MINUTES of AAUP
Executive Board meeting, Wednesday 7 June 2017, 3:30-5:20pm
Three
priorities in this cycle’s strategic plan:
1. the escalating
division of insecure academic labor
2. reductions and
restructuring of public funding and budgeting processes
3. the increasingly
hostile environment affecting students and faculty
Items
we’re monitoring
Faculty Regent bill
Freedom Foundation request for emails
Dental School deficit
Lecturer job security
Higher ed finance
Hate crimes on campus
The shooting and UW Police Department issues
The use of the UW’s “workplace violence” rule to
pursue faculty
Attendance: Dan Jacoby/president, Amy Hagopian/secretary, Bert
Stover/treasurer, Abraham Flaxman/List server VP, Diane Morrison, Eva
Cherniavsky, Charlie Collins, Jay Johnson, Duane Storti, Max Lieblich. On the
phone: Libi Sundermann.
Absent:
Hwasook Nam, Christoph Giebel, Ann Mescher, Michael Honey, Jim Liner, Rob
Wood/past-president, Bruce Kochis, Jim Gregory.
Reports:
Amy is
headed to the national AAUP conference
next week. She will give a talk on the assault on the UW student following the
2016 U.S. presidential election, which resulted in a Clery Act complaint by the
local Council on American Islamic Relations.
Treasurer: Bert reported We have $3,650
balance after all the encumbered expenses and anticipated revenue for July.
There is also $5,150 in an account for defending academic freedom, a special restricted
donation. We also have a $500 balance in our UW account. Our typical annual
disposable income is about $??00. We have spent money on room rentals and
conference attendance.
Debrief the annual meeting. Hugh Spitzer and Adam
Sherman presented a case for higher education as a state constitutional
responsibility, and Randy Hodgins.
Reflections on the Shooter forum
…was a
success. Speakers included Shon Meckfessel, faculty member at Highline
Community College and author of the book (his UW disseratation), “Nonviolence
Ain’t What it Used to Be;” Ana Sofia Knauf, reporter
for the Seattle Stranger, which led in regional coverage of the event; John
Walker, a member of the Industrial Workers of the World who spoke for the
shooting victim; and Venkat Balasubramani, an attorney with the ACLU. Students
on the panel included Jack Pickett, representing the UW College Republicans;
Alan-Michael Weatherford, doctoral student in history at UW; and Ruby Byrne, UW
physics doctoral student. Abie Flaxman
did a great job moderating. It was written up in Real Change and the Daily. The
video is on our website. We noted the threats against Evergreen this week with
regard to a threatened shooting. It was good we hosted this; it put AAUP on the
map as the host of campus conversations about controversial issues. (add points
from my facebook page) We could benefit from continuing conversations like
this. We face strong threats to free speech in a politically volatile era.
Charlie reported he was threatened and stalked by a student for a poster he had
in his window. The description of the policing behavior was quite alarming, especially
the refusal to contain the pepper sprayer (allegedly done by the husband of the
shooter).
Some
conclusions:
1) the UWPD & SPD did a pretty lousy job that night--not
only did they not keep the peace, they shoved together the protesters and the
white supremacists and failed to stop Mr. Hokoana from pepper-spraying people
(or his wife from shooting people, for that matter); they didn't even arrest
them when they tried to turn themselves in!;
2) the Campus Republicans think they're all about free speech, but that seems
to be a pretty squirmy reason for inviting such a revolting guy as Milo
Yiannopoulos to our campus--they wouldn't commit to supporting the content of
his speech, so then why did they invite him?;
3) undocumented people in American don't have much free speech these days--they
don't even have freedom of movement;
4) the shooting victim is interested in restorative justice, which would
include talking to campus authorities and the Hokoanas, but those responsible
parties aren't much interested in that conversation—the UW president won’t talk
with him, either, reportedly;
5) why wasn't our campus gun ban enforced that night? it was suggested the UW
is worried about lawsuits from the gun lobby;
6) the violence on campus led some frightened people to drop out of school, and
others to elect not to come here;
7) the police don't enforce policies and laws equally--there seem to have been
no consequences for the shameful doxxing of Alan-Michael Weatherford; do the
police even have training in what that means and how to manage it?
8) the hateful neo-Nazi posters on campus have been described by the UWPD as
"free speech";
9) UW police and officials refused to participate in the forum itself tonight;
10) "Free" speech costs a lot of money, from the rental of Kane Hall
for Milo's talk to Hex's medical bills to the police overtime--are the Campus
Republicans paying for all that free speech?
Theo Myhre’s talk May 25, “Teaching in Times of
Turmoil: Understanding State Ethics, Academic Freedom, and Free Speech,” was
well received. It would be good to do it again next year. He’s at UW Law School
so we have access to him. We agreed we would love to have him join our AAUP
board.
The complaint against Amy with the
state ethics board was dismissed. This concerned the email announcement about the higher
education forum held at Gerry Pollet’s house last fall.
Amy was
contacted by Richard Cordova regarding
her attempt to circulate an email announcement on her department’s list
server. See notes on the conversation, below.
Freedom Foundation email FOIA update. Aaron Katz &
Jim Liner’s emails were turned over. Rob Wood’s emails were not turned over. The
Freedom Foundation is appealing permanent injunction against releasing Rob
Wood’s emails, but it agreed to extend date by which Amy’s emails had to be
released; SEIU 925 identified only a handful of Amy’s emails which should count
as public records. A hearing date was set in July for permanent injunction
against releasing emails identified as not public record.
New items
UW Master Plan Coalition.
The Upzone
negotiations are complete, and there were several gains: 50% subsidy on transit pass, stopped expansion
of square footage in buildings to be leased for profit, work on childcare, win
an analysis by city of how displacement affects people by race, increase
percentage of low-income housing from 5% to 9% (other places can be >25%)
The current
UW Masterplan expires in 2017; this is the long-term agreement on growth with
the City of Seattle. The new proposed plan proposes a 30% growth in footprint
and a 20% growth in faculty and student and staff numbers. It will be voted on
by the City Council. This includes decisions on building height. There have been no faculty governance involvement other than a
passive presentation. It was followed by a Class C resolution asking for new
buildings to have classroom spaces. At the same time, the UW says it has
autonomy from the City. Should the Senate be taking this up? We can bring points to the mailing list. Do
we have a strong stake in this, is it essential to our interests? Doesn’t the
UW’s long term strategic plan pertain to AAUP’s interests? Why don’t we understand
this better? Hard decisions need to be made on the future of the university,
and faculty need to be involved. It’s a big issue and we need to be
investigating further.
Dan and Jay recommended
against AAUP getting involved. Dan worries about coalitions. Amy thinks we need
to join in partnership with likeminded people and organizations to amplify our
small voice. Item left unresolved for now.
Education debt bubble. Jay mentioned the NY Times article
UW Master Plan and unsustainable growth. Here are some (news) articles on the
education bubble here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/quora/the-education-bubble-keep_b_11696998.html
https://www.ft.com/content/a272ee4c-1b83-11e7-bcac-6d03d067f81f?mhq5j=e1
DECISION: Ask the Faculty Senate to host or
co-host an informational session on this.
Speech, Diversity and Adjudication
issues.
We discussed
the Rachel Chapman case. Dan, Diane and Eva asked for a meeting with the
dean of the College of Arts & Sciences. The request was denied, with the
claim that it was a personnel issue. We were interested, however, in discussing
the faculty protections for free speech at a higher level and how these
protections are provided in the Faculty Code. Faculty Code 25-71 (Section 25-71,
Standard of Conduct), for example, which Rachel was charged with, was
misquoted. Duane cautioned the UW’s University Complaint Investigation and
Resolution Office (UCIRO) seems to settle for quite little evidence; Eva’s
experience was different for a colleague’s complaint of harassment. The UW has
resources and no restraints. See the material Eva distributed via email to the
board.
Discussion:
We suggest
she file an adjudication petition to Mike Townsend, the secretary of the
faculty?
Portion of
the code on this: http://www.washington.edu/admin/rules/policies/FCG/FCCH28.html
We were
uniformly appalled about how this case is proceeding. Under what circumstances
can faculty speech at a faculty meeting be construed as violence? We suggested
Rachel should sue the university immediately, although we know that is costly.
It is mystifying to us why there were no intermediate steps before a full
formal complaint in Rachel’s file.
When is it
appropriate to ignore the standard procedure for adjudicating differences?
Chapter 28 of the Code. Is there no requirement for a complainant when there is
a complaint? When can reporting requirements be ignored?
Can a
three-year-old incident be raised as a reason for pursuing a faculty member?
The accusers are charging violations of Section 25-71 of the Faculty Code, and
http://www.washington.edu/admin/hr/polproc/work-violence/
AAUP
investigation could be requested.
Rachel Chapman case:
There is very strong evidence that the Anthropology chair, Patricia Kramer, is using the threat of a career-terminating (and ruinously expensive) disciplinary proceeding to silence and humiliate a faculty member whom she views as an opponent and agitator in the department.
Here is the letter AAUP sent to Provost:
Naturally, we understand that personnel decisions must remain confidential and it was never our intent to discuss the particulars of Professor Chapman’s case. Rather, our concern is and remains with the precedent this case would seem to establish and with the issues of due process that it raises. It seems vital that we be able to distinguish between deliberation on confidential ‘content’ and discussion of decision-making principles: Because issues of principle inevitably surface around particular cases, we can never openly engage the former if we treat them as one and the same.
We regret if our earlier communication was not sufficiently careful about abstracting the principles from the specifics. So please permit us to restate. The concerns of the UW AAUP Executive Board are three-fold:
1.
Is it the case
that a speech act in a faculty meeting can be a potential violation of Section
25-71 of the Faculty Code? Under what
circumstances? The language of this section
reads as follows:
|
“The
University is an institution having special public responsibility for
providing instruction in higher education, for advancing knowledge through
scholarship and research, and for providing related services to the
community. As a center of learning, the University also has the obligation to
maintain conditions which are conducive to freedom of inquiry and expression
in the maximum degree compatible with the orderly conduct of its functions.” We
would like to understand how any speech act (regardless of whether
it was well-considered or inadvisable, spoken calmly or in a more agitated
tone of voice) could be understood as counter to the principles of
freedom of inquiry and expression, rather than an instantiation of those very
principles. We are certain you
understand why AAUP would be concerned by
any case which makes the content (or tone) of a faculty member’s speech
subject to disciplinary action. |
2.
Insofar as a
faculty member would be charged with a pattern of “intimidating,” “bullying” or
harassing behavior, is it not the case that such a charge would fall under EO
31 and be referred to UCIRO for full investigation? We take this to be the relevant passage of
Section 25-71:
“In cases concerning allegations of unlawful discrimination,
harassment or sexual harassment, or retaliation against a member of the
faculty, where the dean has determined under Executive Order No. 31 that the allegations require an institutional
investigation, the matter shall be referred to the University Complaint
Investigation and Resolution Office (UCIRO).”
What strikes us as essential about the point of this
provision in the Code is that it identifies “harassment” as a very serious and
consequential offense, which can therefore not be made frivolously: it must be
adequately documented and investigated by the legal staff at UCIRO in order for
a determination to be reached. Put another way, this provision both recognizes
the damaging nature of “harassment” and establishes that injured feelings or
ordinary workplace tensions and animosities are not a sufficient basis for a harassment charge.
3.
It is not
possible to charge someone under Faculty Code section 25-71 with “violence in
the workplace.” This charge would fall
under the purview of the University of Washington Policy and Procedure on
Workplace Violence, which covers all UW employees, not only faculty. Filing a complaint of “workplace violence”
would entail that an immediate report be made to the unit’s Human Resources
Consultant. If a charge of
“intimidation” or “harassment” is brought against a faculty member under the
Faculty Code, then (per question 2, above), the pertinent rubric is EO 31. Is this not the case?
These are the questions which we were hoping to present to you in conversation. We would, of course, welcome the chance to meet and talk in person. Given the many demands on your time as we conclude one academic year and plan for the next, we fully understand if you prefer to respond in writing.
We very much appreciate your attention to our concerns.
Sincerely,
Dan Jacoby
Eva Cherniavsky
Diane Morrison
For the UW-AAUP Executive Board
Notes on Amy’s conversation with
Richard Cordova of UW’s
Internal Audit division, May 31 at 1 pm.
The purpose was to “counsel”
Amy on proper use of email, in relation to announcement about June 1 rights
event, which Amy circulated via departmental listserver.
Mr. Cordova opened the conversation by saying he had
received an inquiry from someone in my department about the below email I
attempted to post on the Health Services faculty list server on May 17, subject
line: Re: Protecting Faculty Rights in
the New Era - Save June 1. The list server moderator felt it was “too
political” and asked his office for guidance. The person who placed the inquiry
did not consult with me first, did not permit the posting, and was not
identified by Mr. Cordova.
Mr. Cordova wanted to be sure I understood the guidelines,
especially in light of the recent complaint to the state Ethics Board for my
posting to the AAUP list server announcing a “Higher Ed conversation at the
home of Gerry Pollet.” He said he wanted to “educate you (me) on the
parameters.”
The guidance he offered was that there are three types of
messages: 1) Official UW business; 2) Personal interest messages (the latter
are generally permitted if “de minimis,” but are not permitted if they are
recommending votes for candidates or initiatives; and 3) Political messages,
but not “owned” by UW.
He made a distinction between the AAUP list server and the
Health Services faculty list server. There is more leeway for the AAUP list
server, which has been deemed not really owned by the UW, and therefore more
allowance is made for what can be posted there. That was partly why the Ethics
Board cleared the September 2016 posting I made. Mr. Cordova said he was
involved in that conversation with the Ethics Board.
A posting to the Health Services faculty list server faces a
higher bar, he said. If the event was “supported and sponsored” by UW
employees, it would be okay. I read him the list of speakers (all UW faculty)
and said it was officially sponsored by Faculty Forward. (Because he was at the
airport, he didn’t have a copy of the announcement in front of him.) He said if
it was sponsored by an “outside entity,” then the UW would be “at risk.”
I asked if the Faculty Forward organization was considered
an “outside entity,” and he didn’t really have an answer for that. He said,
“Until Faculty Forward is a recognized union on campus then it could be a
problem.” I pointed out that since all the speakers were UW faculty, and that
UW faculty are the university. He
conceded that was important (but not sufficient) information.
When I noted the moderator of the event was director of the Harry
Bridges Center for Labor Studies, he seemed to think that improved the chances
it was allowable.
Mr. Cordova expressed concern that my posting fell in the
category of “political activism.” Educating state employees on political issues
gets into the zone of “personal agenda.” It’s a “gray area,” he said, since
it’s not sponsored by a formal UW college or school. Harry Bridges Center is a
formal UW entity, of course, but it’s “sponsorship” of this event was unclear.
We also discussed the problem that no state university
affiliated or knowledgeable people are on the State’s Ethics board, and that
leaves the board insufficiently informed on issues of academic freedom. UW
faculty have little ability to influence the composition of the board, of
course, since we don’t have any entity to represent our interests in Olympia
(such as a faculty union).
Libi’s
communication in advance of the meeting:
In case I don't
have time to explain this during our meeting, I want to raise an issue related
to our past efforts on lecturer issues and the ball we put into play and handed
off to Senate FCFA (via, I believe, Jack Lee).
About two
years ago Jack and I started, and Jack finished, a proposal suggesting that
lecturer titles be changed to something along the lines of "professor of
instruction." This included proposals for other additions in creating a
more professional track for lecturers.
The FCFA
suggested they were going to take up lecturer issues, including making changes
to the code--I (and we) have tried to follow up on hearing about this work--I
know they were overburdened with salary policy snafus, and have many other
issues to attend to, but, after a year and a half? very little has been done
except for the minor changes in language sent out at the end of this term.
See https://www.washington.edu/cms/faculty/files/2014/05/Class-A-140-bulletin.pdf
I asked my
colleague, who serves on that committee what was going on--his response--He
says it was extremely frustrating and slow work and that Seattle folks did not
seem to get the issues with lecturers, or, believed they were specific to
Tacoma and Bothell. He, it seems, felt resistance and little interest in
working on lecturer affairs (despite my recollection that the FCFA under G.
Watts had indicated this was a priority for them.
Finally, I
thought this recent message on AAUP listserve tagged "A Tenure Track for
[University] Professors? from Ana Mari was interesting: "Just a quickie to
say that Faculty Senate has been working well together with the Provost and my
office to improve the working conditions and job security of our long term teaching faculty. Professor Lazowska is correct
that I am open to titles more like that in the UC system, where titles for some
of the teaching faculty is "professorial"
and where some contracts don't have to be continually renewed (although the
argument could be made that 5 year contracts, especially if overlapping,
actually offer more security of employment)."
Lazowska
said "- At UC, teaching faculty have the "working title" of
"Professor." -At UC, teaching faculty can achieve "security of
employment" - not as solid as tenure, but better than lurching from
contract to contract.
My ask--can we ask the FCFA and/or Ana Mari for
transparency/clarity on what work she and Senate are doing/have done? I know Gordon Watts
visited us fairly recently--and I missed that meeting due to another
commitment, but I thought his comments were pretty vague, reading the notes
from that meeting.