Description of the following audio piece:
ROBEL: Hello, everybody. It's a beautiful day out there and so I feel the guilt of my Catholic upbringing to have you all in this room on a day like this. [laughter] Elizabeth asked me to tell you that we're doing the sign in just a little differently. The sign ups in the back of the room so if you haven't signed in, if you would take the time to do that so that you appear on the minutes. And now of course, everyone has to go do it. [laughter] And with that I think, while people are signing in and therefore distracted, I'll ask if there's a motion to approve the minutes.
KRAVCHUK: [audio indistinct]
ROBEL: So moved. Is there a second? Surely there is?
HOUSWORTH: I’ll second.
ROBEL: Okay. All right, all in favor? [“aye”] Thank you. That easily passes. All right, as is our custom I turn now to our Vice Provost Eliza Pavalko for a memorial resolution.
AGENDA ITEM 2: MEMORIAL RESOLUTION FOR MARIAN LOUISE ARMSTRONG
PAVALKO: Thank you Provost Robel. This resolution is for Marian Louise Armstrong. Marian Armstrong was deeply rooted in Southern Indiana and open to the world. Her greatest pleasure in life is learning, but it's what she taught, which taught generations of students who will be her lasting legacy. Marian received her master's degree in library science for IU in 1958. She held a part-time teaching appointment with the IU library science program starting in 1958 and in 1969, she was appointed assistant professor in the Graduate Library School, later the School of Library and Information Sciences. She taught reference resources and services, supervised student field work, and was editor of the school's alumni newsletter. Marian's ability to connect with and inspire students was phenomenal. She escorted generations of librarians to be into their chosen profession. “On my first day on the job in 1958, practice students were waiting for me at my door” and Armstrong said upon retirement, “it has been the same ever since. It often becomes a lifelong mentoring relationship.” She helped students earn jobs in schools, public, academic, and special libraries, continued to service as advisor far beyond the normal role of “professor.”
“All of us could write volumes about Professor Armstrong. We loved her quick wit, her often sardonic but whimsical and delightful mannerisms, her wisdom, and love of our profession, her expectations for excellence both in the classroom in our profession, her love for basketball, her honor for and friendship with Coach Bob Knight, and all things IU,” recalled Patty Lunsford, a 1976 graduate. Ginny Richie, a former adjunct professor and faculty member at S.L.I.S. observed that Marian made it a point to keep her ears open for opportunities that could help her students. “If she knew of a job that one of her students was perfect for, she would make that connection. She would also spend hours matching up people with perfect learning opportunity. She was interested in her students more than just as a teacher. She was interested in their success and their trials in the field.”
Marian was an active member of several organizations with a devotion to the spread of knowledge and education not just on campus but throughout the community and state. She participated in the design of the Herman B. Wells library and was instrumental in organizing cooperative programs among the Monroe County Community School Corp librarians. She served on the boards of the Monroe County library, including as president and the county library foundation. She was active in the American Library Association, the Indiana library Federation, and the Association of Indiana Media Educators.
Marian was a member of the IU Athletics Committee from 1971 to ’77. She also served on the Executive Council the I.U. alumni association and was on the Woodburn guild board of governors. She received the School of Library and Information Science Distinguished Alumni Award in 1990 and the I.U. Alumni Association Gertrude Rich Award in 1999. She was elected to the Library Honorary Society and received the Beta Phi Mu, Chi Chapter Service Award in 1992. Friends and colleagues recall her enthusiasm for a profession and for the university. She had an impish sense of humor and the sheer joy of life in pleasure being with other people that made it exciting to be around her. Above all else, it was the impact on her students that will remain. Many librarians in Indiana and beyond have a sense the excitement of the profession and connect it with real people thanks to Miss Marian Armstrong.
ROBEL: She was here for that long period of time. Can we all please stand for a moment of silence? [silence]
Thank you, so much. We turn now to our President for Executive Committee Business.
AGENDA ITEM 3: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE BUSINESS
TANFORD: I just want to start by picking up on adding one other thing to Marion Armstrong. Those of us who knew her for all these years, she was never able to escape her nickname and those of you old enough to get the references, she was “Marian the librarian.” [laughter] And I want to - obviously it's on our minds - I want to express first of all my personal sadness over the senseless violence in Las Vegas. Both my sisters live in Las Vegas. One of them teaches Casino Management at the UNLV university. They were in town but not at the concert. They know people who were. It was just a tragedy. The latest sort of gun violence tragedy. I am hopeful in this case, since it occurred at a country music concert, already the country music industry, which had been traditional supporters of the N.R.A., have come out and said maybe it's time we really do need to rethink this.
I've expressed sadness also over the continuing crisis in Puerto Rico and was struck by the difference in how easy it was for me to verify that my sisters were safe and how difficult it has been for our colleagues and our students to verify that their families in Puerto Rico are safe. I'm just thinking - I just you know praying for them and just hoping that that situation just gets better before it gets worse. I do have a couple of things from the executive committee. One is to acknowledge that there have been several - I've gotten several emails, proposed resolutions, various communications relating to the Benton murals about whether we should endorse the Provost's letter, whether we should think about other things. For those of you who have submitted them, I think that the immediate need for a response has been reduced because of the Provost's action. The executive committee is deciding how best to define our role as the faculty in continuing that discussion. In that regard I came here from having been a guest lecturer at an undergraduates SPEA class that was supposed to be talking about some of my public service litigation work. It was a SPEA class in public policy of some kind. Instead it talked most of the time about the event and speakers on the Benton murals and the decision. I can say just on behalf of those forty students from a variety of backgrounds, they were completely in favor. They understood the reasons and the history and why they proposed took the action she did and they were all supportive of.
The other two things have to do with committees. Just to let you know – some of you have already seen this. The executive committee and the director of our faculty council office have developed a template for B.F.C. policies that derives from the University's template for policies in attempts to have policies go into a kind of a uniform structure so that people can find things, so that they're searchable on our website. So for our committees, as you are thinking about resolutions and policies and putting some of these things into writing, please make sure that you don't just start from the existing draft. The existing policy which might have been written in 1974 and instead start from the template. Get it from Elizabeth and start from that. It will make the process go very easily. Secondly, a request where I think we are now through again working with the director of the Faculty Council Office in setting up e-mail list serves for each committee.
Please use those. It’s easy once you get them in your system. They'll pop up on a magically. As much as possible try to use those rather than communicating via private email, which as we all know, got Hillary Clinton into a lot of trouble. [laughter]
We are a deliberative body that is you know acting sort of engaging, acting, making policy on behalf of the University and there needs to be a paper trail. Most importantly, Elizabeth or her assistant at the faculty council office needs to sort of know what is going on - what the committees are thinking about, what their agendas are, because she has to coordinate the University Faculty Council, the Executive Committee, Campus Administrators, faculty not on the B.F.C., the other committees who come to the office and say “is anybody - you know you will get five emails going “is somebody doing something about the Benton murals?” She has to know and the easiest way for her to do that is if you use the list serves. And with that, I'm done.
AGENDA ITEM 4: PRESIDING OFFICER’S REPORT
ROBEL: Thank you, very much and I guess I'll start with the Benton murals as well. I've gotten many hundreds of emails since I sent my email out to the campus and I apologize if I haven't responded to yours yet. I’m responding first to people who have concerns or questions.
I've learned a few things. For instance, I've learned that are very heavy use of Woodburn 100 as a general inventory class has precluded our K through 12 teachers in the State from actually bringing their students to look at the murals during Indiana History in the fourth grade. The rooms haven't been available and it's also made it difficult for our Art historians who work with the murals as well to have their student’s access the mural during - that part of the mural during class time when they're discussing the murals. I want to be clear that I expect the room to be heavily used. That it is the kind of space that we are short on the campus and so being able to have it available for lots of uses will be, I think, a net addition for the classroom or for the campus. I am particularly obviously interested in prioritizing the use of the room by particular classes that are thinking about and talking about the murals and what they represent. I'm delighted. In fact I'm writing to the school corporations in the state to invite them to come to Bloomington Indiana History at some point and spend time with all of the pieces of the mural. And I'll be putting together a small group too, but I think Events should manage that space, just as it does other spaces that are available to the whole campus. But I will be putting together a group and I've gotten many wonderful suggestions from faculty members on the campus about various things that we might do in the room.
I have prioritized writing back carefully to everyone who disagrees with my e-mail. It has been a wonderful opportunity for me to communicate and teach with our students, help them organize their thoughts and their arguments a little bit, and see if I can get them into a place where they're engaging on substance and understand the meaning of the words ad hominem. That's actually been quite enjoyable. Yeah, I miss the classroom. So, I'm happy to answer questions from anybody about this and I do welcome your thoughts and ideas as we move forward. I'm excited about the opportunity that having that space available to our campus represents.
I want to go next to Puerto Rico. Typically when there are natural disasters, I reach out to the universities involved in those areas to see if there's anything that we can do. You know, anything we can provide: Do they need help with their students? For Texas and Florida the answer was “No,” they were back very quickly. Puerto Rico is a different situation and it's also very hard to coordinate effectively so I've been trying to work with the national organizations of universities that are reaching out in the country to see if there are needs that we can meet, either by providing a place where students to go for a while or in other ways. The universities have suffered pretty devastating damage, so I will let you know as that continues but I just wanted you to know that that was happening. Then I think I can move right into questions and I'd like to start with one that was submitted ahead of time and then just open it up for questions from this body. There was a question - I had made the comment I think sometime back, perhaps when Steve Sanders was presenting at our last meeting or the meeting before that.
I'm concerned about - and I'm sorry for having been to elliptical here - controversial speakers in academic buildings so I want to clarify what I mean by that. I was disturbed that when we had the visitor to campus last spring that event took place in here [Franklin Hall], not because I thought that it shouldn't take place on campus but because the assessed security requirements for that event necessitated extraordinary limitations on the use of the building. And I don't, personally, don't think that we should be limiting the use of an academic building, some place where we're holding classes, where faculty need to get in and out, in the ways that we were required in that event to limit access to the building. So I'm not talking about our ordinary baseline level of controversy, this is an exciting campus and we should have speakers of all viewpoints and they should be all over the place and they are in our classes. I'm talking about speakers that have demonstrated at other campuses in particular. That they have needed a very high level of security to appear on the campus, and in those instances I think we are better off as a university assuring that speakers can speak on our campus, but in a place that does not require us to shut down, for all intents and purposes, an academic building. When classes are going on. So with that I'll just open it up to questions from the body. Bruce?
AGENDA ITEM 5: QUESTIONS/COMMENTS PERIOD
SOLOMON: This is a follow up on the requests that Alex made last time that we communicate with our constituents, and I heard a rumor that Elizabeth was preparing distribution lists that we could use for that purpose and I just wanted to find out what we can expect there.
PEAR: The rumors are true. Those lists do exist. They still need updated and tweaked. That has been high on my priority list and yet has not happened, so that is on me. I hope to have them done this week and I will e-mail members as they are ready with what their list is.
ROBEL: Thank you. Other questions? Thoughts? Yeah, Elizabeth?
HOUSWORTH: So what do you think about Jeff Sessions thinking - Did you read the New York Times article about Jeff Sessions thinking that Georgia Gwinnett College should let the protester disrupt classes outside of a free speech zone. He doesn't believe in free speech zones on campus.
ROBEL: And actually I don't think we do either, in the sense that we don't limit speech to particular zones on this campus. We have a couple of places that we'd like to kind of keep quiet, but every public sidewalk is available for, you know, for speech activities of any kind, protest or otherwise. So, I didn't actually read this. I will read with great attention. The attorney general's advice on how we approach our mission. Thanks. Ken?
DAU-SCHMIDT: Where are you're thinking that security risk speakers would speak then, if they don't -I'm not saying they have to be here - I'm just I'm just wondering where are you thinking?
ROBEL: There are several places that are not in classroom buildings that we can use. Whittenberger is an obvious place. Alumni Hall is the same. University gym, actually, has a lot of parking and a lot of space around it. There are there are quite a few places where we can be on campus and, depending on the assessment of the security needs for an event, you know, I think we can guarantee that speakers can appear on campus, no matter where they are. Just so long as we can assure the safety of the speaker and anybody who wants to disagree with the speaker. But that’s what I'm thinking, actually. We've done an assessment of all the auditoriums as other places where we don't hold regular classes and there are not faculty offices right there. Yeah, Judah?
COHEN: I want to want to express my deep appreciation for your offer of help to the University of Puerto Rico and also just want to check to see if you've done the same with the University of the Virgin Islands.
ROBEL: Oh, good idea. No, I had not. Thank you. Anything else? Well thank you, so much. Don't hesitate to email. We’ll move at this point to proposed revisions to the IU Sexual Misconduct Policy Faculty Board of Review. Alex?
AGENDA ITEM 6: PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE IU SEXUAL MISCONDUCT POLICY UA-03: FACULTY BOARD OF REVIEW
TANFORD: Alright, this is a little quick background. There is a university level policy on sexual misconduct and that's one step above our pay grade. That has been in the process of being written, rewritten, revised, approved, debated for almost four years now. So what this is - what I'm asking is not about the basics of that policy. The basics of that policy set up a method that a person who believes they've been the victim of sexual misconduct can come and file a complaint, get some support, move it through the system. There's an investigation, an initial decision, and an appellate process. That's not, you know, the things that are showing up in the paper about preponderance of the evidence standards versus clear and convincing and things like that. That's not on the floor for us right now. It might come back at some point, but it's not. This is a more narrow issue, which is what to do in this process about the Faculty Board of Review? In other words, the way that most of the sexual misconduct policy is structured, and was originally written, did not think through the fact that if a faculty member is involved and that faculty member feels aggrieved by adverse administrative of action, that that faculty member has the right to a Faculty Board of Review, whether it's sexual misconduct or anything else that is at the basis of the reason for the action.
So just - and I'm on the drafting committee for this policy, and have been for two years. And just when we thought our work was done, somebody, possibly even me actually read everything in this policy and said wait a minute this does not provide - this isn't clear about Faculty Board of Review. So we're talking only when a faculty member is involved and only the Faculty Board of Review process, which would kick in. In complaint, investigation, decision, review and appeal of that decision that would include a sanction. If that sanction is against a faculty member, then at that point there is a right to a Faculty Board of Review. We are going back to the drafting table. A committee that is made up of one representative from Bloomington, me; one from IUPUI; one from the regional campuses faculty; plus Emily Springsteen, the Title IX coordinator and Jenny Kincaid, the chief policy officer at the University level. And what I am here to ask about is your feedback, if any, on what the Faculty Board of Review should look like if a faculty member has been disciplined, or actually in this case probably has been disciplined, would be a review of disciplinary action that has taken place. If that person has been disciplined for sexual misconduct and, obviously there are there are three options: one - which I don't know that anybody actually supports - would be to deny them a faculty Board of Review because this is a unique area. The other one would be to have no changes whatsoever conducted regular before the Faculty Board of Review. And the other option is that there have been some suggestions made in the handout lists of possible ways that one might modify a Faculty Board of Review because of the nature of the issue. And the nature of the issue is twofold. One is it's kind of a three-part process instead of a two-part process. Normally you're Dean doesn't like you, they take away something, you object, it's you versus the dean right? In this case, the Dean has done something because a third party claims to have been a victim, so you've got a third party involved. So one question is what's the appropriate role in the Board of Review for that third party? Do they get to appear or be heard and participate in a board of review? That would be somewhat of a change over our usual system. The second one is that, certainly at the University level, there is an expectation that the Title IX coordinator will coordinate these things. So there's a question of whether that adds almost a fourth potential party, the Title IX coordinator who needs to know what's going on. So does the Title IX coordinator have a right to be there and participate?
And the two other issues. One is the University policy emphasizes, for good reasons, that in sexual misconduct cases, rapid resolution of the issue is important. People who have been the victims, or believe they've been the victims, are just driven crazy by long, drawn-out processes that don't reach a resolution. Our Faculty Board of Review process is not really long and drawn out but in one case has like 120 days to file a complaint over the time the action was taken. So there's a question about whether we should consider shortening some of the time frames for that Board of Review in the interest of both parties to get a resolution as rapidly as possible.
The other one is whether some modification of the process is appropriate. In other words, do we - the University’s proposal in this was that the Board of Review not do its usual fact finding process, but rely on the investigative report done by the University the couple of months before, their reasons being that it may not be appropriate to subject a sexual misconduct victim from repeated and having to explain things over and over again in different forms. But if you do that now you're changing the usual Faculty Board of Review process when you're taking away - you know the faculty members right to basically look at somebody and say “aren't you lying about this because they gave you a bad grade?” I mean that there's a risk in completely insulating the statement or the evidence from the victim from the usual kind of ability to question people. And there may be other ways that one might deviate from a Board of Review. There's a lot of experience in this room, either directly or indirectly, with faculty boards reviewing with other sitting on other kinds of positions where you had to review the conduct of colleagues and so I worry that when I go to this drafting committee I will express only my own views. And that's not why I'm on - and I'm on it to be a representative of the B.F.C. So I would encourage people to give me some suggestions - to talk about this for a few minutes about what you want this Board of Review to look like. I don't have the unilateral power to make it happen, I'm one vote out of five. But I do want to know what position to take.
ROBEL: Thank you. Let me, if I could, just say a few things about what the process looks like now because I think that might help in giving advice to our president and I want to thank him for serving on that committee for such a long time. That's actually, you know, working on these procedures. The current provisions in the sexual misconduct policy require that the F.B.R. be closed to the public to protect the privacy of the faculty members. There would be an appeal obviously to the Faculty Board of Review by a complainant who disagreed with the outcome. We all agreed that that would be inappropriate. It requires that the request for the Faculty Board of Review be made within ten days and be concluded within sixty days. And then it gives me a ten day window after that to do the review of the Board's work. Typically, I think I have thirty days. There's only been one case on this campus in the time that this procedure has been in place, but of course I would comply with the time requirements.
The Faculty Board of Review for sanctions less than dismissal can review bias or procedural error. And for higher sanctions the F.R.R. can review bias and procedural error, fighting of responsibility and appropriateness of the sanctions, and I guess I just point out there that it would not be very unusual for an F.B.R. not to be in the position of doing original fact finding. The typical F.B.R. case comes out of a denial of tenure in which the F.B.R. is bound in fact by the record that has been created up until that point and is looking for procedural error. But in cases that involve sexual misconduct and dismissal the F.B.R. can't go beyond that and look at the finding of responsibility. And then of course the faculty member can have an advisor, who may be an attorney, present but the attorney or the advisor isn't permitted to participate unless it's to read one of the party's written statements or the only party. There's no confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses and the F.B.R. can't conduct new fact finding. Some of that comes out of the requirements of the Violence Against Women Act, but I thought it might be helpful for you to have some sense of what the procedure looks like now. Alex raised some questions and it turns out he raised them at exactly the point that our current Secretary of Education has also raised questions about the procedure and rescinded the Dear Colleague letter so it’s the opportune time to send the committee back to the drawing board while we await - as has become usual lately, further instructions from Washington. So with that I'll open things up to the group. Okay, Diane?
AGENDA ITEM 7: QUESTIONS/ANSWERS FROM PRESENTATION ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE IU SEXUAL MISCONDUCT POLICY UA-03: FACULTY BOARD OF REVIEW
HENSHEL: One of the things that's kind of a concern for me about this is that we're trying to set up kind of an established protocol in a situation where, sometimes, it's made up as you pointed out and sometimes it's more than one complainant or more than one person who has been mistreated. So there might be more than one complainant and in fact in cases and some cases there are many and they may not still be students as well. There may be a police record that may not have been taken into account up to that time, though I would assume that it was considered in the investigation. So given the very very different aspects of it, is it possible that there could be something a little more open that might have some negotiation with the complainant and their lawyers?
ROBEL: You're right to raise the complicated interaction between the investigations that the University does and is required to do and what happens if the criminal justice system decides to move forward with a case. It complicates things tremendously. It complicates the advice that lawyers give to their clients if they've been accused of sexual assault. It also complicates what happens to people who are complaining about sexual assault and so it's probably helpful to separate the investigation of these claims and the initial findings of responsibility from the set of issues that Alex is raising, which really have to do with the role of the Faculty Board of Review at the point that a faculty member might have been the subject of adverse action.
HENSHEL: I understand that. And what I was thinking about was more (e) and (f). So (a) I think is always appropriate, no matter what, because it's always appropriate to have education of the Faculty Board of Review about a really difficult subject. But more on (f) that the active role of the complainants and how it would play out. I think there might be some complainants that want to participate and some complainants that absolutely don't want to participate and so kind of setting it up as a forced, one way to do it might be a difficult situation in this kind of a problem. Especially if it's a severe one.
TANFORD: Do you think that's true in terms of the open and closed nature of the hearing also? Or do you think that everybody would want it to be closed?
HENSHEL: They've been traditionally closed in the past. Unless there's a particularly good reason to open it, I would tend to keep it closed personally, but that's my bias.
ROBEL: And I also suspect that there are - and Alex would know better than I since he's been on this committee – there are requirements that come out from outside of the University that we've been reacting to on who can do what when. So I think – Eric, did you have your hand up?
RASMUSEN: Yes. Two points. One just to supplement what Diane said, it might be good to give the committee the discretion to do things like fact finding without imposing the requirement on them that they do it. Since the purpose of this really is to review egregious cases of administration overreach or something. We would hope that it most cases wouldn't have to have the full panoply of things. Second point, I guess I'm going to be the first person to raise the idea that maybe the victims should be allowed access, if the victim is a faculty member and they object to the University not taking action. Since that seems to be a similar case. We’re worried about the administration not responding to something and maybe not giving process. So I hope the committee thinks about that. At least if there's a second person in the world who thinks that.
ROBEL: Thank you. Other comments or thoughts? Yep, Rebecca?
SPANG: Picking up on what Eric has just said, I'm concerned that a faculty member with a proclivity for harassing junior colleagues and graduate students might then think “I'll focus on the graduate students, because if I don't get penalized for harassing them, they can't appeal to the Faculty Board of Review because they're not faculty whereas my junior colleagues might.” So there's a weird difficulty of - given that this is a behavior that could have calamitous effects for the career of the students and faculty and then faculty victims would have a right that student victims wouldn't. So my immediate reaction was to be very sympathetic with what Eric said, but then when I thought about the bigger context, I was very confused in my own head about how to create a parallelism there. The other thing that I'm afraid I'm really thinking, and I may not being be being very objective about this, is that I think we know that very few cases of sexual misconduct get reported and go to a formal hearing on university campuses. And I think we know that even when those cases do become formal complaints, it's very rare for a tenured or permanent member of the faculty to be penalized in any significant way. And I think we also know that sexism and abuse of power are sadly still really problems in universities. So I am inclined in this instance to weight things in favor of the victim. And to think that - I'm sorry Alex it just made my skin crawl when you said this doesn't allow the faculty member to say “you're making this up because I gave you a bad grade.” I don't want anybody who has gone through the process of claiming, rightly or wrongly, that he or she was sexually assaulted by a faculty member to then, after it's been found that in fact he or she was, to then have to sit through another meeting where somebody says you're making this up because I gave you a bad grade. That just feels very very wrong to me. I'm sorry, like I said, I'm not sure I'm completely rational on this.
ROBEL: Thank you. Other thoughts or ideas? Ken?
DAU-SCHMIDT: I’ll actually speak on the other side of that, because I don't know that we know any of the things you said. And I think that historically due process of the rights of the accused have been very important in this country and these tenured professors or these professors with a property interest in their job at a public university certainly do have due process rights. It's very important that no matter what they are accused of, that those rights not be trod on. So my advice - and you know this is a two-step process and so there can be right to the lower proceed process or whatever, but I would advise you not to trod on the accused due process rights and some of the things that are suggested here, I think, pretty clearly would.
Traditionally with employees who have property rights their job, who are accused of a crime. They have a right to notice. They have a right to be heard. They have a right to be represented by an attorney. They have a right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. They have a right to an impartial judge. They have a right to a standard of proof that's higher than preponderance of the evidence and at least some of those things are definitely called into question by this process here. So I would urge you not to tread on those rights.
ROBEL: Thank you, Ken. I think that it's important for everyone to understand that faculty members who are tenured do, indeed, have the right to very stringent procedural due process. I want to be clear that we separate out an employment action in which that's the case and a criminal case because a criminal case is a very different thing with much higher - I know it feels pretty high and it is for someone to lose his or her job - but it's not the same thing as the possibility of losing one's liberties. So we need to keep separate the procedures that are appropriate in a criminal case and focus back on the fact that we're talking about what is really the University's procedural due process for faculty members. And in cases that do not involve sexual misconduct, the review at the Faculty Board of Review is procedural due process and I think what we're looking at right now is in fact procedural due process for tenured faculty members at a public university. That is for an employment action. For an adverse employment action. Remember that people still have the right after there's an adverse employment action at the University. After they've had an opportunity to be heard. After they've had a chance to present evidence and I won't express a view on lawyers, since this body is the one that said that we should be banned from Faculty Board of Review proceedings but after all of that, people do still have recourse to the courts if they feel that they have somehow not had procedural due process at the University. Sexual misconduct cases don't take a profoundly different route on procedural due process than other cases of adverse action against a faculty member. The only thing that is seriously different, I think, and I'll turn to Alex on this, is that we have some federal requirements that come out of things like the Violence Against Women Act and out of Title IX that require us to do some things differently with respect to, in particular, people who have made claims of being subjected to sexual assault.
TANFORD: Yeah, and my view is that right now with the change in administrations, the law governing some of this is in chaos. And so what we need to do is to develop a policy that we think is right and fair. That's our job. The University doesn't have to adopt it. The Provost, to whom the Faculty Board of Review gives its recommendation, doesn't have to follow it. But the Board of Review itself, the question is – and I think Rebecca had sort of the right idea – it's at some point, in this is that kind of difference between you, at some point when things are balanced on that knife edge, a policy is going to have to either favor the victim or favor the accused, in some sense. And that's the place where it is most difficult if you shield the accused, many people who work with, you know, sexual violence victims say you should protect from the kind of harassing cross-examination that defense lawyers tend to do and they do it because they know they can intimidate. If you shield them from it, then you run the risk that in that shielding, you will not be able to expose a false accusation. Not saying that there are any, but there was an outmoded - the problem in this area is there was a study, it's now outdated maybe thirty years ago in Denver - that found that roughly forty percent of accusations of domestic violence and sexual violence that were made could not be substantiated. But, that of the group that had been - where they could substantiate the sexual violence, something like sixty percent did not get a resolution in their favor. It is a difficult, difficult area.
ROBEL: We are at the end of the allotted time for that discussion and so what I would suggest is, if you'd like additional information about the existing procedures, I'm sure Emily Springsteen, our Title IX coordinator would be happy to give them to you and I'm I know they're also available in our policies. If you have comments for Alex that he should take back to his drafting committee, I'm sure he would be happy to receive them. And if that's all right, let's move on to our next agenda item. All right, which is questions and presentation on the COACHE survey report, delightful.
AGENDA ITEM 8: PRESENTATION OF THE COACHE SURVEY REPORT
PAVALKO: Well a little lighter topic, so thank you. I appreciate getting the opportunity to talk to you all about the report, and I especially look forward to hearing reactions and thoughts that you have on next steps. I want to start off giving you, very briefly - I am going to work very hard to keep this within ten minutes - but give you a little bit of background on the report and how we came up with it and how we looked at the data. Currently it's posted on our VPFAA website and the link was sent out to all faculty at the beginning of the semester and so it's open to the public and there. Our goal in the report was really to provide what I thought of as a kind of a mile high view of the data. And particularly identifying the major patterns of both strengths and weaknesses and primarily then to prioritize the areas that we saw as areas of concern that we need to all work on and have further study if needed. So the process for the early stage we had a review committee and included myself and the Vice Provost in our office, so John Nieto-Phillips. This was last year when we worked on this Christie Ochoa, myself and Jamie Prenkert and then our, at the time, President of B.F.C., Rebecca Spang. And then the immediate past President Cassidy Sugimoto. And then also, when she - who I also wanted introduced to everybody here - Wen is a research scientist in our office and does many analyses, including did all the analysis for this. So what we did is we had each member of our committee independently look at all of the data, look at all the patterns, and review that and we met several times and spent some time trying to figure out what we thought were the really big issues that were popping out of the data. We also decided early on to focus on - and we spent some time figuring out - focusing on what we should do, what would be most useful, was the first pass - the first step would be to provide a fairly brief summary, kind of executive summary to highlight those, both the strengths and weaknesses.
The challenge, and I promise this is not a data chart that I expect anybody to be able to read, [laughter] but the challenge and I think all of you hopefully all of you filled out the COACHE survey so if you did you know that there's a lot of data in the survey. There are between 250 and 300 variables. There are fifteen different topical modules and so this is the report we get from just one of those. I thought appropriately the module on shared governance and so give me an idea there are twenty four variables in that module and then for any given module - again I realize that you can't see this, but the all the different little arrows indicate how those means, not only the mean for the faculty overall, but how they break down for different subgroups of the faculty including by gender, by race, and also by rank.
And this allows us to do a number of internal comparisons which of course we did in the report. It also allows external comparisons both to our five different peer institutions we that we defined and the entire cohort of 109 institutions that participate in the survey. And, if that's not enough data, there's also comparisons over time. So the point of this was that we looked at all of this data for all fifteen modules and tried to see from a lot of this busy-ness what the patterns were and I'm not going to go into length on the report, which hopefully you all got to read but there are a number of strengths. Of course overall satisfaction. In general our faculty are fairly satisfied and more so than many of our peers. We were very strong on satisfaction with benefits, health and retirement benefits, but also policies, practices, and cultures supporting work-family balance. Were very strong on work resources including library and computing, support for research, and number of things in there. A number of other areas where we saw some strengths of things like clarity of our tenure processes and we saw increase satisfaction among junior faculty, pre-tenure faculty so this is good and we were pleased with that but of course, especially our offices goal, is to make IU a supportive place for everybody. So since seventy two percent is good, but we worry just as much and probably more about the twenty eight percent than the seventy two percent. And so that's what I'm really going to focus on in terms of - and what our committee focused on - was one of the areas that really need some action.
The first one was the need to – one of the things that really jumped out was to improve compass campus climate for underrepresented faculty. I think one of the things the data tell us very clearly is there's a very stark difference in how our minority and majority faculty experience life on this campus. One of things that we found interesting was there wasn't a lot of difference in satisfaction with support for work environments, things like perceived support for research teaching and service and knowing that minority faculty often have very heavy service loads for a variety of reasons. I was surprised that we didn't see more difference there but we didn't. Really where the difference came out very striking of course was the experience that kind of the cultural experiences the campus. Comments on things like sense of fit, whether colleagues are committed to diversity inclusion, a sense of visible leadership on diversity, so in terms of action that we've already really started, John Nieto-Phillips of course was on the committee, and really started last year and all through last year - and of course is now in the reorganize Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion. That's been his central mission is to tackle this issue. Certainly data from COACHE but a number of other things. So you know the office is reorganized. He's working with each school and campus, and college on the campus, for diversity plans. Jointly with us we're working on hiring and retention issues. He's meeting with a number of faculty groups and building community and I certainly know John talked to those bodies before and I'm sure he'd be glad to elaborate more but that's an issue that certainly felt like there we didn't need a lot more data or analysis. It was very clear what needed to be done and he started on that.
Likewise, another very strong pattern was the need to improve the environment for Associate Professors on the campus. Really quite strikingly, associate professor is the least satisfied of any rank, including the non-tenure track faculty and this is true for our peers institutions as well so we know that there are some things that maybe systemic to that rank but that doesn't mean that we're we don't worry about them. So there are several areas in the data that stood out for action. Particularly mentoring of associate professor and departments and clarity on expectations for promotion to full professor, as well as a number of concerns that were expressed about difficulty balancing teaching, research, and service. So some of the actions that we've served on already here. We are working and really sort of working last year, but especially this year, with department chairs to make them more aware and to think about the mentoring and policies - governance policies that they have in place. We've been working with Institute for Advanced Studies and also OVPR which oversees IAS. and also we've learned that there are a number of other groups on campus that are concerned about the, you know, working conditions for Associate Professors and so we've been beginning to work with those groups to try and figure out how we can all meet these needs, but not duplicate each other's efforts. So we're working on figuring out what the resources are, where the gaps are, who's best at doing what, other kinds of things. Certainly we are deeply committed to the writing groups and helping them grow, which they continue to do. Expanding writing retreats, which we've done and continue to think about. Certainly continue investment in National Center for Faculty Development and Diversity that a number of associate professors participate in. And I should mention that Kim Geeslin, who is an Associate Vice Provost in our office, has taken really as one of her primary things that she does is to really wrap or head around and begin working on associate professors and is sort of making some headway on that.
A third area that doesn't come out strongly in the COACHE data, although I think when we look more closely it does in some components, but that's improving conditions for non-tenure track faculty. And more than really in the COACHE data, we know from, you know, certainly a variety of different focus groups, the town halls that the subcommittee has done, the work of subcommittee their issues there and so that's also something that really is clearly meeting kind of multiple levels of work from, and is getting multiple level work from, certainly this body, and from our office, and working with chairs and departments on cultural issues.
There are two other issues that I think are more areas that need a little more attention or could use more attention. One that we talked about in the report were gender differences. Gender differences were interesting in that in that they were - the pattern look quite different from the other the other two areas I talked about. What we see is there a very small number of areas where there are large differences between kind of how men and women experience the campus. There are things that make sense in a lot of ways. Time available for research available. Ability to balance teaching, research, and service and also department as a place to work. But kind of an area that is a little more puzzling is there are lots of areas where there are small but significant differences and they span across a wide range of things. They kind of show lower satisfaction with things like classroom and library resources, but also things like sense of fit and recognition from department chair, so that's an area where I feel like we need to dig in more and look more closely at the data. There's clearly something of concern going on, but it's not clear for example how much that overlaps with the kinds of concerns of associate professors or if there are certain departments or areas where it comes up. So that's something that definitely we will be doing, is developing a committee to look at that. Another area which is kind of lobbing it back to this body, in particularly to Alex, is there is this whole module on faculty governance and how faculty feel about faculty governance and I think that's something that we haven't dug into, but it might be something that this body decides to look more closely at because there are twenty-four items on it and so there's some data there. So I think I'll stop there.
ROBEL: Great job with exactly ten minutes. Let's open it up for questions. This is fascinating and it’s just the beginning of really looking at these data so Alex you have a question?
AGENDA ITEM 9: QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE COACHE SURVEY REPORT
TANFORD: Yeah, on the shared governance. Does the survey differentiate shared governance within their unit from campus-wide shared governance in terms of their satisfaction? That is, do they feel that one is - if they feel they have a role in how their department or their unit sets policies that might be quite different than their feeling about how to be absolute operators?
PAVALKO: I'm cheating because I'm looking at the items here, so it doesn't specifically ask for – No, it doesn't specifically ask about department and University or school level, but it asks things - you know, questions such as, “I understand how to voice opinions about policies.” We ask “whether faculty and administration should follow rules of engagement?”, “do the faculty and administration have an open system of communication?” So I think there's certainly ways and then you certainly have the ability to look and see whether there are subgroups where there are more hotspots than others.
ROBEL: And I'm sure there are clever things that one can figure out to do with those data.
PAVALKO: Exactly, which is why we have Wen. [laughter]
HERRERA: Yeah, I have a question about the N.T.T. conditions. So you mentioned that you're going to work with some chairs about those issues so I don't know if that's going to be presented as a report or as thing that what that is going to be in form? And also the N.T.T. conditions, how are we compared to our peer institutions?
PAVALKO: Yep. So in terms of what we're doing with chairs and how to let them know - I think Jamie, I think he's also working to fit within time, but he's going to present some of the information from the COACHE data in the next presentation. But in terms of working with chairs, we’re doing a number of things with them. So we're on the one hand we're just making sure that all chairs know that that there really need to be policies and procedures in place and the other thing is - and we focus primarily on lecturers and says one of the big categories every time there's a lecture or hired in a department, we're specifically going in and making - there's always been school level policies for promotion and that. But making sure the department has clear policies and procedures about promotion and then if not, then we make sure that those get in place before the faculty member arrives so we've been very clear on that. And then I'm trying to remember your second question.
ROBEL: Comparison to other institutions.
PAVALKO: Oh, comparison to other institutions. We look very similar. There were - one of the things that's very surprising when you look overall at the COACHE data - and I'd be happy to do a presentation on that sometime if you all want with non-tenure track - is that there are really very few differences between non-tenure track and tenure track faculty on most of the satisfaction items. We look pretty similar to our peer institutions in terms of how our non-tenure track back to feel about that.
ROBEL: Yes. Alan?
BENDER: Yeah, I'm wondering what different categories of N.T.T. you have information for in terms of different appointment categories, and was one of them research scientists, for example?
PAVALKO: Yes, and we may want to expand more. One of the things that we've just been looking at and, if Jamie has time I think he will present today, is initially we look just at all of non-tenure track, but there are some research faculty who responded as well as some instructional faculty. So some of the items, particularly those where they ask specifically about teaching or research or research support, we broke those down and looked at again. We've just started that, because this is a kind of a first step, but there are some interesting patterns in terms of that. I think Jamie has time to present that today, but I'm not sure if - there's a lot of the N.T.T. stuff too. But we have start looking at that.
BENDER: And you look at different ranks, also, within each appointment category for the N.T.T.
PAVALKO: That would break it down way too small in terms of - you know we have a very small handful. But we compare different ranks of tenure track faculties and we compare assistant professor instructional to either research or instructional but we're starting to get into – I don’t remember our numbers - but we get into a pretty small numbers. Especially if we look at any other divisions across there. So we haven’t broken it down to, say, “Assistant Research Scientist.”
CALLOWAY-THOMAS: Yes thank you. In your “What’s next to be continued phase” are you planning to ask minority faculty what would constitute a supportive environment for them?
PAVALKO: That's a great question. So that's really the area where John Nieto Philip's is office is really taking the lead in terms of you know looking at the data and deciding what next. I know that he met with groups of faculty last year and I don't know exactly what they're doing now, but I think part of it is trying to get a sense of - I don't know if they've asked that specific question, but I do know that they're talking to groups of faculty now in small groups and individual even in times. But that would that would be a good question for John.
ROBEL: Other questions?
COHEN: Two very brief questions. One have you differentiated between number of years in rank for Associate Professors and do the numbers differ at all in looking at people who have just become associate professors versus those who have been in the rank for a while? And then the second one is I’m wondering if you might be able to keep a list of those groups that might be considered minority groups that are indeed well-represented in the University but might be deeply under-represented in the local populace? Looking for example at those that might sort of not “fit in” or not appear in the COACHE survey like religious minorities or Muslims, Jews, Hindus and so on and so forth is something just to keep an eye on as you keep on looking for modes of satisfaction.
PAVALKO: That's certainly really interesting since we are actually - I should say the COACHE data didn't collect information on those kinds of things, but you're right. I think even when we look at these broad categories there's a lot of heterogeneity even within a group of faculty such as these so there's going to be variation within those. In terms of the years and rank, we actually were just talking this week. The COACHE data would probably give us some leverage on - actually not sure if we have years of rank in that in the number of years, but we're also looking at a number of other - certainly we have other information on years and rank for our faculty and where people are. So we've started to explore whether we can match that to the COACHE data in some ways, so we can see. One of the things, I don't know if you all saw this summer, there was a really interesting series in, I believe it's in the Chronicle, about Associate Professors nationwide. And one of the proposals they had of the ideas was that there - and it made this makes a lot of sense - that there are different groups of faculty. When we think about Associate Professors, there are people who are kind of a few years out from tenure and are kind of continuing to do a lot of things and they're kind of charging along, and their needs are going to be very different than somebody who might have been in rank say a dozen years and maybe has done something else or shifted directions. So we are trying to look more closely at that so that we can get a handle on what those groups might be for this campus and what their needs might be because I think, and certainly, I know I.E.S. and O.B.P.R. and us are trying to think about how we can target resources the different groups might need.
ROBEL: Great. These are great questions. Others?
TRINIDAD: Sort of along the lines of what was Judah was mentioning is there any thought of tracking either groups or individuals over time? I know that the data might be anonymized, but if you could somehow link people in surveys over years and see for example what effect tenure has on your happiness level or lack of happiness level because obviously a lot of those factors are going to affect how they feel about X, Y, and Z.
PAVALKO: Yeah if the if that least the repeated cross-section data suggests anything, then what we've find is surprisingly after tenure people’s satisfaction goes down. [laughter] I don't mean to laugh about that because it's not funny but it is. So the data - we actually don't have any and for reasons of protection and confidentiality we don't have the individual I.D.'s on people and so that would be something we'd have to check with Harvard and see if they could do because we don't have access to that data at that level. But it would be interesting to see or might be reason for another study maybe a smaller sample to look and see how folks change as they move across.
ROBEL: Any other questions? Israel?
HERRERA: Yeah, a question we got of the in the concerns about N.T.T.’s if most of the concerns are related to promotion or to sabbaticals, or to retirement. I wonder what was maybe the main concern for N.T.T.’s satisfaction?
PAVALKO: Yeah, so again the overriding pattern in the COACHE data for N.T.T. faculty was that they were actually more satisfied - certainly more satisfy than associate professors. And certainly on benefits and things like that because non-tenure track faculty have essentially the same benefits. There weren’t differences there. Where we saw some differences - and I haven't looked at that in a few days, but there were some differences in how much interaction faculty had with tenure track faculties. They felt like they had less interaction. It was a satisfaction question but less interaction and I believe also promotion, kind of clarity on promotion if I'm if I'm remembering. Isn't that right? But I certainly would be happy to kind of look at that and if you want to e-mail, I’d be happy to look back kind of look more closely at it for you.
ROBEL: Great. Good. Time for maybe another couple of questions if you have questions or directions you'd like to see the research go as we dig in. What I love about the COACHE data is that it allows us to benchmark against other institutions like us and so it gives us some sense of what the meaning of these response might be. You know we're not simply asking ourselves how we feel about ourselves, but we're also asking how we compare with other institutions that look like us and that that's the most valuable thing about these data. So as you start - at least for me - as you start looking at them and reading the report and thinking through what you'd like to know you might ask. I'm sure the Vice Provost would be delighted to get your questions. Yeah?
CHERRY: Just occurred me to ask the question. This is also [inaudible] for the first time for that committee. There's a possibility with the formation of new schools to also maybe get more longitudinal kind of data about how well these organizations work and what the impact might me. And so could this certain kind of data or something that also be viewed in some kind of school by school, because I know one thing then had been challenging for some the new schools recently is we still have some issues about how do you handle reorganizations of schools within a school like we do it with the College of Art and Sciences or just occurred to me that maybe also to review how well certain we are as reorganizations or things are going. Maybe if data could be collected in that regard.
ROBEL: That's a great observation. We’ll look at things - I obviously watch very closely, but the kinds of things you would expect - you know enrollments and things like that and retentions of faculty members, hiring - exactly the kinds of things you would think I was looking at. But doing some study over time with these and comparing faculty - I know it's a huge burden for a faculty to do a reorganization, there are all kinds of governance issues that come up immediately so I would almost to expect that people would go through a dip in their satisfaction from just the amount of work that's involved. But I think that's a great idea. Let's see if we can figure out - if you have suggestions let us know - but we'll see if we can figure out some metrics that might make sense. Yep, one more.
NELSON-LAIRD: I know satisfaction is something that's important to look at but it's a pretty narrow topic. Are we collecting information routinely about other things for example, this body is charged or has governance over the curriculum. Are we collecting information about how people are teaching and what's going on in that area?
ROBEL: We are. Through the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education in particular, you may have noticed - I don't think Dennis is here today, but he did want me to thank all of you - he is away right now, but he wanted me to thank everyone who participated in the accreditation meetings. That was terrific of you to give your time and thank you for doing it and so far so good.
But here you may have noticed about Dennis that he comes from a background in which data is the most alluring thing itself [laughter] So he does quite a bit of analysis of all kinds of things around the curriculum. Many of them extremely interesting results. Things that you would not expect or we find out things about patterns of how students are taking classes or how they're thinking their way through particularly undergraduate education in ways that at least I find pretty interesting. Well we are exactly on time if you are exhausted with your questions and thank you so much Wen and Eliza for that, that's terrific. We look forward to further result. It's great to be able to have that kind of window into the campus.
We're turning now to an open discussion regarding non-tenure track faculty issues. Jonathan Trinidad and Nick Williams, co-chairs of the non-tenure track task force and I see Jamie Prenkert has also joined you. I suspect to talk a little bit about data? Yeah! Okay, all right I turn it over to you.
AGENDA ITEM 10: OPEN DISCUSSION REGARDING NON-TENURE TRACK FACULTY ISSUES
WILLIAMS: Thanks for this chance to bring some issues about N.T.T. to the council. I'm hoping that this will be the first of a few sessions that we can participate in with these issues. We're picking up on work that has long been done by this Council largely through the Faculty Affairs Committee as an entity subcommittee that collected a lot of information over the years as a task force. We existed for a time and ceased to be, so with our own mortality very much in front of us where we're hoping to bring a couple of issues over the academic year to you. And as you'll see the first one that we're hoping to focus on today is the issue of N.T.T. participation on this body because that's the issue that this body has control over.
We quickly came to realize that it would be an efficiency to put a few ideas before this group to get a sense of what the state of opinion is here. That it would allow us to proceed more efficiently in coming up with a more specific proposal. So while there aren’t any voting items that we're bringing to you today, we do have specific proposals we want to open the floor for discussion but also to focus discussion by giving you some specific language on two proposals. And I don't think I'll be letting the cat out of the bag to say that we regard one as more important than the other: the one that focuses on N.T.T. participation on this body. Just in case instantaneous unanimity broke out here and then we were all you know ready to move forward, we brought a second proposal as well but if we focus on discussion on participation in the B.F.C. that will be good and as I say the most important thing we can gather is the sense of this group. So I'm hoping that we will quickly get to discussion but we also wanted to lay out some statistics and some background for what we're doing. So I’m going to pass things on to Jamie here.
PRENKERT: Thanks, I just want to quickly do some foundational background laying that may be helpful to inform some of the discussions that are going to come before us. There are a number of non-tenure track academic appointment categories that are listed here. I list them here because the next slide is going to give you some data on trends over the last decade of the census count for academic appointees. Just to go over these quickly, you have classes of Instructional and Faculty of the Lecturers, the Clinical Faculty, and the Professors of Practice, who are evaluated on their teaching and the clinicals also on their service. You have research ranks that include the Research Scientists and Scholars, the Research Associates, and the Post-Doctoral Fellows, Academic Specialists who don't primarily do teaching or research, but who engage in academic support of programs or of academic advising or other academic activities, and then Visiting Appointees who the visiting nomenclature can modify any of the other appointment categories, but the policies make it clear that that then is a separate appointment category. A visitor and visitors can only be appointed for two years unless there are special circumstances in which the Chief Academic Officer of the campus grants an extension. You'll see on the next slide that there's an “other” category, the other category is not particularly meaningful for the conversations that you intend to have today and so I don't want to spend too much time on it in addition to the fact you'll see in 2016, there are only seven people who fit in that category.
So this graph shows you the census data trends from the last decade. It's 2007 to 2016. The 2017 census snapshot is taken this week and so that is why that information is not on this slide. A couple of points to just quickly highlight. Obviously the tenure-eligible faculty of that blue line that's at the top show that tenure-eligible points are the most numerous appointment category at all times during this decade, and while there's been a growth in tenure-eligible faculty over the decade if you see below, the various categories for non-tenure track faculty, there has been potentially greater growth among some of those appointed categories, although some, for instance Research Associates, have actually decreased in number over that time. At the very bottom of the graph, you'll see in 2011, Professors of Practice were introduced and we went from a few to twenty-seven in 2016. If you combine all of those appointment categories that are non-tenure track that appear in the lower sort of fifth of the graph, it is still the case that tenure-eligible appointees are the majority at all times throughout the decade ranging from around 60% in 2007 to around 55% in 2016. It's important to keep in mind that some of those non-tenure track appointment categories are not faculty categories in sort of a number of ways that we might define faculty. Another way that I want to just sort of remind you that we could look at the impact and involvement of non-tenure track faculty on the campus is through the instructional effort.
Now our office provided a great deal of information in a report in April of 2017, the last academic year, and Eliza did an extensive presentation but I would invite you to go back and look at the archives if you'd like to see the circulars and the information that came with that. It was the April 18th meeting. If we look at the instructional faculty, we see that the full time instructional faculty tenure eligible faculty are still the majority. If we look at full time and part time that number goes down some, but we actually fare better as compared to our Big Ten Academic Alliance by moving up one step away from the middle. I think the important thing - one of the important things to note and this is true if you go look at the data that Eliza went over in April, that as you look at the headcount of instructional faculty, obviously the instructional effort because of the nature of the teaching loads of non-tenure track faculty, though it varies across schools, will have a sort of multiplier effect on how many sections, how many credit hours, of non-tenure track back the teaching in comparison to tenure track faculty and there are lots of Interesting information you can go see from that.
Another way to think about the balance of non-tenure track faculty and trends with regard to non-tenure track faculty in comparison to tenure track faculty is to think about the definition of faculty that I think Jonathan and Nick will say a little bit more about but I just want to give you a sense of some trends. The Constitution of the Bloomington Faculty defines faculty to include professors and librarians who are in tenure eligible positions, as well as a subset of those non-tenure track academic appointment categories that we looked at earlier. And so if we look at my initial list of non-tenure track appointment categories, the Constitution actually singles out these three categories that I, for purposes of just easy nomenclature here I've never actually heard it called this anywhere else, but just so that we can know what we're talking about, I refer to a constitutional non-tenure track faculty here. And so a couple of data points with regard to them. If you look at the three of the lectures, the clinical faculty, and the research scientists and scholars, combine them and compare them to the tenure eligible faculty in the 2016 census snapshot, we have a situation where there is just under 30% of the constitutional faculty or the faculty according to the Constitution with the rights and responsibilities that come there with our non-tenure track - if we look over the last decade again at that census data, we see that the growth in the non-tenure track constitutional faculty has been of the slightly steeper rate than the growth of the tenure track faculty ranging from roughly 20% in 2007 to that what I said was just under 30% in 2016. I have a few slides with regard to the COACHE data, but most of that information came out in the conversation, I'd be happy to answer questions about that for the sake of time I'll forgo those now.
ROBEL: Thank you.
WILLIAMS: Okay, I'm going to give a little detail about what the committee's been doing but as they say get quickly to the to the issue of N.T.T. participation on this body. I hope and think that another group of slides will show up but I keep going. I want to provide a little bit of history for this issue. It hasn't been that long that the current rules for N.T.T. participation have existed which is a matter of having three N.T.T. faculty on this committee that goes back to 2007. We looked back at the proceedings the minutes for that meeting and discovered that the idea that we're presenting to you today, proportional representation, did arise at that time but obviously wasn't accepted at that time. Since that time as Jamie just pointed out the number of N.T.T. has risen so if a case for proportional representation existed at that time it only is multiplied by this time. I wanted to lay out for you briefly a few of the other things that the task force is looking at, putting first and foremost the issue of participation on the council. We're also looking to clarify and disseminate promotion guidelines for N.T.T. faculty. The other item that we provided for you as a circular concerns best practices within units, since that's not entirely within the B.F.C.'s power, we kind of thought of participation on the council as the first order of business. We also have in mind putting together a bill of rights that would emphasize particularly N.T.T. matters and this could really speak to some issues like promotion guidelines and it would give some clarity. A long term goal, one that's not easy to achieve, is thinking about proposing alternative titles. In particular using the term professor and in particular using the concept of teaching professor. Folks might know from other institutions the existence of teaching professors. That's something that's difficult to achieve. It's something that it needs to happen at a university level, but it's something that we have as like as a long term goal to just to discuss. In a way the last item here is connected to the main item we're putting before you, just wondering, just raising the question if an N.T.T. faculty member might also be on the executive council of the B.F.C. It can be separated from the overall issue of participation in the council but it's also been brought up as a possible topic.
So to get to the main issue before us, we thought one thing that would be helpful would be to just put before you on the slide here the make-up of the B.F.C. Not all of these people listed here are voting members. Two of them are not, but just having these numbers in mind might kind of focus the mind a bit on what kind of things need to be done. If this group does accept proportional representation, there's a limited number of ways to make that happen and we're going to be describing to you what that limited number of ways is and hope to get from you a sense of what way you all prefer.
TRINIDAD: Okay. Continuing on, as Nick said there's been a lot of discussions. There was that subcommittee last year, there's now a taskforce, there's a caucus, and having these sorts of discussions amongst all those groups, we sort of land on the consensus that what we want to put forward as a guiding principle, if you will, is a notion that non-tenure track faculty should have a proportional representation within the B.F.C. and then many of you might be aware of the university policy the so-called 60/40 rule. So however the Constitution gets changed to allow proportional representation, we need to do that within the confines of that rule. I don't want to read all of this, but just to help what the discussion today about what might actually need to be done. I know some of you this is your first day on the council but it isn't necessarily straightforward, it doesn't occur just within the B.F.C. but the bottom line is there would be a vote within the B.F.C. and then a vote within the full faculty. So there would be a meeting of the full faculty and ratification.
So here are some relevant sections of the Constitution Jamie pointed this out. Who exactly is the faculty – Section 1.1 deals mainly with tenure track faculty; 51.3 talks about non-tenure track faculty - I skipped over the librarians, my apologies. And then the many of the members in the B.F.C. who are within there are currently actually written into the Constitution as opposed to the bylaws. So the bylaws can be changed within the B.F.C. but the Constitution needs to be changed within a full faculty vote. And so here is the list of where those people show up in the Constitution. So broadly speaking there are sort of four main flavors of ways where we can make this happen, i.e. the proportional representation and they're not meant to be mutually exclusive. You can easily imagine some sort of combination, but number one would be keep the size of the B.F.C. the same and increase the number of N.T.T. that would obviously have to come from somewhere. Again that's sort of what we want to have the discussion about. One obvious idea would be to take do away with for example the at-large seats that would be approximately the number of N.T.T. seats we're talking about. Alternatively, number two, we could just increase the number of representatives on the B.F.C. There are obvious practical limitations, I mean we can find a bigger room or change the seating, but at some point the body becomes less effective. Make some adjustments to the number of non-voting factory Representatives - I put that up there just as a theoretical construct and I imagine that might run into a lot of resistance from various quarters, so absent some sort of overwhelming consensus I don't think three is necessarily the way to go by itself. And then finally there is the potential of allowing N.T.T. to vote for representatives within their unit, i.e. at this stage what would be tenure track positions but have them open to all general consensus amongst those. Various working groups of committee and task force would be to not go along route number four, but that is one option. And with that, I guess, we will take questions.
WILLIAMS: Or should we put of the language of the . . .
TRINIDAD: Oh yes, sorry, sorry. Yes, so here is the current language of the Constitution whereas Nick mentioned the three and N.T.T. members are explicitly stated. One from clinical, one from Research Scientist research ranks, and one from the lecturer ranks. And a very draft version of our proposed revision would basically be to just put this principle within the Constitution without dealing with the actual numbers. We feel like that would be more of a bylaws issue and particularly in light of the fact that the N.T.T. representation or N.T.T. existence in the University is changing we don't want to put hard numbers in the Constitution itself.
So should I read this out? [inaudible agreement] Alright. Non-tenure track faculty shall be represented by a number of members which reflects the proportion of non-tenure track faculty to tenure track faculty on campus with the voting weight reserved for tenure track faculty to be at least sixty percent, again in keeping with that 60/40 will rule. The non-tenure track representative shall be distributed among three groupings, lecturers, clinical appointments, and professors of practice and three research appointments, i.e. research scientists and research scholars in a manner proportionate to the size of those populations of non-tenure track faculty. All non-tenure track faculty members must qualify under Section 1.3 of the Constitution, getting back to what Jamie was saying, we're not talking about all non-tenure track faculty just those three groupings.
And I think we'll just leave this for now, you have that circular, but again we want to focus on this language today.
ROBEL: Could I ask a question just to the previous presentation on numbers, absolute numbers on the campus coupled with revision - coupled with the fortuitous argument of the gerrymandering case in the Supreme Court today, made me wonder, has the task force looked at the question of representation in terms of the absolute number as of people in various categories as compared to say the size of various departments? In other words that kind of analysis about proportional representation.
TRINIDAD: We have not broken it down in that granular fashion, but we have had some discussions sort of acknowledging you know the unit representation within the B.F.C. is sort of semi-proportional because each unit must get at least one, although the units don't distribute nicely in size. So some units certainly have more proportion than others currently. But I don't have the numbers on how that breaks down.
ROBEL: Yeah, and sort of the tenure track, as it would be, I will need Elizabeth or someone to think this through, but the proportional representation you're talking about is a kind of proportionality that we haven't really dealt with on this body. You know we've looked at proportionality from the perspective of units and not ranks so there's probably some analysis that needs to happen along that axis when you start talking about proportionality by ranks, but I’ll just leave that as a question as I'm waiting to hear what Justice Kennedy was thinking today. Okay, Bob?
KRAVCHUK: Well, Lauren, you've kind of anticipated my question. If I can put sort of a sharper point on it. Would you anticipate that voting for non-tenure track representation on the B.F.C. would be to represent the tenure track faculty across the units or within units? This is really important. A very large proportion of tenure track faculty are in the professional schools. I'd love to have two or three more SPEA representatives here with me, frankly. And Kelly would also be represented probably disproportionate to its unit size. That’s I think a concern so this is something that I think would have to be worked out in a way that was mutually acceptable to everybody concerned.
TRINIDAD: Certainly, so part of the reason we wanted to have this discussion in this sort of fashion today is we started touching on those in the taskforce and very quickly realized, without getting feedback from the B.F.C. at large about what the different concerns are, we didn't want to go down an alley and bring it to it in a more polished fashion and realized we have to address these.
KRAVCHUK: Just a follow up, I mean a lot of the issues could be sidestepped if we were to take the plunge and study the possibility of providing a tenure track career path for the instructional faculty, you know. And that would give them a very similar stake to the full-time current tenured faculty in the enterprise overall and I think that it would actually overcome many concerns although that's a major plunge for an American university to think about.
ROBEL: Let’s see, who else had hands up. There we go.
WITHNELL: So as you know, you and others expressed their opinions. I’d very much hear from professional schools have a very different viewpoint than the college and so I'm trying to bring all these things together. You have to remember the college doesn't have the same N.T.T. representation as the business school has or perhaps SPEA. And so it's a complex mix.
SPANG: Can I ask the task forces representatives to elaborate on why they didn't like the idea of simply folding N.T.T. in to the already existing unit representation?
WILLIAMS: One thing we talked about is whether simply combining populations would have unintended consequences about proportional representation between schools since it is the case that N.T.T. faculty are not evenly distributed across schools, it would change the balance of representation between different schools. I'm trying to phrase this in such a way that it doesn't reveal paranoia about the dominance of the Business school [laughter] but it's probably there somewhere.
MOLESWORTH: Here's what I want. I want people who want to be in this body, so I guess my question is there you know a desire among I mean if we open up at-large seats to N.T.T. faculty members, I mean would this indeed make this a better university or would this improve the conditions of the job for N.T.T. faculty? You know N.T.T. faculty in many cases are not expected to perform service. I mean this might be seen as an additional or even increased burden. Are there other Jonathan Trinidad's out there, research scientists who are you know willing and desirous of being a part of this body?
TRINIDAD: So I would kind of answer that in two ways. One is will it make the B.F.C. a better body versus how would it improve the University right? I've been thinking a lot about this part of it is - and it's true I would say if you had to speak very broadly that the N.T.T. faculty are less engaged than the tenure track factory, but a lot of the reason behind that is you know they've been disenfranchised if you will, or disempowered. And if you don't have buy in, then you're less likely to be involved and so that won't magically change things overnight. But if you're never expecting the non-tenure track back only to think of take a more active role in self-governance then it's hard to complain that they're not involved in self-governance. And you touched on - yes there will be never another Jonathan Trinidad [laughter] but there is a – and I brought this up in various contexts - there is a disconnect between the jobs expected of the N.T.T. and governance right? As a research scientist I am only evaluated on my research and so you could make the argument that anything I do that doesn't involve research indirectly takes away from my research and thus compromises my sort of career advancement. All I can say to that is that we hopefully are all here because we care about the University rather than we care about our next performance evaluation.
WILLIAMS: And my informal discussions with some N.T.T. faculty just to get a sense of what people think about this proposal, because I was a little bit afraid that this proposal might be seen as mere window dressing and not substantial. But I get the sense that one of the leading issues for N.T.T. faculty is a sense of a lack of respect or a lack of regard. And from the folks I've talked to, I really get the sense that this would be a way to indicate respect.
ROBEL: I think Diane is next, and then you. Diane?
HENSHEL: Just to clarify that clinicals and professors of practice are evaluated on service, so just making a broad statement like that isn't true. And sometime I would love to bring up in this body, so this is not for now because it's not totally applicable, but this trend towards non-tenure track when we are supposed to be a Research-One University is a little concerning. And I would like to have that be a future discussion.
TANFORD: I also want to respond to Jesse. As last year's Chair of the Nominations Committee, the first round when attached to the bottom of some memo that went to your spam folder, we asked for people to indicate committee preferences, I got zero responses – well, I got a few responses so I had to go door to door. When I sent a targeted email through Jonathan to the N.T.T.’s saying would you like to be on the university committee, I got at least one hundred responses. I got more responses from N.T.T.'s volunteering to serve on committees than I got from the tenure track faculty. So you know, half my colleagues in the law school, it would never occur to them to do any kind of meaningful service at all outside their own - you know they're never going to be on a committee or run for the B.F.C. or anything, so at least in that one respect I didn't see any difference in the interests of non-tenure track faculty in being involved in service and shared governance that I saw on the tenure track faculty.
ROBEL: In defense of the law faculty, [laughter] there are three of us sitting around the table this minute and Alex and Ken is next in line.
DAU SCHMIDT: Thanks, Lauren. I'm on the taskforce, so perhaps it's just self-serving to say I applaud the taskforce for looking at these issues and I hope that this is - at least representation on the B.F.C. is an easy issue for this body. I did take the time - what I do have to add is I did take the time to talk to our non-tenure track and we may have a different situation law school we have - I didn't count up exactly how many but we probably have a dozen of them. They’re about a fifth of our faculty. They can go through a process and apply for a long term presumptive contract in their program whether it's writing or a clinic or whatever. We see them as long term valued members of the faculty who have both teaching and service requirements. I would think that with requirements like that that they would have useful things to say to the B.F.C. When I talk to them about being represented, and we talked about the numbers, the fact that there are only three representatives now and that proportional representation would be as many as fifteen, they were kind of chagrined and shocked that they all were suffering with such little representation right now and I did actually talk to them about the question of whether or not they should just be folded into our unit and get to vote for and run for the same slots that we did or whether they should have separate proportional representation. And we talked about that a while and there are some trade-offs in some ways just folding them in recognizes them and treats them the same way and they want that, but also they wanted to make sure that they would not be dominated by the larger group and that they would have representation. So they kind of the consensus - there certainly wasn't it wasn't unanimous but the consensus among them was that proportional was the way to go so I think I support what they want out of this proposal and the direction that the task force is going.
ROBEL: And I want to say just two quick things. The first is to thank Ken and urge that everyone here do the same. That is go back and talk to your colleagues who are lecturers or clinical rank faculty members so that you have a sense of the concerns and questions and issues that they may raise. And the second is simply to point out that as a matter of policy at our University, lecturers and clinical rank faculty, research appointment faculty, do have a career path that includes long-term contracts. It's not limited to any particular school its University policy across the board. Elizabeth?
HOUSWORTH: Before this meeting I did go around and talk as best as I could to various constituencies. So I talked to my non-tenure track faculty and found that they were willing to serve. I talked to them and they also were supportive of proportional representation even though I described to them the issue of treating classes of faculty as states rather than as people. I also talked to number of my tenure track faculty and they are not supportive. Almost universally not supportive of this. The reasons include a number of things, but they include that the faculty on this list are specialized in only one or two areas of the triumvirate: the research teaching and service missions of the University. And they're worried that people with a role that is regulated to one or two of those areas won't have the breath necessary to really weigh on it in decisions on the third area. So I'm little bit - I'm doubtful that based on the people that I spoke to that this would pass if it were to go to a Constitutional amendment.
ROBEL: It's an excellent point to also talk to your colleagues who are not in the N.T.T. ranks because ultimately if we do go all the way down this road, it is important to have a sense of what will happen at the larger convening of our faculty. And I think it's also important to note that we skipped over the substance of the voting question and went directly to the way in which it would be implemented and perhaps it's important to have that discussion as well. We've got another five minutes. Yeah?
SOLOMON: Yeah. I have a lot of respect for our non-tenure track colleagues, but I also know that if you ask any subgroup that's under represented on a body like this they have proportional representation of course they're going to say that's what they want of course they would want that. But as Diane said we are a Research-one university. The direction that we take at this University and as a faculty I personally want to see that guided by the tenure track the faculty. The faculty that do have fingers in all the pies of service, research, and teaching creative activity that's what makes this campus different than a junior college or something like that. So I'm sympathetic to the desire of non-tenure track faculty to have representation and to be treated fairly and so forth. I'm really worried by the trend when the Provost says looking down the road, I mean we're talking here about potentially 40% of this body ultimately being non-tenure track and at that point you know if you look at the figures for University of Michigan if they had if they had proportional representation their faculty council would be dominated by non-tenure track faculty. And that that doesn't make sense to me for a University campus like ours - a campus like ours really that that's aspiring to be a University of the first rank.
ROBEL: Okay, Moira is next and then [inaudible]
MARSH: Thank you. Just to respond to that and also to pick up on the issues that Diane mentioned maybe not for maybe not for now but for later but actually it is related which is that the 60/40 rule for example. I believe the reason we have that is because the thinking is that if people are going to really participate robustly and actively participate in shared governance that they need the protection of tenure. I think that's the sort of general understanding of what you were saying a moment ago and I see the point of that. It's not a guarantee that anyone who's tenured suddenly grows and grows a backbone and it's not a guarantee that anyone who's done tenured lacks a backbone, but there is that that protection isn't there. I'm concerned as many people are with this sort of growing, not exactly a cast system but a system where we have some type of faculty who are tenured and a bunch of other faculty who are almost tenured but not quite. So one way to perhaps fix - one part of the solution perhaps and it wouldn't be the whole solution and would be a difficult thing to get through, but a part of the solution would be to create a tenure track for non-tenure track faculty in one way shape or form. I’m not advocating simply giving tenure to folks without them having to earn it because that wouldn't be right either but the fact that we have a greater and greater portion of the faculty who are not tenured, and cannot be tenured, raises concerns for the future of shared governance. So just that.
ROBEL: Let’s see. Ted you may have the last word, we’re at 5:29.
MILLER: Thank you, Lauren. I would just like to say that these discussions can be viewed as something to be undertaken to sort of help the non-tenure track faculty if you will. I would like to encourage you to think about this from another point of view. In 2001, when the university appointment policy was approved establishing the appointment category of lecturer the lecturer category was in fact viewed by the faculty as being something separate from the tenure track faculty. Doing work that the tenure track faculty probably could not do as well as a group of lecturers. That was very much in the minds of the faculty as the approved this category of lecturer appointment. Now in the last sixteen years . . .
ROBEL: I do have to warn you that while you do have the last word it probably doesn’t give you sixteen years to go over it because they were at 5:30 and were under the limitation of the B.F.C. rule for adjournment. So I could start with you next week when we come up. Would that be with that be. . .
MILLER: Well, I won’t be here next time
ROBEL: Oh, okay.
MILLER: I’m a substitute.
ROBEL: We are at five thirty one and so proceeding does require the unanimous consent of the body.
SPANG: I move to let him finish. Okay, yeah.
ROBEL: Okay, yeah. All in favor?
SPANG: Is he going to take sixteen years? [laughter]
ROBEL: Okay, there we go. I think we have unanimous consent.
MILLER: I was actually going to jump from 2001 to 2017. So where do we find ourselves today? Obviously the lecturer category has expanded significantly and I think it's indisputable, although in some departments I think math maybe one of them, in some departments given the increased enrollment on the campus the non-tenure track faculty is substituting for the tenure track faculty. The teaching they're doing is exactly the teaching that the tenure track faculty would be doing if we had enough of them. And now to the extent that we have a significant amount of critical work being done by this group of non-tenured track appointees I think it would be frankly a disaster for the Bloomington campus going forward if we ended up designating that group of faculty as a second class group. A group that we didn't think was eligible or competent or whatever to participate in the governance of the campus. I just think you know if I were the President of the university going out trying to persuade everybody what a world class institution this is. But gee, fifty percent of the teaching is being done by second class people and I would want to do with it if I were the president and I don't think we should end up in that place.
ROBEL: All right so I think what this convinces me of is that we need a full and robust discussion of the underlying substantive issue before we get to the procedural issue and I would urge everyone to be sensitive and careful in the way we talk about this. And with that state of the University as on the 10th at 2 p.m. in Indianapolis. Bye.