AAUP Executive Board meeting, Wednesday 8 March 2017, 3:30-5:20pm

Attendance: Dan Jacoby/president, Rob Wood/past-president, Amy Hagopian/secretary, Jay Johnson, Bruce Kochis, Jim Gregory, Abraham Flaxman/List server VP, Max Lieblich, on the phone: Libi Sundermann.

Absent: Bert Stover/treasurer, Hwasook Nam, Diane Morrison, Duane Storti, Christoph Giebel, Ann Mescher, Charlie Collins, Michael Honey, Jim Liner, Eva Cherniavsky.

Minutes approved for posting to website.

Announcements

Amy will present at AAUP conference in June (abstract on Clery Act in current climate was accepted), and she is scheduling a meeting there with Rudy Fichtenbaum, Howard Bunsis and David Hughes. She has made her registration and secured a plane ticket.

Legislative report (Bruce):

_ HB1437: Bruce reported the Faculty Regent bill made it out of the House, and doesn’t seem too controversial for the Senate. Waiting to clear Senate Higher Ed committee, but that could be pro forma.

_ SB5064: Bruce reported on the Freedom of Expression bill for students (public schools and higher ed), focusing on freedom of the press. Protects faculty advisors too. Cleared the Senate, went to the House Higher Ed committee.

_ SB5028: Mandate teacher prep programs to integrate Native American history curriculum into Pacific Northwest history classes.

Amy reported on the report we received from the UW Alliance on the Upzone negotiations. We had some gains in the City Council vote in late February. See report below, Appendix 1.

We obtained a mailing list from SEIU that we can use to invite people to join AAUP and our list server. The list is in the hands of Abie and Jim. ACTION: Jim will conduct mailing campaign.

Amy arranged for a poster advancing AAUP membership to be designed (by Robyn Ricks) and printed. We voted to hire an hourly student to go around campus to post it. We’ll emphasize AUTHORIZED postings, so it can endure. Some could even be framed for hanging in prominent locations, such as Gerberding, UW Club, etc. ACTION: Amy will hire an hourly student to do these postings.

Amy reported Dolphine Oda had had some difficulty with her chair in the wake of the Dental School’s fiscal crisis. Eva volunteered to go with her to a meeting with the chair, but the chair canceled that meeting..

Dan reported a constituent reached out to ask for support in a difficulty. We did not discuss the details. Rob has a list of attorneys. Amy mentioned that some of these issues could be referred to Faculty Forward, which may be better equipped to act as an employee advocate. However, AAUP has historically played a role in defending due process related to the defense of academic freedom.

Follow-up: Rob has sent out list of lawyers AAUP can recommend.

Duane Storti asked us to support a talk by Theo Myhre from the Law School on academic freedom with specific attention to our faculty code and WA state law. AAUP was invited to co-sponsor the event (and perhaps allocate some funds ($100 or $200 perhaps) to help with refreshments etc. ACTION: We voted to co-sponsor the Theo Myhre talk. Details of talk needed.

Strategic plan priorities.

All of our issues are framed in the context of academic freedom. Building on our planning meeting in January, we talked about academic labor working conditions, corporatization and privatization, and finance. Dan suggested we’re missing is a plank on the changing political environment and how to build a climate that protects academic freedom. Dan reframed these to suggest we direct our energies towards three priorities at the same time that we focus on strengthening our organization.

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

Dan suggested he wanted an agenda that was not so specific that it did not allow for flexibility, nor so general that it failed to provide clarity about where we would take action. Jim noted that plan might better be referred to as a Strategic Agenda.

Action: There was good consensus on the plan, with two suggestions for revision. Revised agenda appears in Appendix.

Meeting with Ana Mari Cauce re. Nov. 15 assault on a Muslim student

The board wrote a letter to Ana Mari Cauce requesting a meeting to express alarm that the Nov. 15 assault on a Muslim student was not reported by the UW under the Clery Act (thanks to Eva Cherniavsky for drafting). Dan, Amy and Lucy met with President Cauce and her communications VP, Norman Arkans, on 2/24/2017. Amy prepared an account of that meeting, which was cleared by Mr. Arkans and can be posted on our website. We also prepared a shorter report of the meeting for the list server. See Appendix 2. ACTION: We will post the communication on the list server.

UW Resist coalition membership

UW Resist is a coalition of organizations (voting members represent their organizations), which organized the January 20 teach ins. Questions: Should we join? Participate as observers? Would joining be consistent with our agenda? What are the points of unity/ principles? Who are the members? What’s the decision making process? Can we opt out of a position or an action, as a minority report? When we get answers to those questions, we could be inclined to join. Bruce noted the effect of the travel ban, especially on graduate education; UW Resist could be a vehicle for addressing these concerns. ACTION: Diane and Amy should bring back answers to these questions.

UW Tacoma conditions for lecturers

Libi reported on the situation at UW Tacoma. Conditions (job security, promotions) seemed to be improving last year for lecturers on the campus, but things are deteriorating again. There were a couple of high profile problems in job status for lecturers this year, with refusals to launch searches, retreat on full time status, and more. There are even fissures between tenure track faculty and lecturers; for example, one lecturer was told by a tenured faculty member they should stay away from other troublemaker lecturers.

Faculty Forward members have written a letter to President Cauce about the deteriorating conditions. See Appendix 3. AAUP is not asked to sign the letter at this time. We are asked to be on alert that we may get asked to be involved at some point. Libi will share the letter via email.

What’s happening in the Senate on this? They are reviewing the recommendations Cauce and Baldasty have made. The agreement was that a non-competitively hired lecturer who served two years would then have to go through a search to keep a 50% to full-time job. The Senate is considering voting rights for lecturers working 50% FTE or greater. Where “temporary” is on a search title, it’s clear there may be some games played.

At UW Bothell a goal was set to make the proportion of academic labor be 60% tenure and 30% full time lecturers, and 10% part-time lecturers.

A thought: We know there are a number of non-open but advertised hires, which hurts diversity. Either hire people who were in the jobs (because they’ve been there a long time, have invested substantially in creating courses and making relationships), or have serious searches that advance diversity.

ACTION: Dan will make a statement on the list.

Science march April 22

Who has the banner now? Bert? March is scheduled for April 22. Let’s carry it.

Amy’s response to the Ethics Board

Amy wrote a response to the complaint (see below, Appendix #4A). Abie, too, was asked to provide a response (see below, Appendix #4B). Board agreed with both responses.

No Treasurer’s report available.

*Board membership in 2016/2017 includes: Christoph Giebel, Michael Honey, Jay Johnson, Bruce Kochis, Max Lieblich, Ann Mescher, Diane Morrison, Duane Storti, and Libi Sundermann. Five new board members join us: Hwasook Nam, Charlie Collins, James Liner, Eva Cherniavsky, and Jim Gregory. Officers are Dan Jacoby/president, Amy Hagopian/secretary, Bert Stover/treasurer, Abraham Flaxman/VP for mailing list, and Rob Wood/past-president.

AAUP schedule 2016/2017 (3:30 pm to 5 pm), remaining meetings

Next meetings: 4/5, 5/3, 6/7 (social 7/12?)

Faculty Senate meetings: 4/20, 5/18

Appendix #1: Summary of U District Upzone accomplishments:

-          Won an amendment requiring a minimum 50% employer transit subsidy in newly-constructed buildings in the Upzone area. This will impact future union members in the UW’s planned building above the new Light Rail station at 43rd and Brooklyn, and sets us up well to demand the same subsidy for the rest of our UW members in the UW Master Plan process in the coming months. As a community impact, we won this same subsidy requirement for other large buildings/developers in the U District upzoned area and set a precedent for future upzones in other parts of town.

-          Won an amendment prioritizing that developer payments resulting from the U District Upzone be spent on affordable housing in the U District and not in other parts of the City.

-          Defeated of a UW-requested amendment to increase the square-footage of, originally all high rise buildings in the U-District but then narrowed to impact only the UW’s planned building above the new Light Rail station. This amendment would have given the UW a special deal for more square footage (and more income from corporate tenants) in their building.

-          We expect to win passage of a resolution (accompanying the Upzone legislation) committing the City to a study of a multi-employer child care voucher program.

-          We helped push through a study on displacement which, for the first time, will include a racial analysis of displacement.

- On the issue of increasing Mandatory Housing Affordability from 9% to 10%, which our coalition has also supported, it failed 2/21 despite support from O’Brien, Sawant and Herbold.

Appendix #2A: AAUP Communication to list server regarding attack on a student Nov. 15, 2016

We approved this message for the AAUP list server:

Dear fellow faculty,

Many of you will remember the November 15^th assault on a U.W. freshman wearing a hijab while she was on the Seattle campus (she was hit in the head with a bottle). The purpose of this letter is to let you know how the AAUP has followed up on that incident.

The campus community didn’t learn of the event until it was covered in the Seattle Times. Faculty on our list server expressed concern that under the Clery Act the UW could/should have issued a “timely alert” to the campus community (you can sign up for those here), especially since the assailant was never apprehended. Additionally, faculty expressed concern that it was not identified as a hate crime.  

AAUP members (Dan Jacoby, president; Amy Hagopian, secretary; Eva Cherniavsky and Lucy Jarosz, members) wrote a letter to President Cauce outlining our concerns. President Cauce offered to meet with us, which we did on 24 February, full notes from the meeting on our website, here.  We discussed this case along with related campus safety and climate concerns in a constructive meeting that included Norm Arkans, Vice President for Media & Community Relations.

In our meeting, President Cauce cited a delay between the incident and the calling of police, and a further delay in the diagnosis of a concussion as reasons for failing to issue a timely alert. The student subsequently sought support from Seattle’s Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which called for an FBI investigation. President Cauce reported the FBI did not conclude this constituted a hate crime, either. 

We are pleased to report that in our meeting President Cauce agreed that while she still believes the UW Police Department’s judgment that day was defensible, she stated that with increasing hate crimes and assaults on minorities and immigrants nationally, she would call for a UW Alert on similar incidents in the future. 

We pressed upon the President that the UW needs to get out in front of the events of the day. We reported growing faculty, staff and student anxiety and unease in the current political climate.   What more could the UW do to be sure people who call for assistance will be treated well? The AAUP is particularly concerned that the UW develop policies and responses to support faculty and students who are attacked or threatened.  

President Cauce shared our concerns. She told us that in the short term that Safe Campus and Hall Health counseling staff have been authorized to increase their staffing, and Student Life has sponsored stress management workshops. Additionally, the UW has developed a Bias Incident Report Form, and complaints will be reviewed within 2-4 business days. 

The AAUP is here to represent and act on faculty interests and concerns. Join us. 

Best wishes on behalf of the AAUP board,

Amy Hagopian, Secretary.

Appendix #2B: Notes from meeting with Ana Mari Cauce

24 February 2017 (Friday), Gerberding 301

Attendance: Dan Jacoby (UW Bothell IAS faculty, AAUP president), Lucy Jarosz (Arts and Sciences faculty, AAUP member), Amy Hagopian (Public Health faculty, AAUP secretary), Ana Mari Cauce (UW President), Norm Arkans (UW Associate VP for media relations and communications)

The meeting was called in response to a letter written by the AAUP board to Dr. Cauce regarding the November 15th assault on a Muslim student, Nasro Hasan. The AAUP expressed concern that the UW Police Department made no timely report of the assault, nor did it include the assault as a hate crime in its Clery report.

President Cauce explained some of the details of the case. She cited the delay between the incident and the calling of police, and the further delay in the diagnosis of a concussion as inhibiting the conclusions that the incident necessitated reporting as an ongoing threat.

The UWPD elected to make no campus-wide alert (“timely warning” under the Clery Act), nor did they classify it as a hate crime. The Clery Act requires campuses to report “listed crimes” (including sexual assault, domestic violence, aggravated assaults, burglaries, car theft, hate crimes, and more). Hate crimes can include theft, simple assault, intimidation, destruction, damage or vandalism of property and other crimes regarding bodily injury when the victim was selected based on gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, disability or religion. President Cauce noted that the FBI also elected not to classify this incident as a hate crime.

Lucy Jarosz noted the growing faculty anxiety and unease in the current political climate. It was unfortunate faculty only became aware of the Nov. 15 assault through a Seattle Times report, rather from our own administration. Jacoby noted the handling of this event appears incorrect in retrospect. President Cauce said she said it was a close call, but defensible. Now that increasing hate crimes and assaults on minorities and immigrants are being reported, Dr. Cauce believes it would be better to report borderline events

Dan Jacoby noted people on campus aren’t sure they can trust the police, and the failure to classify this incident as a hate crime, or make a timely report, doesn’t help. Are there things we can do to be sure people can call for assistance and know they’ll be treated well? Jarosz asked whether the police website include a pro-active message of encouragement to report hate crimes in this climate and also list some of relevant workshops that UWPD had undertaken given recent events. We were told that the UWPD has conducted a workshop on hate crimes and racism.

How can we better position our mechanisms to be more responsive and prepared to help? Amy Hagopian suggested the UW join the national Clery Center. http://clerycenter.org/

We were particularly concerned that the UW develop support and guidance policies for faculty and students who are attacked or threatened. Jacoby suggested faculty and students need to know the circumstances in which they can expect support and the types of support available. For example, what is campus policy regarding the ability to stop unwanted recordings and videos. Likewise, are there supports for those who have been doxxed experienced malicious internet publication of information about them). He suggested that these are areas of AAUP concern and that our organization would be willing to work with the administration on this;

Jarosz further noted notes that UW SafeCampus is currently severely understaffed, that Hall Health has insufficient staffing to meet increased student demand for mental health counseling in the current campus climate of fear and anxiety. President Cauce said in the short term the Safe Campus team and Hall Health counseling staff have been authorized to increase their staffing, and Student Life has sponsored stress management workshops.

Additionally, the UW has developed a “Bias Response Tool,” https://report.bias.washington.edu/ [Note: A “Bias Incident Advisory Committee” has been established to collect information and advise the vice president for Student Life (Denzil Suite) and the vice president for Minority Affairs and Diversity (Rickey Hall) on reports of bias-related incidents that may impact the University of Washington community. Website says: “Barring unexpected circumstance, reports received through the Bias Incident Report Form will be reviewed by a member of the committee within 2-4 business days.”]

Hagopian raised the question whether “hate posters” can be removed, and by whom. The technicality is that they can be taken down if they are “defacing” or “unapproved.” Posting hate messages can carry high penalties. The President stated her preference is for people to call the police to remove objectionable posters as there have been instances where poster removers were photographed and later were subject to harassment. All agreed the police quotes on recent objectionable posters were unfortunate (KOMO News quote by Maj. Steve Rittereiser: “Obviously, if you find it offensive you'll want to stay away from that.”) More police are patrolling on bikes to see if they can observe these Nazi poster putter uppers. Jarosz noted in her department someone had accessed the networked printer and printed out hostile posters.

The President met with the College Republicans. She has also scheduled a Shabbat dinner with Jewish students, and plans a dinner with Muslim students as well. Jarosz concurred that we should go the extra mile for Muslim, Jewish and students of color.

What can we do to support people who have been doxxed (had their identities revealed and besmirched on the internet)? We expressed particular concern for graduate students, like Alan Michael Weatherford who have been doxxed or slandered online. The President was not optimistic there was much to be done. Following up on a suggestion by Diane Morrison, we queried whether Doctoral Program Officers could be called upon to help clear prospective employee reputations. President Cauce indicated that some things along these lines are being done. She did say efforts were made to clean up the “Rate my Professor.com” site for Mr. Weatherford. (Indeed, a review of his page there today showed only positive reviews.)

Conclusions:

1. We are pleased that increased resources are being made available to support students who are stressed or who become victims in this newly hostile political climate towards immigrants, Jews, Muslims and people of color.

2. We are pleased that President Cauce indicates that an incident like that of November 15 (the Muslim student assault) would be handled differently in the future; it would receive a timely report.

3. We agreed the UW needs to get out in front of the events of the day. Police need to be viewed as allies in the defense against assault and hate, and the UW offices need to provide more support to our vulnerable students, staff and faculty. Police could start with better messaging, as well as making different choices. Administration messages need to be more proactive in advising where and when support can be provided and in defining boundary lines for permissible behaviors regarding speech. Ana Mari noted Jerry Baldasty was about to distribute such a message. Faculty also need more guidance about what can be said and what can’t be said in classrooms (which are treated differently than invited speakers). We made clear that AAUP is willing to partner in efforts that support and protect faculty and students in what appears to be an increasingly hostile climate.

Note: Campus Republicans announce they have weekly meetings on Wednesday at 6:00PM in Savery Hall, Room 136.

Appendix #2C: Letter to Ana Mari Cauce that prompted the meeting

Dear President Cauce,

Thanks you for your AAUP comment on November 29 in which you invited a small group of faculty to discuss the criteria for not reporting the November 15^th assault on a Muslim student, Nasro Hasan while she was on the Seattle campus. We understand that you found there were circumstances that made timely notification of this event to the campus community unnecessary. Instead, as you know, students, faculty and staff learned of the assault through social media or the Seattle Times coverage that appeared more than ten days later on November 26^th and 28^th. We would like to take you up on your offer to discuss the reasons that this case was found not to meet the standard for reporting under the Clery Act. We would like to meet with you either before or at our next AAUP board meeting on Feb 1 at 3:30.

In response to concerns from faculty and organizations about the lack of notification, both your office and campus police suggested it had “not risen to the level” required to trigger a warning under the Clery Act. This is a difficult decision to understand as the facts of the case reported by the Times, appear unambiguously to meet the criteria for a classification of aggravated assault, as described in The Handbook for Campus Safety and Security Reporting 2016 Edition. This classification depends on the type of weapon (or object used as a weapon), the seriousness of the injury, and (or) the intent of the assailant to cause serious injury. This attack to the victim’s face with a bottle, reportedly resulted in significant bruising and a concussion and therefore appears readily to meet the threshold for a determination of aggravated assault on all three counts. We note that the determination of aggravated assault under the Clery Act is separate from the specific charge as determined by the local police jurisdiction.¹ When an aggravated assault under the Clery Act definition is reported to campus police, our understanding is that event triggers a requirement to notify the campus community (Handbook, 6-12). In this framework, Maj. Steve Rittereiser’s assertion, quoted in the December 7^th issue of Real Change, that the community wasn’t notified because the bottle hadn’t been broken before it was hurled at Hassan appears to be an irrelevant evasion on the basis of a technicality. (the Campus Safety Handbook does not at any point suggest that blood must be drawn to warrant a determination of aggravated assault. It does, however, dictate that assaults should be reported when the victim requires medical attention as in this case where Hassan was taken to Highline Medical Center for diagnosis of her concussion).

The purpose of Clery Act-mandated notifications is to aid in prevention of similar crimes by alerting people to risk and enabling them to protect themselves. Although this appears, thankfully, to have been an isolated incident, there was no way of knowing at the time of the assault that the perpetrator would not pursue similar violence against other targets, as he had fled the scene and was not apprehended.

The issue of hate crimes is a separate matter, but one that is obviously connected to our concerns. Major Rittereiser is certainly correct in asserting to the Seattle Times that there is insufficient evidence of the perpetrator’s intent to make any positive determination that the assault against this Muslim woman was a hate crime. But the possibility that the victim was targeted for wearing a hijab would seem to constitute a clear and present risk to other Muslim women on campus of which they should have been apprised. Had there been a timely notification that a victim wearing was Hajib assaulted with a bottle, that would have conveyed the essential message necessary to put potential victims on guard.

We know these concerns have already been raised by the Washington state chapter of the Council on American-Islamic relations, among others. As elected members of the UW AAUP Executive Board, we believe that academic freedom is imperiled if and when any university employees or students feel unable to move freely and safely on campus. In this context, it seems vital that there be absolute transparency in the handling of any danger or potential danger to members of the university community, and most especially those placed at risk in the current political climate of racism and xenophobia.

We understand that there is always, inevitably, some component of judgment in determining when timely warnings will be issued. We suspect you share AAUP’s concern that in the present social and political context even any perception that the safety of a vulnerable population is not the primary and overriding consideration sends a damaging message. Again we appreciate the opportunity you have offered to discuss this matter.

Yours Sincerely, AAUP Board.

[1] “Be aware that assault cases might be categorized as assault and battery, disorderly conduct, domestic violence or simple assault by some local jurisdictions, even though a knife, gun or other weapon was used in the incident. These should be classified as Aggravated Assault for Clery Act reporting purposes.” (Handbook, 3-11, our emphasis).

Appendix #3: Letter to Ana Mari Cauce re. lecturer conditions at UW Tacoma

March 2, 2017

Dear President Cauce and Chancellor Pagano,

Over the past academic year, a variety of our members from different ranks—from part-time lecturers to tenured faculty—have brought to our attention issues and concerns with lecturer hiring, renewal, and promotion on the UWT campus. Most troubling is the failure to follow the recommendations made by then-VCAA J. W. Harrington (Exhibit B) and then-Provost Ana Mari Cauce in 2013-15 after long-term campus- and system-based discussions regarding lecturers at UWT and the other UW campuses (Exhibit A). Those recommendations have been reiterated, almost verbatim, by the UWT Office of Academic Affairs as recently as November 2016 (Exhibit C), yet they continue to be frequently disregarded in hiring practices on the Tacoma campus.

These failures include:

1. Ignoring recommended restrictions on the hiring of part-time lecturers

2. Ignoring recommended restrictions on the hiring of non-competitively hired full-time lecturers

In addition, we have received a number of reports from our members and other faculty that trend in the direction of making lecturers more precarious and less respected at our institution, thereby going against the spirit, if not the letter, of the recommendations referenced above. Specifically, we have heard:

1. That contract lengths given to lecturer faculty of the same rank have varied widely with no consultation or explanation of the rationale behind unilateral decisions—this is of particular concern regarding competitively-hired lecturers

2. That lecturer faculty have been told they would receive one contract length, only to have it shortened in their official contract with no explanation

3. That the precedent of creating competitive lecturer lines at the request of division/major faculty to replace non-competitive lines that have been open for three years has not been honored

4. That the lack of transparency and intentionality in determining hiring priorities this year has faculty of all ranks concerned about how the make-up of the faculty will evolve in the coming years and whether faculty will continue to have a meaningful voice in this process

5. That non-competitive lecturer hires are supposed to be used only for emergencies or when there is short notice for a faculty opening or an enrollment need, yet the extensive review and rehire process for non-competitive lecturers suggests a level of planning and anticipation that clearly belies the notion that these are last-minute, emergency hires

On behalf of our union members, and in the interest of all UWT faculty, we request that the administration account for the failures cited above and explain the troubling trends that seem to have emerged this year. We would also like to know how the administration plans to address faculty concerns on lecturer issues, which are once again causing tension and uncertainty among and between UWT faculty ranks and destabilizing our professional community.

Beyond questions of campus climate, these developments also raise fair-labor and pedagogical concerns. The growth of contingent faculty (73% of teaching faculty nationwide) leaves both the professionalization of academics (whether on or off the tenure track) and their students’ best interests at risk.[1] From the point of view of the profession as a whole, the failures and trends referenced above contribute to the further casualization of the professoriate and the devaluing of academic labor. And what is worse, from the point of view of the students, these developments impoverish the educational experience by threatening the continuity and stability of the teaching and mentorship they need to help them achieve their goals at UWT and beyond. Furthermore, hiring faculty without a competitive recruitment process violates federal equal-opportunity law, so the university’s reliance on non-competitive hires puts it at risk for federal action. For these reasons, the union urgently requests that you either reaffirm the November 2016 update or immediately clarify the lecturer policy recommendations to reflect the new administration’s considered position and to provide more transparency in hiring, renewal, and promotion in the future.

We are cognizant of the pressures on higher education as whole, including budget woes, as higher education continues to be often ungenerously scrutinized in our current political and cultural climate. We also realize that UWT leadership has changed often over the past few years, and we welcome this opportunity to educate you, in the spirit of collegiality, about the evolution of the role of lecturers at the University of Washington—an area where the UW has been in the vanguard of defining new careers in the academy. It is our sincere hope for our students, our colleagues, and our institution that the failures and trends cited above can be attributed simply to a lack of understanding this history and do not signal a shift away from the progress that we have made in ensuring that all members of the faculty feel adequately supported and valued.

Regardless of pressures on the administration, faculty deserve consistent transparency on how and why hiring, renewal, and promotion decisions are being made, particularly considering the clear and relatively recent recommendations by former VCAAs and our now-President Cauce that were signs of real improvement after years of neglect with respect to lecturer issues. We eagerly await your reply and hope it will be sent not just to our organization, but also to Deans and Division chairs, and the entire UWT faculty.

Sincerely,

Appendix #4A: Letter to Dan Davis, Investigator, Executive Ethics Board, from Amy Hagopian

THE UW AAUP EB

Box 40149 • Olympia, WA 98504-0149

(360) 956-7936 • DanielD1@ATG.WA.GOV

Re 2016-073

Dear Mr. Davis,

I am in receipt of your email of February 10 opening an investigation into an anonymous complaint filed against me on October 4, 2016, with the state’s Executive Ethics Board for “Use of public resources for political campaigns.” The alleged violation is for an email I sent to the University of Washington’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors list server announcing a “Higher Ed conversation at the home of Gerry Pollet.” The email was dated September 19, 2016 at 10:10:59 PM Pacific Time, which I sent from home. You requested a reply including my contact information, which is provided in the letterhead of this communication.

The email invites faculty and other subscribers to “join a conversation about the future of higher education in Washington State” with elected and formerly elected legislators on the House Higher Ed committee. The host was Bill Lyne, a faculty colleague from Western Washington University and chair of the state’s United Faculty of Washington State. The event was held on a Sunday afternoon at the home of Gerry Pollet, who is a fellow faculty member in the UW’s School of Public Health.

My September 19 communication to the AAUP community was intended strictly to alert faculty to an event that offered an opportunity to participate in a conversation about higher education policy in Washington State with elected officials. At most this was a minor, inadvertent misstep. We have for the past several years made awareness of higher education finance an organizational priority, so linking into to knowledgeable speakers is vital to our educational mission. I did not realize the event could be considered a campaign event - it appeared to be an opportunity for our faculty to discuss issues facing higher education. I concede, in retrospect, that the small print on the block art (“Suggested Donation $50”) could have been interpreted in several ways. The line was not specific about what one was donating “to.”

I apologize for causing difficulty with this communication. I would appreciate guidance about what constitutes an announcement of a campaign event. Was the $50 suggested donation the primary offending issue? Are we not allowed to announce forums or events that include elected officials or officials who are running for office? That would be an unfortunate situation, as faculty have little enough influence on higher education policy in our state. I can’t possibly see the harm in alerting faculty to this opportunity.

As AAUP Secretary, notifying faculty of opportunities to participate in discussions of higher education policy is a normal part of my work, and was not in any way intended as an endorsement or support for any candidate or legislation. I pledge to be more cautious, but would sincerely appreciate more guidance on this for future interpretation.

Most sincerely, Amy Hagopian, PhD, Faculty, University of Washington & Secretary, AAUP board

Appendix #4B: Letter to Dan Davis, Investigator, Executive Ethics Board, from Abie Flaxman

Dan Davis, Investigator, Executive Ethics Board

Re 2016-073

Dear Mr. Davis,

I write to offer information that pertains to your investigation into an anonymous complaint against Amy Hagopian concerning the “Use of public resources for political campaigns.”

I am the Vice-President for Mailing List for the University of Washington Chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). My primary responsibility is to moderate the mailings on the list.

I reviewed Dr Hagopian’s email on September 19. In accordance with our mailing list policy that “we do not post event announcements unless endorsed or approved by UWAAUP,” I shared the email with the AAUP executive committee. I did not then, and I do not now, believe that Dr. Hagopian’s email was in any way improper.

My view of the appropriateness of Dr. Hagopian’s email was shared by the other members of the executive committee and I approved the message for distribution to the AAUP mailing list.

I believe that this complaint was intended by the anonymous complainant to punish Dr. Hagopian for her beliefs and/or activities, such as her involvement with the SEIU/Faculty Forward Unionization Campaign. My understanding is that this type of complaint is known as a “SLAPP,” or “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.”

I invite your recommendations as to how I can limit the exposure of mailing list participants to such chilling effects in the future. It is essential to the success of our mailing list that individuals be able to post freely without accusations of violating ethics law.

Sincerely, Abraham Flaxman

Appendix #5. Strategic Agenda

Strategic Agenda 2017-2018

Preface: During our Jan 13 retreat we discussed strengths and weaknesses of the UW AAUP organization and began to sketch out priorities. Those efforts provide the basis for this two-year strategic agenda.

UW AAUP organization is best known for and through our list server. We provide a widely appreciated forum for issues and concerns across all three campuses. Our list editor has taken steps to ensure that divergent views are welcomed and repetition is avoided. We believe that in doing so, our list has become more successful as a public watchdog. Our strategic plan recognizes that simply providing this space for public commentary is often enough to spur appropriate responses. This is critical for our strategic plan as it allows us to focus on areas we believe require our attention.

Given limited resources, we seek to become a stronger organization by directing our energies towards endeavors directly related to our mission. Our two-year agenda prioritizes three threats to academic freedom at UW. These are priorities address:

1. Building a climate safe for academic freedom amidst increasing political polarization

2. Rolling back the new division of academic labor that weaken professional independence the increasingly hostile environment affecting students and faculty

3. Restoring university funding while resisting privatization

1. Build a climate safe for academic freedom amidst increasing political polarization. Academic freedom includes the right of all individuals to speak their minds. However, freedom of speech is not absolute license. AAUP will promote forums that aid us in distinguishing between rights and duties, speech and actions, learning and disruption, and the permissible as opposed to the required. Academic freedom is intended to encourage the widest expression of speech. However, where legally permissible speech shows potential to harm individuals or undermine the fundamental purposes of the academy, UW AAUP will advocate for resources that prevent or mitigate harm.

2. Roll back the new division of academic labor that weaken professional independence. Academic freedom relies upon the professional independence of faculty. Traditionally this has been achieved through the institution of tenure, which has been a bedrock issue for AAUP. However, we recognize that academic labor is increasingly divided by off-tenure titles and ranks. i. The independence of lecturers hired on short-term contracts is undermined by insecurity. In research institutions, responsibility for instruction is increasingly invested in lecturers who are eligible for tenure. ii. Similarly, significant numbers of research faculty are given no or only partial tenure. They are dependent upon corporate, philanthropic, or state funding that may undermine their ability to build an independent research agenda. iii. Finally, tenure track lines now support only a minority of faculty who now work in work in an environment where genuine independence is the exception rather than the norm. AAUP stands ready to investigate and advocate for the independence, security and academic freedom of all faculty.

3. Restore university funding while resisting privatization. Academic freedom has survived over centuries because institutionalized peer-reviewed prioritizes evidence over profit or politics. While peer review has survived numerous threats and has succeeded in public and non-public institutions alike. Real or imagined, fiscal crises of state have spurred a raft of policy innovations that challenge the academic integrity. Especially is this so because the public university is a primary bulwark in the fight against inequality, providing critical access to educational resources for less advantaged, diverse and low income-students. UW AAUP will actively monitor policies at the state and federal level, as well as university policies such as Activities Based Budgeting and the Self-funded degrees that threaten key public benefits and open worrisome pathways for corporatization.

4. Organization. Our immediate goal is to build the capacity of UW AAUP for effective advocacy. We seek to expand list readership and local membership through more effective outreach. Events will be designed to respond to widely expressed needs. We will seek greater involvement in planning and activities from our board, our members, and our list readers.

---

[1] AAUP, “Contingent Faculty Positions,” https://www.aaup.org/issues/contingency