Dear colleagues,

We are writing to provide an update on the University of Oregon’s efforts to create a workplace climate that fosters equity, inclusion, and belonging—with the goal that every individual can achieve and thrive.

As part of this commitment to create a healthy and productive campus culture, the university conducted the IDEAL Climate Survey of UO Employees in April of 2022 with independent consultant Gallup. As previously shared, the results showed we have significant and important work to improve our culture and enhance the employee experience.

University leadership at all levels is committed to this work. We know that we cannot achieve our mission, support our students, and live our values if those who work here do not feel they belong, can contribute, and succeed.

Although the survey was conducted some time ago and reflects a snapshot in time, the responses reflect real experiences and perceptions. The processes of evaluating the survey results with employees and charting a course of action planning takes time. We are using the results to gain a better understanding of our campus climate and identify opportunities for improvement.

Gallup provided the university with the initial results in June 2022, which were shared with campus. Following more analysis, additional university-wide findings were shared in fall 2022 and again in the winter of this year. This spring, vice presidents and deans reviewed the school, college, and unit-level results, and used them to begin conversations with employees on unit-level action planning.

Gallup’s analysis of the findings identified several key areas of focus, including a need to:

• Improve engagement with employees so they feel connected and committed to their work and our mission,
• Enhance collegiality to ensure all feel respected, supported, and valued,
• Ensure employees feel they have equitable access to resources and opportunities; and
• Prevent and address incidents of harassment and discrimination, ensure incidents are reported, and ensure individuals know about and receive support and resources.

To address these areas of focus, the university formed four university-wide working groups in summer of 2022 and charged them with assessing resources, programs, policies and practices, and recommending improvements or changes.

Each working group is supported by an administrative unit and includes individuals on campus with expertise, responsibility, and/or involvement in the topic area. Climate survey questions were assigned to each workgroup to ensure a comprehensive effort to address all the findings.

The working groups focus are on:

• Engagement and Onboarding
• Equity
• Response, Reporting, and Anti-Discrimination
• Faculty Promotion and Tenure, and Service

The four university-wide working groups charged with addressing the survey findings have provided updates to senior leaders on their activities and have made initial recommendations.

This message provides a comprehensive review of this work. There is a lot that we would like to share. The key information includes:

• Review of work groups and their assessments and recommendations
• Update on unit-level action planning
• Information about resources, training, support, and reporting responsibilities.

The recommendations for any new or updated university-wide policy and program changes listed below, and others in development, will be shared with stakeholder groups for feedback, and reviewed and discussed by senior leadership and the units responsible for work associated with the changes.

This work is ongoing. It takes sustained effort and commitment. Improving our culture is a marathon not a sprint, and we remain resolutely committed to making the University of Oregon a great place to work, teach, research, and serve. We are also committed to continuing to communicate about these efforts and share updates on actions underway.

We want to thank the members of the working groups and all the individuals working to help us analyze, understand, and address these findings.

Again, below you will find additional details about the work group recommendations and the work being done at the unit level.

Sincerely,

Jamie Moffitt
Interim President

Janet Woodruff-Borden
Interim Provost and Executive Vice President

Working Groups Update

The working groups convened over this academic year, and are in various stages of assessment, review, and making recommendations. This spring, each group provided progress updates to members of senior leadership.

Each group completed activities which fall into several categories: cataloguing and assessing existing resources and programs, defining the scope and focus of the work, identifying gaps and recommending improvement in programs and policies, supporting unit-level work, and sharing information.

One very clear theme that emerged from each working group is that there are many resources, programs, tools, and initiatives designed to address workplace culture, equity and belonging across our campus and in our units. However, in many cases, there is a lack of awareness, clarity, coordination, understanding, and/or accountability for this work. Every working group is recommending better coordination, outreach and education regarding currently available resources and programs.

Engagement and Onboarding Working Group

Focus: defining engagement, providing tools and resources to support an engagement culture; recommending strategies for until level action and options for an accountability structure.

Lead unit: Human Resources

Summary of activities:

• Launched Employee Engagement web resources and worked with HR Partners and leaders across campus to increase awareness of these resources and consult on how they could be utilized to enhance engagement in units.
• Compiled a Climate Survey Guide to Data Sharing and Action Planning Discussions that was made available to deans and vice presidents and their senior leadership teams in February.
• Explored and identified options related to a potential accountability structure for supervisors and managers to enhance and sustain employee engagement efforts and focus,
• Evaluated additional resources that may be needed to support employee engagement work on an on-going basis.
• Evaluated onboarding resources to enhance what already exists and identify potential opportunities for additional resources.
• Started collaboration with HR and the Division of Graduate Studies to identify engagement and professional development resources to meet the unique needs of graduate employees

Working group recommendations to senior leadership for discussion and consideration:

• Implementation of subsequent workplace climate surveys every 3-5 years to sustain employee engagement and workplace culture.
• Adoption of an accountability statement for use on webpages and other written materials as needed.
• Addition of employee engagement accountability language to supervisor/manager position descriptions in the “Job Duties” section.
• Addition of employee engagement accountability language to supervisor/manager performance reviews.
• Development of metrics to evaluate supervisor / manager leadership around employee engagement initiatives.

Additional information: https://president.uoregon.edu/charges-climate-survey-working-groups#engagement

Equity Working Group

Focus: developing tools and interventions to address gaps in equity among groups based on race, gender, disability, ethnicity, and employee group; embedding equity practices and an equity lens approach; and partnering with human resources to develop equity expectations and tools for supervisors.

Lead unit: Division of Equity and Inclusion

Summary of activities:

• Identified experts to support facilitation of unit-level climate survey discussions.
• Developed and is hosting workshops to support faculty and staff including: Facilitating Challenging Group Discussions: Listening and Leading with Care facilitated by Justin Freeman, partner at Juniper Rim Partners; Journaling Experiences: An Equity Resourcefacilitated by Michelle Stimpson
• Identified existing list of institutional resources related to equity that need to be embedded in accountability processes.

Working group recommendations to senior leadership for discussion and consideration:

• Regularly communicate to all employees about expectations regarding equity in the workplace and provide reporting pathways to identify and address areas of inequity.
• Equip managers and supervisors with equity tools and hold leaders accountable for incorporating equity appropriately in all unit-based decision making, policies, and processes.
• Amplify institutional equity successes and address equity gaps where they exist.
• Communicate climate survey findings and analyses, as well as a shared definition of equity, to foster a common understanding of the work across campus.
• Ensure the actions that administrative leadership and units are taking to address equity gaps and barriers to change are being reported on and communicated regularly.
• Amplify existing professional development and campus resources related to equity for all campus and institutional decision makers.
• Systematize equitable decision-making across campus with the dissemination of an equitable-focused decision tool for major unit decisions.
• Embed equity definitions, scenarios, and tools into relevant professional development, supervisor expectations, and onboarding processes in ways that clarify what equity looks like within units/departments at various levels and centers equity as a value. 
• Present avenues to obtain resources for strategic investment in equity processes.

Additional information: https://president.uoregon.edu/charges-climate-survey-working-groups#equity

Response, Reporting, and Anti-Discrimination Working Group

Focus: preventing bias discrimination and harassment as well as other impacts around inclusion and belonging on campus; improving the system of university reporting and response.

Lead unit: Office of Investigations and Civil Rights Compliance

Summary of activities:

• Assessed reporting obligations of designated reporters, reporting forms, and employee checklists.
• Identified and assembled resources for employees to increase clarity and understanding of resources; policies and reporting responsibilities; and resources for training and training requests.

Working group recommendations to senior leadership for discussion and consideration:

• Increase campus understanding of reporting avenues, investigation process and regulations, and response options.
• Develop training and resources to increase employee understanding of reporting obligations and available support.
• Develop training to increase understanding of policy violations versus conduct that fall below investigation threshold and non-investigative resolutions.
• Develop process to accompany investigation process to further inform and support campus through the investigation process.
• Create resources, and support and response procedures for incidents not meeting threshold for investigation or formal action.
• Improve anti-discrimination through education and awareness.

Additional information: https://president.uoregon.edu/charges-climate-survey-working-groups#anti-discrimination

Faculty Promotion and Tenure, and Service Working Group

Focus: identifying gaps in understanding of and knowledge about promotion and review policies, process, and expectations; augmenting the role of mentoring in clarifying expectations around promotion; implementing the University Senate-developed recommendations on equitable and transparent faculty service.

Lead unit: Office of the Provost

Summary of activities:

• Developed Community Canvas training modules on compiling tenure and promotion review materials for faculty and unit heads.
• Developed and implemented Faculty Mentorship Programs created for career and tenure-track faculty members.
• Updating Academic Affairs faculty evaluation webpages with templates and resources.
• At the request of the University Senate taskforce, developing a faculty dashboard for reliably tracking faculty employment information and recording faculty service.

Working group recommendations to senior leadership for discussion and consideration:

• Bring additional clarity to expectations for promotion through the current process of unit policy revisions.
• Develop additional training for unit leaders to foster mentorship around promotion.
• Create additional training resources and community awareness around equitable and transparent service allocations.

Additional information: https://president.uoregon.edu/charges-climate-survey-working-groups#faculty

Unit-level Data Sharing and Climate Action 

In February, the university held a School, College, and Unit-Level Climate Survey Workshop for all deans, vice presidents, and the senior leaders in their divisions. At this summit, university leadership provided information, expectations, and resources for sharing results specific to each school, college, institute, or division to individual employees.

A Gallup consultant provided training and input on how to engage with employees and embark on unit-level action planning. Gallup, Human Resources, the Division of Equity and Inclusion and the Office of the President created and curated a comprehensive list of resources and tools for unit leaders to utilize to engage in these discussions.

Vice presidents and deans are expected to have shared their unit- or division-level data with employees by the end of this term. Some of this work is complete, some remains underway. This work takes time, especially in very large academic units, but it is important that individuals not only see their unit’s results but have time to review and discuss them with their supervisors, directors, and/or division heads.

All deans and vice presidents are expected to report at the end of this month about these conversations and their next steps for addressing the findings through current or future action planning.

In addition to the scheduled sessions––Facilitating Challenging Group Discussions: Listening and Leading with Care and Journaling Experiences: An Equity Resource––the Division of Equity and Inclusion will also be hosting workshops over summer and fall to provide support and resources for unit-based teams as they develop their action plans.

Additional Information and Resources

Employee Climate Assessment:

• 2022 IDEAL Climate Survey of UO Employees
• Workplace Climate and Culture – Summary of progress and university communications

Employee Engagement and Support:

• Employee Engagement Guide
• Caregiving Resources – Care.com, UO Caregiver Networks, Eldercare, and more
• Employee Assistance Program
• Workplace Accommodations

Equity:

• Oregon HECC Equity Lens
• IDEAL Equity Tools
• Equity Lens Portland Community College Model
• Courageous Conversations
• Cultural Humility Toolkit
• Rehearsals for Life (Student Life)
• LACE resources
• Data dashboard (Provost, DEI and Student Life)

Response, Reporting and Anti-Discrimination Programs:

• Ombuds Program
• HR Employee and Labor Relations
• Office of Investigations and Civil Rights Compliance
• Employee Assistance Program

Policies and Reporting Responsibilities: 

• Prohibited Discrimination and Retaliation Policy
• Conflicts of Interest and Abuses of Power: Sexual, Physically Intimate, or Romantic Relationships with Students
• Respectful Workplace Notice
• Reporting Responsibilities

Training and Training Requests:

• HR Learning and Development
• Community Canvas training modules on compiling tenure and promotion review materials for faculty and unit heads
• OICRC/Title IX Coordinator
• DEI Learning Opportunities
• Search Advocacy Training
• LinkedIn Learning
• Academic Impressions
• MyTrack
• Reporting Form
• Employee Formal Process

Of course this would make complete sense if he’s mostly concerned with looking like he’s doing something. Nah that can’t be it, can it?

From: CAS Dean [email protected]
Subject: CAS Faculty Announcing Nadia Singh as Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Date: May 23, 2023 at 3:37:05 PM PDT
To: “‘[email protected]'” [email protected], “[email protected]” [email protected]

Dear CAS colleagues,

I am delighted to announce the appointment of Nadia Singh as Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, from July 2023 through June 2026.
Nadia is an Associate Professor in Biological Sciences and a member of the Institute of Ecology and Evolution. She joined the UO faculty in 2016 after spending six years as faculty at North Carolina State University. Her work uses fruit flies as a model system to study the genetics of the evolutionary process. She is the recipient of a prestigious NSF CAREER grant.

Nadia has a substantial record of contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) through her research, teaching, and service. Among her many contributions, she chaired the Biology Committee on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for two years and founded and chaired the CAS Natural Sciences Diversity Leadership Committee. She also served as Associate Vice President of Research in OVPRI and in that role helped develop a strategic plan for advancing DEI. She has been strongly committed to creating institutional infrastructure to diversify the research enterprise and has collaborated on several research projects that broaden representation of underrepresented and underserved students and researchers in science. She has also been a national leader in promoting DEI through her professional societies. Nadia brings a wealth of experience, commitment, and leadership in DEI to the dean’s office.

Please join me in extending a warm welcome to Nadia as our new Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Sincerely,

Chris

Chris J. Poulsen
Tykeson Dean of Arts and Sciences
Professor of Earth Sciences

Back when I was naive and optimistic I once told Pres Lariviere that I thought people in Johnson Hall were just telling him what they thought he wanted to hear. He looked at me with a blank face and said “Gee Bill, you think?”.

So let’s find out what Tim Inman has told President Scholz:

From: WTH <[email protected]>

Subject: Public Records request, Presidential transition briefing docs

Date: May 22, 2023 at 5:40:28 PM PDT

To: Lisa Thornton <[email protected]>

Cc: Tim Inman <[email protected]>

Dear Ms Thornton – 

This is a public records request for copies of all briefing materials prepared by the OtP or President’s Office and provided to Incoming President Scholz as part of his presidential transition. 

I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest. I am ccing Tim Inman, as he should have these documents readily at hand and be able to provide them without your office’s usual fees and deliberate delays. 

Thanks, 

Bill Harbaugh
Econ Prof, U of Oregon

Typically General Counsel Kevin Reed delays responding to these requests for the max 21 days, presumably because I outed him over his fireman bio. We’ll see if Inman plays along with him.

After initially arguing that the search policy that the Senate developed and Pres Schill adopted as UO Policy was “just advisory”, Woodruff-Borden has, after the expenditure of much effort and time by the Senate leadership, United Academics (who filed a grievance) and many others, finally been brought to her senses and has accepted that there will have to be a do-over.

Oh wait, not a do-over. I forgot that our Johnson Hall leaders don’t make mistakes. Instead the search has only been “paused”:

From:[email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of CHC Deans Office <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 9:22:40 AM
To:[email protected] <[email protected]>
Subject: chcfacstaff CHC Dean Search Update

Sent on behalf of Janet Woodruff-Borden, Interim Provost and Executive Vice President

Dear Honors College colleagues:  

First, thanks to those of you who engaged with the candidates brought forward for the deanship of the Clark Honors College, and for providing input about your experience with each during the process. 

 Upon considering feedback and concerns related to the search process and the limited pool of candidates, we have decided to pause on the search until the 2023-24 academic year. This will allow the opportunity to broaden the search committee and to launch a national search that will bring a larger pool of applicants, which may include both internal and external candidates. 

Again, thank you for your engagement in this process. We will follow back up with the honors college community in the fall. 

Sincerely,  

Janet 

Janet Woodruff-Borden, PhD 

Interim Provost and Executive Vice President

[email protected] 

202 Johnson Hall

1258 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403 

And I thought I was the only one who had trouble getting info from Johnson Hall:

From: WTH <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Public Records request, Commencement briefing materials for incoming Pres Scholz

Date: May 1, 2023 at 2:59:58 PM PDT

To: Lisa Thornton <[email protected]>

Cc: Karl Scholz <[email protected]>

Dear Ms Thornton – 

This is a public records request for a copy of any briefing materials sent from the JH leadership and or presidential transition team to incoming President Scholz regarding the timing and manner of commencement. 

I’m ccing President Scholz, as he can provide these public records without your office’s usual fees and deliberate delays. 

Thanks, 

Bill Harbaugh
Econ Prof, U of Oregon

5/22/2023

Dear Mr. Harbaugh,

Our office has searched for but was unable to find any records responsive to your request made on 05/01/2023. The office considers this to be fully responsive to your request and will now close your matter. Thank you for contacting the office with your request.

Sincerely,

Office of Public Records

6207 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403-6207

(541) 346-6823 | [email protected]

publicrecords.uoregon.edu

In other news, our interim Provost won’t explain why she is ignoring the Senate and is keeping the Monday option for Commencement:

From: William Harbaugh <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Commencement advisory work group

Date: May 12, 2023 at 5:49:35 PM PDT

To: Janet Woodruff-Borden <[email protected]>

Yes, I saw that you did that. 

My question is why you are ignoring the part of the Senate Legislation which says 

“2.1 THEREFORE BE IT MOVED that it is the sense of the Senate that graduation should be held on the weekend immediately following finals week”

It’s my understanding that most people do not think that Mondays are part of the weekend.

Thanks, Bill

On May 12, 2023, at 5:09 PM, Janet Woodruff-Borden <[email protected]> wrote:

Bill,

We addressed below and in response to the Senate legislation that we are aligning the dates with those currently published.

Best,

Janet

Janet Woodruff-Borden, PhD 

Interim Provost and Executive Vice President

[email protected] 

202 Johnson Hall
1258 University of Oregon | Eugene, OR 97403 

For scheduling, please contact John Scholl at [email protected] or 541-346-3099

From: William Harbaugh <[email protected]> 
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2023 12:50 PM
To: Provost <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: Commencement advisory work group

Hi Janet, 

I’m writing as a Senator and member of this former task force, to ask for an explanation as to why you’ve decided to ignore the part of the Senate legislation calling for Commencement to be on Saturday.

Thanks, 

Bill Harbaugh
Econ Prof, U of Oregon

On May 12, 2023, at 11:25 AM, Provost <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear commencement advisory work group members: 

I am writing to let you know of a new development regarding next year’s commencement that impacts the work of this group.

Interim President Moffitt and I have made a determination about the format of June 2024 graduation and the dates that commencement activities will be held for 2024 through 2028. Specifically, we have decided that department ceremonies will be permitted as part of June 2024 commencement and confirmed that, for 2024 through 2028, commencement activities will take place over two consecutive days, rather than one day; and that the specific dates will align with those currently published in the five-year academic calendar on the Registrar’s website in that activities will take place on Sunday and Monday.

As a result, we will be sunsetting the work group.

Thank you for your willingness to participate in the work group and for giving your expertise and time to the process. Your discussions were extremely helpful in allowing us to reach the above determinations.

With appreciation,

Janet

Janet Woodruff-Borden

Interim Provost and Executive Vice President

Dear William,

I’m writing with some great news! More than eight hundred faculty members at Miami University in Ohio officially have a union today after an overwhelming majority of faculty cast ballots in favor of forming a new unionized chapter of the AAUP and the American Federation of Teachers. 

As a longtime AAUP union member and an Ohioan myself, I couldn’t be prouder of and more thrilled for the members of our newest chapter, which includes tenured and tenure-track faculty members and longer-term contract faculty including teaching professors, clinical faculty, and lecturers. 

The Faculty Alliance of Miami spent more than a year organizing for the union election, assisted by terrific staff organizers from the AAUP and the AFT. The victory means that faculty voices will be heard as they work to improve working conditions and student learning conditions through collective bargaining. 

The win also highlights the success of the AAUP’s affiliation with the AFT, which took effect last fall. We are stronger together as we fight to protect academic freedom and create a more just university for all.

Read more and share!

In solidarity,

Paul Davis
AAUP Vice President

Thought I’d repost this bit of history, no particular reason:

2/20/2013: Congratulations to Nathan Tublitz and the Senate: SPQUO. Stupid and futile gesture works!

Dear colleagues,

I am writing to let you know that James Bean has requested a return to his faculty position at the Lundquist College of Business at the end of this fiscal year. Jim’s more than four years of outstanding service to the University of Oregon as senior vice president and provost came at a particularly critical time for the institution. His efforts to develop a transparent budget system for the university and to place the campus on a better financial footing have been especially noteworthy. Equally important is his work with faculty and the deans to develop a dynamic academic plan.

There are many additional contributions to the UO that Jim has made as provost and I look forward to the opportunity to celebrate those with you in the coming months. I am also personally very grateful for his guidance, counsel and leadership during my first months here.

I have asked Jim to continue to lend his expertise to certain critical opportunities facing the university following his return to the faculty. I am very appreciative that Jim has agreed to continue to lend substantial support to issues he has played a major role in during his time as provost.

I will work with campus leadership, faculty and our community colleagues as we initiate a national search for Jim’s permanent successor. In addition, I will seek campus and community input as I consider an interim replacement to assume the role of senior vice president and provost on July 1 while we undertake our search.

Please join me in thanking Jim for his service and congratulating him on his many accomplishments during these past four years.

Best regards,

Michael Gottfredson, President

2/14/2013: Nathan Tublitz’s motion for an immediate performance review of Interim UO Provost James C. Bean first came up in the January meeting. The Senate put it off, hoping that President Gottfredson would either convince Bean to step down quietly, or decide that under current rules Bean should be reviewed now anyway. Neither happened, so the motion came back up yesterday. There was a lively discussion. Professor Tublitz made the case for the importance of the job, and hit a few of the highlights of Bean’s various failures. No one disputed the facts.

Pres-Elect Margie Paris and Kassia Dellabough argued for delay until fall, when UO will finally have a formal evaluation policy. I argued to just do it. Senate President Kyr gave President Gottfredson a chance to defend Bean or the proposed delay, he declined. After an amendment on the dates (Gottfredson to start the review now, and report to us at the May meeting) the motion passed on a voice vote, about 25 in favor and 2 opposed.

My take on the Senate’s message to President Gottfredson? We lost confidence in Bean long ago, and the longer you keep him the more we wonder about you. Appoint an interim, and start the search for new provost now, or come back to the Senate within 60 days and tell us why you think we should suffer this fool for another year.

Dear Interim President Moffitt and Interim Provost Woodruff-Borden,

We, the United Academics Faculty of Color, Working Families, and Pride Caucuses, are writing to address the IDEAL climate survey and the steps taken in response to it. We are concerned with the approach taken to date, particularly with the messaging that the bulk of the work will fall to the faculty themselves, who, as noted in the survey, already feel overburdened. We believe some issues are crucial enough that they can’t wait. 

As you know, on June 4, 2022, faculty received our first communication addressing the results of the survey, which were poor: “…it is clear that while employees report some positive experiences, the overall initial results are humbling and affirm that we have more work to do.” Faculty were told that the administration was committed to “redoubling” its efforts and to “ensur[ing] that the UO climate is the best that it can be.” Additionally, an Analysis Committee and an Action Committee were “already hard at work.”

Five months later, November 16, 2022, we received our second communication and update from then interim president Phillips, assuring us that “the work to improve our campus culture is well underway.” Thus far, this work has resulted in the creation of four more groups to address several identified key areas in need of improvement:

• Employee engagement and onboarding
• Equity
• Response, reporting, and antidiscrimination
• Faculty service, promotion, and tenure
  

We were told we would hear from each group in the “coming days and weeks” about their work to identify strategies, resources, tools, and activities to address the climate survey findings. We have yet to hear anything from these groups. Likewise, Phillips was happy to share that the Deans of the Colleges now have the Gallup survey data, and would start doing the work for each college.

The November update was a foreshadowing that the bulk of the work to improve our campus climate would actually fall on faculty the employees themselves. A third update, sent February 22, 2023, reiterated November’s message and provided a Presidential website with even less information about what has been accomplished, yet Phillips informed us that we were now ready to move on to the next phase. But from our vantage point, the first phase amounted to only two brief data presentations and the establishment of the four working groups.

Where we are today is that we should: “…expect to hear from the vice president or dean of your division, school, or college about their plans to share the results and conduct unit-level action planning. …. Everyone will be asked to participate in action planning. … This will be a continual process of work, improvement, assessment, and more work. We are providing support for leaders and their teams to assist with unit-based discussions and action planning.”

Some units have received communications from their deans, and some departments have begun to examine their unit’s climate survey data and develop action plans. But unit-by-unit strategic action plans will require painful and strained discussions, in which those who are marginal in those units will have to endure the very conversations that contributed to the poor results of the climate survey in the first place. Such an approach will work in units where collegial, full participation and strategizing is beneficial to all of its employees, but those units appear to be in the minority. Strategic action plans must be treated with caution; seldom are they truly authentic in actually capturing all of the dynamics and issues within a unit.

Additionally, employees were promised complete confidentiality: “It is also important to reassure employees that the survey is strictly confidential. Survey responses will not be shared with anyone at the university in any way that might identify survey respondents.”  As units receive their unit-level survey data, however, the few employees who have been vocal concerning issues in their department are finding their identities exposed. Some units are so small it is virtually impossible for findings to remain confidential.

As we await the arrival of our new president, it is an opportune moment to address the cultural climate of the University of Oregon in meaningful ways. We have some suggestions for meaningful ways to move forward, beginning with upper administration accountability and transparency. We realize some of these suggestions are not new, but they bear repeating.

1. We need an established formal office to deal with intersectional inequities and discrimination. The Office of Investigation and Civil Rights Compliance (OICRC) is, in effect, a Title IX office that does not deal with the ubiquitous and multilayered forms of inequities employees face. The former Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and the  Bias Response Team attempted to support employees and students concerning issues specifically related to minoritized communities, such as investigations of bias and implicit bias, abuse of power, and patterns of hostility and/or cultural incompetence by unit supervisors. It offered a broader capacity for employees to seek institutional support and recourse. 

2. ADA compliance is unclear: Approval and enactment of accommodations often is lengthy or does not happen in a timely manner for employees seeking accommodations. A position in HR specializing in ADA compliance and accommodation as its core responsibility would do much to create a welcoming and accommodating culture for employees with disabilities, rather than merely applying the “letter of the law.” Supervisors need training on understanding ADA compliance and how to help employees who seek accommodations.

3. We have recognized the lack of a critical mass of minoritized faculty for decades. Our record demonstrates that we can’t solve this issue by only taking half measures. We need to prioritize hiring through cluster hires and reward programs with strong retention records. We need to establish remediation measures for “problem departments” who cannot retain minoritized faculty. When faculty experience repeated patterns of conflict, they should be allowed to move out of hostile working situations. Expecting the affected faculty member to endure untenable situations while you “work with the department head to address problematic dynamics” is not a viable solution and only leads to their departure. In the past decade, several minority faculty members have written open letters to administrators explaining their painful decision to leave the UO, outlining the incompetence of leadership to address departments with problematic patterns. Giving the Division of Equity and Inclusion the responsibility to work directly with “problem units” to establish “improvement plans” with benchmarks and means of assessment for improvement could help address these areas.

4. Commit to the retention of faculty. There is a commonly stated, and false, narrative that “faculty of color just don’t want to live in Eugene, Oregon.” While it is true that Eugene and the UO are demographically challenging and the University of Oregon is a predominantly white institution, faculty of color want and need jobs just like everyone else. The UO possesses a fairly collegial faculty body with a practice of cross department collaboration that is an attractive factor to many. Yet some faculty of color with extended family in Oregon have felt compelled to leave, even taking a pay cut, because of work conditions. Too often faculty see their colleagues devalued, disrespected, and disregarded when their department heads and deans make little effort to retain them or to demonstrate their value to the UO. We need committed retention efforts that demonstrate that we value the faculty of color we hire. For full transparency, the administration should provide the number of departures by race and gender and the retention efforts that were offered. Providing leave-without-pay for faculty with protected status who leave for other universities, a minimum of two quarters, with the possibility for a third quarter if the faculty chooses to return is essential. 

For more information on the experiences of Faculty of Color, please see CODAC’s 2022 “Voices of University of Oregon Faculty of Color: External Consultant’s Active Retention Report,” and for additional strategies for active retention, please see the numerous reports provided by the CODAC Active Retention Initiative. Faculty of color exposed and displayed their trauma for the creation of these reports and we have yet to the see the administration acknowledge and implement substantial changes. Retention efforts need to take a holistic approach where efforts to provide better on-boarding and mentorship is fortified by actual changes in structural and cultural climate with accountability by unit leaders, college deans, and upper administrators. 

5. Establish a transparent, programmatic plan for partner hires that is fair and equitable and does not interfere with other department hiring decisions or plans. Departments should receive permission to hire in particular fields when the partner does not fulfill the department’s needs. Decisions about partner hires should not be made on the basis of a department’s independent funds or ability to raise money in grants so as not to penalize smaller departments without much funding from the university or outside grants.

6. The administration must challenge heteronormative cultures and structures that impact employee’s experiences within their units in the day-to-day. This can range from homophobic or misgendering microaggressions to problematic assumptions about caregiving responsibilities. Caregiving needs to be seen as essential aspects in the lives of employees and the pandemic has exacerbated existing shortages and availability of affordable quality care. Care systems need to be understood in broader understandings of “family” and kinship. Caregiving challenges and support needs to be included in all surveys and strategies regarding campus climate. 

7. We need to accept and acknowledge that not all administrators and supervisors should be in the positions they occupy. At times people are pulled into administration with little training or knowledge of their leadership style, which has led to poor climate and mass departures. Do not underestimate the damage and harm a culturally incompetent dean can inflict on the morale of a college’s faculty. The university’s respectful workplace policies are too narrowly applied to faculty concerns about deans who behave in demeaning and dismissive patterns. A fundamental issue with the Gallup Climate Survey of the University Employees was the confusion and blurring of the employees’ individual unit with the larger administration (e.g., deans and provosts). Few questions addressed employees’ relations, experiences, and perspectives with the larger administration. If a dean is inaccessible or culturally incompetent, it impacts the culture and climate of a college or school immediately. A good first step would be an audit of every administrative unit; for example, the CAS dean’s office, for its entirety, has been 100% white leadership.

8. Most of the diversity efforts celebrated by our administration have been created and generated through the hard work and collaborative efforts of invested BIPOC faculty. Faculty of color engage in mentorship, consultation, and program development through years of experience and research in higher education. Recognizing research-informed service and this often invisible labor through structured incentivization and compensation would do much for campus climate and retention efforts.
   

As we embark on this “next phase” of the Climate survey, it is the ideal time to rethink any added labor imposed on the employees who often are experiencing a poor institutional climate. We understand 55% of employees completed the survey, despite our efforts to encourage our colleagues to have their voices heard. But many expressed a great deal of skepticism concerning what would come of the results, and to date their skepticism is justified. We have provided suggestions to address the issues that do not place additional burdens on employees who are already exhausted trying to fix deep-seated problems in their departments and colleges. We can’t afford to delay taking action to demonstrate a real commitment to improving the campus climate, especially for those in minoritized groups.

Respectfully,

The United Academics Faculty of Color, Pride, and Working Families Caucuses

No, I’m not talking about my efforts to get info on how much Rob Mullens is earning from the Nike Invitational track meet that has ruined this year’s commencement. General Counsel Kevin Reed has been deliberately delaying releasing that info to the Senate since February. This request is more fundamental:

Requester: Pardovich, Cherise

Organization: Buck’s Sanitary Service

Initial Request Date: 05/01/2023

Status: Requesting/Reviewing Records

This is a formal request for any and all information, documents, communications and contracts. Any and all that is open to the public, related to and submitted by various portable restroom companies ie..(United Site Services, Best Pots) for the previous and current contracts for UO Athletic Department’s Portable Restroom’s bids and or Bid submissions including results. I am also looking for clarification pertaining to the current contractual agreement.

Request ID: 

2023-383

Dear colleagues,

As we approach the end of another academic year, I want to take a moment to celebrate and recognize the outstanding scholarship, instruction, and service taking place on our campus and tell you about several new ways we are highlighting excellence at the University of Oregon. I am continually impressed by the hard work, achievements, and dedication I regularly witness across campus as faculty and staff strive to support our students, our mission, and our public purpose.

To recognize the academic achievements and excellence of the University of Oregon faculty and staff, this spring the university launched a new Awards and Accolades webpage. This new page recognizes the individual achievements of excellence in teaching, research, artistic expression, and the generation and application of knowledge. It celebrates contributions to the UO and their profession such as through grants, honors and fellowships, elections to regional and national boards or committees in professional organizations, and other career awards.

You can find this awards page both on Around the O website and on the Office of the Provost Awards webpage, and in the weekly Workplace newsletter emailed to all employees. Anyone can suggest an accolade by using this simple online form.

The Office of the Provost also sponsors a series of awards programs each year recognizing excellence in teaching, leadership, mentorship, scholarship, and more. This year we have added two new programs: the Distinguished Teaching Professor Program and the Book Publication Award.

We are also piloting another exciting faculty recognition program this spring. Beginning in early June, banners will be hung along the Ferry Street Bridge and streets in and around the university featuring images and quotes from faculty who have earned outstanding teaching and scholarship awards, achieved research excellence, or play leadership roles in university governance. The goal is to instill pride in our community and inspire a culture of excellence. This initiative aligns with our Inclusive Excellence in Action efforts continuing our work toward an inclusively excellent campus culture. We will be sharing more information about this new effort in the coming weeks.

Of course, there are many other university-wide sponsored awards from Research and Innovation, Graduate Studies, Advising, Human Resources, and the Division of Equity and Inclusion, to name a few, that recognize outstanding achievement. I encourage you to visit the Awards and Accolades webpage frequently and join me in congratulating our colleagues on their achievements.

Thank you for all that you do for our university and for the broader academic community.

Sincerely,

Janet Woodruff-Borden
Interim Provost and Executive Vice President       

Links to application materials and surveys are at https://provost.uoregon.edu/search/clark-honors-college-dean. Details on Provost Woodruff-Borden’s attempt to subvert the Senate and shared governance are here. If you want to share in the pretense that the Provost gives a shit about your opinion, fill out the surveys by 10AM this Friday.

Taylor letter here. A snippet:

I would bring a natural passion to the HC Dean position. I have been passionate about the liberal arts since I was 10. Staring up at the Moon, I marveled at the scientists who had just landed a person on its surface. At the same time, I was in awe of those who could capture its beauty in their creative works. From that time on, I was determined to defeat divides between disciplines. This philosophy has served me well. I receive frequent invitations to talk about strategies to integrate the arts and sciences, including at the White House and for the Nobel Foundation. A student recently wrote to me: “It is not often that you meet someone who is capable of the kindness and generosity that you have shown me, a complete stranger. I must reiterate how much you have served as an inspiration to me, and many of my friends and colleagues who struggle to embrace their dual identity as scient(art)ists in this somewhat rigid scientific world we have chosen to be a part of. It is, as you have shown, possible to have both.” I am very fortunate that my career demonstrates the remarkable value of the liberal arts. My current research serves as an example. My work on bionic eyes emerged from my studies of Jackson Pollock paintings. If I hadn’t delved into the arts, my science wouldn’t be on the verge of potentially restoring vision to over one million people.

Stabile here:

My scholarly background has additionally prepared me for the interdisciplinary work of the CHC. With a PhD in English, I have directed a research center, held tenured positions in professional schools, English departments, and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies programs and departments, and served as an associate dean in the social sciences. I co-founded the New Media and Culture Certificate Program at UO and work closely with the Women in Data Science Conference at Stanford on initiatives meant to diversify the rapidly expanding field of data science. I like to think that the professors who taught me at my small liberal arts college would be proud. My commitment to the liberal arts owes much to those professors and the wide-ranging educational experience that established the foundation for my successes.

Dear colleagues,

It is with great excitement that I announce the AY2023 Institutional Hiring Plan (IHP), which details all approved tenure-track faculty searches for the 2023-24 academic search year. We are delighted to be in a period of growth and have approved about two-thirds of the new searches that were proposed. As of today, this year’s plan authorizes eighty-one tenure-track faculty searches (sixty-six new searches and fifteen searches that will continue from this year, if needed).

I want to express gratitude to those who contributed time and effort to creating proposals and providing feedback. The proposals reflected faculty thoughtfulness and creativity as well as dean dedication, engagement, and strategic planning within their schools and colleges. IHP decisions were made in consultation with the Provost’s Deans Hiring Advisory Committee, the seven-member Provost’s Faculty Hiring Advisory Committee, and advisory groups from the Provost’s Strategic Initiative on Environment and the Provost’s Strategic Initiative on Sport & Wellness. I would also like to thank the Active Recruitment Team, which will review search plans and provide workshops and materials to support each search committee throughout the search process.

The IHP is an engaged and collaborative process that allows us to bring our campus together in conversation to strategically address needs and institutional priorities. The proposals we received were thoughtful, innovative, and articulated alignment with our focus on the intellectual growth of the institution and the importance of amplifying a supportive foundation for all faculty to thrive. The final IHP includes positions tied to several areas of institutional strategic focus: three in areas that bolster our work in sport and wellness, ten tied to adding to the UO’s strength in the environment, and an exciting cluster of five hires focusing on areas of Latin scholarship.

We are pleased with how the IHP process went this year and welcome your feedback on how to further refine it for future years. Thank you all for helping us achieve our collective goals in teaching, research, diversity, and interdisciplinary excellence.

With appreciation, 

Janet Woodruff-Borden
Interim Provost and Executive Vice President

What could go wrong? You’d think that after disasters like Concur, shared services, centralized purchasing, and Commencement, our Johnson Hall leadership would step back for a moment and think about what they’re trying to do. Nope. As a wise women once sang,

I ain’t no psychiatrist, I ain’t no doctor with degrees
But, it don’t take too much high IQ’s 
To see what you’re doing to me

Interim Provost Janet Woodruff-Borden and Interim VP for Academic Affairs Karen Ford have attempted to deceive the faculty and Senate by telling us that the impetus for the this latest scheme is a desire to better account for service, or make it easier for them to nominate faculty for awards.

They have refused to share the draft RFP to provide for faculty input, but the final version is now posted, and it’s obvious that the administration wants a system that will give our Johnson Hall leadership the ability to prepare real-time reports on what faculty are doing, down to the micro-acheivement.

Faculty, of course, will be tasked with the burden of inputting it all. RFP here. A snippet:

1) Data and System

1. a)  Describe the solution’s ability to pull baseline information from internal UO data systems includingBanner and the Operational Data Store (ODS) to identify and report:
   i) Promotion and tenure eligibility including years of credit for service ii) Promotion and tenure clock information
   iii) Other review eligibility and timelines
   iv) Leave tracking including sabbatical
   v) Endowed positions
   vi) Administrative appointments
   vii) Joint appointments
   viii) Merit-based information
   ix) Retention-based information
2. b)  Vendor must be able to provide a 60-day, onsite live trial environment “sandbox” (for configuration and usability) prior to an agreement to purchase.
3. c)  Describe the solution’s ability to scan/scrape/import CV data for a lookback of 5+ years (preferably up to 30+ years) from various sources and diverse file formats. This includes describing the solution’s ability to reallocate/reorganize/recategorize CV information.
4. d)  Describe the solution’s ability to allow for review, verification, and modification processes of faculty activity data. This also includes the solution’s ability to lock specific data fields (e.g., tenure timelines should only be editable for certain roles) to prevent modification, the ability to allow for modification annotations to be made within the system and available to administrators, and the ability to have context added separate to the data itself (e.g., a notes field).

5. e)  Describe the solution’s ability to designate role accounts and access information to various levels of administration, faculty, and staff. This should include information on the types of data viewable in various roles, reports and metadata viewable in various roles, and workflow processes viewable in various roles. Discuss if these roles can be configured according to our UO structure and needs.
6. f)  Describe the solution’s ability to import data into a standardized CV and produce standardized/customized outputs such as reports. Solution should have the ability to suppress or lock specific fields of data per UO policy and Oregon law. This includes describing the solution’s ability to import/export, display, and draw reports from a variety of data types (qualitative and quantitative) as well as on a variety of data fields/categories. Some are listed below for reference:
   i) Teaching
   ii) Research and creative output
   iii) Grants
   iv) Patents and entrepreneurial work
   v) Honors and awards
   vi) Memberships (professional organizations)
   vii) Editorial work
   viii) Service
   ix) Equity and Inclusion
   x) Endowments
   xi) Joint appointments
7. g)  Describe how the solution supports peer review materials, currently maintained data systems such as federal grant award information, student evaluation survey data, etc.
8. h)  Describe the solution’s ability to track and show (meta)data details such as date of entry and modification. This might include reappointment, joint appointment, and administrative appointment information.
9. i)  Describe the solution’s ability for data to be searchable, filterable, and queried as needed around a variety of categories including faculty types, promotion/tenure dates, awards and honors, rank/administrative role, joint appointments, grant dollars, etc.
10. j)  Describe the solution’s ability to handle and differentiate between no or missing data, null or zeroed out data, etc. This might also include capturing course release data, promotion-and-tenure clock extensions, etc. that would not present normally within a system.
11. k)  Describe the solution’s ability to export or integrate its data, including any APIs or ODBC access, and any limitations to data via export/API/ODBC.

Back in 2020, the Senate concluded years of negotiations with UO President Mike Schill and got him to sign this policy giving the Senate and the Faculty a little bit of say in searches for Dean’s, etc. It requires that the Senate Leadership be consulted about the search and search committee, that a majority of the members be faculty, that at least one of the faculty be a Senator. Basic shared governance stuff.

Schill hated this, but I argued that our accreditors insisted on faculty input as part of their shared governance standards, and in the end he signed it as UO Policy:

Search Procedures for Academic Administrator Positions

Policy Number: 

II.02.02

Reason for Policy: 

To set forth the values that should inform leadership hiring practices at the UO and to articulate best practices for filling vacancies in high-level academic administrator positions. This policy pertains only to the positions articulated within the policy (or their substantially similar position if a title changes). Other positions not articulated within the policy were intentionally excluded.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

Those involved in searches for academic administrator positions.

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, please contact the Office of the Provost at (541) 346-3081 or [email protected]

Enactment & Revision History: 

27 May 2020 – Approved by the university president for enactment.

Our Provost – currently Janet Woodruff-Borden, is the “Responsible Office”, which I suppose means she’s responsible for ignoring it.

From Around the 0:

The search committee has invited two internal candidates to meet with campus stakeholders May 2-3 in the search for a permanent Clark Honors College dean.

Faculty members, staff and students will be invited to meet with each of the finalists during their respective campus appearances, which will include a public talk, conducted in hybrid mode.

The Clark Honors College offers the benefits and opportunities of a major research university while fostering an education which allows top students to gather, learn and grow within Chapman Hall.

“This is an important time for the Clark Honors College,” said Janet Woodruff-Borden, interim provost and executive vice president. “In the past few years, the college has experienced unprecedented growth, appointed core faculty in a new diversity of fields, updated the curriculum, instituted innovative courses in public engagement, and enhanced student advising and support. The dean will be responsible for overseeing the education and development of some of our most ambitious and motivated students. The ideal candidate will be a visionary leader who is committed to excellence in teaching and research, and who will continue to enhance the honors college experience for its students.”

Details about each candidate will be released in advance of each visit on the Office of the Provost website, along with an online survey where community members can share their observations.

The search has been led by a committee composed of honors college faculty members, staff and students and chaired by Chris Poulsen, Tykeson Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

The Committee:

• Chris Poulsen, (chair) Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
• Dulce Castro, Second-year Advisor, Clark Honors College
• Ulrick Casimir, Senior Instructor, Department of English
• Kate Mondloch, Professor, History of Art and Architecture
• Fred Poust, Advisory Board Member
• Erin Morrison, Clark Honors College student
• Katy Krieger, Search Advocate
• Suzette Howard, Search Coordinator

I count 2 faculty, neither from the Senate, none from CHC.

Thanks to CSN for this report:

While faculty and admins work out how to distribute the 2% merit raise pool for faculty next year, the GTFF’s bargaining committee seem to have figured out how to count to numbers with two digits. Their proposal (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13dsgHLsobBa0raCSVxNzYG6pRvot8dnR/view) asks for a 30% increase to the minimum GE salaries next academic year and a 22% increase in the minimums the year after. Under their proposals, those earning above the minimum would receive 16% and 11% raises in the next two years.

The GTFF’s proposal also includes a small automatic adjustment if housing prices (as measured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development) in the region increase by more than 5% year-over-year.

The admins proposed (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LT2OwaVHuKc1–TT6Yts9eIpfk9COGc-/view) a 4% increase in the minimum next year, and 2.65% increases in the following two years, with no guaranteed increases for those earning above the minimums.

What’s clear is that everyone seems to agree that a 2% raise is meaningless.