Live Blog disclaimer: These are my opinions of what people said or meant or should have said. Nothing is a quote unless in quotes. If you don’t like my blog read the United Academics one on facebook, here.
Synopsis:
- Rudnick on raises: Admin proposal is “more than fair”. We are really disappointed in you for not being excited. Students come back in two weeks and you say everything the faculty does is in the best interests of the students, so please don’t strike.
“The well is dry. Hear me please. The well is dry. This is an incredibly rich offer.” And you get a goat.
If you want more we will have to get the athletic department to start paying their own bills.
- Administration is still insisting on the right to access all faculty files on UO computers for any reason, without your permission, and without even notifying you after the fact.
- On NTTF participation in departmental governance: Rudnick: Equitable, not equal participation. Union team: Yes.
- On shared governance: Gleason: The president will defend the current constitution to the board for the 2 years of the contract, but he will not agree to put it in the contract, where it would have legal protection.
- Intellectual Property: If you produce it while working for UO UO owns it, with some specific exceptions. I’m thinking about Chip Kelly’s playbook. We paid him $3.5M a year to develop it. It seems rather valuable. He’s now taken it to the Eagles – how much did Randy Geller make them to pay UO for it?
- Academic Freedom: Is Johnson Hall getting ready to go after me for writing UO Matters? Both Richard Lariviere and Bob Berdahl publicly said that they hated this blog, but supported my right to publish it. Is Mike Gottfredson going to let his administrators try and discipline me for it? Because that’s the way their language reads, and Rudnick pointedly refused to clarify it when the bargaining team raised the question.
- Gottfredson is not content with just paying us wages at the bottom of the AAU. His new consulting policy proposal will require that *any* consulting activity, even below 1 day in 7, must first be approved by his Provost or designee.
Now available: University of Nike ™ Coffee Mugs! $4 from every purchase goes toward buying public records from Dave Hubin. Get yours before the lawyers shut me down.
From the Union:
United Academics Bargaining Handout for 9/6/2013
The Union and the Administration have reached agreement on many issues. This is a list of some of the more important issues that remain to be negotiated, with a brief summary of the differences.
Academic freedom: The union wants faculty to have absolute academic freedom consistent with the long standing principles of the American Association of University Professors. The administration proposal could potentially restrict faculty members’ right to speak in class about controversial matters unrelated to the subject of the course, and to criticize the University.
[UOM: See new court decision here: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that the First Amendment protects a Washington State University professor’s calls for change at his institution, handing a major victory to advocates of the idea that college faculty members have free speech rights beyond those afforded other public employees.]
Intellectual Property: The union wants faculty to own all products associated with their teaching and research. The administration agrees when it comes to things such as books and articles, but argues that it should own other products from research it has helped fund. The administration also wants to own faculty’s teaching notes and course content, and wants to be able to sell electronic courses that faculty develop, and prevent faculty from taking these with them if they move to another university.
UO computers and networks: The administration wants a contract saying that the university owns everything faculty put on UO computers or and that administrators can access this information without notice. The union’s position, which is consistent with current UO policy, is that computer storage is like the filing cabinets in a faculty office. For reasons of practicality these often contain a mix of personal and university documents. Putting a personal letter in your filing cabinet does not mean UO owns it, or can read it without your permission.
Protections against Arbitrary Terminations: The administration’s Article 25 proposal rejected the union proposal that the University Senate review the administration’s judgments of “financial exigency” and program elimination for “academic reasons.” They proposed only a set of guidelines governing who would be terminated if a declaration is made or a program is eliminated. The union counterproposal requires the administration to provide a full public report on the circumstances at issue in advance of a declaration and would require a public hearing with the President and Board before any action could be taken.
Contract fairness for NTTFs: The union holds that “all Career NTTF have a reasonable expectation of continued employment contingent upon the bargaining unit faculty member continuing to meet the standards of excellence appropriate to a major research university and provided that employing units have adequate resources and continuing programmatic need.” The administration’s proposal eliminates this expectation.
Salary: The union’s Aug. 29 proposal was for 8% promotion raises, and for overall raises of 14.5% for TTFs and 13.5% for NTTF’s. The administration’s Sept. 3 counter-proposal accepted the 8% for promotions, and added a modest increase in post-review raises for full professors, plus a one time $350 bonus on signing. On the other hand they cut the overall raises to 11.5% for TTFs, and 12% for NTTFs, by reducing the equity component. Under both proposals all the raises would be effective by 7/1/2014.
Nomenclature: The administration wants to be called “The University” in the contract. The union’s position is that, by charter, the faculty and the president, as a member of the faculty, constitute the university, and has proposed that they use “The University Administration” instead. They are opposed.
The union is planning a general membership meeting Oct 8th. This may include a contract ratification vote. Elections for union officers and for delegates from departments for the governing council will be held in December. You must be a card-carrying member to vote. More information is available at uauoregon.org
Rudnick wrap-up and Synopsis from Tuesday’s session XXXVII on raises here. The administration’s fact-check site has reported no errors in UO Matters bargaining posts since July 24. Thanks for the endorsement!
Mauer: We appreciate admin movement on economics, are talking to members to get their thoughts.
Rudnick: Our proposal is “more than fair”. We are really disappointed in you. Students come back in two weeks and you say everything the faculty does is in the best interests of the faculty. “The well is dry. Hear me please. The well is dry. This is an incredibly rich offer.” If you want more we will have to get the athletic department to start paying their own bills.
Mauer: So, why’d you wait so long to make your counter? Rudnick is quiet. She and Gleason look so depressed. Blandy seems as chipper as ever. No Grado today, does HLGR have more tobacco company work?
Art 25, Termination, union counter:
Mauer: Deals with termination without cause in case of financial exigency or program changes. Admin was concerned last time, didn’t want the UO Senate involved. We want the Senate involved. These are academic matters, that’s the Senate’s job. Requires administration to be transparent with the Senate about the financial and academic matters involved. Administration can have the last word, but they must inform and consult. Union wants lots of transparency, and the opportunity to make a public presentation to the president and board.
Mauer: In most areas of bargaining both sides have moved closer together. We don’t believe UO is planning program closures or a declaration of financial exigency. But at other institutions with problems, the faculty has not been consulting faculty. Many Louisiana institutions used Katrina as an excuse to terminate programs. VPFA Moffitt has said she is building up UO reserves in case of a tornado, we also want to be prepared. Another university doubled its athletic budget and then declared financial exigency and cut faculty.
Rudnick: “I’m getting warm, can someone open the door? “Suppose UO declares exigency and union disagrees, what’s the union going to do?
Mauer: We could have an arbitration hearing about whether or not the university was really in exigency. Rudnick has some clarifying questions. She’s fixated on the possibility that an arbitrator would make academic decisions. (Is financial exigency academic? Sounds like an accounting or finance issue.) Mauer: Question for the arbitrator will be limited to ruling on whether process was followed. Some back and forth. Rudnick’s looking for a way to agree to this, she finally figures it out.
Rudnick is fanning herself. Mauer, ever the gentleman: Would you like us to move to a more comfortable room, say 101? Rudnick: Why yes, I would. Thank you, kind sir! We move to 101.
Art 49, Use of Computers etc. Union counter:
Mauer: Administrators should not be able to read faculty emails without reasonable suspicion. (4th amendment.) Rudnick: This proposal is not going to be acceptable. The university has to be able to read all your stuff, even without reasonable suspicion. (And, in current practice, without notifying you.)
Gleason: Public records, or monitoring usage?
Mauer: That’s reasonable, but we need policies. For example, a faculty members office is public property. But that does not mean the administration should put peepholes in faculty doors.
Rudnick: Suppose the administration wants to know if physics professors are doing physics, or just spending their time doing online shopping. (Seriously. She said this. You slacker physicists have got it coming. Shop craigslist for used cyclotrons on your own time.) I do not understand why there’s any expectation of privacy when you are using a computer. There’s nothing private about it!
Mauer: We are willing to add language for public records requests, etc.
Rudnick: Your language is contrary to law, unless we agree to it, and we won’t.
Cecil: So, do admins have the right to go through faculty desk drawers looking at faculty photos, memorabilia, etc.
Rudnick: I don’t know.
Cecil: Going back to the physicists shopping problem. I assume UO does not have the right to put hidden camera in an office that would show what is on screen?
Rudnick: If faculty put a lock on their file cabinet, then they’d have a right to expect privacy. (But the admins policy will not allow faculty to encrypt files without administration’s permission. Catch 22.)
Cecil: We need some language that will allow the reasonable exceptions you’ve raised, but not your unreasonable carte blanche to look at everything for any or no reason. People have an expectation of privacy.
Rudnick: You might have that expectation, but you shouldn’t!
Cecil: I’m no constitutional lawyer, but didn’t our society work this out once before, with the 4th amendment? You want to allow the administration to read faculty files and email even for illegitimate reasons.
Rudnick: Use your $350 goat money to buy your own computer.
Current UO policy? Quoting,
The state may or may not have a property interest in information stored on University systems. Mere physical presence of information on a University electronic information system is not sufficient to conclusively establish the ownership and control of that information, just as physical presence of a paper document in a faculty member’s desk or filing cabinet does not establish an irrefutable presumption that the document is owned or controlled by the University.
This is a huge power grab by Geller and Gottfredson.
Gleason blabs on about legal minimal standards for privacy. This guy used to be a journalist? Does anyone know what kind?
Davidson gives him hell, calmly and rationally. Bramhall gives more. Green: Suppose I’m in a discussion with Gottfredson about Blandy. Blandy can read the emails?
Rudnick: Gottfredson could devise a policy on what sort of privacy faculty can expect. But he’s been here a year, and hasn’t.
(Is this going to be a campus wide policy that applies to administrators, athletics, etc? No, just for the union members, from what I can see.)
Rudnick starts to understand she’s in a hole, starts asking for specific language that might work. Back and forth with Mauer.
Mauer: We want to know why there is a legitimate reason for administrators to have this unfettered power. Lets craft language that would clarify when it is OK for admins.
Bramhall asks if there are current policies. I say there are not, I made a public records request for the policies and were told there are none. Rudnick chews me out for speaking. Cecil tells me to keep quiet. Rudnick objects because Cecil said it so loudly and clearly.
Background on this is an unsubstantiated rumor that UO General Counsel Randy Geller has been arguing that UO should have employees personal email and facebook passwords. If you have information on this please send me an email at uomatters at gmail.com (best from a personal account!) or post an anon comment.
Meanwhile, I’m thinking about Chip Kelly’s playbook. We paid him $3.5M a year to develop it. It seems rather valuable. He’s now taken it to the Eagles – how much did Randy Geller make them to pay UO for it?
Break, good discussion among the 40 or so faculty in the room. Now they’re back.
New article from admins, breaking out union’s shared governance proposal:
Mauer: Our proposal was that dept policies would include NTTF’s as default, except for hiring etc. Bramhall: Does your proposal allow departments to decide not to include NTTF’s as default? Rudnick: It requires NTTF participation, but allows departments, including NTTF’s to set up rules.
Cecil: Suppose faculty devise a workload policy without NTTF participation. Would that be grievable? Rudnick: No, if dept policy said that NTTF’s didn’t participate in workload policies. Cecil, Bramhall: We need to make it explicit that they do have full participation and voting rights.
Rudnick: Do you mean equal numbers of TTF and NTTF on the workload committee? that’s how we read your proposal. Mauer: A rule that people vote according to FTE would be a violation of our proposal.
Gleason: So you are saying that a full time TTF and a part time NTTF should have the same voting rights on developing department policies? Cecil: Yes. Bramhall: We could use the statutory faculty definition. Rudnick: We agree that all faculty should participation. We are trying to figure out the specifics. Productive back and forth, hashing out the details.
Rudnick: Equitable, not equal participation. Union team: Yes.
Article 3, Shared governance, admin counter:
Rudnick: The board can change the University constitution whenever it wants, in exercise of its authority. Mauer: Does that include changing the constitution in a way inconsistent with the constitution? Rudnick: I don’t know. President can’t restrict board’s power though.
Mauer: We need to hear from you now or later on whether or not the board can unconstiutionally change the constitution. Rudnick: I think it can. Cecil: You are saying the board can dissolve the Senate? Rudnick: The president can say he won’t change the constitution, but he can’t (won’t) put that in the contract because that would limit the board’s power and he doesn’t have the right to do that?
Rudnick: Terms of employment are delegated to the President, so he can sign a labor contract. But I don’t think he has the authority to put the constitution in the contract. He can and will say *he* won’t abrogate the constitution himself.
Cecil: So, we need to figure out if the board can dissolve the Senate.
Rudnick: We are not sending any signals here about what we expect the board to do. No evidence they are interested in this. (Recall that almost none of the trustees have higher ed experience.)
Bramhall: Hasn’t the OUS board delegated authority to president to sign the constitution? So, the new board would have to withdraw that authority from him? Or order him to do it?
(But hasn’t the PSU faculty union gotten its constitution in their contract?)
Gleason: The president will defend the current constitution to the board for the 2 years of the contract, but he will not agree to put it in the contract, where it would have legal protection.
Rudnick: We will not agree to make shared governance grievable. We will agree that if the faculty union thinks there is a problem, they can meet with the president.
(Rudnick is being very conciliatory here. Big improvement in clarity from Gottfredson’s “asked and answered fiasco”.
Lunch break, back at 1:30 PM for Academic Freedom!
They’re back.
Art , Admin counter on Academic Freedom:
Union on Academic Freedom: The union wants faculty to have absolute academic freedom consistent with the long standing principles of the American Association of University Professors. The administration proposal could potentially restrict faculty members’ right to speak in class about controversial matters unrelated to the subject of the course, and to criticize the University.
Mauer: 9th circuit decision is good but might not stand. So you are not willing to put the rights it gives into the contract. Rudnick: Right, we are not.
Green: I’m no lawyer, but you are saying I can be disciplined for free speech that UO thinks is inappropriate?
Rudnick: Yes, unless you have explicit protections as outlined in case law – are speaking on a matter of public importance. Which it might not be. You could, for example, speak at a rally complaining about subsidies for the Jock Box, and the university could not discipline you or retaliate.
Cecil: What’s your objection to 1c and d? Rudnick: They extend free speech too far, beyond the first amendment as currently interpreted, and they don’t have anything to do with academic freedom, in our judgement.
Cecil: So, you are not OK with a compromise that calls these the right to criticize the administration?
Gleason: What exactly are we talking about. What are you looking for?
Cecil: They are motivated by faculty’s unique role in shared governance, which means they need to have this right even if other employees do not.
Rudnick: If they are speaking in their role on a committee, etc. If they’re some crazy-ass blogger, not necessarily.
Mauer: Why not?
Rudnick: University needs to have the ability to control its workplace, and President Gottfredson is not willing to give faculty the unfettered ability to criticize things.
Mauer: We are not arguing for a faculty right to defame people, just a right to criticize without the threat of university retaliation.
Rudnick: We are not going to give up that right.
Mauer: We need to discuss where the line is.
Rudnick: There are lots of protections, we’re not going to give any more. For example, suppose Deb Green yelled at some library employee about moving the bargaining room. She could be subject to discipline.
Cecil: Give me an example of how our 1c clause goes too far?
Rudnick: Threats like I spewed at the faculty member who was trying to rearrange chairs the other day – not protected.
Mauer: Gives specific example from Garcetti.
Rudnick raises impunity red herring. Mauer: We’re not asking for impunity. We’re asking for reasonable protections in the contract. We don’t understand why you are opposed to this is.
Bramhall: I stand up in a faculty meeting and speak my mind. Am I in trouble?
Rudnick: You’re OK if it’s a matter of public concern, unless the university had said you weren’t allowed to speak up about that matter in faculty meetings and you did anyway. WTF??
Mauer: The Garcetti decision limited right to criticize too much.
Davidson: Courts have limited first amendment freedoms too much recently. Universities are about debate, need extra protections. Why is our university aiming for the lowest common denominator on free-speech?
Green: I trust Doug Blandy not to run a truck through these loopholes allowing discipline for free-speech, but why is Pres Gottfredson asking future faculty to trust some future VPAA? Lets get this in the contract.
Braun: University has a responsibility to foster free speech. These limits are a bad example for our students, not a good one. Where is your affirmative support for free speech and academic freedom? Give me some examples.
Rudnick: If you are teaching a class in gender studies and you want to oppose genital mutilation or abortion, and that is related to what you are teaching in that course, we would protect you.
(What about the Merle Weiner case, where UO wouldn’t protect a law professor when she was sued over an article she had published?)
Civil discourse:
Cecil: Would UO Matters be protected?
Rudnick: Reads the article in an angry voice: Is he discharging his duties …?
Cecil: What would be an plausible example of un-civil discourse that you could be disciplined for?
Rudnick: I think that “acting un-civilly” and interfering with university business is pretty clear, particularly if it’s repeated.
(Is Johnson Hall getting ready to go after me for writing UO Matters? Both Richard Lariviere and Bob Berdahl publicly supported my right to publish this blog, despite the fact they hated it. Is Mike Gottfredson going to let his administrators try and discipline me for it?)
Cecil call short caucus break.
They’re back:
Art 50, ethics. UO proposal: Don’t lie, cheat, or steal. But at UO, you are allowed to tolerate those that do.
Fun debate about whether or not the article allows psychologists to use deception in experiments. I’m no experimental economist, but we can’t – at least if we want to get the results through peer review.
Art 51, Intellectual Property:
Rudnick: UO is not going to give up ownership rights to intellectual products you create at UO. Period. Ever.
Mauer: What’s wrong with current policy and OARs? Rudnick: I don’t know what current policy is.
Gleason: Status quo was the starting point, then we grabbed everything because JH bought into the MOOC hype.
Cecil: The science professors are telling me UO’s current policy is fine for them. Why not just use it in the contract?
Gleason speaks, Rudnick speaks over him again, then he gives a brief lecture on legal fictions.
Green turns around and starts making the hand signals Captain Winters used in Band of Brothers. Hmm.
Olson: You told us last time you wanted this article because you wanted to monetize our online courses.
Rudnick: If you develop an online class they can be lucrative. Even though you developed it at UO you could profit from it. And we want that money!
(I don’t understand why this same logic doesn’t apply to faculty who write a textbook. Faculty have got rich off these for years. What’s the diff?)
Bramhall: Suppose I post powerpoint on blackboard. You own them? Raises the obaverse issue.
Cecil: Lets cut to the chase. What exactly do you think UO owns?
Faculty record their lectures, put them on youtube? You own them? Rudnick: I don’t know. Blandy: you do it yourself, yours. Media services helps, we’ve got an issue. Rudnick: sculpture, faculty owns it. Textbooks? Rudnick: I still don’t know.
Why didn’t the admin team bring in someone who does know?
Cecil: To clarify, we are not trying to override language in other contracts, grants. Rudnick: How about if we go through your list. Would that move things forward? Cecil: Yes. There’s lots of room for debate. Gleason: Our proposal is consistent with what peer universities do. Cecil: Well Tim, last time this came up you agreed that these were new issues that were still being explored by universities and their faculty.
(I’m no economist, but I’m thinking that there’s too little discussion of the negative incentive effects of the universities ownership grab here.)
Cecil: This is not as hopeless as it seems, lets get the experts in the room.
Rudnick: No, we’ll go talk to them in secret, and bring back our version of it to you.
Cecil: How about a statement that there will be agreements for online platforms etc., that these must be memorialized, etc? Because we are shocked by your proposal. Faculty are doing things now with no idea of what their rights are.
Olson asks about SCOTUS case. For some reason Rudnick is incredibly dismissive of her, and makes a point of doing it publicly.
Cecil: Our worry is that a faculty member will develop a great online course, then dismiss them and hire someone cheaper to use this, and that this will happen without the faculty understanding that this could happen.
Rudnick: We agree this needs to be clarified.
Davidson: Brings up the negative incentives. It’s good for the students for faculty to do many things online, but if you are saying you own it, then I’m being played for a fool.
Rudnick: I need to go back and figure out what I’m talking about when I say “online platform”.
New: Art 52, Outside Activities (Consulting), admin proposal.
Rudnick: We’ve just realized we need it, we’ve drafted it, we should discuss in context of conflict of interest and commitment.
Another power grab: This policy will require that consulting activity be approved by the Provost or designee.
Art 10, professional responsibilities, union counter:
Rudnick: What’s this “fair and transparent” stuff?
9.5 minutes to go. Rudnick is wasted. Cecil just keeps on going. “Let’s go back to the consulting article.”
Olson: Will this apply to non-BU faculty?
Rudnick: “My understanding is that, as a general rule, the intent is *all* policies will apply to all employees.
Mauer: When do we meet again? Rudnick: Afternoons Sept 10 and 12, maybe Friday.
That’s all folks, see you next week.
Mauer
Err Mauer is really good
Yep.
I’m surprised that Rudnick couldn’t take the heat. Doesn’t she eat sulfur and brimstone for breakfast?
UOMatters, if you removed my comment about a new member of the UO Advisory board being a “harridan,” you must remove this ad hominem suggestion that Ms. Rudnick breakfasts in hell.
Sorry, but sulfur is readily available outside of hell, including the chemistry department.
On the IP issue the union has it wrong; the University must have a stake in inventions developed by faculty in faculty research labs. The return from this IP licensing is used to fund the technology transfer office, which is essential for the development of more IP by faculty. There is already a royalty sharing agreement between the UO and faculty on IP that works well to incentive faculty IP development, but provide support (i.e. for patent attorney fees, technology transfer specialists, etc.) without which faculty IP development would not be feasible. This comment is from a faculty involved in IP development who is not a union member. One could argue the same is true for coursework development – if significant UO resources go to online class development then the UO must be able to generate income from that investment in order to continue making strategic investments in new areas.
It’s interesting, because the Stanford v Roche court case reaffirmed that IP rights invest first in the inventor. Now I’m not arguing that the University shouldn’t get some benefits from inventions developed by faculty members, but I disagree with Administration’s assertion that they own all inventions (and this is in fact contrary to the Stanford v Roche case).
Does the funding source impact IP rights? For example, if IP is developed with external funding (e.g. research grant), wouldn’t the funding agency own the IP? UO receives their kickback via indirect costs during the grant period, but they wouldn’t own the IP because they didn’t contribute to its development…
No – this is governed by the Bayh-Doyl act. Indirect cost is associated with doing the research, not with the substantial costs associated with patenting IP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act
All universities I am aware of require that you assign the invention rights to the University; the university then has a structure for distributing licensing and royalty income, part going to UO , part to department, part to inventors, etc… make sense as it incentives IP development at all stages. One could argue about whether the distribution is fair, though…
A good discussion of the Stanford v. Roche case is here:
http://www.velaw.com/uploadedFiles/VEsite/Resources/TheBasicPatentLawPrinciple.pdf
I am worried that the union bargaining team does not appreciate the realities and complexities of this subject… am I wrong?
Who “owns” a program’s required/core coursework developed without compensation by long-term adjunct faculty on their private computer in their private off-campus office (since the UO doesn’t provide a computer or office)?
Under the admins proposal UO would seem to own it anyway.
The link to the coffee mugs is broken
Fixed, I think. Please try and let me know.
Just bought one
I think “uomatters at uoregon.edu” is a mistake.
Yup, a big one. Send it to uomatters at gmail.com
They really hate UO Matters–sounds like they are trying to call you uncivil and pursue disciplinary action. Just proves what a service you do. Thank you.
You’re welcome, it’s a pleasure. I do seem to have got their goat.
The Portland State Univ. AAUP contract includes the following language pertaining to governance:
III. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT—Articles 12 – 25
Article 12. ACADEMIC FREEDOM AND GOVERNANCE
Section 1. The University and the Association are mutually dedicated to the vision of Portland State University as an internationally recognized urban university known for its excellence in student learning, innovative research, and community engagement that contributes to the economic vitality, environmental sustainability, and quality of life in the Portland region and beyond. We understand that the accomplishment of this vision requires that we recruit, retain, and reward well-qualified and productive faculty who provide high quality instruction, student support, research, and contributions to the local and larger community. The University recognizes the paramount importance of academic freedom in an institution of higher education and reaffirms its continuing commitment to the protection of the principles of academic freedom, as defined in OAR 580-022-0005.
Section 2. Notwithstanding the exclusive right of the association to negotiate and reach agreement on terms and conditions of employment, recognized in Article 1 (RECOGNITION), and the right of the University to carry out its ordinary and customary functions of management, recognized in Article 5 (RESERVED RIGHTS OF THE UNIVERSITY), the parties agree that it is mutually desirable that the collegial system of shared governance be maintained and strengthened so that faculty will have a mechanism and procedures, independent of collective bargaining, for appropriate participation in the governance of the University. To that effect, the Portland State University Faculty Constitution shall remain in existence for the duration of this Agreement subject to the provisions of Oregon University System IMD 1.120 through 1.126.
Students:
I’m sorry to be the one to break it to you, but your administrators–seven of you will remember them from the bowl game they went to, just to meet you and your parents–have given me every incentive to return to the days of not providing lecture notes or any digital media whatsoever. Apparently they own everything else. I know we told you to ask mom and dad for an iPad and all. I feel terrible about that. But, it turns out we’re just not as cool as we thought we were. Get your pens and paper out and do your best to keep up. Sorry about that.
How true–they are giving us every reason to teach verbally, with no use of technology. How crazy–but REALLY true. Don’t put it on your computer or on Blackboard because they then OWN it.
Huh, maybe we should just pitch in for hosting for an open source blackboard equivalent, and just bypass Blackboard altogether.
That’s why one person I know just uses facebook for their classes. UO can sue facebook over who owns it.
Any chance this was videotaped in an Oregon dorm room? Maybe the admins can get a piece?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDLKLie9ms
Hold on… even if it wasn’t, if this kid is making money off of our “We smoked it all” story, maybe there’s still a chance we can profit (even more) off of our footballers?
OSU has a established policy in place regarding consulting and outside work. Perhaps it’s worth review.
http://oregonstate.edu/admin/aa/consulting-overload-and-outside-employment
Dog says
This potential consulting policy is complete bullshit. Yes I know
people abuse the 1/7 but micromanaging faculty consulting time is
the one reason I would leave. I don’t care about salary all that much,
but I sure as hell care about excessive protocol crap.
That’s two.
I’ll let it slide, but next time you’ll need to submit a letter of approval from the provost first.
The jocks got away with the U of Nike name, and Rudnick got away with insulting the faculty for nearly a year. Instead they’re going to punish you. That’s called disparate treatment.
Seems to me this comes down to one thing, mostly: who IS ‘the University’? When that gets settled, these other very important topics will take on light within that definition.
Those Faculty who unionized became employees and can no longer claim to be The University.
Didn’t Einstein belong to a faculty union?
“I consider it important, indeed urgently necessary, for intellectual workers to get together, both to protect their own economic status and also, generally speaking, to secure their influence in the political field.”
“But intellectual workers should unite, not only in their own interest but also and no less importantly in the interest of society as a whole.”
“An organization of intellectual workers can have the greatest significance for society as a whole by influencing public opinion through publicity and education. Indeed, it is the proper task to defend academic freedom, without which a healthy development of democracy is impossible.”
http://ucsdfa.org/albert-einstein-on-collective-bargaining/614
Einstein also believed in God.
Touche.
Smart man.
Belief in -G < Belief in G
Maybe Einstein believed in God because God would be ok with us resting from our academic duties 1/7 days?
You’re saying God is a goddamn socialist?
God is a libertarian with a fondness for 3-day weekends.
Consulting activity be approved by the Provost or designee? Are you fucking kidding me? UNION BETTER JUMP ON THIS.
Thanks for your comment, former President Frohnmayer, but I’m sure that the Provost will approve your consulting work for Harrang, Long, Rudnick and Gary, just as has been done in the past.
The important court ruling on freedom of speech by the Ninth Circuit is here: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/04/11-35558.pdf
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2013/09/04/11-35558.pdf
Some excerpts from the important case, Demers v. Austin:
“. Academic Speech under the First Amendment
“
Until the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Garcetti,
public employees’ First Amendment claims were governed
by the public concern analysis and balancing test set out in
Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). Garcetti, however,
changed the law. The plaintiff in Garcetti was a deputy
district attorney who had written a memorandum concluding
that a police affidavit supporting a search warrant application
contained serious misrepresentations. Garcetti, 547 U.S. at
413–14. The plaintiff contended that his employer retaliated
against him in violation of the First Amendment for having
written and then defended the memorandum. Id. at 415. The
Court held in Garcetti that “when public employees make
statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are
not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and
the Constitution does not insulate their communications from
employer discipline.” Id. at 421.
“However, Garcetti left open the possibility of an
exception. In response to a concern expressed by Justice
Souter in dissent, the Court reserved the question whether its
holding applied to “speech related to scholarship or
teaching.” Id. at 425. Justice Souter had expressed concern
about the potential breadth of the Court’s rationale, writing,
“I have to hope that today’s majority does not mean to
imperil First Amendment protection of academic freedom in
public colleges and universities, whose teachers necessarily
speak and write ‘pursuant to . . . official duties.’” Id. at 438
(Souter, J., dissenting) (alteration in original).
“Demers presents the kind of case that worried Justice
Souter. Under Garcetti, statements made by public
employees “pursuant to their official duties” are not protected
by the First Amendment. 547 U.S. at 421. But teaching and
academic writing are at the core of the official duties of
teachers and professors. Such teaching and writing are “a
special concern of the First Amendment.” Keyishian v. Bd.
of Regents of the Univ. of the State of N.Y., 385 U.S. 589, 603
(1967). We conclude that if applied to teaching and academic
writing, Garcetti would directly conflict with the important
First Amendment values previously articulated by the
Supreme Court. One of our sister circuits agrees. See Adams
v. Trs. of the Univ. of N.C.-Wilmington, 640 F.3d 550, 562
(4th Cir. 2011) (“We are . . . persuaded that Garcetti would
not apply in the academic context of a public university as
represented by the facts of this case.”)
. . .
“We conclude that Garcetti does not — indeed, consistent
with the First Amendment, cannot — apply to teaching and
academic writing that are performed “pursuant to the official
duties” of a teacher and professor. We hold that academic
employee speech not covered by Garcetti is protected under
the First Amendment, using the analysis established in
Pickering. The Pickering test has two parts. First, the
employee must show that his or her speech addressed
“matters of public concern.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568; see
Connick, 461 U.S. at 146. Second, the employee’s interest
“in commenting upon matters of public concern” must
outweigh “the interest of the State, as an employer, in
promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs
through its employees.” Pickering, 391 U.S. at 568; see
Cockrel v. Shelby Cnty. Sch. Dist., 270 F.3d 1036, 1048 (6th
Cir. 2001); Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 737 (6th Cir.
2000).
. . .
“There may be some instances in which speech about
academic organization and governance does not address
matters of public concern. See, e.g., Brooks v. Univ. of Wis.
Bd. of Regents, 406 F.3d 476, 480 (7th Cir. 2005) (objections
by professors against the closing of their laboratories and
study programs represented “a classic personnel struggle —
infighting for control of a department — which is not a matter
of public concern”); Clinger v. N.M. Highlands Univ., Bd. of
Regents, 215 F.3d 1162, 1166 (10th Cir. 2000) (no matter of
public concern where professor publicly disagreed with the
Board of Trustees “on the internal process they followed in
selecting a president and reorganizing the University”). But
this is not such a case. Demers’s Plan contained serious
suggestions about the future course of an important
department of WSU, at a time when the Murrow School itself
was debating some of those very suggestions. We therefore
conclude that the Plan addressed a matter of public concern
within the meaning of Pickering.
. . .
“Conclusion
“We hold that there is an exception to Garcetti for teaching
and academic writing. We affirm the district court’s
determination that Demers prepared and circulated his Plan
pursuant to official duties, but we reverse its determination
that the Plan does not address matters of public concern”
Thanks. So when President Gottfredson tells Randy Geller to go after me for this blog, should I argue that it is, or is not, part of my professional responsibilities and university service?
Recognizing that UOM may well be among the most valuable services performed on campus.
The problem with wrapping yourself in the 1st Amendment and calling yourself a journalist is that you lack any of the objectivity, impartiality and professionalism that one would expect from the fourth estate. Your insulting manner and style may play well on talk radio, but it lacks a level of maturity for the academic environment.
While you certainly have a fan club, which is perhaps more disturbing than the posts on this blog, I do not understand how you justify your combination of information and misinformation simply to please the masses and your ego. The 1st Amendment does protect your speech, however, some self-censorship would improve the credibility of your arguments and make this blog a more useful forum for the faculty rather than further inflame and divide us. The level of nonsense you present is only matched by the amount out of Johnson Hall, they by sheer incompetence, you by complete irrationality
Yup, it was in the spam box, along with a host of other interesting comments. Next time spare me the invective and just send me an email if you get the desk rejection. I’m happy to post criticism, especially from people who accuse me of hiding behind the first amendment, while hiding behind anonymity.
nice censoring Bill, you show your true colors
Don’t be a fool. The censoring that happens around here it just that which saves personal, unmerited, offense. The merited offense (for examples, search for Gleason, Geller, Rudnick, Gottfredson, etc.) is fine, of course.
To the anonymous “nice censoring”:
Blogspot has an an automatic idiot detection filter, presumably your comment tripped it. Revise and resubmit, and the best of luck to you.
I’ll repost at 3am
You have censored my comments before, for content, not cuss words. I’ll drop the anonymity when I believe you have become a rational member of our community. Till then, I do not wish to be the focus of your childish jabs.
I think your complaint is with Google. Get some sleep and then let me know how it turns out.
Word — ditto here many times.
I’d be a member of his fan club if he’d grow a much thicker skin and stop censoring comments. I’d like to read everything that gets posted here even if it includes some occasional spam. Self-censorship would become a by-product.
How can you be a muckraker and free speech advocate, do some verbal dance moves with defamation and then claim censor boundaries when it comes to challenges regarding your own words and behavior, and challenges to a couple bloggers whom you protect?
Now, is this where we’ll read “get off my blog” or “get your own blog”? I’ll be pleasantly surprised if this comment isn’t erased.
Can I interest you in a U of Nike coffee mug?
No. Fuck Nike.
So. Anyone got a substantive comment to contribute?
Please stay on topic folks, and best to ignore the trolls, especially when they don’t put any effort into it. This blog is not about Syria.