Present: Hadi Esfahani, Robin Kar, Richard Laugesen, David O’Brien, Robert Parker, Leslie Struble, Carol Symes, H. F. Williamson, Carol Tilley
The meeting began at about 11:30 a.m. with Kar presiding.
(1) Introductions. Kar noted that there were no introductions for today so he moved to the first action item.
(2) Review of the Minutes for December 5, 2024 Meeting of Policy Committee. Since there were no responses to his request for substantive comments on the minutes, Kar announced that they were adopted by unanimous consent.
(3) President’s Report. Kar introduced his report by noting he wanted to acknowledge that we are moving into a new milieu with respect to the challenges that academic freedom will be facing so that we may need to follow the lead of masters of aikido to take actions that will redirect our attacker’s energy and neutralize their attacks. One goal today will be to start our work on the action items noted in the agenda. The second will be to review the items listed as “Old Business” to see which are still to be addressed and which are completed.
(4) Schedule for Remaining Spring Policy Committee Meetings. Kar noted that the schedule was in the agenda with meetings scheduled to start at 11:30 AM on the following Thursdays:
January 23 (instruction begins January 21)
February 13
March 13 (Spring Vacation starts March 15 and ends March 24)
April 3
May 1 (Reading Day is May 8)
Laugesen indicated the schedule had already gone out to everyone as an Outlook invitation.
(5) Action Items
(a) Overview. Kar noted that the three major events we sponsor each year are those listed here. He noted that one valuable action taken last year was to have attendees at the Panel on Promotion and Tenure register with their email which made it easier to contact them about AAUP matters.
(b) Setting up Meetings with Campus Administrators. Last term, he and Carol Symes reached out to the Provost’s office and have a commitment to have a member of the Board of Trustees come and speak with us. Two possible procedures were discussed. The first would be to have the trustee(s) chosen first and then prepare a list of questions/topics that we will present at the meeting. The second would be to prepare the questions/topics first and provide them to the Provost as part of the information he uses to choose the trustee(s) whom we will meet. Thus, one of the action items for the February 13 Policy Committee meeting will be to prepare a draft of the questions and/or topics we would plan to cover at this meeting.
(c) Preparation for Panel on Promotion and Tenure. The first step will be set up an ad hoc committee to start the planning. Its first action will be to identify the panelists and determine what date(s) will work for them. Once that has occurred, the efforts to publicize the meeting can take place. Carol Tilley indicated she would be willing to be a member of both the planning committee and the Panel itself as Chair for the Faculty Advisory Committee.
(d) Preparation for Annual Chapter Meeting. Kar noted it is important to open up the conversation on possible topics for the Meeting as early as possible. Two topics that were suggested were (1) the future of DEI in academia in general and/or at Illinois in particular and (2) the future challenges related to external funding at the University (or both). Parker then initiated a discussion of how high DEI is in the profile of our STEM faculty these days and noted this could be addressed as part of a meeting on this topic.
(e) Other Meetings with Campus Leaders. Struble noted that independent of the annual meeting (and of the possible meetings with members of the Board of Trustees), we might want to have a meeting early in the semester with campus leaders such as the Provost or a representative of the Chancellor to address some of these issues with our own administrators prior to the Annual Meeting. Kar noted such a meeting could be an opportunity to meet a final time with Chancellor Jones.
(f) Other Meetings. Struble noted that another topic of importance would be to understand what we can learn from what has occurred at countries such as Hungary where democracies have “fallen apart” and initial actions including shutting down the Universities. Kar followed up noting that a colleague who is an expert on the development of autocracies could be a good person to talk with us as a start, and, as suggested by Symes, if he is willing, he could be part of a campus-wide event possibly in partnership with a number of relevant departments.
(g) Guest for Our Next Policy Committee Meeting. Kar proposed that he invite this scholar to attend our next Policy Committee meeting to provide us with a better understanding of these transitions from democracy to autocracy and the role that universities played in these events. We can also see if this would be an appropriate topic for a campus presentation by him alone or with a panel. Various formats for the panel were also discussed.
(h) Contact with the Chancellor. Kar proposed that he also reach out to Chancellor Jones’ office to see if he is available in the next month or two to meet on some of these topics. Symes also supported the idea of inviting Chancellor Jones to share his thoughts on what he has learned as Chancellor on these issues.
(i) Importance of Considering an Additional Public Meeting. Laugesen noted we are not locked into the past format of having a speaker or panel in conjunction with our formal annual meeting. If we decided it was important to hold a program earlier in the semester to maximize public outreach and campus impact, we could do that instead of (or in addition to) having a program at the annual meeting. The discussion concluded with a return to the agreement that we can consider public meetings in addition to the Annual Meeting given the important topics we are considering. As Symes noted, many on the campus are hungry for engagement and guidance right now so they will appreciate our playing a role in facilitating these conversations and will wake up to the importance of the AAUP again.
(j) Organizing on Campus. Kar concluded the discussion by observing that though we can’t attempt to solve all the problems that are arising, we can’t withdraw from the responsibility that is really ours and should think about where we can contribute most usefully. Symes mentioned that one action we could take as suggested by Laugesen was to build up a coalition of the organizations on campus that are affected directly or indirectly by these actions. A good way to begin would be to organize a Zoom meeting with representatives from these groups. Laugesen noted that the first steps would be to (i) determine which organizations are involved and the contact people in each group and (ii) let them know who we are since some things we will be addressing with administrators are going to be of shared interest to other groups. Kar summarized the discussion by noting we could proceed by informing these groups that:
(1) We are the AAUP Policy Committee and play a number of functions on campus.
(2) We are aware there is going to be a whole new set of challenges to higher education.
(3) We feel it will be important that we and the other organizations affected by these challenges meet and share our concerns.
(4) Thus, we are suggesting leaders of these groups have an initial Zoom meeting to meet to discuss these problems and possible ways in which we can collaborate.
Parker suggested that we include a description of what the focus of the AAUP will be concerning academic freedom, tenure, and shared governance. Kar concluded the discussion by asking Laugesen to lead the effort to set up this meeting as soon as possible emphasizing that this is intended to be a relatively informal Zoom meeting to (a) determine which organizations should be involved; (b) let us get to know each other and the nature of our concerns, and (c) establish lines of communication among the groups. We are aware that there may be disagreement among these groups about the other goals and feel it is critical to open lines of communication to help us better face the challenges we see coming.
(6) Old Business. Kar concluded the meeting by reviewing the items listed to determine which were still to be considered.
(a) Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Academic Freedom and Tenure including USC ST 83. Kar and O’Brien noted that there is nothing occurring right now of concern so this will be removed for now. O’Brien noted that the campus would be hosting a conference on academic freedom on January 24, but he and Kar didn’t think there were any new developments concerning the issues involved in the discussion of ST 83.
(b) Draft Policy for Campus Administrative Manual on Public Statements on External Matters. Kar noted that we did provide input over the summer and there is not anything more to do for now.
(c) Review of New Campus Policies on IDs and Signage. Kar and O’Brien had constructive conversations with administrators last semester. We can continue reviewing the issue in case we decide to prepare a letter to advise the administration on how to avoid pitfalls when setting up such policies.
(e) Review of University FAQ Item “what is academic freedom and who has it?” We have informed the Provost’s office of our concerns so this has been completed.
(6) Adjournment. Kar concluded the meeting by sharing his pleasure at seeing all of the attendees and his appreciation of the judgment, thoughtfulness, and intelligence of the group and of how much he has learned from the group. He adjourned the meeting at about 12:35 p.m. As noted above, the next meeting will be at 11:30 a.m. on Thursday, February 13, 2025.