Some College of Ed faculty support admins and status quo, oppose Senate

Apparently there’s an active if under-cover effort by some College of Education faculty disputing the work that the Senate has done to encourage the state Legislature to pursue legal changes in counseling records confidentiality, and in persuading the UO administration to drop the counter-claim against the survivor of the alleged basketball rape. They are also encouraging the administration to work outside the Senate on these issues. See bottom for the full memo:

We are highly distressed that our university colleagues who know the facts, laws, and ethical codes
guiding the practice of psychology are being criticized and even vilified in the press and by other
members of our campus community.

Given the nature of our highly and publically critical university climate, we ask that you develop an
alternative forum at the UO for engaging faculty input in a way that may help prevent the hijacking
of our governing bodies and promote efforts to support a healthy and transparent exchange of ideas among faculty and administrators.

Please feel free to share this memo with University of Oregon Board of Trustee members.

My take is that the active and open discussion in the Senate and in the Press on these issues has made for some significant improvements in how UO treats sexual assault. Why would the authors of this memo not issue it as a press release, and explain in detail to reporters how they believe the Senate has gone wrong? Why not show up in the Senate and debate these motions? Obviously public discussion can get contentious, but that’s politics and the “free market for ideas”, as Oliver Wendell Holmes called it.

Screen Shot 2015-04-14 at 10.52.47 AM

Screen Shot 2015-04-14 at 10.52.38 AM

Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Some College of Ed faculty support admins and status quo, oppose Senate

  1. Angry Old Lady says:

    Boy I could hardly retain my lunch reading this swill. These people either don’t believe in free speech or fear their pay…or maybe they got a bonus for writing complements for the admin. But then asking their “fellow” to support the admin…maybe there will soon be a new group of administrators…i.e…this bunch of dudes and dudetts… can’t think of one reason anyone would support any admin person on campus…its like supporting the neighborhood thug and bully.

  2. just different says:

    Is this all of the signatures? All of the signees in the screenshot–with the exception of Krista Chronister–are department heads or program directors, who can generally be relied on to brown-nose the administration. So it ain’t much of an undercover effort.

  3. Hen says:

    Maybe they are hoping to get some of the 1% merit pay.
    Senate meeting tomorrow at 3.
    Nominations for senate ongoing. If you can’t beat us join us.

  4. Moderate says:

    These comments represent pretty well my experience with the Senate and why I am not interested in serving any longer in that capacity. Such knee jerk hostility is at odds with productive conversation or really any conversation. I have met some of the people who signed their names to the letter & opened themselves up to the abuse given here. My impression of them is that they are serious academics.

    • just different says:

      No one is impugning their seriousness as academics. But if they were really interested in productive conversation as you say they are, then why did they send a memo to the President and Provost to “express collegial support” and asking them to “develop an alternative forum” instead of going to the Senate to air their concerns? Wouldn’t that be where their colleagues are? Who’s being divisive here?

  5. Anono says:

    There’s no substance in this letter. It’s all ad hominem.

    They say they know the facts, but they won’t explain them or defend what happened. But they will stick up for their friends and bosses, who are “people of integrity” and “exceptional”. It’s not an ad hominem attack, it’s an equally useless ad hominem defense.

    No wonder they only sent it to their bosses. So, who sent it to UOM? One or more of the signatories is apparently not a true believer, but got pressured by the others into signing.

  6. Hmmm says:

    The same department in which Doug Park’s wife is a faculty member? almost too transparent.

  7. Working GTF says:

    Given the number of grievances the Education department has faced for their frankly deplorable and immoral treatment of graduate students, it’s no wonder they should be so laudatory of the admin and the GC office in particular.

  8. Outsider says:

    That the signers use the term hijackers to characterize what’s going on at the U of O is baffling. This term implies a violent take over and nowhere in the letter do they cite evidence of such an assault.

  9. Baffled says:

    As a doctoral student in a program in which many of our faculty have signed this letter, I am embarrassed and ashamed. Unfortuantely, I am not surprised. Our program faculty have created a hostile and chilly climate where students fear retaliation if they speak up. Ironically, this is exactly what has happened with Morlok and Stokes. The vast majority of the students in our program oppose this letter and support the actions of Morlok and Stokes.