Skip to content

10/10/24 Policy Committee Minutes

    Present: Hadi Esfahani, Robin Kar, Richard Laugesen, Robert Parker, Daniel Steward, Leslie Struble, Carol Symes

    The meeting began at about 11:30 a.m. with Kar presiding.

    1. Introductions. Kar called the meeting to order and noted there was no need for introductions.
    2. Review of the minutes for September 12, 2024, Meeting of Policy Committee. Since there were no responses to his request for substantive comments on the minutes, Kar announced that they were approved by unanimous consent.
    3. President’s Report. Kar noted that there are two main topics for today’s meeting. The first concerns the University’s efforts to define academic freedom as presented in the document to be discussed later in the meeting. The second is a statement just released by the AAUP concerning DEI criteria for faculty evaluation policies and the official AAUP statement on when those criteria can be used for faculty evaluation.
    4. Schedule for Fall Policy Committee Meetings: As noted in the agenda, the remaining meetings will be at the new starting time of 11:30 a.m. on the following Thursdays.
      1. Thursday, November 7 (1st Thursday)
      2. Thursday, December 5 (1st Thursday); Reading Day is December 12
      3. Kar noted there are no meetings with administrators scheduled yet and that plans for such meetings will be discussed later in the meeting.
    5. Review of New Campus Policies on IDs and Signage. Kar reminded the Committee that there was a new campus policy on IDs and signage and that O’Brien and he had volunteered to review the policy more closely and report back to the Committee by the end of October.
    6. Review of University FAQ Item “what is academic freedom and who has it?” This was the second campus action that Kar and O’Brien will review as part of their report later in October. For today, Kar focused on the answer to one question raised in the document: “What is academic freedom and who has it?” [NOTE: for reference, the answer appears below.] Laugesen noted he was pleased that this was a broader definition than that appearing in the University Statutes. Parker noted the situation could be more complex when the expression of opinion comes across in a way that may itself be rhetorically offensive. He and Kar discussed whether this could be covered under extramural speech and should be addressed more explicitly in the document. Kar concluded by noting he saw our response covering two possible topics. First, we could alert the relevant administrators of our concern that in the FAQs, they don’t address an issue of interest to many faculty members — how they plan to handle extramural statements. Struble raised a concern about what appeared to be a distinction between faculty and staff. Symes noted that staff is the broader category and includes faculty, although not everyone may be aware of this distinction. It was agreed that we note in our response that this issue could be confusing and suggest possible clarifications. The second key topic we might cover in our response is the fact that they are using a slightly broader definition of academic freedom than is in our Statutes. The Statues do protect actions concerning teaching, research, and publication, but not those critiquing educational policy. It was agreed not to raise this issue at this time. Thus, as Laugesen noted, the next step will be for Kar and Symes to formulate our response to the administration principally covering our concerns about the extramural speech aspects of the FAQ.
    7. (7) Key Actions Items Facing Policy Committee for 2024-2025
      1. Meeting with Campus Administrators or Members of Board of Trustees. Kar wants to start the planning for setting up a meeting with a member of the Board of Trustees which would include having the President or Chancellor at the meeting. He also noted he hopes to have the Chair of the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure meet with us.
      2. Publicizing October 28 Forum on Free Speech and Academic Freedom. The information has been sent to the Chapter membership. There was a discussion of when such items should be sent to the entire listserv.
      3. Membership drive. Kar discussed actions we have taken in the past (e.g., attending department meetings) and might take in the future. He stressed the key role played by having a personal touch in such activities and led an extensive discussion of actions we could take. Symes noted that she would work with Kar to come up with a plan.
      4. AAUP Statement: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Criteria for Faculty Evaluation. Kar outlined the concerns about the use of DEI statements for hiring and promotion. He summarized the two aspects of the AAUP position. First, they address the criticisms that these statements are a political litmus test and/or they are inconsistent with academic freedom. Instead, we should be thinking of conduct, not views. That is, these policies should be part of the institution’s mission to serve a group of diverse students and to address issues of systemic inequity. Thus, you may require competence in these areas regardless of the candidate’s personal positions. Second, they conclude that as long as the evaluation procedures are developed properly, they can be used. Thus, Kar suggested that we would want to let the administration know that this statement exists whether or not we agree with its conclusions.
    8. Adjournment. This discussion was the concluding topic for the meeting which Kar adjourned at about 12:40 p.m. As noted above, the next meeting of the Committee will be on Thursday, November 7, 2024, at the new starting time of 11:30 a.m.

    Information for Item (6): What is academic freedom and who has it?
    Academic freedom is the freedom to teach, both in and outside the classroom, to conduct research and to publish the results of those investigations, and to address any matter of institutional policy or action whether or not as a member of an agency of institutional governance. Academic staff have the freedom to speak to any matter of social, political, economic or other interest to the larger community, subject to the applicable academic standards of conduct. What this means in practice is that academic staff have significant latitude to express their opinions, without such opinions affecting their employment status.