Dear Interim President Moffitt and Interim Provost Woodruff-Borden,

We, the United Academics Faculty of Color, Working Families, and Pride Caucuses, are writing to address the IDEAL climate survey and the steps taken in response to it. We are concerned with the approach taken to date, particularly with the messaging that the bulk of the work will fall to the faculty themselves, who, as noted in the survey, already feel overburdened. We believe some issues are crucial enough that they can’t wait. 

As you know, on June 4, 2022, faculty received our first communication addressing the results of the survey, which were poor: “…it is clear that while employees report some positive experiences, the overall initial results are humbling and affirm that we have more work to do.” Faculty were told that the administration was committed to “redoubling” its efforts and to “ensur[ing] that the UO climate is the best that it can be.” Additionally, an Analysis Committee and an Action Committee were “already hard at work.”

Five months later, November 16, 2022, we received our second communication and update from then interim president Phillips, assuring us that “the work to improve our campus culture is well underway.” Thus far, this work has resulted in the creation of four more groups to address several identified key areas in need of improvement:

• Employee engagement and onboarding
• Equity
• Response, reporting, and antidiscrimination
• Faculty service, promotion, and tenure
  

We were told we would hear from each group in the “coming days and weeks” about their work to identify strategies, resources, tools, and activities to address the climate survey findings. We have yet to hear anything from these groups. Likewise, Phillips was happy to share that the Deans of the Colleges now have the Gallup survey data, and would start doing the work for each college.

The November update was a foreshadowing that the bulk of the work to improve our campus climate would actually fall on faculty the employees themselves. A third update, sent February 22, 2023, reiterated November’s message and provided a Presidential website with even less information about what has been accomplished, yet Phillips informed us that we were now ready to move on to the next phase. But from our vantage point, the first phase amounted to only two brief data presentations and the establishment of the four working groups.

Where we are today is that we should: “…expect to hear from the vice president or dean of your division, school, or college about their plans to share the results and conduct unit-level action planning. …. Everyone will be asked to participate in action planning. … This will be a continual process of work, improvement, assessment, and more work. We are providing support for leaders and their teams to assist with unit-based discussions and action planning.”

Some units have received communications from their deans, and some departments have begun to examine their unit’s climate survey data and develop action plans. But unit-by-unit strategic action plans will require painful and strained discussions, in which those who are marginal in those units will have to endure the very conversations that contributed to the poor results of the climate survey in the first place. Such an approach will work in units where collegial, full participation and strategizing is beneficial to all of its employees, but those units appear to be in the minority. Strategic action plans must be treated with caution; seldom are they truly authentic in actually capturing all of the dynamics and issues within a unit.

Additionally, employees were promised complete confidentiality: “It is also important to reassure employees that the survey is strictly confidential. Survey responses will not be shared with anyone at the university in any way that might identify survey respondents.”  As units receive their unit-level survey data, however, the few employees who have been vocal concerning issues in their department are finding their identities exposed. Some units are so small it is virtually impossible for findings to remain confidential.

As we await the arrival of our new president, it is an opportune moment to address the cultural climate of the University of Oregon in meaningful ways. We have some suggestions for meaningful ways to move forward, beginning with upper administration accountability and transparency. We realize some of these suggestions are not new, but they bear repeating.

1. We need an established formal office to deal with intersectional inequities and discrimination. The Office of Investigation and Civil Rights Compliance (OICRC) is, in effect, a Title IX office that does not deal with the ubiquitous and multilayered forms of inequities employees face. The former Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity and the  Bias Response Team attempted to support employees and students concerning issues specifically related to minoritized communities, such as investigations of bias and implicit bias, abuse of power, and patterns of hostility and/or cultural incompetence by unit supervisors. It offered a broader capacity for employees to seek institutional support and recourse. 

2. ADA compliance is unclear: Approval and enactment of accommodations often is lengthy or does not happen in a timely manner for employees seeking accommodations. A position in HR specializing in ADA compliance and accommodation as its core responsibility would do much to create a welcoming and accommodating culture for employees with disabilities, rather than merely applying the “letter of the law.” Supervisors need training on understanding ADA compliance and how to help employees who seek accommodations.

3. We have recognized the lack of a critical mass of minoritized faculty for decades. Our record demonstrates that we can’t solve this issue by only taking half measures. We need to prioritize hiring through cluster hires and reward programs with strong retention records. We need to establish remediation measures for “problem departments” who cannot retain minoritized faculty. When faculty experience repeated patterns of conflict, they should be allowed to move out of hostile working situations. Expecting the affected faculty member to endure untenable situations while you “work with the department head to address problematic dynamics” is not a viable solution and only leads to their departure. In the past decade, several minority faculty members have written open letters to administrators explaining their painful decision to leave the UO, outlining the incompetence of leadership to address departments with problematic patterns. Giving the Division of Equity and Inclusion the responsibility to work directly with “problem units” to establish “improvement plans” with benchmarks and means of assessment for improvement could help address these areas.

4. Commit to the retention of faculty. There is a commonly stated, and false, narrative that “faculty of color just don’t want to live in Eugene, Oregon.” While it is true that Eugene and the UO are demographically challenging and the University of Oregon is a predominantly white institution, faculty of color want and need jobs just like everyone else. The UO possesses a fairly collegial faculty body with a practice of cross department collaboration that is an attractive factor to many. Yet some faculty of color with extended family in Oregon have felt compelled to leave, even taking a pay cut, because of work conditions. Too often faculty see their colleagues devalued, disrespected, and disregarded when their department heads and deans make little effort to retain them or to demonstrate their value to the UO. We need committed retention efforts that demonstrate that we value the faculty of color we hire. For full transparency, the administration should provide the number of departures by race and gender and the retention efforts that were offered. Providing leave-without-pay for faculty with protected status who leave for other universities, a minimum of two quarters, with the possibility for a third quarter if the faculty chooses to return is essential. 

For more information on the experiences of Faculty of Color, please see CODAC’s 2022 “Voices of University of Oregon Faculty of Color: External Consultant’s Active Retention Report,” and for additional strategies for active retention, please see the numerous reports provided by the CODAC Active Retention Initiative. Faculty of color exposed and displayed their trauma for the creation of these reports and we have yet to the see the administration acknowledge and implement substantial changes. Retention efforts need to take a holistic approach where efforts to provide better on-boarding and mentorship is fortified by actual changes in structural and cultural climate with accountability by unit leaders, college deans, and upper administrators. 

5. Establish a transparent, programmatic plan for partner hires that is fair and equitable and does not interfere with other department hiring decisions or plans. Departments should receive permission to hire in particular fields when the partner does not fulfill the department’s needs. Decisions about partner hires should not be made on the basis of a department’s independent funds or ability to raise money in grants so as not to penalize smaller departments without much funding from the university or outside grants.

6. The administration must challenge heteronormative cultures and structures that impact employee’s experiences within their units in the day-to-day. This can range from homophobic or misgendering microaggressions to problematic assumptions about caregiving responsibilities. Caregiving needs to be seen as essential aspects in the lives of employees and the pandemic has exacerbated existing shortages and availability of affordable quality care. Care systems need to be understood in broader understandings of “family” and kinship. Caregiving challenges and support needs to be included in all surveys and strategies regarding campus climate. 

7. We need to accept and acknowledge that not all administrators and supervisors should be in the positions they occupy. At times people are pulled into administration with little training or knowledge of their leadership style, which has led to poor climate and mass departures. Do not underestimate the damage and harm a culturally incompetent dean can inflict on the morale of a college’s faculty. The university’s respectful workplace policies are too narrowly applied to faculty concerns about deans who behave in demeaning and dismissive patterns. A fundamental issue with the Gallup Climate Survey of the University Employees was the confusion and blurring of the employees’ individual unit with the larger administration (e.g., deans and provosts). Few questions addressed employees’ relations, experiences, and perspectives with the larger administration. If a dean is inaccessible or culturally incompetent, it impacts the culture and climate of a college or school immediately. A good first step would be an audit of every administrative unit; for example, the CAS dean’s office, for its entirety, has been 100% white leadership.

8. Most of the diversity efforts celebrated by our administration have been created and generated through the hard work and collaborative efforts of invested BIPOC faculty. Faculty of color engage in mentorship, consultation, and program development through years of experience and research in higher education. Recognizing research-informed service and this often invisible labor through structured incentivization and compensation would do much for campus climate and retention efforts.
   

As we embark on this “next phase” of the Climate survey, it is the ideal time to rethink any added labor imposed on the employees who often are experiencing a poor institutional climate. We understand 55% of employees completed the survey, despite our efforts to encourage our colleagues to have their voices heard. But many expressed a great deal of skepticism concerning what would come of the results, and to date their skepticism is justified. We have provided suggestions to address the issues that do not place additional burdens on employees who are already exhausted trying to fix deep-seated problems in their departments and colleges. We can’t afford to delay taking action to demonstrate a real commitment to improving the campus climate, especially for those in minoritized groups.

Respectfully,

The United Academics Faculty of Color, Pride, and Working Families Caucuses

No, I’m not talking about my efforts to get info on how much Rob Mullens is earning from the Nike Invitational track meet that has ruined this year’s commencement. General Counsel Kevin Reed has been deliberately delaying releasing that info to the Senate since February. This request is more fundamental:

Requester: Pardovich, Cherise

Organization: Buck’s Sanitary Service

Initial Request Date: 05/01/2023

Status: Requesting/Reviewing Records

This is a formal request for any and all information, documents, communications and contracts. Any and all that is open to the public, related to and submitted by various portable restroom companies ie..(United Site Services, Best Pots) for the previous and current contracts for UO Athletic Department’s Portable Restroom’s bids and or Bid submissions including results. I am also looking for clarification pertaining to the current contractual agreement.

Request ID: 

2023-383

Dear colleagues,

As we approach the end of another academic year, I want to take a moment to celebrate and recognize the outstanding scholarship, instruction, and service taking place on our campus and tell you about several new ways we are highlighting excellence at the University of Oregon. I am continually impressed by the hard work, achievements, and dedication I regularly witness across campus as faculty and staff strive to support our students, our mission, and our public purpose.

To recognize the academic achievements and excellence of the University of Oregon faculty and staff, this spring the university launched a new Awards and Accolades webpage. This new page recognizes the individual achievements of excellence in teaching, research, artistic expression, and the generation and application of knowledge. It celebrates contributions to the UO and their profession such as through grants, honors and fellowships, elections to regional and national boards or committees in professional organizations, and other career awards.

You can find this awards page both on Around the O website and on the Office of the Provost Awards webpage, and in the weekly Workplace newsletter emailed to all employees. Anyone can suggest an accolade by using this simple online form.

The Office of the Provost also sponsors a series of awards programs each year recognizing excellence in teaching, leadership, mentorship, scholarship, and more. This year we have added two new programs: the Distinguished Teaching Professor Program and the Book Publication Award.

We are also piloting another exciting faculty recognition program this spring. Beginning in early June, banners will be hung along the Ferry Street Bridge and streets in and around the university featuring images and quotes from faculty who have earned outstanding teaching and scholarship awards, achieved research excellence, or play leadership roles in university governance. The goal is to instill pride in our community and inspire a culture of excellence. This initiative aligns with our Inclusive Excellence in Action efforts continuing our work toward an inclusively excellent campus culture. We will be sharing more information about this new effort in the coming weeks.

Of course, there are many other university-wide sponsored awards from Research and Innovation, Graduate Studies, Advising, Human Resources, and the Division of Equity and Inclusion, to name a few, that recognize outstanding achievement. I encourage you to visit the Awards and Accolades webpage frequently and join me in congratulating our colleagues on their achievements.

Thank you for all that you do for our university and for the broader academic community.

Sincerely,

Janet Woodruff-Borden
Interim Provost and Executive Vice President       

Links to application materials and surveys are at https://provost.uoregon.edu/search/clark-honors-college-dean. Details on Provost Woodruff-Borden’s attempt to subvert the Senate and shared governance are here. If you want to share in the pretense that the Provost gives a shit about your opinion, fill out the surveys by 10AM this Friday.

Taylor letter here. A snippet:

I would bring a natural passion to the HC Dean position. I have been passionate about the liberal arts since I was 10. Staring up at the Moon, I marveled at the scientists who had just landed a person on its surface. At the same time, I was in awe of those who could capture its beauty in their creative works. From that time on, I was determined to defeat divides between disciplines. This philosophy has served me well. I receive frequent invitations to talk about strategies to integrate the arts and sciences, including at the White House and for the Nobel Foundation. A student recently wrote to me: “It is not often that you meet someone who is capable of the kindness and generosity that you have shown me, a complete stranger. I must reiterate how much you have served as an inspiration to me, and many of my friends and colleagues who struggle to embrace their dual identity as scient(art)ists in this somewhat rigid scientific world we have chosen to be a part of. It is, as you have shown, possible to have both.” I am very fortunate that my career demonstrates the remarkable value of the liberal arts. My current research serves as an example. My work on bionic eyes emerged from my studies of Jackson Pollock paintings. If I hadn’t delved into the arts, my science wouldn’t be on the verge of potentially restoring vision to over one million people.

Stabile here:

My scholarly background has additionally prepared me for the interdisciplinary work of the CHC. With a PhD in English, I have directed a research center, held tenured positions in professional schools, English departments, and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies programs and departments, and served as an associate dean in the social sciences. I co-founded the New Media and Culture Certificate Program at UO and work closely with the Women in Data Science Conference at Stanford on initiatives meant to diversify the rapidly expanding field of data science. I like to think that the professors who taught me at my small liberal arts college would be proud. My commitment to the liberal arts owes much to those professors and the wide-ranging educational experience that established the foundation for my successes.

Dear colleagues,

It is with great excitement that I announce the AY2023 Institutional Hiring Plan (IHP), which details all approved tenure-track faculty searches for the 2023-24 academic search year. We are delighted to be in a period of growth and have approved about two-thirds of the new searches that were proposed. As of today, this year’s plan authorizes eighty-one tenure-track faculty searches (sixty-six new searches and fifteen searches that will continue from this year, if needed).

I want to express gratitude to those who contributed time and effort to creating proposals and providing feedback. The proposals reflected faculty thoughtfulness and creativity as well as dean dedication, engagement, and strategic planning within their schools and colleges. IHP decisions were made in consultation with the Provost’s Deans Hiring Advisory Committee, the seven-member Provost’s Faculty Hiring Advisory Committee, and advisory groups from the Provost’s Strategic Initiative on Environment and the Provost’s Strategic Initiative on Sport & Wellness. I would also like to thank the Active Recruitment Team, which will review search plans and provide workshops and materials to support each search committee throughout the search process.

The IHP is an engaged and collaborative process that allows us to bring our campus together in conversation to strategically address needs and institutional priorities. The proposals we received were thoughtful, innovative, and articulated alignment with our focus on the intellectual growth of the institution and the importance of amplifying a supportive foundation for all faculty to thrive. The final IHP includes positions tied to several areas of institutional strategic focus: three in areas that bolster our work in sport and wellness, ten tied to adding to the UO’s strength in the environment, and an exciting cluster of five hires focusing on areas of Latin scholarship.

We are pleased with how the IHP process went this year and welcome your feedback on how to further refine it for future years. Thank you all for helping us achieve our collective goals in teaching, research, diversity, and interdisciplinary excellence.

With appreciation, 

Janet Woodruff-Borden
Interim Provost and Executive Vice President

What could go wrong? You’d think that after disasters like Concur, shared services, centralized purchasing, and Commencement, our Johnson Hall leadership would step back for a moment and think about what they’re trying to do. Nope. As a wise women once sang,

I ain’t no psychiatrist, I ain’t no doctor with degrees
But, it don’t take too much high IQ’s 
To see what you’re doing to me

Interim Provost Janet Woodruff-Borden and Interim VP for Academic Affairs Karen Ford have attempted to deceive the faculty and Senate by telling us that the impetus for the this latest scheme is a desire to better account for service, or make it easier for them to nominate faculty for awards.

They have refused to share the draft RFP to provide for faculty input, but the final version is now posted, and it’s obvious that the administration wants a system that will give our Johnson Hall leadership the ability to prepare real-time reports on what faculty are doing, down to the micro-acheivement.

Faculty, of course, will be tasked with the burden of inputting it all. RFP here. A snippet:

1) Data and System

1. a)  Describe the solution’s ability to pull baseline information from internal UO data systems includingBanner and the Operational Data Store (ODS) to identify and report:
   i) Promotion and tenure eligibility including years of credit for service ii) Promotion and tenure clock information
   iii) Other review eligibility and timelines
   iv) Leave tracking including sabbatical
   v) Endowed positions
   vi) Administrative appointments
   vii) Joint appointments
   viii) Merit-based information
   ix) Retention-based information
2. b)  Vendor must be able to provide a 60-day, onsite live trial environment “sandbox” (for configuration and usability) prior to an agreement to purchase.
3. c)  Describe the solution’s ability to scan/scrape/import CV data for a lookback of 5+ years (preferably up to 30+ years) from various sources and diverse file formats. This includes describing the solution’s ability to reallocate/reorganize/recategorize CV information.
4. d)  Describe the solution’s ability to allow for review, verification, and modification processes of faculty activity data. This also includes the solution’s ability to lock specific data fields (e.g., tenure timelines should only be editable for certain roles) to prevent modification, the ability to allow for modification annotations to be made within the system and available to administrators, and the ability to have context added separate to the data itself (e.g., a notes field).

5. e)  Describe the solution’s ability to designate role accounts and access information to various levels of administration, faculty, and staff. This should include information on the types of data viewable in various roles, reports and metadata viewable in various roles, and workflow processes viewable in various roles. Discuss if these roles can be configured according to our UO structure and needs.
6. f)  Describe the solution’s ability to import data into a standardized CV and produce standardized/customized outputs such as reports. Solution should have the ability to suppress or lock specific fields of data per UO policy and Oregon law. This includes describing the solution’s ability to import/export, display, and draw reports from a variety of data types (qualitative and quantitative) as well as on a variety of data fields/categories. Some are listed below for reference:
   i) Teaching
   ii) Research and creative output
   iii) Grants
   iv) Patents and entrepreneurial work
   v) Honors and awards
   vi) Memberships (professional organizations)
   vii) Editorial work
   viii) Service
   ix) Equity and Inclusion
   x) Endowments
   xi) Joint appointments
7. g)  Describe how the solution supports peer review materials, currently maintained data systems such as federal grant award information, student evaluation survey data, etc.
8. h)  Describe the solution’s ability to track and show (meta)data details such as date of entry and modification. This might include reappointment, joint appointment, and administrative appointment information.
9. i)  Describe the solution’s ability for data to be searchable, filterable, and queried as needed around a variety of categories including faculty types, promotion/tenure dates, awards and honors, rank/administrative role, joint appointments, grant dollars, etc.
10. j)  Describe the solution’s ability to handle and differentiate between no or missing data, null or zeroed out data, etc. This might also include capturing course release data, promotion-and-tenure clock extensions, etc. that would not present normally within a system.
11. k)  Describe the solution’s ability to export or integrate its data, including any APIs or ODBC access, and any limitations to data via export/API/ODBC.

Back in 2020, the Senate concluded years of negotiations with UO President Mike Schill and got him to sign this policy giving the Senate and the Faculty a little bit of say in searches for Dean’s, etc. It requires that the Senate Leadership be consulted about the search and search committee, that a majority of the members be faculty, that at least one of the faculty be a Senator. Basic shared governance stuff.

Schill hated this, but I argued that our accreditors insisted on faculty input as part of their shared governance standards, and in the end he signed it as UO Policy:

Search Procedures for Academic Administrator Positions

Policy Number: 

II.02.02

Reason for Policy: 

To set forth the values that should inform leadership hiring practices at the UO and to articulate best practices for filling vacancies in high-level academic administrator positions. This policy pertains only to the positions articulated within the policy (or their substantially similar position if a title changes). Other positions not articulated within the policy were intentionally excluded.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

Those involved in searches for academic administrator positions.

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, please contact the Office of the Provost at (541) 346-3081 or [email protected]

Enactment & Revision History: 

27 May 2020 – Approved by the university president for enactment.

Our Provost – currently Janet Woodruff-Borden, is the “Responsible Office”, which I suppose means she’s responsible for ignoring it.

From Around the 0:

The search committee has invited two internal candidates to meet with campus stakeholders May 2-3 in the search for a permanent Clark Honors College dean.

Faculty members, staff and students will be invited to meet with each of the finalists during their respective campus appearances, which will include a public talk, conducted in hybrid mode.

The Clark Honors College offers the benefits and opportunities of a major research university while fostering an education which allows top students to gather, learn and grow within Chapman Hall.

“This is an important time for the Clark Honors College,” said Janet Woodruff-Borden, interim provost and executive vice president. “In the past few years, the college has experienced unprecedented growth, appointed core faculty in a new diversity of fields, updated the curriculum, instituted innovative courses in public engagement, and enhanced student advising and support. The dean will be responsible for overseeing the education and development of some of our most ambitious and motivated students. The ideal candidate will be a visionary leader who is committed to excellence in teaching and research, and who will continue to enhance the honors college experience for its students.”

Details about each candidate will be released in advance of each visit on the Office of the Provost website, along with an online survey where community members can share their observations.

The search has been led by a committee composed of honors college faculty members, staff and students and chaired by Chris Poulsen, Tykeson Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences.

The Committee:

• Chris Poulsen, (chair) Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
• Dulce Castro, Second-year Advisor, Clark Honors College
• Ulrick Casimir, Senior Instructor, Department of English
• Kate Mondloch, Professor, History of Art and Architecture
• Fred Poust, Advisory Board Member
• Erin Morrison, Clark Honors College student
• Katy Krieger, Search Advocate
• Suzette Howard, Search Coordinator

I count 2 faculty, neither from the Senate, none from CHC.

Thanks to CSN for this report:

While faculty and admins work out how to distribute the 2% merit raise pool for faculty next year, the GTFF’s bargaining committee seem to have figured out how to count to numbers with two digits. Their proposal (https://drive.google.com/file/d/13dsgHLsobBa0raCSVxNzYG6pRvot8dnR/view) asks for a 30% increase to the minimum GE salaries next academic year and a 22% increase in the minimums the year after. Under their proposals, those earning above the minimum would receive 16% and 11% raises in the next two years.

The GTFF’s proposal also includes a small automatic adjustment if housing prices (as measured by the Department of Housing and Urban Development) in the region increase by more than 5% year-over-year.

The admins proposed (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LT2OwaVHuKc1–TT6Yts9eIpfk9COGc-/view) a 4% increase in the minimum next year, and 2.65% increases in the following two years, with no guaranteed increases for those earning above the minimums.

What’s clear is that everyone seems to agree that a 2% raise is meaningless.

Johnson Hall pissed $350K away on the climate survey. Now, a full year after they got the results, they’re passing the buck for their failed management down to the deans, who are going to … yes, we all know the drill:

Dear colleagues, 

I am writing to update you on CAS’s actions for engaging with the UO Climate Survey.  As you know, to help build a more inclusive, equitable, and diverse campus community, the university partnered with Gallup to conduct a workplace climate survey in Spring 2022. The goals of the survey are to identify structural, cultural, and institutional factors that affect campus climate and to use the survey results to improve the climate through targeted action plans. That work is underway at university, college, and department levels.  

In CAS, a Climate Survey Engagement Team was appointed in February to lead the college-level assessment of results and create recommendations. That team of faculty, staff, and graduate students has started their work and will recommend in a report to me actions that can be taken by the college to improve our climate. I anticipate sharing their report towards the end of spring term. 

HOW WILL DEPARTMENTS USE SURVEY DATA? The CAS climate survey results are meant to serve as a starting point for faculty and staff to discuss their unit’s climate, asking, in a nutshell: what’s working, what’s not working, and what can we do about it? While the survey data are informative, they represent a snapshot in time, and they don’t provide context. We hope that department-level discussions will add context that illuminates the survey responses and lead to actionable plans that (in combination with university and college actions) increase our sense of community and work satisfaction.  

WHAT IS THE TIMING? Last month, the CAS-specific results of the climate survey were shared with departmental heads, and they formulated plans to discuss the survey results in their units with all of you in the coming weeks.  We expect departmental conversations about the survey results and planning for department actions to begin now and continue through May. We are asking each department to submit their preliminary action plans by late May. As mentioned earlier, we also expect to receive recommendations from the CAS Climate Survey Engagement Team in late April and my office will provide a status report outlining plans in the college and departments to the Office of the Provost in late May. The bulk of the work to carry out action plans across CAS will occur in the 2023-2024 academic year.  

I want to thank you in advance for your engagement in this process. Conversations about our climate can be enlightening and they also may be uncomfortable.  Yet making sure we talk about ways we can improve our climate is crucial to understanding how best to support all CAS community members.  

With appreciation, 

Chris 

Chris J. Poulsen

Tykeson Dean of Arts and Sciences

Professor of Earth Sciences

College of Arts and Sciences | University of Oregon

1030 E. 13th Avenue | Eugene, OR | 97403

Pronouns: he/his​_______________________________________________
Cas-allemps mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uoregon.edu/mailman/listinfo/cas-allemps

High praise indeed in the Eugene Weekly, here.

Having had to listen to our smarmy Provost talk and talk through many meetings, I’m willing to bet this is her own creation, not the work of ChatGPT. Presumably she took it straight from the cover letter for her next presidential search application, which we hope will be a successful one.

Dear faculty colleagues,

Central to the University of Oregon’s educational and research mission is our commitment to inclusive excellence. I am writing to provide an update on the Office of the Provost’s recent work to enhance diversity, equity, and inclusion, and to foster a culture of respect in our academic programs and activities.

We are focused on improving our faculty members’ experience at the university by fostering their sense of belonging and engagement.

To this end, many activities are underway and in the planning stages in the provost’s office. These include a project to foster best practices for the post doc to faculty transition and cohort-based community-building led by the Office of the Provost such as new culturally responsive, network-based faculty mentorship programming.

We have also set in motion a four-event series, called Inclusive Excellence in Action. The series kicked off with an Inclusive Teaching launch event on March 3 to celebrate our current inclusive teaching efforts and the launch of new Howard Hughes Medical Institute grant-funded programming to amplify the culture of inclusive teaching. We will host three more events this spring, including one I’d like to highlight here. On April 26, we will host the Faculty Success: Inclusive Recruitment and Retention Summit for faculty and staff which has two goals: (1) to learn about the work being done around inclusive hiring and retention efforts across campus and at the college and school level; and (2) to focus on specific challenges inherent in some aspects of this work and crowd-source strategies for addressing them.

Additionally, and as you are hopefully aware, leadership in each school and college is working through a process for engaging its faculty and staff, at the unit level, around the 2022 climate survey. I have two goals for our deans between now and the end of this academic year: (1) to ensure that everyone has an understanding of their unit’s results in the context of the results at the broader, university-wide level; and (2) to provide you, our faculty, and other employees with the opportunity to engage in meaningful discussion on what points resonate with you and how each of you, as a member of various groups—from your role in your school and college community, to your role in your academic department, as a member of our teaching community, as a scholar and/or member of a research unit—can contribute to shaping what progress toward an improved culture and climate looks like.

All of this aligns with—and some of our future efforts will be informed by—the work of colleagues in the Center on Diversity and Community (CoDaC) who have conducted a deep dive into the experiences of our own faculty of color and researched best practices for the active retention—rather, the proactive retention—of faculty.

I want to take a moment here to extend my sincere thanks to those of you who gave your candid input on such a wide range of crucial topics as part of CoDaC’s effort. We have heard the depth and breadth of the concerns related to equity in service, cultural taxation, and the impact of these on faculty of color. The leaders of this work, Charlotte Moats-Gallagher and Gerard Sandoval, have shared their findings with the President’s senior leadership team, the deans, the University’s Senate Executive Committee and others. We continue to work with the University Senate and its task force focused on the inequitable service burden on many faculty and adjacent work of the climate survey-related working group on faculty promotion, tenure, and service.

I am optimistic that through these and future endeavors, the university is on a path to improving our faculty retention, academic and campus culture, and the experiences of our faculty, as well as our staff and students. I am committed to this work, and I will continue to provide updates on these efforts and what we achieve.

Sincerely,
Janet Woodruff-Borden
Interim Provost and Executive Vice President

I for one salute the Honorable Representative from Clackamas for attempting to holding Rob Mullens and his coaches feet to the fire on what is surely the most egregious problem in college sports. This is just the sort of legislation that restores my faith in the ability of government – with the vital help of properly incentivized big-time college sports coaches, of course – to do what we as parents have failed to do for millennia.

For a more cynical view, see Canzano. From Rep Bynum’s heartfelt testimony:

Chair Lively, vice-chairs McIntire and Ruiz, for the record my name is Janelle Bynum, and I am the State Representative for House District 39.

As a proud football and basketball mom I’ve seen how sports can bring communities together and teach young athletes discipline, comradery, and sacrifice. At times though, the baser instincts of crowds and group think can take over and turn what is a refuge for many of our youth into a hostile and derisive environment. This is especially true in collegiate athletics where fans often fail to realize that the players they are cheering for or jeering against are barely old enough to vote.

House Bill 2472 places responsibility on Universities to develop basic reporting systems and staff training to respond to derogatory and inappropriate behavioral at interscholastic sporting events. The bill does not strive to create a strict regimen to regulate and take the fun out of college sports. Rather, we are setting a bare minimum that universities must comply with to respond to behavior that goes far outside the bounds of reasonable spectatorship.

I’ve sponsored previous legislation requiring Oregon high schools to meet many of the same standards addressed in this bill. While our collegiate sports at times take on the appearance of professionalism with the large stadiums and sponsorships, the fact remains that these athletes are still young developing adolescences. Events such as those that occurred last season at the Oregon vs BYU football game exemplify the type of behavior that creates hostile environments not fit for families hoping to enjoy a weekend day watching their favorite team.

As the proud mother of an Oregon Duck football player, I appreciate how college sports can cultivate great leaders and teach them skills that will serve them for the rest of their lives. However, I’ve also heard horror stories from players, coaches, and staff about out-of-control behavior from student sections and fans that provides nothing productive. Anyone who knows me knows I am a competitive person, but interscholastic competition must contemplate sportsmanship and basic decency. House Bill 2472 places a low bar that universities can easily meet to create a more hospitable sporting atmosphere for fans and athletes, without taking away from the entertainment and traditions of collegiate athletics.

Colleagues, for these reasons I ask you to support House Bill 2472.

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2023R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB2472/Introduced

A BILL FOR AN ACT

Relating to behavior related to interscholastic activities; and declaring an emergency.

Be It Enacted by the People of the State of Oregon:
SECTION 1. (1) A public university listed in ORS 352.002 may participate in interscholastic activities, including but not limited to interscholastic sporting events, only if the public university:

(a) Implements equity focused policies that address the use of derogatory or inappropriate names, insults, verbal assaults, profanity or ridicule that occurs at an interscholastic activity, including by spectators of the interscholastic activity;

(b) Maintains a transparent complaint process that:

(A) Has a reporting system to allow participants of interscholastic activities or members of the public to make complaints about student, coach or spectator behavior;

(B) Responds to a complaint made under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph within 48 hours of the complaint being received; and

(C) Strives to resolve a complaint received under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph within 30 days of the complaint being received;

(c) Develops and implements a system of sanctions against students, coaches and spectators if a complaint made under paragraph (b) of this subsection is verified; and

(d) Performs an annual survey of students to understand and respond to potential violations of equity focused policies adopted under paragraph (a) of this subsection or violations of ORS 659.850.

(2) Each employee of a public university whose official duties relate to the athletics de- partment of the public university must receive formal training regarding the requirements established by subsection (1) of this section.

(3) If a sporting event is hosted by a public university listed in ORS 352.002 and attendees at the sporting event engage in the use of derogatory or inappropriate names, insults, verbal assaults, profanity or ridicule in violation of equity focused policies adopted under subsection (1)(a) of this section, the public university must:

(a) Suspend the athletic director of the public university for at least one week; and

(b) Suspend the head coach of the athletic team of the public university that was participating in the sporting event for at least one week.

(4) A public university that fails to comply with the requirements set forth in subsection (1) of this section, or to meaningfully enforce the requirements set forth in subsection (1) of this section, may not receive public moneys in the form of state grants, state scholarship moneys or support from the Oregon State Police.

SECTION 2. The Higher Education Coordinating Commission shall work with independent universities, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, professional organizations, student organizations, cultural organizations and religious organizations to develop rules for inter- scholastic codes of conduct. To the degree practicable, the commission shall promote the adoption of codes of conduct comparable to the requirements that public universities listed in ORS 352.002 must adopt pursuant to section 1 of this 2023 Act.

SECTION 3. Section 1 of this 2023 Act first applies to the 2023-2024 academic year.

SECTION 4. This 2023 Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is declared to exist, and this 2023 Act takes effect on its passage.

Apparently this is a big deal to those at the ABA charged with educating America’s future lawyers, but I suspect most people will have the same reaction as the TaxProf law blog does: WTF?

At its February 16-17, 2023, meeting, the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar of the American Bar Association (the “Council”) considered the status of the University of Oregon School of Law of Law (the “Law School”) and concluded that the Law School is not in compliance with Standard 206(b), with respect to part-time or adjunct faculty.ABA Journal, ABA Legal Ed Council Posts Additional Notice on Faculty Diversity:

According to the law school’s Standard 509 Information Report, it has 52 non-full-time faculty; 23 [44.2%] are men, 29 [55.8%] are women, and nine [17.3%] are people of color. Marcilynn A. Burke, the law school’s dean, did not immediately respond to an ABA Journal interview request

At the same February meeting, the Council found Hofstra back in compliance with Standard 206’s faculty diversity standard with 77 non-full-time faculty; 50 (64.9%) are men, 27 (35.1%) are women, and five (6.5%) are people of color.

• Oregon total faculty: 87: 57.5% are women, 17.3% are people of color
• Hofstra total faculty: 128: 37.5% are women, 9.38% are people of color

Pretty balanced and informative, with many interesting quotes:

https://northbynorthwestern.com/sharing-governance/

Please post your favorites in the comments.

Do the math. Faculty are getting 10% in raises over 3 years, during which the cost of living will have increased by roughly 20%. (Ignore former Interim President Phillip’s claim to the Senate that temporary inflation does not cause permanent increases in the cost of living, he’s no more of a macroeconomist than I am.)

To add an obsession with control to the insult and injury, Interim Provost Janet Woodruff-Borden is requiring departments to adopt new and tortured rules before they can allocate the 3% (nominal) merit portion of this pay cut.

From what I can tell the deans, including CAS’s Chris Poulsen, are doing the best they can to deal with this – given their loyalty oath to Johnson Hall. Poulsen’s attempt to explain the new rules to department heads is below. (Thanks to several anonymous dept heads for passing this along – keep these coming.)

The faculty union is also working on this. In the past the union has fought hard for more merit pay than the administration has been willing to give out, but I expect that part of the fallout from the fights over allocating this negative merit raise will be a preference for first getting across the board raises that match the cost of living – as calculated by the BLS, not by a guy who doesn’t understand the diff between stocks and flows.

Poulsen’s Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1VAX9CJgPXoQN3fOL3S0-Jl1M1PI0gwun/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117814431711397553098&rtpof=true&sd=true