Provost Banavar explains delay in gender and racial equity raises

September 19, 2018
Dear University of Oregon faculty members,
I am pleased to share with you some important information regarding the fiscal year 2019 salary increases for both represented and non-represented tenure-track faculty (TTF) and career non-tenure-track faculty (NTTF) at the University of Oregon.
The fiscal year salary increases will be provided to faculty members who meet the eligibility criteria, which requires an appointment as of December 31, 2018.
Tenure-track faculty members will receive a 1.25 percent across-the-board increase on January 1, 2019. There’s an additional pool of 0.75 percent to address equity that will be distributed after an internal study currently underway is completed. Funds from this equity pool will be distributed as soon as they are available and consistent with the United Academics collective bargaining agreement and the related memorandum of understanding. For more information on the equity study, please refer to the Faculty Salary Equity Study.
If equity funds are distributed after January 1, 2019, all increases provided from that pool will be retroactive to January 1, 2019. If there are funds remaining in the equity pool after equity decisions are made, those funds will be applied as an additional across-the-board increase to TTF.
Under the agreement, career NTTF members will receive a 2.0 percent across-the-board increase on January 1, 2019.
For more information on faculty salary increases, please refer to the Annual Salary Increases webpage.
If you have any questions, please contact Human Resources by email at or call 541-346-3159.
With warmest regards,
Jayanth Banavar
Provost and Senior Vice President
Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Provost Banavar explains delay in gender and racial equity raises

  1. honest Uncle Bernie says:


    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  2. honest Uncle Bernie says:

    I think few people realize the financial train wreck coming to UO in just a few years. This is just the edge of the beginning.

    Many future installments.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
    • Environmental necessity says:

      Do tell…

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
      • honest Uncle Bernie says:

        A long story, many parts, in installments.

        For one thing, PERS legacy costs eating up most of tuition increases, and then there ate health costs, leaving too little even for cost of living salary increases, as we are seeing already. So we end up like “deplorables,” a fate too humiliating to ponder.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
        • Dog says:

          Indeed, if my only contribution to the UO is helping it go broke, well that’s a career …

          VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
          Rating: +3 (from 5 votes)
    • Inquiring Minds says:

      This is a statewide higher ed/public agency problem, not just UO. Right? Just saying, put the blame/concern where it belongs.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  3. skeptic says:

    As soon as the dues become bigger than the raises, then the union has a big problem….

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)
    • dog says:

      negotiating an ATB that is actually less than the CPI is already a problem and 2) what the hell do you with a 0.75% equity pool –
      give the privileged 1% and the others 0.5%? come one, the size of this pools is so ludicrous that UOmatters is right, defact it all will be essentially a 2% ATB which is okay, but not great.

      Now I will say this again, compare your Jan 2019 salary with your Jan salary and evaluate the effect of the Union again.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: +5 (from 7 votes)
  4. honest Uncle Bernie says:

    A pretty mediocre across the board increase — 1.25% — doesn’t keep up with CPI inflation during the previous period.

    Unless you’re in one of the special classes, I suppose.

    At least there’s enough money to pay for PERS.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +8 (from 8 votes)
  5. A duck says:

    1. the quality of being fair and impartial.

    You keep using that word…I do not think it means what you think it means.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +7 (from 9 votes)
    • UO Matters says:

      In this context, I am pretty sure it means that if your actual salary is more than two standard errors below your predicted salary based on your faculty rank, years in rank, college or division (and maybe department), and if you are female and/or minority, you will get an equity raise.

      I don’t know if the regression is linear, logs, semi-log, or whether it includes a quadratic term for years in rank, or what controls or post-hoc adjustments it includes for productivity.

      Having run various versions of these regressions myself, I doubt that our well-paid consultant will find much “inequity”, and that therefore most of the 0.75% “equity pool” will just be paid out as ATB raises, eventually.

      VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: -2 (from 4 votes)
      • A name says:

        “predicted salary”
        So what you’re saying here is that we need to adjust the real-world, market driven salaries to some made up prediction based on dubious models that even you as an economist don’t know about?
        “what controls or post-hoc adjustments it includes for productivity”
        I thought we did merit based raises here? Is this predicted on being an excellent employee, a mediocre employee, or a crappy one? Why would that be a post-hoc adjustment and not a HUGE consideration at the outset?
        Should the crappy ones be brought up to the level of the excellent ones for arbitrary reasons like vaginas and melanin levels? AFAIK we never handed out raises based on penises and lack-of-melanin-levels.

        VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
        Rating: -6 (from 12 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.