Daniella Tebib
News Editor
During the Faculty Senate’s last meeting of the semester on Tuesday, Nov. 10, members discussed Provost Tim Todd’s change to scheduling, the Confederate monument and the role of the Instructional Assessment System.
Role of IAS
The Faculty Senate drafted resolution FSR-19-20-7 to discuss the role of IAS in instructional evaluations.
“IAS student evaluation instruments will continue to be administered, but will not be the sole basis for evaluating faculty’s teaching excellence,” according to resolution FSR-19-20-7. “Each department will submit to the Office of Academic Affairs and their faculty in writing a teaching evaluation plan that details how IAS teaching evaluations and other evaluative tools will be used in tenure, promotion and annual performance reviews. Faculty Development Center will offer evidenced-based training to faculty and administration on the interpretation and use of the IAS teaching evaluations involved in faculty evaluation while continuing their core mission of offering training that enhances pedagogy and teaching design.”
Todd rejected this resolution. He explained the rejection is not because of the idea behind the resolution, but the Office of Academic Affairs needs more time to look into the logistics of the proposition before it can be approved.
“We all think the idea there and the resolution is very good,” Todd said. “What we’re trying to do here in Academic Affairs is to go down a different path in relation to bias and in relation to some of the survey instruments. We’ve been working with the University of Washington for decades and there are options, so we wanted a little time to come back and look at those.”
Andy Black, senator and associate professor of English, said the rejection of the resolution and lack of communication with women and minority faculty on campus are harmful to the message of inclusion and diversity the University claims to promote.
“I’ve been in touch with the Women’s Caucus about this [resolution], who have pushed for this [resolution], and they said they haven’t heard anything from [the Office of Academic Affairs] and they’re very concerned about gender bias in these evaluations,” Black said. “I wonder, since this is a rejection as it just appears on the screen, this has hurt people and this has affected people. I’d like you [Todd] to know that and since it wasn’t communicated very well.”
Black encouraged Todd to speak to underrepresented groups on campus who are concerned with the role IAS plays in their career at the University.
“Frankly, I’m bothered the Women’s Caucus wasn’t contacted at all,” Black said. “I emailed them today to see if anyone has been in touch with them, and that hasn’t happened.”
Ken Sutrick, senator and associate professor in quantitative methods, was a member of the committee working with the research necessary for this resolution. Sutrick said it is difficult to find research and data that indicates gender and race discrimination in the role of IAS.
“We looked at this issue before,” Sutrick said. “The problem is it’s really hard to measure… We looked at papers, they’re all over the board from you can find bias, there’s no bias. You can find anything under the sun. The problem has always been how do you measure it and we didn’t find a way to measure it. But, if you can measure it, then I don’t think anybody would disagree that it needs to be adjusted.”
Black combatted Sutrick’s claims and said there is an abundance of evidence proving the existence of gender and racial biases.
“It is not hard to find,” Black said. “I really think honestly this could be found through any Google search.”
In response to Black’s comments, Sutrick said the committee completed several “Google searches” and research in which no evidence of discrimnation was found. Black questioned how many members of the committee responsible for conducting the research were women and/or people of color.
Sutrick was unable to answer the question.
“I don’t remember the exact composition,” Sutrick said. “I know we had internationals.”
David Pizzo, senator and professor of history, participated in the discussion in the chat feature of the Zoom meeting.
Pizzo said members on the committee claimed evidence regarding gender and racial biases was presented, but it was ignored.
“As Dr. Pizzo says, a lot of this evidence was presented and ignored,” Black said. “That’s why this rejection has been very hard for women and people of color on this campus who frankly aren’t very well-represented on this Senate either.”
Later in the meeting, Aaron Irvin, associate professor of history, cited examples of evidence supporting the claims of gender and racial bias.
“From 2000 to 2017, the Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed have published over 50 stories on student ratings, of those over 65 percent of them have been negative,” Irvin said. “One of these [articles] is actually just from a week ago, talking about gender bias in TAs being five times greater against females TAs than male TAs… Now this was found very quickly with a simple Google search.”
Irvin also said he was concerned about how the issues of gender and racial bias could open the University up to litigation.
“This is an obvious area where the University can come under attack and lawsuits are possible,” Todd said. “The Faculty Senate resolution, likewise, doesn’t say to do away with the IAS system, but to simply mitigate it… Why leave the University vulnerable? Why not take action as the Faculty Senate, as suggested in order to mitigate these and protect the University from litigation?”
Todd reassured Irvin and the Faculty Senate that action is being taken to work on approving this resolution or reworking this resolution in the future.
“Part of the reason to refuse or reject that resolution there was language in that resolution that put a tremendous amount of pressure on 30+ department chairs,” Todd said. “That was really the point of the resolution that the deans had a lot of issues with. Frankly, I did as well. The rejection of the resolution has nothing to do with the bias or that type of argument.”
In the meantime, Todd offered to remove the “rejection” status of the resolution and place it under “pending” as the Office of Academic Affairs looks for vendors and considers the logistics of the resolution with some more time.
“This is clearly a difficult topic,” said David Roach, Faculty Senate president and professor of mathematics. “It was hard for it not to be approved. I think we need to give Todd a little more time. I mean, we did slap it on his desk in the middle of a pandemic.”
Confederate Monument Relocation Resolution
Faculty Senate has been working with Staff Congress on a special joint resolution, SJR-20-21-4, in support of the removal and relocation of the Robert E. Lee statue on the courthouse square.
The resolution is in alignment with the University’s position and is an opportunity for faculty to vocalize their opinion on whether the statue should remain where it stands or be relocated.
The resolution received ample support from the departments across campus, but debate still ensued among the senators.
Some senators presented the concerns with the resolution of faculty members from their specific departments.
Most faculty members who opposed the resolution said it because they feel like it is not the Faculty Senate’s place to speak on the matter, especially since the University has already addressed it. Some faculty members from the mathematics department, marketing and management department and engineering department echoed this sentiment.
Amanda Davis, senator and professor of animal and equine science, said after discussing it with her department, she was concerned with faculty’s comfortability to step forward and express their opinions.
“I have faculty members in my department that did not feel comfortable expressing their opinions because it is such a hot topic,” Davis said. “It is an issue people are incredibly passionate about, rightfully so. My concern, though, is that there are some faculty that are hesitant to come out and speak their opinions on this because it is such a hot button and they fear backlash.”
Davis said two faculty members in her department chose to voice their opinions to her rather than have it in writing because of their fear of receiving backlash.
To encourage faculty members to voice their opinions and protect their privacy, names of faculty and their specific votes were not publicized. Instead, it was the responsibility of each senator to represent their departments according to the opinions of their faculty.
In response to concerns of some faculty members about the redundancy of the resolution, Heidi Ortega, vice president of Faculty Senate and associate professor of theatre, spoke on behalf of the executive committee of Faculty Senate who has handled the resolution.
“I think the executive committee feels you can’t ever be redundant when it comes to social injustices, racism, etc. and so the more support that can be thrown towards that, the better,” Ortega said. “While there definitely is not an agreement 100 percent, because that never happens, overwhelmingly it was in the positive side of our departments to go forward with this.”
Michael Bordieri, senator and professor of psychology, emphasized the importance of protecting faculty’s voices, but he also discussed the importance of uplifting voices of faculty and students who are underrepresented on campus.
“If we have concerns about our ability to recruit and retain faculty of color, students of color, staff of color, we need to be concerned about this issue,” Bordieri said. “I think, yes, it will not please everyone, but doing the right thing and taking a stand for social justice is not necessarily about pleasing everyone. It’s about taking a principled stand, and I think there’s an opportunity to do that today.”
Following the thorough discussion about the resolution among the senators, 27 senators voted in favor of the resolution, while five voted in opposition of the resolution.
The resolution will be reviewed and voted on by Staff Congress on Nov. 18. If it is approved, the resolution will be sent to Judge Executive Kenny Imes
Faculty Concerns with Spring Scheduling
Following Irvin’s email to faculty about his concerns with the scheduling changes implemented by Todd, Irvin requested further clarification and communication from Todd during the meeting.
“I had some questions for you considering the issues that have existed with scheduling for spring semester up to this point,” Irvin said. “With the schedule being posted incomplete and with multiple errors and before the normal procedure of chairs and department administration had a chance to review many of the offerings. We then had the calendar changed, so that scheduling began sooner, giving faculty advisers less time to work with students, less time to reassure students, less time to work through problems, basically less time to do that vital job to the University of enrollment and recruitment.”
Irvin said faculty advisers form the frontline when it comes to recruitment, enrollment and retention, so when time is taken away from faculty to properly do their jobs, it affects the University as a whole.
Todd said the main reason for the scheduling change was to ensure the University is doing everything it can to have the best possible spring semester and enroll students. While the decision was not unanimous, Todd said it was not a unilateral decision and input from the deans was taken into consideration.
Irvin said since students cannot self-register and must wait for academic advisers to get enrolled in classes for the spring semester, taking time away from faculty to work with students hinders the future success of the spring semester.
“How does restricting our ability to do that by lessening our timescale, how does that give us, as you put it, the best possible spring semester,” Irvin said.
Todd said the scheduling change gives students more time to register, which was the reasoning behind the decision.
Irvin then questioned Todd’s decision to not consult faculty prior to making the decision.
“Why were the faculty not contacted until well after the fact,” Irvin said. “Why were they not informed that this change was taking place, and why was our input not sought when we were directly affected by this and we’re, in fact, the very instrument of the University that had to put this plan into action?”
Todd made the decision through the Dean’s Council. When consulting with the Dean’s Council, two deans approved the change, two deans opposed the change and the others did not provide any insight.
“Math isn’t my greatest field, but I believe that means you only had one-third of the Dean’s Council in agreement,” Irvin said.
Todd disagreed with the way Irvin was presenting the information. While only one-third of the Dean’s Council agreed, one-third of the Council also disagreed, and the three other deans did not provide their input. However, Irvin said he felt agreement from two out of seven deans was not enough to make this decision.
Irvin also acknowledged the Office of Academic Affairs decision to extend the grading period for faculty, and thanked Todd for this decision.
Todd said he appreciates the constructive feedback and believes the Office of Academic Affairs could have done a better job with communication in a more effective and timely manner.
Non-tenure Promotion
Faculty Senate wrote FSR-10-25-5 to encourage the University to add a policy for faculty promotions outside of tenure.
“This [resolution] is allowing the Provost to work with the Senate on how we would promote instructors,” Roach said. “This is not an agreement that we will promote instructors, but it’s to come up with a game plan, come up with a strategy, a structure that we could submit to the Board of Regents as a handbook revision to install promotion for the non-tenure track faculty on campus.”
Todd approved this resolution and plans to discuss it with President Bob Jackson before the University closes for the semester.
Roach said the resolution is not binding to a specific policy.
“Let’s get in there and find a policy we can discuss before the Board of Regents,” Roach said.
Stay updated on the decisions of the Faculty Senate and the University with The News.
