Archive for the ‘Faculty Governance’ Category
The Nash family, the Academic Senate, the Academic Federation and the Davis Faculty Association jointly sponsor the annual Charles P. Nash Prize to honor the outstanding achievement in promoting and advocating for faculty interests and welfare by a member of the Academic Senate or Academic Federation. This year the prize is being awarded to Eric Schroeder, Lecturer Emeritus in the University Writing Program, in a reception and dinner to be held on May 12th.
In the words of the selection committee: “Dr. Schroeder served all constituencies of the campus community unusually well, teaching and mentoring not only students but also new faculty. He is, indeed, the epitome of someone who believes in–and lives–the Principles of Community that the campus subscribes to and the principles of shared governance described in the prize call.”
Please respond by May 5th following the details in the attached Nash Prize Invitation with RSVP (PDF). For more information, call (530) 754-2262 or email Louise Uota, email@example.com.
The DFA’s sister chapter at Berkeley, the BFA, would like to extend a warm welcome to DFA folk to come to an event they are organizing this coming Tuesday. Please invite your colleagues as well.
* * *
The New Normal: What Does It Mean to Work at the UC Today
This event will address the rise of the new managerialism at UC and its implications for faculty research, teaching, welfare, academic freedom, and the tradition of shared governance.
Speakers: Christopher Newfield and Michael Meranze
When and where: September 30, 5pm, Wheeler Hall 300
(click on the image for a larger version)
On Friday Sept. 5, Chancellor Dirks of UC Berkeley circulated an open statement to his campus community that sought to define the limits of appropriate debate at Berkeley. Issued as the campus approaches the 50th anniversary of the Free Speech Movement, Chancellor Dirks’ statement, with its evocation of civility, echoes language recently used by the Chancellor of the University of Illinois, Urbana and the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois (especially its Chair Christopher Kennedy) concerning the refused appointment of Steven Salaita. It also mirrors language in the effort by the University of Kansas Board of Regents to regulate social media speech and the Penn State administration’s new statement on civility. Although each of these administrative statements have responded to specific local events, the repetitive invocation of “civil” and “civility” to set limits to acceptable speech bespeaks a broader and deeper challenge to intellectual freedom on college and university campuses.
CUCFA Board has been gravely concerned about the rise of this discourse on civility in the past few months, but we never expected it to come from the Chancellor of UC Berkeley, the birthplace of the Free Speech Movement. To define “free speech and civility” as “two sides of the same coin,” and to distinguish between “free speech and political advocacy” as Chancellor Dirk does in his text, not only turns things upside down, but it does so in keeping with a relentless erosion of shared governance in the UC system, and the systemic downgrading of faculty’s rights and prerogatives. Chancellor Dirks errs when he conflates free speech and civility because, while civility and the exercise of free speech may coexist harmoniously, the right to free speech not only permits, but is designed to protect uncivil speech. Similarly, Chancellor Dirks is also wrong when he affirms that there exists a boundary between “free speech and political advocacy” because political advocacy is the apotheosis of free speech, and there is no “demagoguery” exception to the First Amendment.
Before the slippery slope of civility discourse we remark that the right to free speech is not limited to allowing the act of speaking or engaging in communicative actions to express ideas publicly, nor is it contingent on the notion that anyone else needs to listen, agree, speak back, or “feel safe.” The right to free speech is constituted through prohibitions on the infringement of speech by the state and other public institutions and officials. Moreover, while civility is an ideal—and a good one—free speech is a right. The right to free speech does not dissipate because it is exercised in un-ideal (un-civil) ways.
Second, we underline that the right to freely speak on public and institutional issues is one of the three pillars of academic freedom. Academic freedom is a specific—though not exclusive—right of professors. The three pillars of academic freedom that extend to individual members of the professorate are: (1) the freedom to conduct and disseminate scholarly research; (2) the freedom to design courses and teach students in the areas of their expertise; and (3) the right to free speech as laid out in the 1940 Statement of Principles of Tenure and Academic Freedom which in this context prohibits the professional penalization of professors for extramural speech. Ensuing from academic freedom is the right and duty of faculty to decide, collaboratively and individually, standards and thresholds for teaching and research, without interference from administrators, alumni, or donors. Those determinations are based on standards of scholarly excellence and achievement, which manifest through hiring, academic publishing, and peer review processes in which an individual’s academic record is judged by peers. Those who administer institutions of higher learning bear a responsibility for the protection of academic freedom, which includes free speech in the ways described here.
The University of California bears an especial burden to respect these rights. For the rights of academic freedom and the 1st Amendment right to free speech cohere in a way peculiar to a public university. As a public university the University of California is called upon to affirm not only the guild rights of Academic Freedom but the more expansive rights of the 1st Amendment—which after all, are possessed by students and staff as well as faculty.
On the basis of all of the above, CUCFA Board deems necessary to release the following declaration and to ask its members, and all UC faculty to press their Senates to pass it as a resolution:
Taking note of the concurrent rapid growth in non-academic administrative positions in most colleges and universities and the significant reductions in state/government funding for public universities during the last decade,
Concerned by numerous accounts across the United States of senior administrators, management, boards of trustees, regents and other non-academic bodies attempting to influence, supervise and in some cases over-rule academic hiring, tenure and promotion decisions, as well as policy and evaluatory decisions traditionally under the purview of Academic Senate and other faculty bodies,
Concerned further by the attempts of senior administrators in the UC system and at many universities across the United States to narrow the boundaries of academic freedom and permissible speech by faculty, students and other members of the university community, and, in particular by the inappropriate and misleading appeal to concepts like “civility” and “collegiality,” deceptively used to limit the “right” to free speech, and as criteria for hiring, tenure, promotion and even disciplinary procedures,
That all professional evaluations related to hiring, tenure, and promotions of either present or potential faculty are the sole purview of designated committees composed of faculty members, department chairs, and deans as peers and/or academic supervisors of anyone under review and/or evaluation,
That senior campus and University/system-wide administrators, as well as Regents and other governing boards, or donors to the university and/or its foundation(s), do not have any right to interfere in these processes, and that final decisions on appointment and promotion must be based solely on information in the candidate’s file that is related to established categories of teaching, research, and service and that has been added by established procedures of peer academic review.
That we oppose any insinuation that civility, per se, be added either formally or informally as a valid category in the academic personnel process, as well as any attempt by external parties, including donors to the university, government officials, or other forces, to interfere in any personnel decisions, especially through the threat of withholding donations or investments should certain academic policies or personnel decisions be made.
(CUCFA — The Council of University of California Faculty Associations — is a coordinating and service agency for the several individual Faculty Associations — associations of UC Senate faculty — on the separate campuses of the University of California, and it represents them to all state- or university-wide agencies on issues of common concern. It gathers and disseminates information on issues before the legislative and executive branches of California’s government, other relevant state units dealing with higher education, the University administration, and the Board of Regents.)
Faculty should have received an invitation to this year’s Nash Prize Dinner via the Academic Senate mailing list. This reminder is being sent out as the RSVP deadline approaches. Non-faculty are invited to attend too.
You and a guest are cordially invited to attend a dinner celebrating this year’s winner of the Charles P. Nash Prize: Linda Bisson, The Maynard E. Amerine Chair in Viticulture and Enology.
The dinner will be Wednesday, April 30, 2014. 6:00 PM – Reception, 6:30 PM – Dinner. At the UC Davis Conference Center, Ballrooms A&B.
Dinner is $35.00 per person. RSVP with the attached card and payment by Tuesday, April 22, 2014. Please make checks payable to “UC Regents.” For information, call (530) 754-2262 or email Andrew Crotto at firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Charles P. Nash Prize, funded by the campus community and the Nash family and friends, is awarded by the Davis Division of the Academic Senate, the UC Davis Academic Federation, the Davis Faculty Association and the Nash Family to acknowledge achievement in and commitment to promoting shared governance in keeping with Charlie Nash’s exceptional efforts in promoting and advocating for faculty interests and welfare.
The prize is awarded to an individual who clearly represents advocacy, achievement and dedication within a body of service that exemplifies Charlie’s legacy.
The Davis Faculty Association, Davis Division of the Academic Senate, the Academic Federation and the Nash family invite nominations of candidates for The Charles P. Nash Prize for the academic year 2013-2014.
The Charles P. Nash Prize is designed to reward exceptional achievement and commitment in promoting shared governance and advocacy for faculty interests and welfare.
The Prize is awarded annually to a member of the UC Davis Academic Senate, the Davis Faculty Association, or the Academic Federation whose actions demonstrate an exceptional and extended commitment to shared governance and/or promoting faculty interests by ensuring equitable treatment of faculty. In the spirit of Charlie Nash, such activity must be above and beyond normal committee assignments or academic obligations, typically, spanning a period of time or one’s career.
Nominations are sought from any member of the academic community: students, faculty, staff, alumni, departments or units. Eligibility: All members of the Academic Federation, Academic Senate and Davis Faculty Association who have not previously won the award are eligible. Previous nominees who have not received the award may be renominated. Current Nash Prize Selection Committee Members are ineligible for nomination.
The Charles P. Nash Prize is designed to reward exceptional achievement in the spirit of Charlie Nash. Examples of Charlie Nash’s achievements included:
* Using the machinery of the faculty governance process, often invoking the mechanisms of Academic Senate committees, to achieve equity for individual faculty members.
* Making certain that the machinery of shared governance works well, both structurally and functionally.
* Contributing to analysis of shared governance, such as the Mending the Wall report.
* Working with others to craft the Nash-Goldman report which made recommendations for changes in the personnel policy for Academic Federation employees
* Supporting legislation that allows faculty to assign their own texts and protect their intellectual property rights
* Mentoring and advising faculty to guide them in finding their way thru the merit and promotion briar patch, as well as assisting them with their personnel cases within their departments and with the Academic Senate Committee on Academic Personnel
* Serving for many years in a leadership capacity on faculty committees to advocate for faculty interests, including:
* Chair of the Davis Faculty Association board
* Vice President of External Aairs on the CUCFA board
*Chair of the Davis Division Academic Senate (2 terms)
The annual prize will be awarded in a public ceremony and will include a monetary honorarium. There is no restriction on the prize recipient with regard to the use of the prize.
Nominations should be addressed to: The Nash Prize Selection Committee. Letters of nomination accompanied by a one-page list of relevant accomplishments must be submitted electronically. Send your nomination materials to: email@example.com.
Deadline for Nominations: All nominations must be received electronically by 5:00 PM, Friday, February 1, 2014. Questions may be addressed to the committee chair (firstname.lastname@example.org).
The Committee will rely upon material presented to it; therefore it is important that the letter and list make the best case possible within the space limitation. The Nash Prize Selection Committee will review the nominations and will select a recipient from the original slate of candidates. The Committee is permitted to select one recipient for each academic year.
2013-2014 Nash Prize Selection Committee
Richard Scalettar (Chair)
Daniel L Simmons
The DFA uses a variety of advocacy strategies: we meet with and write letters to campus and system-wide administrators and to Academic Senate leaders; we organize with other faculty, staff union and student groups on this campus and in other higher education sectors around issues of shared concern; as an affiliate of the Council of UC Faculty Associations (CUCFA), we also lobby in Sacramento, where we meet regularly with legislators and their staff and where we have helped fund and organize “Educate the State” rallies; we speak at teach-ins and educate at workshops.
Here is a brief reminder of some of the things the DFA has been up to in the past year:
• The DFA endorsed Proposition 30 (a tax increase to fund public education) and opposed proposition 38 (a conflicting tax proposal) and distributed information that explained these positions.
• The DFA, through CUCFA, was a vital part of the opposition to SB 520, Senator Steinberg’s bill that could have at one point required UC to purchase MOOCs through private companies such as Coursera and Udacity. CUCFA President Bob Meister participated in a number of panel discussions about MOOCs that spring – usually the main opponent on those panels to Coursera founder Daphne Koller and Udacity founder Sebastian Thrun – with a message of support for faculty led innovation in the effective use of information technology, online materials, and hybrid approaches to enhance undergraduate teaching; with an emphasis on the importance of a campus and classroom-based vision of learning and intellectual exchange for all students, including the most disadvantaged; and with a message of concern about the ability of outsourced MOOCs to meet the needs of students for a quality education.
• CUCFA, through its unionized Santa Cruz chapter, challenged UC’s Coursera contract, which asked faculty to sign over all intellectual property rights to their lectures when Coursera did not require this. The DFA has a long history of defending against attempts by UC to take ownership of their lectures from faculty.
• UC planned to cut central funding of campus healthcare facilitators. The DFA opposed this, along with other FA chapters and other campus groups. UC agreed to continue funding the healthcare facilitators. We work to preserve UC benefits and pension.
• The DFA rejected the draft campuswide freedom of expression policy and asked that it be recast to more accurately reflect the rights and protections for free expression which are so valued on a university campus, as well as the history that UCD students have in the responsible and safe voicing of their opinions. The DFA is always concerned with safeguarding rights of academic freedom and political speech.
• The DFA noted the lack of assistance from the Student Disability Center in finding space to accommodate student exams. While instructors have an obligation to provide recommended academic accommodations, it is required of the University, not the instructor, to identify space or personnel to monitor accomodative examinations.
• Last fall, the DFA co-sponsored a series of multi-campus gatherings of faculty to discuss actions and interventions in defense of the public nature of the University.
• The restructuring of the university has led to a massive and costly expansion of senior administrative positions on campus. System wide, there are now more management positions than regular teaching faculty. Increasingly, significant policy decisions are made by administrators with inadequate direct experience and insufficient faculty input. We seek to reverse this process and make Davis again a faculty-led campus. We support the merit and promotion system and equitable salaries.
For more information on our activities, browse the rest of this website. If you have colleagues who are not current members of the DFA who you think support the ideals of the organization, please encourage them to join at http://ucdfa.org/join/
The UC Davis Blue Ribbon Freedom of Expression Committee has drafted a campuswide freedom of expression policy and is soliciting input. The draft policy is available online at:
(The above page also lists methods for members of the community to provide feedback, including a series of forums.)
In response, the DFA board has submitted the following letter:
Dear members of the Blue Ribbon Freedom of Expression Committee:
The Davis Faculty Association has grave reservations concerning the draft UC Davis Freedom of Expression Policy. While the DFA recognizes the importance of maintaining an environment in which the core educational and research missions of the campus can flourish without undue disruption, this must be balanced against the equally important goal of encouraging and protecting open discussion and debate. Indeed, this is an absolutely essential part of the functioning of the university as a crucible for the development and testing of new ideas. The current document fails to properly balance these two considerations, nor does it follow recommendations from both the Senate Special Committee on Freedom of Expression Report and the Robinson-Edley Report to discuss civil disobedience as a particular category that has brought about beneficial changes.
Specifically, the draft UC Davis Freedom of Expression Policy (i) opens by paying lip service to the right of free expression, but fails adequately to follow up and affirm those rights in a positive way in its subsequent articles; (ii) contains a disturbingly long litany of restrictions on free speech. Of the seven subsections, A-G, in the “Policy” section (section II), five explain and defend *restrictions* on freedom of expression. So does the entire content of section III. Many of these restrictions are so vaguely worded that they seem likely to apply to virtually any sort of campus gathering.
That this document unduly emphasizes the restriction of freedom of expression strikes the DFA as especially inappropriate and ironic given the Pepper Spray Incident of November 2011. In that event, and its emotional aftermath, UCD students exercised their rights to freedom of expression with a truly amazing dignity and concern for safety of others. Given that history of responsible student conduct, the tone and content of this document are puzzling.
The DFA urges that this document not be adopted, and, instead, be recast in a way which more accurately reflects the rights and protections for free expression which are so valued on a university campus, as well as the history that UCD students have in the responsible and safe voicing of their opinions.
The Provost responded to the DFA’s letter regarding the accommodation of students with special needs for examinations (available online at http://ucdfa.org/2013/07/dfa-board-letter-to-provost-hexter):
*From: *Ralph J Hexter
*Date: *July 13, 2013 10:41:02 AM PDT
*Subject: **responding to your email*
Dear Professor Shershow,
Thank you for your letter regarding the need to develop more robust strategies for accommodating students with special needs. I assure you that I am well aware of this problem, and, most importantly, that planning is already underway, coordinated by Interim Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Carolyn de la Peña, to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with the challenges we face. Resolving the issue may involve both physical space and additional personnel, as well as a need to identify the funding sources that will support a sustainable solution.
Carolyn and I intend to address this matter as expeditiously as possible, and we look forward to additional input from the faculty as
our planning proceeds.
Provost Ralph J. Hexter
The DFA Board sent the following letter to Provost Hexter to express concerns raised by some of our members:
July 11, 2013
Provost Ralph J. Hexter
Mrak Hall, Fifth Floor
University of California, Davis
One Shields Avenue
Davis, CA 95616
Dear Provost Hexter:
We write to bring to your attention a practical issue regarding the accommodation of students with special needs for examinations. It is
becoming increasingly burdensome for the faculty to satisfy these requirements. In some cases, the student must be given five hours in a room without other students. During the quarter, at mid-term time, the problem is particularly acute because some Departments are starved of space and cannot find suitable rooms. The Student Disability Center (SDC) states that they cannot help in locating space – the burden currently falls entirely on the faculty, according to the SDC.
However, an amended regulation of the Davis Division of the Senate (538H) states in part:
“The instructor has a legal obligation to provide recommended academic accommodations, unless the instructor can demonstrate that the accommodations will fundamentally alter the nature of the academic demands made of the student, or decrease the standards and types of academic performance. It is the responsibility of the University to provide recommended physical accommodations. No accommodation shall require facilities or personnel that can be demonstrated to result in undue financial and administrative burdens to the University. The instructor should consult with the student and the SDC if there are any questions or concerns.”
The phrase “academic accommodations” is pertinent. According to this statement, it is not incumbent upon the faculty to identify space or personnel to monitor examinations; it is required of the University, not the instructor.
Will the University, via the SDC, identify suitable space and proctors for mid-term and final examinations? Resolution of the problem may require funding to augment the staffing at SDC – the funds would be well spent in helping to relieve the faculty of an increasingly onerous task.
We look forward to your clarification of our procedures.
Scott Shershow, Chair
on behalf of Davis Faculty Association board
As many of you are aware, the DFA is one of the organizations that supports the Charles P. Nash Prize, which is funded by the campus community and Charlie’s family and friends. Its goal is to acknowledge achievement in and commitment to promoting shared governance in keeping with Charlie Nash’s exceptional efforts in promoting and advocating for faculty interests and welfare.
This year’s prize will go to Robert May, professor of Philosophy. As noted in a recent Dateline article about this award, professor May joined the systemwide Committee on Faculty Welfare in 1996, chaired the panel in 1999-2000, and has been an ex oficio member since 2009. He has been a member of the committee’s Health Care Task Force since 1999 and chair since 2009. He served on the President’s Task Force on Post-Employment Benefits in 2010, and joined the Health Benefits Work Group in 2011.
Professor May also figured in our messages about UCD’s healthcare facilitator program.
The award dinner, hosted by Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi and Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph J. Hexter, will be Tuesday, April 30th, in the AGR Room of the Buehler Alumni Center. The reception starts at 6:00 PM and the dinner at 6:30 PM. The cost is $35.00 per person for dinner, paid in advance. RSVPs with payment are due by Monday, April 22. For more information, call Ceremonies and Special Events, (530) 754-2262, or send an email to Andrew Crotto, email@example.com.
If you would like to invest in Charlie’s principles and community, you can add your support for this Prize with an endowment check made payable to the UC Davis Foundation, with a notation “For the Charles P. Nash Prize,” and send the check to: UC Davis Foundation – Charles P. Nash Prize, 1460 Drew Avenue, Suite 100, Davis, CA 95618. Or call (530) 754-4438 for more information.