on Sexual & Gender-Based Violence

Some links and background:

The proposed new policy is here. It repeals parts of old policies.

“2.1 THEREFORE, the University Senate approves of the attached Policy on UO Responsible Employee Duty to Report Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault.  This policy repeals university policies 580-15-005 through 580-15-010 and 571-03-L(1) through L(4).”

There’s no link to these, and if you google Chuck Triplett’s policy page you get “Your search – 580-15-005 – did not match any documents.” So I asked Triplett for them, and he sent me these files:



Sorry, I’m listening not blogging.

After a thorough debate and several amendments, at 4:52

3:45 pm            4.5      US15/16/-25: Scheduling of Examinations Policy; Undergraduate Council and Senate Executive Council

4:00 pm            4.6      US15/16-24: Major/Minor/Certificate/Program Course Overlap Policy; Undergraduate Council

4:20 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:20 pm    6.   Reports

6.1      “Academic Continuity,” Academic Integrity Taskforce

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

8.1      Executive Session – Affirm Award recipients for 4 senate awards

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Closes 5PM today: Vote for UO Senate and Committee membership

Max Thornberry has a story on the Senate in the Emerald, here. Some extracts:

“American universities are the best in the world because of our strong tradition of academic freedom,” [Incoming President Harbaugh] said, “and because of the principle that the faculty, not the administration, controls the academic mission in all its details.”

Tangibly, the effects the Senate has on the school are felt in the forms of new courses and policies regarding majors. Academic matters can be loosely defined as well. The Responsible Employee Policy on sexual assault reporting will be discussed at the Senate meeting on May 11.

The current Senate has been active in the last year, approving 22 resolutions, legislation and policy proposals.

Moving forward, the role that the senate plays is set to increase. President Michael Schill “strongly believes in joint faculty control,” Sullivan said. “I think the senate is playing an increasingly influential role in academic reforms.” [Said outgoing President Randy Sullivan.]

The ballot is here, if you want to see who is running before you go to the voting website.

To vote, log into Duckweb here. If you see a warning about a potentially fatal contagious disease, you’re in the right place. Just click on the faculty/staff icon and it will take you to your ballot.

Screen Shot 2016-05-05 at 1.35.24 PM

The election closes Monday May 9th at 5PM. If you have problems with your ballot contact Betina at

UO Senate candidates begin posting statements for election

Assuming no technical difficulties, the election will start Monday 4/25 with an email to the Senate constituents. Voting will be done as usual via Duckweb. The draft ballot is here. The Senate Executive Coordinator has asked all candidates for Senate and elected committees to submit statements. Click the hyperlinks in the ballot. Here’s the first:

Screen Shot 2016-04-21 at 12.58.39 AM

If you are running and have not yet set in your statement, email it to

Senate meets Today at 3 on divorce of Senate & FAC, more policies

Summary: For those of you who skipped the meeting for early cocktails down at the Faculty Club’s temporary location (and Chuck Triplett has your names) here are the highlights:

Senate Pres Randy Sullivan ran another effective meeting. All got their chance to speak, business got done, and new ideas came to light.

Frank Stahl’s motion to divorce the Senate from the UO president’s FAC failed 18-8.

We had a healthy discussion of the upcoming Mandatory Reporting Policy (of sexual harassment and discrimination), developed by the Senate’s CSGBV and brought to the Senate by them on a unanimous vote. Many trade-offs have been worked out, not to everyone’s satisfaction.

The Provost appointed faculty to the search for a new Law School Dean without following UO Policy requiring he first consult with the Senate President and the FAC. The Provost agreed that he shouldn’t have done this, and we’re going to work together to straighten this out. SPQUO.

The Divest UO from CO2 students announced their fiendishly clever “Divest Fund“. Make a donation to the Divest Fund for UO scholarships, and they will hold it in escrow until the end of 2017. If the UO Foundation’s Jay Namyet has divested by then, UO gets the money. If not, it is divided among those universities that have divested. Someone knows their game theory, and it’s not the Foundation’s well paid Chief Investment Officer.

I tried it out, and they even sent a receipt for my taxes.

Screen Shot 2016-04-20 at 5.43.48 PM

Wednesday, April 20, 2016, Watch LiveBrowsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes 2.1, April 6, 2016

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1      US15/16-14: Respecting the Differing Roles of the Senate and the Faculty Advisory Council; Frank Stahl, Emeritus in Biology

Fails 18 to 8.

3:35 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5.1       Curriculum and academic personnel policies

Policy Repeal Proposals, via Policy Advisory Council and Curriculum Matters workgroup

OUS 52 Tuition Policy

OUS 12 Centers and Institutes in OUS

OUS 50 Sustainability recommendation

Curricular Policies & Procedures

Admissions Policies and Requirements

Frazee calls to suspend the rules and repeal these now instead of at the next meeting. Needs 2/3, fails.

Policy Revision Proposals

580.020.0005 Academic Classification and Rank 

580.021.0200-245 Sabbatical Leave

Koopman brings up a very interesting point. The university is adopting CBA language as policy for all faculty, including those that are not in the bargaining unit (Law, PI’s with grants and employees). So shouldn’t these employees have some representation on the university’s bargaining team, since they can’t be represented by the union side?

5.2       Responsible Employee Policy; Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (CSGBV)

Stabile: The committee worked very hard for months writing this policy, and voted unanimously in favor of this policy. Reporting ensures that the university knows about serial perpetrators. Gives survivors many choices – they can go to Crisis Intervention, report confidentially there, and get help and resources.

Murray: Why does it exclude student employees? Matella (GCO): It includes RA’s and GTF’s, but not other student employees because a reasonable person wouldn’t think of them as representing the university.

Frazee: I’d expect my student-orientation employeees (undergrads) to report. They should be given reporting responsibility. Stabile: We could include them. Matella: agrees, this is a choice the university can make, and should discuss.

Margerum: Recalls that last time there were concerns that this might reduce reporting, if students know what they say will be relayed to the authorities.

Stabile: My experience with students is that they come to talk after they’ve had bad experiences with how UO has handled things. I think it’s helpful to be able to tell them “I’m going to help you right now by walking you over to the crisis center where you can get counseling and resources.

Rocklin (Law, Bonine’s surrogate Senator): Students treat my office as a safe place for them to talk, I’m concerned that this will limit my ability to try and help them. Notes that Merle Weiner (Law) will provide a memo with some other issues and inconsistencies in the policy.

Stabile: Just because a survivor reports does not mean that the perpetrator will be notified, etc. There are many options.

Darcy: There are situations where a report will mean that the survivor loses control of how the situation is handled – e.g. if there is a threat to others. Students are never forced to participate.

Matella: Take a look at the student affairs website to see more on the process.

Ahlen: Would like to see an exemption for union stewards acting in their official capacity.

Sullivan reads comments from Freyd:

Dear Committee,

I feel I have failed to express myself clearly and for that I apologize. I have a few thoughts to share on required reporting. I apologize these points are now not informed by the discussion at the meeting yesterday but perhaps some or all will still be relevant for the future.

1) A fundamental injury of sexual violence is to take away the survivor’s autonomy and control . Anything we can do to offer autonomy and control to survivors will be potentially healing. Anything we do that takes it away will be potentially harmful. This I say based on RESEARCH.

2) When we draw conclusions about what reporting environment works based on only those students who report we are losing data from 90% of survivors. We need to be always asking what about the 90% who are not reporting – what can we do to make it safe for them to get their needs met. Why are they not reporting?

3) While the GC office has the duty to protect the university, a committee such as ours should fundamentally be about excellence not liability. The whole exercise of addressing sexual violence will fail if simply pursued for the sake of risk management – we should be as a committee be looking at how our practices are consistent with overall institutional excellence, the alignment of mission/vision/values in the specific context of sexual violence, and the development of a “culture of excellence” that will serve the institution at all levels.

4) One way to pursue a culture of excellence is to step back and identify the goals of any initiative and ask whether there are other ways to meet those goals that might be even more helpful and with fewer negative side effects.

5) Isn’t the specific issue about identifying responsible employees as articulated below by Kevin actually about aligning survivor expectations and perceptions with employee behavior and requirements? If a student believes a report will result in action but it dead ends, that is hurtful misalignment. If a student believes a report will be held in confidence and it is shared, that is also hurtful misalignment. Similarly if a survivor requires privacy but believes they cannot get it from the people they most trust they have a high probability of not reporting to the institution at all. Given this, isn’t the fundamental issue one of clarifying and communicating with students such that they have OPTIONS and very well-tuned expectations? And if so, couldn’t there be options the student has that clarify what will happen with their information and that will give them a path to reporting that they feel good about?


Sullivan: notes that mandatory reporting will only work if the university has effective procedures to deal with the reports and inform everyone at UO of the process. [That hourlong web quiz is not going to cut it.]

4:45 pm    6.   Reports

6.1      Divestment Report; Divest UO. More on this here.

4:45 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:45 pm    8.   Other Business

Harbaugh: I discovered this morning that the Provost had begun appointing faculty members to the Law School Dean search committee, because the current Dean had told him that the Law School’s last faculty meeting was Friday. It’s not.

UO Policy requires that the Provost consult with the Senate President and the FAC about the composition of search committees. The Provost agreed that he should have done this, but didn’t. We’re going to work together to straighten this out.

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

Senate meets Wed 3-5PM to weaken godless ethics policy, regulate faculty inputs to online classes, and then listen to our students if time permits

Senate Meeting – April 6, 2016. Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm. 2015-2016Agendas,  Watch Live.

Synopsis: Ethics passed eventually. Online input policy passed. At the last minute VP for Student Life Robin Holmes bailed on the student-led discussion of the Mandatory Live-In Policy non-policy, probably preventing any substantive discussion before it goes into effect.

The UO Divest students gave a report on the goals of their sit-in, and reported that the administration has removed their divestment banner from the bush outside JH, claiming it was a “structural element”. This seems like an obvious violation of UO’s free -speech policy and the careful language in the Facilities Use Policy that the Senate negotiated with Lariviere in 2010.

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:05 pm    1.   Call to Order, 3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes  March 9, 2016

3:15 pm    4.   New Business

4.1     US15/16-21: Revision of the Code of Ethics in Response to Feedback from the University President; Senate Executive Committee

Live blog: Schill’s not sure why we are bothering with this either. Something we inherited from OUS and it would look bad to ditch it. We then proceed to debate the Public Accountability clause and “inclusivity”. Someone tries to add the dread word “collegiality”. Harbaugh objects unless it specifies “collegiality as defined by New York City best practices.” Collegiality fails. Freyd proposes a simplifying amendment to delete everything after the second period. Passes. Harbaugh moves to change “ensures” to “requires”. Schill agrees. Amendment passes. The Godless UO now has a code of ethics, though the administration reserves the right to take another look.

My post from yesterday:

Yes, AVP for Collaboration Chuck Triplett has brought this back to us once more, for still more debate. And he tells people it’s the *Senate* that wastes time on pointless unenforceable motions? It seems someone in JH has taken a red pen to the public accountability language:

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 8.56.46 PM

But our administrators have no problem with this language in the UOPD’s ethics policy:

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 9.04.23 PM

Is there none righteous among the Senate, not one, with the stones (or ovaries) to propose an amendment adding God to the UO ethics policy? I’ll second, I swear (or affirm) to it.

OK, so we’re all atheists, just as Ben Carson thought. Well how about sustainability then? Even the godless worship sustainability. Maybe especially the godless. But Triplett’s Policy Advisory Committee is proposing repealing UO’s policy on sustainability, which we inherited from Pernsteiner and Triplett from back when they ran OUS, and before they ran Lariviere out:

Screen Shot 2016-04-05 at 9.29.15 PM

While I don’t doubt that UO’s “green brand” brings in more good students than the Duck’s party school reputation, I’m all for ditching this vacuous policy about “how we can live sustainably on Earth.” Instead we should should support our UO Divest students, who have a practical, well thought out program for reducing CO2 emissions through collective action, which they are working hard to implement.

4.2     US15/16-22: Policy on Undergraduate Online and Hybrid Courses: Student Engagement; Academic Council

Provost Scott Coltrane has appointed VPAA Doug Blandy of all people to lead a task force on online education, but his task force has just begun meeting, and he won’t share the schedule or agenda. Instead this proposal comes from the Academic Council. It does not attempt to deal with cheating or grade inflation in online courses, or evaluate what students might learn from these courses. Instead it’s all about regulating faculty inputs.

Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 3.52.23 PM

Live-blog: Dreiling wants to see the SEI, here:

Screen Shot 2016-04-06 at 3.53.21 PM

White explains the impetus from this proposal: students were complaining that some online classes consisted of nothing more than video lectures and a final exam.

Koopman asks why the policy does not provide more guidance on what is meant by engagement – instead of defining it as what it’s not.

White: We are working closely with Doug Blandy’s task force to provide more examples in the SEI and other documents. Doesn’t want to give faculty language they can just cut and paste into a course proposal.

Wolverton: Agrees with Koopman, thinks there should be more guidance in the policy. 2.1 should reference the SEI. Furthermore, the SEI tracks *student* engagement, this seems focused on faculty workload.

Question is called, policy passes.

3:45 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5.1       Proposed Mandatory Live In policy for all new incoming students.

Last meeting we had to cut this very interesting student-led discussion off early, for lack of time.

Apparently VPSL Robin Holmes was not prepared to continue discussing the Mandatory Live On Policy for freshman that came up last month.

Senators ask whether or not this is just a delaying tactic on the part of VPSL.  Say it ain’t so!

4:15 pm    6.   Reports

Two UO Divest students, Joey and Nicole report on the progress of their JH sit-in and protest, aimed at encouraging the UO Foundation to divest from those fossil fuel companies that still haven’t gone bankrupt.

The students report that, after 8 weeks of their JH sit-in, the administration has been removed their banner from outside JH.

Dreiling: WTF? Don’t we have a free-speech policy?

Students: They told us that we couldn’t even stand there, because that made us “structural elements of the building.”

Senator: There have been many other banners on Johnson Hall over the years, including one celebrating the last capital campaign. Sounds structural?

Harbaugh: In 2010 the Senate rejected GC Randy Geller’s attempt to write a policy that would allow the administration to remove your banner. Perhaps the Senate should revisit this

Sullivan: Can faculty help out with the sit-in?

Students: We’re there from 9-5.

4:50 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:50 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment