Last updated on 05/28/2014
If Gottfredson had come clean about the alleged March 8-9 assaults back in April when he got the final EPD report, we could have had time to think and prepare. But instead of informing the Senate, he went to his Athletic Director. We found out the same way the UO Police Chief did – from the newspapers. So this motion will be on the already packed agenda for May 28:
2.1 BE IT HEREBY MOVED THAT the University of Oregon Senate, in consultation with Undergraduate Council, work on the addition of a mandatory Multicultural course for Undergraduate students on the topics of gender, sexuality, social inequality, and sexual violence; and
2.2 BE IT FURTHER MOVED THAT the contents of the course are constructed with consultation from the Head of the Ethnic Studies Department (or their designee) and the Head of the Women’s and Gender Studies Department (or their designee); and
2.3 BE IT FURTHER MOVED THAT this course requirement be implemented no later than Fall 2016.
Undergrad Council Chair Josh Snodgrass (Anthropology) has written the Senate tonight, explaining the reasons for giving this important proposal full consideration and deliberate discussion – not something that can be done tomorrow:
Dear Senate Members,
I am writing to you on behalf of the Undergraduate Council about the proposed motion (4.12) to add a new multicultural course requirement to the undergraduate curriculum.
I was unable to attend the May 21 Senate meeting but watched the video of the meeting. I was troubled by the repeated references to the inability of UO committees—including the Undergraduate Council, which I chair—to effectively perform their duties. I am certainly aware of times when committees are overly bureaucratic and inefficient, but the current matter (i.e., considering whether to add a multicultural requirement on gender, sexuality, social inequality, and sexual violence) is not one of them. I was first made aware of the proposal to add a multicultural requirement on May 19 (by Helena Schlegel, who asked me about the process for adding a multicultural requirement) and no formal request has yet been brought to the Council. Given that nothing has been brought to the Undergraduate Council it borders on the bizarre to discuss our failures.
Like all of you, I am deeply troubled by recent events and the repeated campus failures on issues related to sexual violence. I agree that we need action and that this action should be on multiple fronts. However, I do not support the proposed new multicultural requirement. My objections are as follows:
1) I am all for swift responses in times of crisis but this proposal should be considered by the Undergraduate Council before it goes to the Senate. In my opinion it is better to slow down a bit to get things right rather than doing something quickly just to be seen as acting decisively. We have a process in place to consider changes to undergraduate requirements and bypassing that process seems like a bad idea. I had a conversation last week with one my undergraduates and he relayed an experience he had in a class in one of the professional schools where the professor decided to initiate an unplanned discussion of sexual violence in a class of 80 students. The discussion completely failed and there was considerable fallout from the class, including a number of students feeling unsafe. Education has the potential to change perspectives on issues related to sexual violence, but only when done carefully. We need to take great care to avoid creating more problems than we solve.
2) It is not clear to me exactly what would be covered in this new required class and whether it would effectively address the problems at hand. Given the speed of the process to add a new requirement, there is no publicly-available language about what exactly would be covered in the new course requirement. The learning objectives should be clearly articulated—i.e., it should be clear what students should have learned after having taken the class. It seems to me from watching the May 21 Senate video and the few conversations I have had about this issue that the desired new course would combine the approach of a traditional academic course (e.g., WGS 101: Women, Difference, and Power) with a more practically-oriented course that provides training in issues related to sexual violence such as recognizing and preventing harassment. Would it be more effective to use other approaches—e.g., by peer educators as part of the IntroDUCKtion or Week of Welcome programming—to train students on issues related to sexual violence?
3) I would like to see evidence that the proposed new multicultural requirement has been reviewed by local faculty and staff experts who are in a position to consider what should be covered in the course or courses that will satisfy the requirement. They are in an excellent position to evaluate what educational approaches have proven most useful in other contexts (e.g., in other universities), and what approaches have not worked as planned or had unintended consequences.
4) Will the course or courses that satisfy the proposed new multicultural requirement be exclusively offered by Women’s and Gender Studies (WGS) and Ethnic Studies (ES)? Although WGS and ES programs provide valuable perspectives I am concerned that narrow framing may be less effective and limit buy-in across the campus community. For example, are issues of masculinity key components of the courses and has expertise from Sociology been included in the proposed approach? Furthermore, placing a new General Education requirement in the hands of two department heads represents a departure from existing practice, and this departure has enormous budgetary implications. If not handled carefully this process has the potential to be divisive and lead to a more fractured campus community.
5) There will be considerable resistance to the proposed new requirement by many students (and faculty) who feel that there are already too many undergraduate General Education requirements. Any proposal to add a new requirement for all undergraduate students should consider the entire General Education curriculum and specifically address how the new requirement will impact timely student progress and graduation rates. Given the high costs of education we must carefully consider the financial impact of our decisions.
6) Finally, I am concerned about how the proposed new requirement will be implemented. Given the large number of undergraduates on the UO campus—all of whom would presumably need to satisfy this requirement in a timely manner—there are important issues around capacity that need to be addressed. All proposals reviewed by the Undergraduate Council must carefully consider all costs of implementation. The details of the implementation of the proposed new requirement are not available. For example, what existing courses could be used to satisfy the requirement and what criteria will be used to make this determination? Are there adequate numbers of seats in these classes for the nearly 21,000 undergraduates at UO if this proposal is implemented immediately? Finally, there is no cost impact statement included in the motion despite the high cost which, for a single course for 5,000 students per year, would be in the millions of dollars. It would be irresponsible to pass this motion without considering its high costs and the consequences it would likely have for students and other programs across campus.
While we on the Undergraduate Council—a Senate committee that includes 11 elected faculty and 6 undergraduate students—do not support the present motion to add a new multicultural requirement, we are committed to action that changes the campus climate on gender, sexuality, social inequality, and sexual violence. The current situation on campus is unacceptable and we on the Undergraduate Council–the body responsible for reviewing, evaluating and enhancing the quality of the University’s academic program–are committed to working with the Senate and other campus stakeholders to make appropriate and effective curricular changes. The Undergraduate Council is in the process of recommending to the Provost that he appoint a special task force to review the UO General Education requirements (including the Multicultural requirement) over the next year in order to recommend and implement substantive changes. It is thus an opportune time for the consideration by this task force of how to embark on truly impactful curricular reform that can effectively address this important issue.
Sincerely,
Josh Snodgrass
Associate Professor, Department of Anthropology
Chair, Undergraduate Council
Snodgrass’s letter is excellent. The UO community certainly needs to do something to address campus climate and student safety, but I am not convinced that adding a new mandatory gen ed requirement is the best avenue.
“Would it be more effective to use other approaches—e.g., by peer educators as part of the IntroDUCKtion or Week of Welcome programming—to train students on issues related to sexual violence?” asks Josh Snodgrass.
How about adding the component of peer educators to mandatory course requirements that demonstrate that the university community considers the problem of endemic sexual violence on campus and in society at large as a problem originating in a lack of education.
Perhaps Snodgrass might consider studying the role of chronic psychosocial stress in shaping health and disease in women.
Some campuses have had great success in using dramatic performances to get the points and pain across. Done well as part of first experiences on campus has the potential for real effect. Less sure about professors preaching at students in a course they are required to take in an attempt to alter behavior. Give a little art a chance as part of intro to campus. it has been used successfully elsewhere. Tis nobler, too.
Sorry, should have included a link last time. Looks like no need to reinvent the wheel.
http://m.sapac.umich.edu/article/154
“Less sure about professors preaching at students in a course they are required to take in an attempt to alter behavior.”
Yes, this will be *the* problem in implementing any program for effective cultural change on a mass basis.
How many sexual assaults will happen between now & 2016? Something should be done in the interim. Campus has all kinds of experts on the topic, tap into their knowledge & expertise. I like the idea of adding something to the introDUCKtion, so clarity about what is appropriate behavior & what will not be tolerated is on the table at the get go. As an aside, I had to laugh to learn there was a Committee of Committees– Oy! I can see how something like this can get stuck in endless committees for eternity. Do something now & refine it further, later. Also IF Dana Altman keeps his job, make him take the class & know the curriculum. It disgusts me that one player got a bigger penalty for selling sacred Nike team gear (NCAA violation), than the whole gang rape situation. Eventually they were given a consequence, but the silence of the administration, only gave the appearance of a cover up in favor the the athletes & the athletic department. Part of what needs to be done is lay out clearer rules for the admin to follow, I think clean house first— but Gott needs things spelled out. I favor the “You’re fired” approach first– to send a message that stalling, and failing to inform the students was unprofessional, inexcusable, and indefensible. Get very specific about the chain of command, keeping the UOPD informed & proper reporting protocol. Gott seemed to have been absent for proper handling 101, of such matters.
“If Gottfredson had come clean about the alleged March 8-9 assaults back in April when he got the final EPD report…”
What do you mean by “come clean”? Can you (or anyone) please specify the exact steps Gott should have taken with regard to public disclosure? Can you also please clarify whether those steps would apply to any rape allegation? Any crime allegation? Just allegations involving UO student athletes? Or all students? Why?
I ask because you seem to fault Gottfredson for not disclosing the allegations to the public, but it’s still not clear to me what common sense policy he violated or what policy he or other university leaders should do in the future. Do we really hold a press conference every time there is a rape allegation?
Thanks for clarifying.
The Federal Clery Act and common decency require public disclosure so that students can take action to protect themselves.
Federal law under Title IX requires universities work to prevent sexual discrimination, harassment, and assault.
Gottfredson can argue that he had reasons to hold off on notification until the EPD investigation was concluded, but his own timeline says he knew that was done by April 8th:
http://uonews.uoregon.edu/content/detailed-timeline-actions-following-march-9-allegation
Instead of warning his students and working with the Senate to fix things, he told his athletic director Rob Mullens, and tried to keep the events secret. He succeeded, until Andrew Greif discovered the truth and published it in the Oregonian.
All hail our founders, the First Amendment, and sports reporters.
The first obligation of the administration was to prevent the immediate reoccurrence of the same (alleged) acts. (That is, its first obligation was student safety.) Anyone reading the police report should have been worried this sort of behavior was a pattern. The basketball coach and the athletic director were in the best position to ensure the (alleged) acts were not repeated, while the investigation was proceeding. So they should have been told immediately, and directed accordingly. This is common sense, what the law requires, and common U of O practice. By the way, the person who should have known this was Robin Holmes and it is she, in my opinion, that should recuse herself from any more involvement with this incident–and these issues, generally.
We should also be concerned because the administration is lying about this when it says that they could not act because of EPD instructions. The administration knew about the incident before it was reported to EPD (it was reported to UOPD first).
I would respectfully ask that whatever group is going to study this proposal also include in it a topic that I believe is essential to college students — understanding mental health issues, spotting mental health issues, and knowing how to access resources on campus. We have a number of serious mental health issues in our department each year and I am continually struck with how little other students know about warning signs, what to do, etc. There have been a few times when we have had to have a faculty member sit with students until they are admitted to the hospital and family arrive, luckily because one student was concerned enough to send out an alarm. We all know that this is a population where these issues often emerge. Let us give our students more knowledge and tools. I would argue that this is as important as some of the other issues being raised if we are to help educate fine men and women,
I agree with Josh Snodgrass that any proposed changes to the gen ed curriculum need to go through the regular process. Making training on sexual violence a core part of IntroDUCKtion is a very good idea.
I am unclear who would benefit from a class that “educates about sexual violence.” I know from what I see in high school that most young women “know” that they should avoid situations where they could be given date rape drugs or coerced in other ways. So are they going to “learn” something new. Are the potential perpetrators going to “learn” that their behavior is a bad idea and stop doing it? I doubt that anyone with those inclinations would change behavior based on a class that espouses that (rightful) need for actual consent.
This is began to spin out of control when the idea of another class requirement, and what and who it would include, was broached. If the Conduct Code is amended and the chain of administrative enforcement is delineated immediately and followed, wouldn’t this put something better in place now and buy time to fully consider course reviews and new requirements later? Hopefully, nobody is fooling themselves that a course on sexual violence is going to be enough retroactive parenting to solve this problem.
I really like the introDUCKtion thought as well, or maybe a short separate “workshop”. It shouldn’t take a whole course to explain the few basics needed to understand sexual predation: respect for others, a person’s ability to consent, social and peer pressure, and that No means No at all times.
Good point.
For what it’s worth, a large portion of the $37,000 budget of the ASUO Executive’s new Organization Against Sexual Violence pays for 4,000 users of a great online training module called Agent Of Change. At least as of a week ago, and I believe with the new administration, the goal is to work with admin to make this mandatory for all 1st year students. We bought more than estimated 1st year enrollment projections to allow for extending this program to other groups on campus, for example Greek Life, or perhaps Athletics.
Info on Agent of Change can be found here:
http://www.weendviolence.com/our_products_agentofchange.html
but how effective are similar policies like alcoholedu? we need a mandatory course, not training, to combat this head-on
Can you explain your thinking on why a mandatory course would be more effective than a training?
a training is a one time flood of information either in a class or online with little to no follow up. A course would be a lengthy 10 week in depth discussion on these topics that give students the chance to digest and apply the material taught in class. Not to mention that if the training is not mandatory (with severe consequences if missed) then it will not be taken seriously or taken at all
Appreciate the reply but a training can also be quite specifically effective whereas a course can be pedantic and obsessive.
Neither a course nor a training or workshop will be a magic pill and mostly because they will only ever be as effective as each individual makes it to be.
To those who question the efficacy of the general education requirement: issues of sexual violence are deeply culturally entrenched and go the core of our identities. The proposed requirement would go deeper than current “don’t rape” and “don’t get raped” strategies–it would make students engage in sustained dialogue and critical self-reflection about the relation between gender and violence in their own lives and identities. The flippancy with which many above commentators are treating the requirement demonstrates to me a fundamental disregard for feminist thought and the mission of the Women’s and Gender Studies (and Ethnic Studies) departments–which is part of the problem. This devalues the very tools necessary to transform a culture that thinks rape is normal and shrug-worthy (that the subject of rape constitutes an entire subcategory of comedy is only one of many indicators that this is the case). There should be changes to IntroDUCKtion–in fact, Greg Rikhoff (Gott’s chief of staff) has noted that such a change would be helpful and within administrator power. They’re also considering providing better resources to Greek Life. These are easy changes, but they are not sufficient (and whether they’re actually implemented is another matter altogether). Students need to engage with experienced educators on this issue–leaving it up to random one-hour sessions isn’t enough. But also, these sustained studies *change lives,* as indicated in course evaluations. Also, requiring everyone take a class on gender/sexuality/social injustice *does change* cultures. In the Philosophy department, all grad students are required to take 2 classes on feminist philosophy–which includes discussing rape culture–and this has firmly established a grad culture against rape and sexual harassment. So much so that we raised hell about it a few years ago…but that’s another matter.
We already offer these classes, and many of them already fulfill current education requirements. The problem is, other courses also fulfill those same requirements. Adding the sexual violence requirement need not add any extra time or financial burden to a student’s career.
Sure, the WGS and ES departments would need to think through what would meet the requirement–and I imagine the WGS 101 course would likely spend a bit more time than currently on the issue of violence–but these are doable changes and we should trust the faculty of these departments to make the call regarding what non-WGS/ES classes could be cross-listed.
Yes, we’ll need to figure out funding, but that can be ironed out before Fall 2016. But again–we already offer these courses. We need to make sure that *all* undergraduates, not just those that self-select, think critically about sex-based violence. And we need to support the educators who do it–which includes both paying them a living wage (something the administration continues to deny the GTFs who teach *many* of these classes) and also providing access to independent advocates to relieve the burden of mandatory reporting when students inevitably come to their instructors with stories of abuse.
So in response: feminists on campus *have* thought this out, and they’re very capable of seeing it through. While I appreciate Snodgrass’s urging for more careful consideration, I’m a bit troubled by the fact that it has taken a blow-up such as this Spring to prompt the Undergraduate Council to speak to this issue. If anything, we should pass the resolution and then the Undergraduate Council should work with Lizzie Reis (WGS Chair) and Lynn Fujiwara (ES Chair) along with a committee of campus experts on sexual violence to see through the implementation of the requirement by Fall 2016.
There are feminists on campus who would like to see this go through the proper channels.
Strongly agree with the characterization here of the nature and depth of the problem of sexual violence. Have real reservations about the idea of using an academic course to force direct behavioral change. Have further reservations about short-cutting critically important and careful processes for developing general education courses and programs. Troubled, too, by the idea of turning a general education issue over to specific people in specific departments.
One thing is for sure: such a requirement means a huge number of credit hours for WGS.
A letter sent from Ian McNeely to the Senate listserv:
May 28, 2014 Dear Senators, I have a lot of reservations about the motion to add a multicultural requirement, first and foremost regarding the process by which it is being presented, which has been hasty, reactive, non-consultative, and non-inclusive. It has been prepared absent meaningful consultation with the relevant Senate committees, above all the Undergraduate Council.
And as a result of this miscarriage of process, the most basic academic, intellectual, and pedagogical questions – the ones that ought to be at the center of discussion – are barely being asked, let alone answered, amidst the pressure to act swiftly.
Some have objected that committees and procedures are confusing, slow things down, and thwart the will of the community. I would counter that these structures are precisely the means by which the Senate, with its 50-odd members, does most of the business of
representing its 30,000-odd constituents. The Senate committees work hard, and they deserve to be more than dictated to, and consulted only after the fact.
But I don’t want to stress the negative. Instead, echoing the Undergraduate Council’s own wishes, I believe we should launch an inclusive, collaborative, deliberative effort to revitalize our General Education curriculum overall. My office has already begun to commit resources to this effort. We can start with the multicultural requirement, which is the product of a twenty-year old compromise that most emphatically deserves to be revisited.
For anyone who has ever wondered why UO offers some 400 multicultural courses, divides them into three oddly mismatched categories, and requires students to take courses from two but not all three, the simple answer is: faculty politics, the outcome of a bitter dispute sparked by Student Senator Brian Hoop in 1992 and only resolved two years, and two task forces, later—before the Undergraduate Council existed to facilitate reasoned, inclusive discussion. Faculty politics is inevitable, and indeed healthy if properly channeled into academic debate, because faculty are the ones who, by virtue of our University charter and our substantive expertise, actually design the curriculum.
So before we add one more requirement to what is already a rickety system, let’s step back and do things right. Let’s by all means address the concerns of the moment and the needs of our students. But let’s also realize that quality takes time. Let’s define the goals of the multicultural, group, and other requirements, something we’ve never really done.
Let’s reexamine whether our current courses meet those goals, and support new ones—like the one envisioned in this motion—where we find a need. Let’s then marshal the resources— instructors, classrooms, and technology—to offer a curriculum we can all be proud of.
Ian F. McNeely Professor of History Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education (CAS) May 28, 2014 Dear Senators, I have a lot of reservations about the motion to add a multicultural requirement, first and foremost regarding the process by which it is being presented, which has been hasty, reactive, non-consultative, and non-inclusive. It has been prepared absent meaningful consultation with the relevant Senate committees, above all the Undergraduate Council.
And as a result of this miscarriage of process, the most basic academic, intellectual, and pedagogical questions – the ones that ought to be at the center of discussion – are barely being asked, let alone answered, amidst the pressure to act swiftly.
Some have objected that committees and procedures are confusing, slow things down, and thwart the will of the community. I would counter that these structures are precisely the means by which the Senate, with its 50-odd members, does most of the business of
representing its 30,000-odd constituents. The Senate committees work hard, and they deserve to be more than dictated to, and consulted only after the fact.
But I don’t want to stress the negative. Instead, echoing the Undergraduate Council’s own wishes, I believe we should launch an inclusive, collaborative, deliberative effort to revitalize our General Education curriculum overall. My office has already begun to commit resources to this effort. We can start with the multicultural requirement, which is the product of a twenty-year old compromise that most emphatically deserves to be revisited.
For anyone who has ever wondered why UO offers some 400 multicultural courses, divides them into three oddly mismatched categories, and requires students to take courses from two but not all three, the simple answer is: faculty politics, the outcome of a bitter dispute sparked by Student Senator Brian Hoop in 1992 and only resolved two years, and two task forces, later—before the Undergraduate Council existed to facilitate reasoned, inclusive discussion. Faculty politics is inevitable, and indeed healthy if properly channeled into academic debate, because faculty are the ones who, by virtue of our University charter and our substantive expertise, actually design the curriculum.
So before we add one more requirement to what is already a rickety system, let’s step back and do things right. Let’s by all means address the concerns of the moment and the needs of our students. But let’s also realize that quality takes time. Let’s define the goals of the multicultural, group, and other requirements, something we’ve never really done.
Let’s reexamine whether our current courses meet those goals, and support new ones—like the one envisioned in this motion—where we find a need. Let’s then marshal the resources— instructors, classrooms, and technology—to offer a curriculum we can all be proud of.
Ian F. McNeely Professor of History Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education (CAS)
There are two aspects to the problem: continuous education surrounding issues of consent and taking on deeply ingrained cultural attitudes of permissiveness concerning violence against women in American society.
Those who think the problem can be *solved* by simply “adding something to the introDUCKtion,” are deliberately obfuscating how serious the problem of violence against women is. This obfuscation plays a important role in perpetuating the problem.
Deliberately obfuscating? No, and that’s just inflammatory assumption. What’s happening here is discussion.
No, no one’s saying that the problem can be “solved” by adding to IntroDUCKtion. Incorporating education on issues of consent and violence against women and men into IntroDUCKtion should be one part of a multifaceted approach. But changes to gen ed need to go through the proper committees.
A multifaceted approach is absolutely necessary. Isn’t this obvious?
Can I just point out to everyone that WE ALREADY HAVE “SOMETHING” AT INTRODUCKTION? SWAT gives a theatrical workshop on intimate partner violence. So please, for all the folks opposing this on the grounds that IntroDUCKtion would be a better place to implement something, educate yourselves on what people are already doing to try to work on this issue. Sometimes, the faculty need to listen to what the students want, when we’re the ones on the ground and know what has been tried and what hasn’t.
Completely agree. I strongly endorse a process that would include all student groups in the development of a comprehensive and sustained effort to help prevent sexual violence and misconduct, to ensure that the justice process is sound, and to provide real support to victims and survivors. The broad and continuing involvement of students is essential. The very process of their participation in developing and monitoring the efforts will be a part of the solution.