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

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

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

  1. Kitten says:

    What does the union say about the proposed expedited tenure process? Aren’t key aspects of the generic tenure process covered by the CBA? The provision ditches altogether candidate statement mandate by the CBA. Presumably that means E&I goes out the window too? Isn’t that a provision the union introduced–and for a reason? And it doesn’t apply to hotshots?

    Reading it over on the Senate website, provision 2.6 looks like a mess–for all the reasons Prof Koopman points out on the blog there. I think the reality will be very loosy-goosy, in ways that invariably lead to arbitrary inequity. And I think, in any marginal situation, the pressures on the FPC subcommittee from the hiring dept and admin will be very strong. And without clearly delineated procedures even around the requirements for the file, the subcommittee will be hard pressed to assert itself–or even to reach consensus among its members.

    It seems plain to me that what the admin wants is the ability to offer tenure without the hoops of faculty oversight–while claiming to retain it. They want to guarantee it in offer letters. Maybe that’s warranted in these kinds of cases. But is this the AAU norm? or just the wannabe norm?

    Oh, and one more thing, I notice provision 2.6 privileges “quantitative assessment of the candidate’s work and impact” but makes no mention of qualitative assessment–or of what to do in fields where quantitative measures are inappropriate or irrelevant. (But then again, I guess this whole process is not aimed at hiring hotshot professors of poetry or Greek.)

  2. cdsinclair says:

    As far as I understand things, the provisions in the CBA hold for members of the bargaining group. As such, the process used for granting tenure before hire can be different than what is proscribed there.

    Also, my understanding is that the statements for equity and inclusion to be considered during the tenure process were introduced to allow individuals who are more likely to be asked to do E&I service work an opportunity to explain that work and how/why it should be considered.

    As I mentioned in my response to Koopman on the Senate blog, were I chair of this committee I would make it clear at the very beginning that any attempt to pressure or sway faculty on the ETRC would result in the committee rejecting the expedited process in favor of the usual tenure process (something that the ETRC would have the power to do unilaterally). I think deans and department heads would learn very quickly not to attempt to unduly influence the work of the committee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.