02.22.22 Senate Minutes

Establish a Quorum

• A quorum was established when 50 senators responded to the quorum poll via canvas.  In all, 77 senators attended the meeting.

• Approval of the minutes from the Senate Meeting of January 25, 2022

  • Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved by unanimous consent.

Remarks and Announcements

University Senate Chair: Todd Steury

• Chair Steury welcomed Jake Haston, the newly elected President of the SGA, as a senator.  Steury thanked Rett Waggoner, the previous president, for his service.

• He announced the creation of a new ad hoc Committee on Teaching Evaluation.  The change approved by Senate (on November 17, 2020) to how Student Evaluations of Teaching should be used in annual reviews and for P&T has still not been sent to the Board of Trustees.  While there has been no movement on this, the new committee will examine how teaching is evaluated as a whole, including potential changes to how student evaluations of teaching are used.

• Chair Steury invited President Gogue to make remarks and announcements.

President: Jay Gogue

• President Gogue began by updating senators on the most recent Board of Trustees meeting. All items on the agenda were approved. In particular, he mentioned the renaming of the Schools of Forestry and Wildlife Services, Nursing, and Pharmacy. These will change to colleges. The Board also approved the renaming of the Department of Aviation as the School of Aviation. In addition to its normal business, the trustees named Chris Roberts as the new President of Auburn University, beginning May 16, 2022.

• Gogue then discussed various searches underway.  He began with the nomination of the interim provost.  An advisory committee found three candidates all qualified for the position. Open forums were held, attracting around 300 participants.  Dr. Roberts and President Gogue met with the advisory committee to discuss the pros and cons of the different candidates and Dr. Gogue then interviewed them individually, with Dr. Roberts observing.  They expect to announce the appointment by the end of the week.

• There are also three dean searches underway.  The Provost’s office expects closure on the searches for the CLA and COSAM deans within the next week or ten days.

• President Gogue then turned to other announcements relevant to the university community. He noted that the Alumni Board would be meeting.  They would be honoring this year’s recipients of Lifetime achievement awards on Saturday.  He notified senators that the Alabama Senate had confirmed Zeke Smith and Caroline Aderholt as new members of the Board of Trustees

• Finally, President Gogue noted the loss of Dr. Charlotte Ward, long-term member of the Physics department, who passed away at 93. Dr. Ward is remembered for her work with the AAUP and in the University Senate.

  President Gogue then asked that Jared White (Executive Director, Governmental Affairs) provide updates on issues related to the university currently under discussion in Montgomery.

• Jared White began by noting that the legislature convened in Montgomery on January 11, so the current session is about halfway through. The session will wrap up some time in mid-April.

• White noted moves to propose bills targeting the teaching of “critical race theory” in the Alabama House. He postponed his comments on this until later in the meeting. He also informed senators that the Alabama House is currently debating legislation on “constitutional carry,” a bill that would allow citizens to carry firearms without a permit. He assured senators that, in the bill under discussion, institutions of higher education like Auburn University would be able to set their own policy restricting the carrying of firearms on campus.

• Finally, White updated senate on positive budgetary news, and in particular a 9% increase in state appropriations year over year.

• Chair Steury then opened the floor for questions to President Gogue.

• Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering) asked about the policy on employees’ “duty to cooperate” which had been published without consultation with faculty. 

• Gogue shared that he was also surprised when the policy came out. The policy had not been discussed with him prior to publication.  He asked Jaime Hammer (General Counsel) to explain where the policy had come from.

• Jaime Hammer noted that the university had now passed a policy on policies. Going forward, all institutional policies would follow a process by which they have to be shared with all four governance groups for review and comment.

• Chair Steury noted that the policy on “cooperation” has now been sent to the senate leadership and it had asked the Faculty Handbook Review Committee to comment on it.

• Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) asked for an update on recent developments regarding the College of Pharmacy.  Gogue replied that the Dean resigned, an acting dean is in place, and a search will commence for an interim dean when the interim provost is appointed.

Action Items

Reaffirmation of academic freedom

Presenters: Todd Steury, Chair of Senate Steering Committee; Melody Russell, Chair of Senate Committee for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion

• Chair Steury noted that this agenda item related to HB312, a Alabama House bill on “divisive concepts.” The Senate Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Committee with the support of the Senate Steering Committee decided that the best response to the bill was a reaffirmation of belief in academic freedom as outlined in section 3.1 of the faculty handbook. This is the motion on the floor.

• He noted that Jared White (Executive Director, Governmental Affairs), Jaime Hammer (General Counsel) and Melody Russell (Chair, Committee for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) were all present in the meeting and available to answer questions.

• Anthony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) noted that several faculty members in his department had asked why Auburn had not passed a resolution similar to that passed by the University of Alabama Senate.

• Chair Steury replied that the Senate leadership had to this point taken a wait-and-see approach, recognizing that some of what has been happening in Montgomery has been political theater.  It was important to wait to see the actual bill that would come out of committee.  Now that a bill exists that will probably pass, it is time to take action.

• Moss noted that the action proposed would not necessarily satisfy everyone.  They would have preferred a more proactive approach.

• Lisa Kensler (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) asked for clarification as to whether there was any statement being made alongside the reaffirmation of Section 3.1. Informed that there was not, she expressed her opinion that reaffirming Section 3.1 was not sufficient as a response, especially in terms of standing with K-12 educators.  She argued that the senate should speak more firmly, and this was all the more important given the statements being made by politicians nationally about their broader desire to limit academic freedom.  She also hoped the university administration would step up, say, and do more.

• Carole Zugazaga (not a senator, Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work) also wondered what the university’s position is.  She asked what Jared White has been doing in Montgomery.

• Chair Steury called on Jared White who replied that the university, working alongside other institutions of higher learning in the state, has been active in terms of advocating on the issue. Changes have been made.  For example, the bill in committee makes no mention of critical race theory. The university actively defends academic freedom.

• Michael Stern (not a senator, Economics) argued that, instead of reaffirming 3.1 of the faculty handbook, we should be enforcing it.  He spoke on ways in which academic freedom was being violated, not just by administrators but by faculty leadership.  He pointed out that, while the legislature can be a threat to academic freedom, there are also internal threats to our academic freedom and we should pay more attention to internal and not just external threats.

• Sara Demoiny (not a senator, Curriculum and Teaching) noted that the legislation also was in contradiction to the requirements of some accreditation bodies, including the accreditation standards for teacher preparation programs. 

• Danilea Werner (senator, Steering committee; Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work) noted that the legislation treated forms of advocacy that were at the core of her discipline as “divisive concepts.”  She too wondered what the administration’s stance is in Montgomery.

• Chair Steury asked Jared White (Executive Director, Governmental Affairs) to respond to this. White responded that, fundamentally, the university’s stance is to do what was best to protect academic freedom. He noted that while this was on the agenda for the House, it is not yet on the Alabama Senate agenda, and that it still had some way to go to get that far.  As the university’s liaison, he had not expressed support for the bill. The university has not been in full-blown opposition either, but this is because the university has decided that is the best line to take to protect academic freedom.

• Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace engineering) returned to the issue of internal threats to academic freedom.  He spoke on the issue of academic freedom and a past case where a faculty member was subject to a dismissal case for having written blind peer reviews an administrator deemed unacceptable. The dismissal, Hartfield stated, was prevented only by a direct intervention by President Leath. When President Leath left, a first amendment case was lodged against the administrators involved, because corrective actions were not followed through.

• Melody Russell (chair, DEI committee) echoed concerns about internal protections for academic freedom.  She then turned back to the question of the “divisive concepts” bill.  She urged faculty to be mindful of the potentially negative impact of statements we might make. She argued that we need to maintain our integrity, to fight for academic freedom, but we must also be intentional.

• Duha Altindag (not a senator, Economics) asked who the administrator mentioned by Roy Hartfield was?  Was it in-coming President Chris Roberts and should we be concerned about the future of academic freedom going forward? Roy Hartfield noted that it was a College of Engineering case.

• Karley Riffe (senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) introduced a possible resolution to add to the motion under debate:

• “We oppose all efforts to censor and punish faculty members and other university employees for introducing and teaching about current scholarly theories about race, sex, gender, sexuality, and other dimensions of diversity. We call on university administration to oppose any legislative efforts to that end and to recognize and vigorously defend the constitutional right to academic freedom.”

• Chair Steury then called on Jaime Hammer (General Counsel) to speak on the bill and what its actual impact would be.

• In her response, Jaime Hammer noted that the bill did not prohibit introducing or teaching the divisive concepts identified.  It prohibited faculty from compelling students to assent to the concepts or to punish them for not doing so.  When asked about the impact of the bill on research, Hammer noted that the only element related to research in the bill was in terms of accepting funding designed to support the behavior prohibited by the bill.

• Richard Sesek (senator, Industrial and Systems Engineering) expressed his unease about how “compel” would be interpreted and who would try to enforce the measures in the bill. Hammer agreed that it was not clear how a faculty member could compel a student in any real way to believe something, and so it was not clear what “compel” means.

• Lisa Kensler (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) noted that the bill also mentioned “promoting and advancing” the concepts. Jaime Hammer noted that there was no definition of those words in the bill, and it is important to remember that state law is never going to be able to supersede constitutional protections (including protection of free speech in the First Amendment.)

• Jared White (Executive Director, Governmental Affairs) added that this language is from the bill’s preamble, and that the definition of what actions the bill targeted was in the later sections (where the bill uses the more specific “compel to assent” language.)

• Elena Aydarova (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) noted that the bigger issue was how the bills are used.  We know what is happening in other states where similar bills have been introduced and passed and we can see concerted efforts by groups to surveille, police, and punish educators, creating a culture of fear and self-censorship. The question of “compel” is interesting, but the more important issue is how legislation, if passed, might be weaponized, including, potentially, in terms of attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion initiatives on campus. 

• Anthony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) spoke on how legislatures targeting “divisive concepts” was problematic in principle.

• Ryan Comes (not a senator, Physics) spoke on the chilling affect of the bill, if passed.  Faculty members might be protected by the First Amendment, but they would have to defend themselves if they were prosecuted under the law.  Would the university pay to defend faculty members?

  Jaime Hammer (General Counsel) noted in response that the bill did not have a private right of action.

• If a student believes a faculty member has violated the law, the student has no right to take action directly. It will come down to the university evaluating and deciding whether the existing equal opportunity policies and policies on academic freedom have been violated.   She also noted, in response to Tony Moss, that the bill defined the “divisive concepts” specifically, and what was involved could not be expanded.

• Ryan Comes (not a senator, Physics) asked whether the state could charge a faculty member with a crime.  Hammer noted that this is not a criminal statute. 

• Jared White (Executive Director, Governmental Affairs) agreed that there is no mechanism or recourse in HB312 apart from the actions the university might take. In addition, he pointed out that, according to the language the bill, the university “may” (as opposed to “shall”) discipline employees.

• Richard Sesek (senator, Industrial and Systems Engineering) was not comforted by this.  He noted the sorts of disruptions that a law like this might lead to.

• Tony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) noted that his concern about the bill was only growing because the bill represents a first step to shutting down free speech.

• David Strickland (senator, Supply Chain Management) noted that the issue also needs to be seen from the perspective of the student. If senate adopts a different statement, he argued that it needs to acknowledge that the rights of students to academic freedom should also be protected.

• Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering) asked what the institution plans to do to protect faculty from violations of employee first amendment rights?

• Jaime Hammer (General Counsel) responded that the university has no intention of enforcing a policy in violation of the first amendment.

• Stephanie Shepherd (not a senator, Geosciences) added her concerns.  She teaches science, but she does talk about race and how scientific theories have been impacted by race and racism. She worries about the chilling effect of the proposed legislation on the way she teaches her classes.  She added a concern about the impact of the bill, if it passes, on the teaching of inclusive pedagogy through the Biggio center.

• Chair Steury noted that he had now heard a number of comments that Senate should make a stronger statement. He reminded senators that one of the reasons that a stronger motion had not bee proposed was that there is nothing the body can actually do to stop the legislation from passing, but passing a strong resolution might have the opposite effect.

• He invited Karley Riffe (senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) to submit her resolution as an amendment if she wished.

• After a discussion on procedure, Karley Riffe asked to amend the motion to reaffirm section 3.1 by adding the following,

• We oppose all efforts to censor and punish faculty members and other university employees for introducing and teaching about current scholarly theories about race, sex, gender, sexuality, and other dimensions of diversity. We call on university administration to oppose any legislative efforts to that end and to recognize and vigorously defend the right to academic freedom.

• Anthony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) seconded the motion to amend.

• Discussion of amendment

  • Kamden Strunk (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) spoke in support of the amendment. 

  • After more clarification on how the amendment process works, and the process for introducing a second, different amendment to the original motion, debate continued.

  • Hank Murrah (Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) noted that the language of the amendment seemed to privilege “current” ideas and theories, but it should be broader.  It should include all theories and ideas. 

  • Melody Russell (chair, DEI committee) agreed that it might be useful to look more closely at the language of the amendment before voting.

  • Scott Ketring (senator, HDFS) noted that the amendment offered an opportunity to broaden out the discussion to take on internal as well as external threats to academic freedom. Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering) agreed with Scott Ketring and suggested that the language of a resolution should be debated more closely in committee before senators voted on it.

  • Melody Russell (chair, DEI committee) agreed that the resolution could be improved with more intentional scrutiny.

  • Richard Sesek (Senator, Industrial and Systems Engineerings) noted that we could simply remove the word “current” from the amendment.  Zach Schulz (senator, History), however, noted the difficulty of editing a resolution in a meeting with 172 participants.  Chair Steury said that the option was there to table the motion and to send it to committee. 

  • Karley Riffe (senator, Educational Leadership, Foundations, and Technology) made a motion to send the amendment to the DEI committee. It would be submitted as a new motion in a future senate meeting. With the amendment postponed, the meeting would move forward with the reaffirmation of 3.1 today. 

  • This motion to postpone was seconded by Roy Hartfield (senator, Aerospace Engineering).

  • Anthony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) expressed concern that no action might be misconstrued. Steury noted that Senate would still be voting to reaffirm academic freedom in 3.1.

  • Melody Russell (chair, DEI committee) promised to move quickly on a statement to have it ready for the next meeting.

  • Jennifer Lockhart (senator, Philosophy) asked for clarification on what form the amendment would take on returning to Senate, if we proceeded to reaffirm section 3.1 of the faculty handbook in this meeting.  Because this will be coming out of a committee, it can be submitted as a new resolution in the next Senate meeting.

  • Motion to postpone a vote on the amendment.

    • VOTE RESULTS: 41 total in favor, 10 opposed, 1 abstaining. The motion to postpone a vote on the amendment was passed.

• Senate then returned to the original motion on the reaffirmation of academic freedom.

• Hank Murrah (not a senator, Educational Leadership, Foundations, and Technology) noted the danger of asking the university to take a stance against particular pieces of legislation because it might limit the academic freedom of faculty who actually agree with a bill.  Individual faculty should voice their opinion but we should be careful of pressuring the university to take a political stance.  He noted that this does not necessarily apply to legislation on academic freedom, however.

• Melody Russell (chair, DEI committee) agreed that there are faculty members who might support the bill.  All voices matter and should be valued whether we agree with them or not.

• Kamden Strunk (not a senator, Educational Foundations, Leadership, and Technology) noted that the bill called for banning very specific concepts about race, sex, gender, sexual identity, and religion. Asking the university to take a stance that they don’t support censorship of the teaching of those particular concepts should not be divisive.  The reason to ask the university to take a stance is that we should expect them to defend our academic freedom.

• Anthony Moss (senator, Biological Sciences) noted that there was no harm in affirming 3.1.  Doing nothing would send the wrong message.

• Vote to reaffirm academic freedom (section 3.1 of the faculty handbook).

  • VOTE RESULTS: 48 total in favor, 2 opposed, 0 abstaining.

Pending Action Items

Rules Committee Nominations

Presenter: Ralph Kingston, Senate Secretary, Chair of the Rules Committee

• Having offered a brief description of the Rules committee and its work, Ralph Kingston called for nominations from the floor for three open positions for two-year terms on the Senate Rules committee. Nominees were David Blersch (Biosystems Engineering), Kasia Leousis (Libraries), David Han (Crop, Soil, and Environmental Sciences), and Liliana Stern (Economics).  The nominees will be up for election in the meeting of the Senate on March 15, 2002.

Report from the Senate Officer Nominating Committee

Presenter: Greg Schmidt, Nominating Committee member

• Greg Schmidt presented the nominating committee’s nominees for Senate chair elect and Senate secretary elect for 2022.

• For Chair-elect: Roy Hartfield (College of Engineering) and Lisa Kensler (College of Education).

• For Secretary-elect: Michael Fogle (COSAM) and Linda Gibson-Young (College of Nursing).

  Voting will take place in the week leading up to the March university faculty meeting on 29 March.  The current Senate secretary will send out information about the candidates and on the voting process before voting begins.

Information Items

None.

New Business

Richard Sesek asked for specifics on what is and is not allowed under the university’s amended mask policy, especially in terms of classroom and office spaces. Chair Steury promised to get information on this and share it.

Adjournment

Hearing no objections, the meeting was adjourned at 5:16 by unanimous consent.

Attendance

Senate Officers

Administration

Ex-Officio Members

Senators by Department