1 University of Washington Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs April 16, 2019 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Odegaard Undergraduate Library 320 Meeting Synopsis 1. Call to order 2. Equity and inclusion subcommittee (Purnima Dhavan, Robin Angotti, Brenda Williams) 3. Review of the minutes from April 2, 2019 4. Subcommittee reports: o Non-departmentalized tenure & promotion process (Jack Lee) o EFC code changes (Jack Lee) o Proposed Class C legislation on part-time lecturers (see attachment) o Teaching Professor track (Jack Lee) (see attachment) 5. Good of the order 6. Adjourn _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. 2. Equity and inclusion subcommittee (Purnima Dhavan, Robin Angotti, Brenda Williams) Purnima Dhavan introduced Robin Angotti, Faculty Council on Women in Academia (FCWA) Chair, and Brenda Williams, Faculty Council on Multicultural Affairs (FCMA) Chair. Angotti shared that her council is looking into service loads that faculty members take on at the University. Angotti shared data that she pulled as well as data from the BI portal. Angotti and Williams discussed a need for more data (across the campuses) and that an updated report, addressing these issues, may be beneficial. Williams noted that while she and the FCMA are supportive of these efforts, but she and the FCMA are constrained and may not be able to take on the full responsibility. Lee, the chair, responded that this data gathering project might be combined with the one called for in the Class C resolution being sent to the Senate. The chair asked if there were other issues that should be addressed beyond service commitments. Chad Allen, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement, has stated that there may be a lack of transparency in regards to promotion and tenure criteria. A member asked how altruistic behavior might be quantified and if the breakdown for faculty members of color is as dramatic as the breakdown between male and female faculty members. Dhavan commented that anecdotally the service burden is greater for faculty members of color A member suggested that a culture change may need to take place for deans and department chairs who make these decisions. A member recommended that existing groups on campus (e.g. Advance)
Transcript
1
University of Washington Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs
1. Call to order 2. Equity and inclusion subcommittee (Purnima Dhavan, Robin Angotti, Brenda Williams) 3. Review of the minutes from April 2, 2019 4. Subcommittee reports:
o Non-departmentalized tenure & promotion process (Jack Lee) o EFC code changes (Jack Lee) o Proposed Class C legislation on part-time lecturers (see attachment) o Teaching Professor track (Jack Lee) (see attachment)
5. Good of the order 6. Adjourn _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to order The meeting was called to order at 11:00 a.m. 2. Equity and inclusion subcommittee (Purnima Dhavan, Robin Angotti, Brenda Williams) Purnima Dhavan introduced Robin Angotti, Faculty Council on Women in Academia (FCWA) Chair, and Brenda Williams, Faculty Council on Multicultural Affairs (FCMA) Chair. Angotti shared that her council is looking into service loads that faculty members take on at the University. Angotti shared data that she pulled as well as data from the BI portal. Angotti and Williams discussed a need for more data (across the campuses) and that an updated report, addressing these issues, may be beneficial. Williams noted that while she and the FCMA are supportive of these efforts, but she and the FCMA are constrained and may not be able to take on the full responsibility. Lee, the chair, responded that this data gathering project might be combined with the one called for in the Class C resolution being sent to the Senate. The chair asked if there were other issues that should be addressed beyond service commitments. Chad Allen, Associate Vice Provost for Faculty Advancement, has stated that there may be a lack of transparency in regards to promotion and tenure criteria. A member asked how altruistic behavior might be quantified and if the breakdown for faculty members of color is as dramatic as the breakdown between male and female faculty members. Dhavan commented that anecdotally the service burden is greater for faculty members of color A member suggested that a culture change may need to take place for deans and department chairs who make these decisions. A member recommended that existing groups on campus (e.g. Advance)
2
could provide trainings. A member asked if these trainings were required or optional. The member continued to state that trainings would only be effective if they are required. 3. Review of the minutes from April 2, 2019 The minutes from April 2, 2019 were approved as written. 4. Subcommittee reports:
o Non-departmentalized tenure & promotion process (Jack Lee) The chair shared that the EFCs of the non-departmentalized colleges will respond to the council by May 14.
o EFC code changes (Jack Lee) The chair will introduce the amendment approved by FCFA at the next Faculty Senate meeting (April 18). The chair notified the College of Arts and Sciences Elected Faculty Council of the council’s amendment, and they will not object at the Faculty Senate meeting.
o Proposed Class C legislation on part-time lecturers (see attachment) The chair shared an updated version of the Class C resolution (Exhibit 1). He will introduce this at the next Faculty Senate meeting for consideration.
o Teaching Professor track (Jack Lee) (see attachment) The chair wrote to the AAUP faculty list server in regards to the Teaching Professor track proposal (Exhibit 2). He received a few comments with from faculty members who expressed support for the proposal. The chair will bring up this note at the Faculty Senate meeting as a discussion item. A member suggested that the Faculty Senate leadership should be consulted before sending the note to all faculty members. Another member recommended that the council take a more targeted approach and instead communicate with the EFCs first or at faculty meetings. Members discussed which approach to take. The chair asked the council to provide feedback as the proposal moves forward. A member suggested that the council reach out to peer institutions who are considering this change and institutions that have enacted the change. The Faculty Senate leadership will add this discussion item to the next PAC 12 meeting. The council discussed possible feedback they may receive if the proposal includes enhanced job security for teaching faculty (extended contract length). Members also discussed using the language “undermining of tenure” and that other language could be used to be more specific to the root issue of the reduced number of tenure positions. The chair requested that council to provide suggested language/edits to the AAUP note. The chair also noted that a proposal with elements for enhanced job security may be an easier lift after the title changes are approved.
3
Additionally, a member shared data compiled by Academic Personnel which shows the number of lecturers at the University (Exhibit 3).
5. Good of the order A member updated the council that the Faculty Council on University Libraries has discussed the Libraries’ upcoming negotiations with Elsevier, and that they are writing a Class C resolution. 6. Adjourn The meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Minutes by Lauren Hatchett, [email protected], council analyst Present: Faculty: Jack Lee (chair), Steve Buck, Aaron Katz, Purnima Dhavan, Jacob Vigdor,
Kamran Nemati, Dan Jacoby, Tom Hazlet, James Gregory, Mary Pat Wenderoth, Lauren Montgomery, Margaret Adam, Míċeál Vaughan President’s designee: Cheryl Cameron Ex-officio reps: Judith Henchy, Bryan Crockett Guests: Mike Townsend, Brenda Williams, Robin Angotti
Absent: Faculty: Joseph Janes, Dawn Lehman,
Ex-officio reps: JoAnn Taricani, Padmaja Vrudhula
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – Class C 4.8.19.docx Exhibit 2 – Teaching Prof Proposal note to AAUP list.docx Exhibit 3 – Profile of University of Washington Lecturer Titles.pdf
Class C Resolution regarding data on part-time lecturers WHEREAS the faculty of the University has a responsibility to formulate regulations for faculty appointment, tenure, and promotion; and WHEREAS the University is committed to complying with the Federal Equal Opportunity Act of 1972, the Washington State Law Against Employment Discrimination of 1949, and ensuing regulations, and to hiring a diverse faculty as a way of promoting excellent scholarship and education; and WHEREAS the Senate supports open searches for part-time and full-time faculty positions as standard practice, recognizing that under very limited circumstances (such as emergency replacements or disability or family leave or affiliate appointments) units may need to hire faculty without an open search; and WHEREAS the hiring of lecturers without an open search violates the spirit of the Equal Opportunity law and is contrary to the principles of academic freedom as elaborated by the AAUP to which the University of Washington is committed; and WHEREAS there are data1 indicating that some units have relied heavily upon this hiring procedure with the consequence that UW continues to have a significant number of lecturers without adequate rights and protections; and WHEREAS the Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs is charged with making such changes to the Faculty Code as are necessary to support these goals but needs adequate data; therefore BE IT RESOLVED that the Faculty Senate calls on the Provost’s Office to support the collection of information sufficient to develop a clear understanding of hiring practices for part-time lecturers, and to work with the Faculty Senate leadership to determine what information is needed to develop this understanding.
Submitted by: Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs
1 UNCERTAINTY AND INSECURITY: The Life of Lecturers at the University of Washington, by the UW Faculty Forward Lecturer Issues Working Group, 2016. Available at www.uwfacultyforward.org.
"Teaching Professor" proposal Jack Lee <[email protected]> Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 10:15 PMTo: Faculty Issues and Concerns <[email protected]>
Dear colleagues, Apologies in advance for the length of this email. I'm writing to alert you to an important proposal that's being considered bythe Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs (which I currently chair). We won't be officially presenting it to the Faculty Senate untilnext fall, but I want to let everyone know that we're thinking about it, so the faculty has time for a serious discussion before itcomes up for a vote. As many of you know, the Faculty Senate and the administration have taken a number of steps in recent years designed toimprove and strengthen the working conditions of the teaching faculty at UW. The next step now being considered by FCFAis somewhat bigger. TL;DR: The Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs is considering a proposal to change the titles of Full-Time Lecturers, SeniorLecturers, and Principal Lecturers to "Teaching Professor" titles. More specifically, the proposal would make the following title changes in the Faculty Code:
Lecturer Full-Time (competitive recruitment) -> Assistant Teaching ProfessorSenior Lecturer (part-time or full-time) -> Associate Teaching ProfessorPrincipal Lecturer -> Teaching Professor
We are contemplating that these will be non-tenure-track positions, with essentially the same code language regardingqualifications, appointments, merit evaluations, reappointments, and promotions as now apply to the corresponding lecturertitles. We want to ease the transition by not requiring colleges to commit any more financial resources or contract length thanthey are doing under the current code (although we hope this change will encourage colleges to treat teaching faculty morelike other categories of professorial faculty). Why are we considering this change? Here are a bunch of reasons that many members of FCFA find compelling:
It's a National Trend: More and more universities are conferring professorial titles on teaching faculty. We've found29 such universities (see attached list), a much higher number than just a few years agoRecruitment and Retention: We will be more likely to recruit and retain excellent teaching faculty if we can offerprofessorial titles, especially if we're competing against other universities that offer such titlesMorale: Because our teaching faculty are carrying an ever-increasing portion of the teaching load in this university,they should have titles that demonstrate clearly that they are respected and valued, not “second-class faculty”Equity: Most lecturers are women, and a higher percentage are people of color than in the professorial ranks. Canwe really justify relegating this population to titles with markedly lower status?Transparency: The proposed titles are a clearer reflection of the qualifications and duties of teaching facultyProfessionalism: Professorial titles are likely to encourage departments that hire teaching faculty to consider themas career professionalsParity: There are other categories of non-tenure-track faculty at UW, with no higher qualifications than our lecturers,who carry professorial titles, such as Research Professor, Clinical Professor. and Professor of PracticeRespect: Professorial titles are likely to command more respect from students, and letters of recommendation &grant applications will carry more weightCommitment to Undergraduate Teaching: Professorial titles will demonstrate to students, parents, legislators, anddonors that our courses are taught by “real” faculty on a career path, not just fill-ins, thus raising the stature of UW
Other than the title change, the one category of significant substantive changes that this will entail is in voting rights. Thefaculty code links voting rights to academic rank, and professorial titles will automatically boost some teaching facultymembers higher in the voting hierarchy. The proposal we are considering would stipulate that faculty on the TeachingProfessor track would not vote on promotion or tenure of tenure-track or research-track faculty, just as faculty on theResearch Professor track do not vote on promotion or tenure of tenure-track or teaching-track faculty. But for merit andreappointment, faculty on the Teaching Professor track would vote on the cases of everyone of lower rank, just likeResearch Professors.
Exhibit 2
The main changes to voting rights that would result are summarized graphically in the attached PDF. As you'll see, the onlychange for promotion and tenure voting rights is that tenure-track Associate Professors, who now vote on the promotion ofSenior Lecturers to Principal Lecturers, would no longer vote on the corresponding promotion of Associate TeachingProfessors to Teaching Professors. But the changes in voting on merit and reappointment would be more extensive. There are many open questions that will need to be settled before this proposal is ready to go to the senate. Here are someof the questions we're thinking about:
Are these the right titles? Many different teaching professorial titles are used at other universities (see the attacheddocument). After extensive informal discussions with many colleagues (especially with lecturers of various ranks), wefound a strong consensus in favor of the titles proposed above. Many people dislike "Instructional" as an adjectivebecause it sounds too much like "instructors," and many dislike "Teaching Assistant Professor," etc. (despite itsobvious parallel with "Research Assistant Professor"), because it sounds too much like "Teaching Assistant."
Is a title change just "window dressing," without substantive changes in the terms and conditions of employment?This is a somewhat controversial question, but the general consensus on FCFA, and the near-unanimous judgment ofthe many lecturers we've spoken with, seems to be that the title change is likely to bring significant real advantages,for all the reasons listed above. In any case, even if we do wish to make substantive changes to the terms andconditions of employment, the title change in itself is a big step, and maybe we should take one step at a time. Butsee the next question. Are there some substantive changes that might be made to the code that could offer the possibility of enhancing thejob security of teaching faculty without undue disruption? One such change that we've talked about is extending themaximum contract length for associate & full teaching professors -- say, to 7 years for associate and 10 years for full.This would not require any college or department to give longer contracts, but it might offer the possibility for someteaching faculty to obtain more job security and more robust academic freedom.Should we be offering tenure to teaching-track faculty? The AAUP's 1940 Statement of Principles on AcademicFreedom and Tenure, on which almost all US universities' tenure policies are based, clearly envisions tenure as arequirement for both teaching and research faculty. But with one partial exception, none of the universities we knowabout offer tenure to teaching-track faculty, so our feeling is that it would be too radical a change to propose now.(The partial exception is the UC system, which offers a tenure-like status called "Security of Employment.")If not tenure, should we at least be considering a six-year up-or-out requirement for Assistant Teaching Professors,like the one now in place for Research Assistant Professors? This might have the advantage of forcing departmentsto make a timely decision whether to make a long-term investment into the career of a teaching faculty member. Butother than UC, none of the other universities we studied have such a requirement, and we decided not to propose itat this time.Is this change likely to encourage colleges to appoint more non-tenure-track faculty, thus further eroding tenure?Some worry that the title change will provide deans with "cover" for replacing more and more of the tenured facultywith non-tenure-track faculty. Others counter that the economics of higher education have already made it necessaryto have a nontrivial portion of the faculty with higher teaching and lower research loads, and we need to ensure thatthey are recognized and respected as professionals. In any case, it's a good bet that most departments, concernedwith their status in the world of academic research, will argue strongly for maintaining a critical mass of tenure-trackfaculty.Are there structural changes that could help to slow or stop the undermining of tenure? USC, for example, requireseach college to establish an upper bound on the ratio of teaching-track to tenure-track faculty. UW could dosomething like that, either through the faculty code or at the direction of the provost, allowing for variations in customand needs from college to college.What should happen with part-time lecturers? As a separate project, the FCFA is considering whether changes needto be made to the code language regarding appointment and reappointment of part-time lecturers. For the time being,we are assuming that the title Part-Time Lecturer will remain in the code, and not be converted to a professorial title.There might also need to be some title corresponding to HR's "Lecturer Full-Time Temporary," for short-term lecturershired without a competitive search.How should the transition be handled? Our inclination is to immediately convert all existing competitively hiredlecturers (except Part-Time Lecturers) to the corresponding professorial titles, as described at the beginning of thisletter.
Thanks to those of you who have read this far. This could be an important step in the evolution of UW's faculty, and itdeserves some serious discussion. Jack LeeChair, Faculty Council on Faculty Affairs_______________________________________________ John M Lee, Professor of Mathematics Box 354350, University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195-4350 [email protected], 206-543-1735
