Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Faculty Senate Bootcamp and Meeting Agenda for August 20, 2015
8th floor Faculty Club Banquet Room (850)
Richard E. Lindner Center in the Varsity Village complex
9:00 – 9:30 – Meet and Greet with Coffee and Scones
Governance Bootcamp
9:30 – Welcome and Introductions (T. Herrmann)
9:45 – Safety and Community (B. Marshall, D. Waymer)
10:10 – ELearning and IT at UC Update (N. Vincent, C. Edwards)
10:35 – Legislative Update (G. Vehr, M. Carroll)
11:00 – 11:10 Break
11:10 – Performance Based Budgeting Primer (D. Langmeyer)
11:35 – Institutional Research (S. Luzuriaga)
12:00 – Faculty (LEAF) Update (V. Hardcastle)
12:30 – Lunch
1:15 – Faculty Senate Procedures & Structure (T. Herrmann)
1:30 – Strategic Enrollment Status and Update (C. Miller)
1:55 – Discussion of Topics and Initiatives for 2014-15 (Faculty Senators)
2:20 – Title IX Training (J. Shaffer)
3:20 – 3:30 Break
3:30 – 5:00 p.m. – Faculty Senate Meeting (Agenda follows)
2
Faculty Senate Meeting Agenda for August 20, 2015
3:30 – Meeting of the Faculty Senate – Call to Order
3:33 – Approval of Minutes from May Meeting
3:35 – Report of the Faculty Chair (T. Herrmann)
3:40 – Report of the President (S. Ono)
4:10 – Update on Athletics (M. Bohn)
4:25 – Old Business
o Smoking Cessation Resolution
o Other
4:30 – New Business
o Confirmation of Senate Committee Chairs (p. 7)
o Ohio Faculty Council Rep and Alternate
o IT at UC Committee Structure
o Election Calendar for At Large Senator (p. 7)
o Other
4:45 – Report from the Undergraduate Student Government Association (A. Naab)
4:50 – Report from the Graduate Student Government Association (A. Mazman)
4:55 – Report from the AAUP President (G. Loving)
5:00 - Adjourn
3
Faculty Senate Calendar
Faculty Senate Cabinet meeting 3120G One Edwards
Agenda items/committee reports Due
Reports and Resolutions for meeting packet Due by noon
Faculty Senate meeting 400 ABC TUC
except as marked
FALL SEMESTER All University Faculty Meeting, November 19, 2015
September 3, 2015 September 7, 2015 September 10, 2015
October 1, 2015 October 5, 2015 October 8, 2015
November 5, 2015 November 9, 2015 November 12, 2015 Joint meeting with Student Governments
December 3, 2015 December 7, 2015 December 10, 2015 (Exam Week)
SPRING SEMESTER All University Faculty Meeting, Date TBD
Faculty Awards Ceremony, Date TBD
January 7, 2016 January 11, 2016 January 14, 2016 (at Clermont)
February 4, 2016 February 8, 2016 February 11, 2016
March 3, 2016 March 7, 2016 March 10, 2016
April 7, 2016 April 11, 2016 April 14, 23015
SUMMER SEMESTER
May 5, 2016 May 9, 2016 May 12, 2016
June 2, 2016 June 6, 2016 June 9, 2016
July 7, 2016 July 11, 2016 July 14, 2016
Fall, 2015 Election Calendar for At Large Senator
– August 20, 2015—Appointment of Chair of Nominating Committee and appointment of all first year Senators as members of nominating committee
– August 20, 2015—Convening of Nominating Committee – Call for nominations sent out to faculty shortly after convening of Nominating Committee – September 10, 2015—Nominations provided to Faculty Senate – September 10, 2015—Date of confirmed slate – October 7, 2015—Deadline for Petitions – October 8, 2015—All University Faculty Meeting solely for the purpose of providing final
nominations for At Large Senator—3:15 p.m. (15 minutes prior to FS meeting) – October 22, 2015—Election must be completed by 4:00 p.m.
4
University of Cincinnati
Faculty Senate Roster, 2015-2016
Chair: Tracy Herrmann
UC Blue Ash, Allied
Health
745-5689
Vice-Chair: Caleb Adler
College of Medicine,
Psychiatry
558-3362
Chair Elect: Sally Moomaw
CECH, Early Childhood
Education
556-4414
Secretary: Dan Carl CAHS, Rehabilitation
Sciences
558-7479
Parliamentarian: Deborah Page UC Blue Ash, Foreign
Language
745-5679
Ex-Officio: Santa J. Ono University of Cincinnati,
President
556-2201
Board of Trustees Representatives
2014-2016 Peter Stambrook CoM, Genetics [email protected]
558-6151
2015-2017 Rebecca Leugers
CAHS, Rehabilitation
Sciences
558-7580
At-Large Senators
2014-2016 Lawrence Bennett CEAS, Fire Science [email protected]
470-2744
2014-2016 Anastasios (Tasos)
Ioannides
CEAS, Schl Advanced
Structures
556-3137
2014-2016 Melanie Kroger-Jarvis Nursing [email protected]
556-5218
2014-2016 To be Elected
2015-2017 Marla Hall A&S, Psychology [email protected]
556-5332
2015-2017 Arlene Johnson Libraries, Digital
Humanities
556-1417
2015-2017 Gowribalan Ana
Vamadeva
UC Blue Ash, Math [email protected]
2015-2017 Victoria Wangia-
Anderson
CAHS, Analytical &
Diagn Sci
558-7518
Part-Time Senators
2014-2016 Eva Krieg A&S Romance
Languages
556-1950
2015-2017 Dana (Greg) Griffith A&S, Judaic Studies [email protected]
556-6612
Emeritus
2014-2016 Robert Faaborg A&S, Philosophy [email protected]
931-6819
5
College Senators:
Allied Health
2015-2016 James Canfield Social Work [email protected]
556-4615
2015-2017 Pamela Greenstone Health Information
Mgmt
558-2413
Arts & Sciences
2014-2016 To be elected by
college in fall
2015-2017 To be elected by
college in fall
Carl H. Linder College of Business
2014-2016 Robert Rokey IT [email protected]
556-7058
2015-2017 Rajan Kamath Management [email protected]
556-7132
CCM
2014-2016 Michele Kay Theater Design
Production
556-9440
2015-2017 To be elected by
college in fall
CEAS
2014-2016 Chia-Chi Ho Chemical Engineering [email protected]
556-2438
2015-2017 Mark Turner Aerospace Engineering
and Engineering
Mechanics
556-3222
CECH
2014-2016 Prentice Chandler Teacher Education [email protected]
556-7095
2015-2017 To be elected by
college in fall
Clermont College
2014-2016 Carolyn Vining EMS [email protected]
732-5243
2015-2017 Wanda McCarthy Psychology [email protected]
732-5200
DAAP
2014-2016 Mayhar Arefi School of Planning [email protected]
556-0210
2015-2017 To be elected by
college in fall
Law
2014-2016 Sean Mangan Law [email protected]
556-4361
6
2015-2017 Yolanda Vazquez Law [email protected]
556-0022
Libraries
2014-2016 Jennifer Krivickas DAAP Library [email protected]
556-1319
2015-2017 John Hopkins Law Library [email protected]
556-0153
Medicine
2014-2016 Caleb Adler Psychiatry [email protected]
558-3362
2015-2017 Amanda Stein Psychiatry [email protected]
558-4224
Nursing
2015-2016 Melissa Willmarth-Stec Professional Studies
Team
558-5125
2015-2017 Diana McIntosh Nursing [email protected]
558-5207
Winkler College of Pharmacy
2014-2016 Yuhang Zhang Pharmacy [email protected]
558-0740
2015-2017 Joshua P. Lorenz Pharmacy [email protected]
558-4350
Professional Practice
2014-2016 Maureen Schomaker Professional Practice [email protected]
556-6048
2015-2017 Datina Juran Professional Practice [email protected]
556-0328
UC-Blue Ash College
2014-2016 Tiffany Roman Allied Health/
Radiologic Technology
936-1591
2015-2017 Margaret Cheatham Business & Economics [email protected]
745-5623
7
2014-15 Faculty Senate Cabinet for Confirmation
COMMITTEE/Position CHAIR EMAIL ADDRESSES
Chair Tracy Herrmann [email protected]
Vice Chair Caleb Adler [email protected]
Chair-Elect Sally Moomaw [email protected]
Secretary Dan Carl [email protected]
Board of Trustees Peter Stambrook [email protected]
Board of Trustees Rebecca Leugers [email protected]
Academic Affairs Prentice Chandler [email protected]
Budget & Priorities Chai-Chi Ho [email protected]
Committee on Committees Melissa Willmarth-Stec [email protected]
Governance Ana Vamadeva [email protected]
Human Relations Datina Juran [email protected]
Information Technology Joshua Lorenz [email protected]
Planning Committee Margaret Cheatham [email protected]
Research & Scholarship Mark Turner [email protected]
Parliamentarian Deborah Page [email protected]
8
2015-2016 FACULTY SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES AND ALL-UNIVERSITY COMMITTEES--COMMITTEE DESCRIPTIONS AND CURRENT MEMBERSHIP
FACULTY SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES
FACULTY SENATE ACADEMIC AFFAIRS COMMITTEE--2 year term Charge: The charge of the committee is to make investigations and recommendations for Faculty Senate action on educational or academic policy or practice Membership: 6 members with 3 members elected each year to serve a 2 year term. Retiring members may run for re-election. The chair of the committee is appointed separately by the Chair of the Faculty for a one year term and must be a current member of the Faculty Senate. 2014-2016: 2015-2017: Chia-Chi Ho (CEAS) Ratee Apana—(LcoB) Deborah Page (UCBA) Stacey Hummeldorf (ProPEL) Carol Wheeler-Strother (CAHS) Stephanie King (CoN)
FACULTY SENATE BUDGET AND PRIORITIES COMMITTEE--2 year term Charge: The charge of the committee is to examine financial matters of the university and recommend to the Faculty Senate ordering of priorities. Membership: 6 members with 3 members elected each year to serve a 2 year term. Retiring members may run for re-election. The chair of the committee is appointed separately by the Chair of the Faculty for a one year term and must be a current member of the Faculty Senate. 2014-2016: 2015-2017: Kent Lutz (UCBA) Anastasios (Tasos) Ioannides (CEAS) Steven Boyce (CoM) Gowribalan (Ana) Vamadeva (UCBA) Peter J. Disimile (CEAS) James Van Hook (CoM)
FACULTY SENATE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE--2 year members Charge: The Governance Committee shall be responsible for on-going review of and revisions to the by-laws, clarifying and strengthening the involvement of faculty on university committees, assuring training for faculty serving on Faculty Senate and other university committees, monitoring governance policies and practices and recommending new policies and practices to ensure effective involvement of faculty in university decision making. In addition, the Governance Committee shall be available to assist faculty with governance issues occurring within their college or unit. Membership: 6 members with 3 members elected each year to serve a 2 year term. Retiring members may run for re-election. The chair of the committee is appointed separately by the Chair of the Faculty for a one year term and must be a current member of the Faculty Senate. 2014-2016: 2015-2017: Heather Moore (UCBA) Marla Hall (A&S) Carlee Escue Simon (CECH) Anastasios (Tasos) Ioannides (CEAS) Lilit Yeghiazarian (CEAS) Arlene Johnson (Lib)
9
FACULTY SENATE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE--2 year term
Charge: The charge of the committee is to monitor existing practices and policies and recommend new policies and practices to ensure a supportive environment for women and minority faculty and students. Membership: 6 members with 3 members elected each year to serve a 2 year term. Retiring members may run for re-election. The chair of the committee is appointed separately by the Chair of the Faculty for a one year term and must be a current member of the Faculty Senate. 2014-2016: 2015-2017: Jennifer Ellis (UCBA) Lisa Beckelhimer (A&S) Donna Shambley-Ebron (CoN) Eva Krieg (A&S) Carrie L. Atzinger (CoM) Sally Ann Zwicker (CECH)
FACULTY SENATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE--2 year term
Charge: The information technology committee shall formulate and express faculty views on information technology issues. Matters requiring faculty action shall be sent as recommendations to the faculty senate. The committee will recommend electronic voting procedural standards and tools that assure security, anonymity, and faculty control. The committee will offer consultation and training and when asked to do so may assess the legitimacy of software employed for soliciting faculty votes. Membership: In addition to members from each college, libraries, professional practice and 2 ex-officio members, there are 4 at-large representatives elected to serve 2 year terms. Retiring members may run for re-election. The chair of the committee is appointed separately by the Chair of the Faculty for a one year term and must be a current member of the Faculty Senate.
College/Unit Reps 2015-2016: 2014-2016: 2015-2017:
Charity Accurso (CAHS) David Hartz (UCBA) Larry Bennett (CEAS) ________________ (A&S) Michele Griegel-McCord (A&S) Victoria Wangia- Robert Rokey (CoB) Anderson (CAHS) Michelle Conda (CCM) Stephen Thiel (CEAS) Laura Dell (CECH) Ben Filla (Clermont College) Anton Harfman (DAAP) Timothy Armstrong (Law) Nathan Tallman (Libraries) ________________ (Med) Nikole Hicks (Nursing) Joshua Lorenz (Pharmacy) Todd Foley (ProPel) William Jennings (UCBA)
FACULTY SENATE PLANNING COMMITTEE--2 year term Charge: The charge of the Planning Committee is to consider all aspects of planning, both curricular and physical. Membership: 6 members with 3 members elected each year to serve a 2 year term. Retiring members may run for re-election. The chair of the committee is appointed separately by the Chair of the Faculty for a one year term and must be a current member of the Faculty Senate. 2014-2016: 2015-2017:
10
Thomas Osborne (ProPEL) Dan Carl (CAHS) Rina Williams (A&S) Stacy Hummeldorf (ProPEL) Victoria Wangia-Anderson (CAHS) Edith Starbuck (Lib)
FACULTY SENATE RESEARCH AND SCHOLARSHIP COMMITTEE--2 year term Charge: The Research and Scholarship Committee shall consider all aspects of research and recommend policies, processes, or procedures designed to enhance the role of research and scholarship in the university. The committee shall make recommendations concerning the development and implementation of problems designed to support and reward research and scholarly activity. In addition, the committee shall examine, review, and make recommendations about proposals initiated by the administration and other parties. Membership: 6 members with 3 members elected each year to serve a 2 year term. Retiring members may run for re-election. The chair of the committee is appointed separately by the Chair of the Faculty for a one year term and must be a current member of the Faculty Senate. 2014-2016: 2015-2017: Kevin Li (Pharm) Lora Arduser (A&S) Lilit Yeghiazarian (CEAS) Laura Conforti (CoM) Gail Pyne-Geithman (CoM) Arlene Johnson (Lib)
8/19/2015
1
Faculty Senate Boot Camp
Public Safety Update
• Dr. Robin Engle, Vice President for Safety & Reform
• James Whalen, Director of Public Safety
• S. Gregory Baker, Director of Police Community Relations
• Kroll Inc., is conducting an external investigation
• UCPD back on patrol Friday, August 14
• Establish a Community Advisory Board
Two Questions
1. How can the Faculty Senate help to repair relations within and outside of UC in light of the recent events?
2. What recommendation do you have for working with students in the classroom?
How can the Faculty Senate help to repair relations within and outside of UC in light of the recent events?
RESEARCH• Develop and
circulate/post a resource list of subject‐matter experts (internal and external)
• Lend expertise to program planning, discussions, and research
• Provide ideas for community engagement and overall strategies for improvement
TEACHING• Refresh syllabus as
appropriate• Partner with colleagues
for syllabus design and class presentations
• Invite community partners into the classroom for presentations
• Leverage Reading Days for reflective and responsive journaling
• Practice appreciative inquiry
SERVICE• Serve on discussion
panels• Participate in ‘drawn’• Host a program (3)• Engage former
students to encourage their involvement with UC and advocacy in the community
• Invite community partners to campus events and vice versa
What recommendations do you have for working with students in the classroom?
• Establish conversation guidelines
• Be mindful of and manage personal biases
• Press pause, don’t dismiss
• Invite guest presenters to classroom
• Require a team research project
• Provide campus resource list
• Incorporate culturally responsive instruction techniques
Save the Dates
• September 2 – CDO Roundtable, 2 p.m., 427 TUC
• September 9 – Inclusive Excellence Day, 12‐5 p.m., Great Hall
• September 30 – Hate Crimes in the Heartland, 5:30‐8
p.m., College of Law, Room 114
• October 13 – Dr. Steve Robbins, various times and locations
8/18/2015
1
Governmental Relations UpdateFaculty Senate Boot Camp
August 20, 2015
D. Michael Carroll, Asst. Vice President for Governmental Relations
UC Governmental Relations
Vehr Rolf Carroll Coorey
UC Governmental Relations
8/18/2015
2
Local Issues• Parks Levy
– Burnet Woods among 13 parks for upgrade
• I-71 Interchange– Unique urban interchange
– New front door
– I-75
• Safety
Federal issues
– Higher Education Act reauthorization• Still possible this fall, after 10/1
– HR 9 (Patent reform)• Rep. Stivers amendment carves out universities
– Budget deadline • Possible partial shutdown?
• We will keep you informed of necessary updates as we get closer to 9/30
Not as bad as it has been before…
8/18/2015
3
Where does UC involvement matter?
• Agencies– Budgets still begin there
• Grants– LBA contacts are an asset
• New faculty sessions
Partners
State issues
8/18/2015
4
• Light fall session– Clean up issues from the budget
– Introduction of legislation with task force recommendations
• Spring session– Capital bill
– Likely no “second budget” this GA
– May get underway later
State issues
Looking back…• HB 64 (the biennial budget)
– SSI Increases• Additional 4.5% FY16 / 4% FY17
• Tuition cap for in-state undergraduate students
– “Senate Challenge” • Urged by Senate President
• Reduce total student costs by 5%
• Each Board of Trustees to submit plan by 10/15
8/18/2015
5
Looking back…• Task Force on Higher Education Efficiency
and Affordability– Established by Executive Order
– Work hand in hand with Senate Challenge
– Met at UC on Monday• textbook affordability
• power plant/ utility savings
– Report due to Governor by October 1, 2015
Partners
Faculty Involvement
8/18/2015
6
Contact information
Mike Carroll: 614-340-1457 / [email protected]
Alex Coorey: 614-456-7366 / [email protected]
Margie Rolf: 614-559-1918 / [email protected]
Greg Vehr: 513-556-3028 / [email protected]
What PBB IS, THE VERY SHORT VERSION
Daniel Langmeyer
August 10, 2015
--START WITH THE UPTOWN BUDGETING FOR BACCALAUREATE AND PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES, BUT
NOT REGIONALS.
The budget is developed in the Fall and continues to be tweaked Spring and then is voted on by the BOT
around June. The budget is made up of expected revenue and incremental expenses (added to existing
expenses). When expected expenses exceeds expected revenues you get a “threshold” (that is what
the threshold is). But this is just for the Uptown Colleges and the general funds that “run” the
University.
--Now comes PBB.
1. PBB is a template of where revenue is to come from (colleges) and more important to us, how that
revenue will be divided between the Provost (academic) and Sr. VP For Finance and Administration
(administration + physical plant, debt payment, athletic subsidy, etc.).
Neither of the 2 can spend more than was allocated.
2. Then , within the Provostial allocation (the amount that the uptown colleges can spend, including the
threshold) the Provost assigns resources to colleges. PBB is both a set of agreements/rules for college
level allocations which can protect the academic area from arbitrary revenue assumptions made popular
in the Steger years. The Provost can add to the college budgets, reduce the burden of a threshold but I
am not sure that she can take money away from colleges (I could be wrong)
3. Colleges are expected (regionals as well) to align their staffing and other expenditures to their
income. That is one of the things PBB stands for.
4. Colleges can meet their expected targets (income – expenses and threshold) by reducing spending or
increasing income through growing student count (new students enrolled in the college or teaching
other college’s students
5. PBB also provides an accounting report for Provostial and individual college level income and
expenditures. You can find very interesting variations between colleges in how resources are allocated
and where income comes from and this can be tracked over years.
6. WHAT ABOUT THE REGIONALS If PBB is a budget model that holds colleges accountable for their
income and requires them to “live within their means” then the regionals were always working within a
PBB model. Their proposed budgets also get approved by the BOT and all budgets including auxiliaries,
designated and restricted funds are reported in the annual budget book available to us all on line.
women in stemat uc (main campus)
tHE status of
UCLEafLeadership, Empowerment and
advancement for Women faculty3110 Edwards i
uc.edu/orgs/ucLEaf@ucLEafadvance
Page 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2
Terms .…..……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 3
Overview……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3
Challenges Facing Women and URM Faculty……………………………………………………………….. 5
Positive Trends for STEM Faculty……………………………………………………………………………….. 17
Page 2
INTRODUCTION
In 1981, UC’s Institute for Policy Research published The Status of Women at the University of Cincinnati1 on behalf of the President’s Advisory Council on Women’s Issues. It detailed the major challenges facing women on campus at the time. Sexism, sexual harassment and racial discrimination topped the list, with 30% of all female employees experiencing some level of harassment and 57% of African-‐American employees experiencing discrimination. A 1990 follow-‐up study2 revealed progress. A smaller portion of women reported sexual discrimination (9%) and fewer African-‐American employees (22%) reported being discriminated against. Furthermore, 65% of main campus faculty were Very Satisfied or Somewhat Satisfied with UC, with no significant differences across gender, race, or ethnicity. However, climate-‐related concerns persist. A 2014 study of STEM faculty3 revealed that 4% of STEM women still experience some type of sexual harassment, and 43% do not believe sexual harassment is taken seriously on campus. STEM women faculty, as well as underrepresented STEM faculty of all genders, reported more workplace incivility and felt less supported overall. The study also found that STEM women faculty, when compared to their male counterparts, teach more undergraduate courses, are asked to serve on or chair fewer RPT committees, serve on more search committees, and hold fewer leadership positions on campus. While progress has clearly been made in eliminating the most overt types of discrimination and inequities at UC among its faculty, there is still room for improvement, particularly among the STEM disciplines. The University of Cincinnati has been committed to increasing diversity for decades. Recent strategic plans (UC2019 and UC|21) re-‐emphasized the importance of increasing the diversity of the faculty in order to facilitate constructive change. UC’s Diversity Plan 2011-‐2016 is more explicit, promising to diversify the faculty, create a supportive work environment, and hold the institution accountable for evaluating and assessing all diversity goals. How have we done? This report analyzes the status of women in STEM on UC’s main campus over the past 25 years and offers analysis of trends not previously examined, including time to promotion and rates of departure. By understanding where we have been, where we are now, and why, we can perhaps learn how to promote the success of all faculty at UC more effectively. UC LEAF LEAF is a university initiative funded by a National Science Foundation (NSF)’s ADVANCE Institutional Transformation Grant. The goal of NSF’s ADVANCE program is to develop systemic approaches to increasing the representation and advancement of women in academic STEM careers. UC LEAF’s mission is to ensure the university provides an environment that promotes the advancement of women and underrepresented minority faculty in the STEM disciplines on UC’s main campus.
1 Howe, S. and Tuchfarber, A. (1981). The Status of Women at the University of Cincinnati. Cincinnati, OH: Institute for Policy Research. 2 Howe, S. and Tuchfarber, A. (1991). The 1990 Quality of Work Life Study. Cincinnati, OH: Institute for Policy Research. 3 Woodruff, S. B., Morio, K. L., Li, Y., & Bleikamp, G. M. (2014). Evaluation of Leadership, Empowerment, and Advancement for STEM Women Faculty (LEAF) at University of Cincinnati, Year 2 Report 2013-‐2014. Oxford, OH: Miami University, Ohio’s Evaluation & Assessment Center for Mathematics and Science Education.
Page 3
TERMS
STEM Faculty This report includes data on all faculty represented by the AAUP in NSF-‐defined STEM departments. These include faculty in the Colleges of Arts and Sciences (A&S), Business (COB), Engineering and Applied Science (CEAS), and Medicine (COM). Data covering other faculty are also occasionally provided for comparison. A&S STEM units include: Anthropology, Biological Sciences, Chemistry, Communication, Geography, Geology, Mathematical Sciences, Philosophy, Physics, Political Science, Psychology, and Sociology. COB STEM units include Economics and OBAIS (and all of its previous names). CEAS STEM units include all departments in the college. COM STEM units include: Cancer Biology; Environmental Health; Molecular and Cellular Physiology; Molecular Genetics, Biochemistry, and Microbiology; and Pharmacology and Cell Biophysics. In this report, Economics is treated as if it has been in COB since 1989, though it previously was in A&S; Computer Science is treated as if it has been in CEAS since 1989, though it too used to be in A&S; and Organization Leadership is treated as if it has always been in Psychology, though it used to be an independent center and before that was embedded in Economics. Faculty originally hired in University College and the College of Applied Science have been excluded from this analysis. Underrepresented Minority Faculty For the purpose of this report, “underrepresented minority (URM)” faculty refers to faculty who identify as African-‐American, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, or Native American. Although Asian and Asian-‐Americans are a statistical minority in the larger community, for a variety of complex reasons, Asian or Asian-‐American faculty are not underrepresented in the target STEM disciplines. We shall use “minority” faculty to refer to faculty who identify as Asian, Asian-‐American, African-‐American, Hispanic, Latino/Latina, or Native American, and “URM” to refer to African-‐American, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, or Native American faculty. We recognize that these distinctions are crude. OVERVIEW
UC main campus currently employs 1,623 full-‐time represented faculty, of whom 43.4% are women. Despite the intention to establish a more diverse faculty, UC has had limited success. Currently, women faculty remain substantially underrepresented in STEM in Arts & Sciences (34.7%), Business (20%), Engineering & Applied Science (10.5%), and Medicine (26.3%). The numbers for minority faculty are still below reasonable targets, constituting only 21% of all faculty, despite nearly doubling in number over the past 25 years (142 in 1990, representing 11% of all faculty, to 345 in 2015). The most significant findings of this report include:
• Over the past 25 years, there has been an 11% decrease in the number of represented STEM faculty overall.
• The change in percentage for represented faculty in STEM departments who are women has been +12%, though individual colleges have had varied results, ranging from a low of +5% to a high of +16%.
• However, the proportion of underrepresented minority faculty remains critically low. URM faculty comprise only 7% of the total represented faculty on main campus (a percentage change of +4% since 1990), and only 5% of STEM faculty (a percentage change of +3%). The percentage of URM female faculty is slightly higher at 9% of all represented female faculty (a percentage change of +4%) and 8% of all STEM women (a percentage change of +3%).
Page 4
• Female assistant STEM professors are promoted to associate at lower rates than their male counterparts. This is not true of non-‐STEM female and male faculty. Women who are URM faculty are promoted at greater rates than men, but male Asian or Asian-‐American faculty are promoted at greater rates than Asian or Asian-‐American women.
• Time to promotion from assistant to associate professor is faster for STEM men than for non-‐STEM men, STEM women, or non-‐STEM women. Time to promotion is longest for STEM women.
• Female assistant professors, especially those in STEM, are leaving the university at higher rates now than they were 20 years ago and at greater rates than their rates of employment. In contrast, retention does not appear to be an issue with minority faculty.
• While female faculty continue to experience a negative campus climate, including incidents of sexual harassment, incivility, and feeling overall less support than their male counterparts, there is no evidence of salary disparities or inequitable space allocations based on gender or race/ethnicity.
Page 5
CHALLENGES FACING WOMEN AND URM STEM FACULTY
Declining Emphasis on STEM While the total number of represented faculty has steadily increased over the past 25 years, from 1,309 in 1990 to 1,623 in 2015, the rate of increase for STEM hiring has not kept pace with the other departments.4 Indeed, the total number of STEM faculty at UC has decreased by 5%, from 627 to 598, while the number of non-‐STEM faculty has increased by 67%, from 682 to 1,025. Only 37% of represented faculty on main campus are appointed to a STEM department today, compared to 48% in 1990.
Decreasing Percentage of Women Faculty in STEM UC has nearly doubled the number of represented women faculty on main campus over the past 25 years (from 362 to 705), but the women in non-‐STEM departments continue to significantly outnumber the women in STEM departments. STEM female faculty comprised 25% of all female faculty in 1990, but only 22% in 2015. However, it is important to note that STEM women are disproportionately less likely than men to be on the tenure track (71.2% versus 82.4% in 2015) although this discrepancy has improved slightly since 1990. Non-‐STEM women are also less likely than men to be in tenure track positions but for non-‐STEM women the gender discrepancy has worsened since 1990.
4 All references to the Bargaining Unit and its composition assume current definitions. In other words, clinical faculty in Medicine who were dropped from the Bargaining Unit several years ago are not included in analyses for earlier periods.
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Number of Faculty
Non-‐STEM faculty
STEM faculty
-‐ 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Number of Women Faculty
Non-‐STEM women
STEM women
Page 6
Because many of the faculty in COM are not in the bargaining unit, we also examined the gender representation in the full-‐time clinical faculty in COM. Unfortunately, we do not have employment data extending back 25 years. But currently, COM has 838 full-‐time clinical faculty, of whom 272 or 32% are women. We can compare COM with Cincinnati Children’s Hospital and Medical Center (CCHMC), which has 714 clinical faculty, of whom 319 or 45% are women. Percentage of STEM Women Faculty Varies by College Between 1990 and 2015, the percentage of tenure-‐track and tenured STEM women faculty did increase by 11% on main campus, but colleges differed in rates of improvement. A&S increased the number of women STEM faculty from 39 to 90, bringing the percentage of women in STEM from 16% to 35%. COB increased the number of women STEM faculty from two to seven, bringing the percentage of women in STEM from 5% to 20%. In CEAS, the number of women STEM faculty rose from six to 15, bringing the percentage of women in STEM from 4% to 11%. In COM, the total number of STEM faculty has decreased since 1990, from 201 to 171. As a result, even though the college only increased the number women STEM faculty by one, from 44 to 45, the percentage of women in STEM rose from 22% to 26%. Importantly, as seen in the figure below, the increases across the colleges are not due solely to increases in the number of women faculty off the tenure track.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Men Women Men Women
1990 2015
Tenure-‐Track vs. Non Tenure-‐Track STEM Faculty
Non Tenure-‐Track
Tenure-‐Track/Tenured
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Women as a Percentage of STEM Faculty (Tenure-‐Track/Tenured Faculty Only)
A&S
COM
Total
COB
CEAS
Page 7
Small Numbers of URM Faculty The percentage of African-‐American, Hispanic/Latino/Latina, and Native American faculty remains extremely low, especially in STEM and clinical departments. In particular, the percentage of URM faculty at UC, both campus-‐wide and in the STEM disciplines, has remained virtually unchanged over the past 25 years. (UC has one Native American STEM faculty member on main campus.)
The increase in represented Asian or Asian-‐American faculty on UC’s main campus is probably indicative of more than one thing, including its commitment to globalization and its improved research profile, as well as its commitment to diversity. However, there still remains a significant, though closing, gender disparity. While the number of Asian and Asian-‐American faculty increased 126% from 99 to 224 from 1990 to 2015, the percentage of those faculty who were women moved from 12% to only 32%. This contrasts with the changes in African-‐American and Hispanic/Latina faculty (the URM faculty). The number of African-‐American faculty also rose 126%, from 37 to 70, over the past 25 years, but the percentage of those faculty who were women grew from 46% to 53%. And the number of Hispanic/Latino/Latina faculty grew from six to 51, while the percentage of Hispanic/Latina women faculty increased from 17% to 49%. Comparable patterns emerge in the STEM departments. The number of Asian or Asian-‐American STEM faculty increased from 78 to 145 from 1990 to 2015, and the percentage of those faculty who were women moved from 8% to 21%. Similarly, the number of Hispanic/Latino/Latina faculty grew from two to 15, and the percentage of Hispanic/Latina women faculty increased from 0% to 33%. This contrasts
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Percentage of Minority Faculty
Asian
African-‐American
Hispanic
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Percentage of Minority STEM Faculty
Asian
African-‐American
Hispanic
Page 8
with the changes in African-‐American faculty. The number of African-‐American faculty rose from 9 to 15 over the past 25 years, but the percentage of those faculty who were women only moved from 56% to 53%, albeit with a significant dip between 2000 and 2005.
We do not have historical data regarding the diversity of non-‐bargaining unit faculty in COM or CCHMC. However, in 2015, COM had 130 Asian or Asian-‐American faculty, 34% of whom were women; 27 African-‐American faculty, 33% of whom were women; 23 Hispanic/Latino/Latina faculty, 52% were women. CCHMC had 85 Asian or Asian-‐American faculty, 32% of whom were women; 19 African-‐American faculty, 68% of whom were women; 13 Hispanic/Latino/Latina faculty, 38% of whom were women.
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Percentage of Minority Faculty Who Are Women
Asian
African American
Hispanic
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Percentage of Minority STEM Faculty Who Are Women
Asian
African American Hispanic
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Asian African-‐American Hispanic
Percentage of Minority Faculty
COM
CCHMC
Page 9
Variable Promotion Rates There are large differences in the promotion rates of faculty at UC, by gender, race/ethnicity, and across disciplinary areas. Between 1990-‐2002, female assistant professors in STEM fields on west campus were promoted at rates slightly greater than those of male (68% versus 62%). However, this outcome reversed between 2003-‐2015. Promotion rates of female assistant professors in STEM on west campus now lag far behind those of males (50% versus 74%). The opposite effect is observed in promotion to full in STEM. Men used to be promoted at greater rates than women (56% versus 31%), but now women are promoted at significantly greater rates than men (48% versus 70%). In contrast, both male and female non-‐STEM assistant professors on west campus have experienced a decline in promotion rates, though they are now closer to parity than they were in 1990-‐2002. Promotion rates to full for non-‐STEM men have remained stable across time, while non-‐STEM women have seen a substantial increase; non-‐STEM women are now promoted at much greater rates to full than men (51% versus 42%).
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Asian African-‐American Hispanic
Percentage of Minority Faculty Who Are Women
COM
CCHMC
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
West Campus STEM Faculty PromoNon from
Assistant to Associate
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
West Campus STEM Faculty PromoNon from Associate to Full
Page 10
STEM women in COM have seen great declines in their promotion rates. Between 1990-‐2002, women at both assistant and associate professor ranks were promoted at rates much higher than men (77% of women versus 44% of men were promoted to associate professor and 55% women versus 48% of men were promoted to full). Today, male assistant professors are promoted at rates more than double that of female assistant professors and male associate professors at more than triple that of female associate professors. Only 25% of women who were assistant professors and 18% of women who were associate professors were promoted in the past 12 years, compared to 56% of male assistant professors and 58% of male associate professors.
In the colleges of Nursing, Pharmacy, and Allied Health, assistant professors for both genders have experienced a decline in promotion rates. Similar to west campus non-‐STEM faculty, they are now closer to gender parity than in 1990-‐2002. Female associate professors are now promoted at a slightly greater rate than male.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty PromoNon
From Assistant to Associate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
West Campus Non-‐STEM Faculty PromoNon
Associate to Full
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
College of Medicine STEM Faculty PromoNon from
Assistant to Associate
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
College of Medicine STEM Faculty PromoNon from Associate to Full
Page 11
Promotion rates for west and medical campus Asian/Asian-‐American faculty vary by rank and gender. Due to small numbers, we have combined the STEM and non-‐STEM faculty into one measure. Male assistant professors saw a slight increase in promotion rates while male associate professors saw a slight decrease. Conversely, female assistant professors saw a significant decrease in promotion rates and are now promoted less frequently than men (47% versus 61%). Female associate professors saw a noteworthy increase in promotion rates and are now promoted at a greater rate than men (53% versus 45%).
Promotion rates for URM male assistant and associate professors decreased over the past 25 years while they increased for URM female assistant and associate professors. Due to small numbers, we have combined the STEM and non-‐STEM faculty into one measure. Between 1990-‐2002, male URM assistant professors were promoted at greater rates than female URM assistant professors; however, URM female assistant professors are now promoted at greater rates than URM male (53% versus 42%). The reversal in promotion rate appears just as dramatic at the associate level; it too now strongly favors women (50% versus 39%). (It is important to keep in mind, however, that the small total number of URM faculty influences the percentage variability.)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
Nursing, Pharmacy, and Allied Health Sciences Faculty
PromoNon from Assistant to Associate
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
Nursing, Pharmacy, and Allied Health Sciences Faculty
PromoNon from Associate to Full
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
Asian/Asian-‐American Faculty PromoNon From
Assistant to Associate
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
Asian/Asian-‐American Faculty PromoNon From Associate to Full
Page 12
Time to Promotion is Longer for Women and URM Time to promotion to associate and tenure on main campus is faster for STEM men than non-‐STEM men, STEM women, and non-‐STEM women. Time to promotion is longest for STEM women. (Note that because only 43% of female assistant professors in STEM were promoted to associated by the 8th year after hire, this means that fully 57% of the STEM women either left UC or were denied tenure. Though this will be the subject of a future report, preliminary data indicate that female assistant professors in STEM leave UC at roughly three times the rate that male assistant professors in STEM.)
While time to promotion for Asian or Asian-‐American STEM men and non-‐STEM men and women are close to parity, we see relative delays for Asian or Asian-‐American STEM women. In particular, Asian or Asian-‐American STEM women do not seem to receive early tenure and promotion decisions, while other Asian or Asian-‐American faculty do. Similarly for URM assistant professors: URM STEM women do not appear to receive early tenure and promotion, while URM non-‐STEM men appear to quite regularly.
0%
20%
40%
60%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
URM Faculty PromoNon From Assistant to Associate
0%
20%
40%
60%
Men Women Men Women
1990-‐2002 2003-‐2015
URM Faculty PromoNon From Associate to Full
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Faculty
Promoted
Years Since Hire
Time to PromoNon: Assistant Professors
STEM men
Non-‐STEM Men
Non-‐STEM Women STEM Women
Page 13
Rates of promotion to full start out roughly comparable for male and female STEM and non-‐STEM faculty, though ultimately more men in STEM are promoted to full than women in STEM. One important difference is that STEM women effectively stop being promoted after 11 years in the associate rank, while STEM men, as well as non-‐STEM men and women, continue to be promoted until year 13.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Faculty
Promoted
Years Since Hire
Asian STEM Men
Asian Non-‐STEM Men
Asian Non-‐STEM Women
Asian STEM Women
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Faculty
Promoted
Years Since Hire
Time to PromoNon: URM Assistant Professors
URM STEM Men
URM Non-‐STEM Men
URM Non-‐STEM Women
URM STEM Women
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Faculty
Promoted
Years Since Hire
Time to PromoNon: Associate Professors
STEM men
Non-‐STEM Women Non-‐STEM Men
STEM Women
Time to Promotion: Asian/Asian-‐American Assistant Professors
Page 14
Similar patterns emerge when examining minority faculty, though rates for promotion to full lag at five years for URM men, relative to URM women and Asian or Asian-‐American men or women. In addition, URM women effectively stop being promoted after a decade as associate, while Asian or Asian-‐American women and URM men stop after 11 years and Asian or Asian-‐American men continue to receive promotions for 13 years. Due to small numbers, we have combined the STEM and non-‐STEM minority faculty into one measure.
Female Assistant Professors Leave UC at Higher Rates For the past 20 years, the percentage of both male and female faculty leaving UC has been roughly the same as the total percentage of both male and female faculty, respectively. For example, between 2010 and 2014, 42% of all represented faculty were women, and, of the faculty who left UC, 43% were women. Under perfectly equitable conditions, these percentages should equal one another.
However, even though the percentages of women faculty departing overall matched the percentage employed at UC, once we look more closely at the data, a more complex story appears. Since 2005, assistant professor women have been leaving UC at a higher rate than their employment. Over the past ten years, women have left at a rate 10% greater than their employment rate. The opposite trend occurs with male assistant professors. Though associate and full professor women used to leave at higher rates, the differences between percentage employed and percentage departing for these two groups are now virtually the same. Similarly, though associate and full professor men used to leave at lower rates, the
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Faculty
Promoted
Years Since Hire
Time to PromoNon: Asian/Asian-‐American and URM Associate Professors
Asian Women
Asian Men
URM Women
URM Men
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
1990-‐ 1994
1995-‐ 1999
2000-‐ 2004
2005-‐ 2009
2010-‐ 2014
Percen
t of Faculty
Faculty ARriNon Rates
Men
Amrinon in Men
Women
Amrinon in Women
Page 15
differences between percentage employed and percentage departing for these two groups are now virtually identical.
These trends become exaggerated if we restrict our category to STEM women who are assistant professors. By 2010-‐2014, only 34% of the STEM faculty were women, but 56% of the STEM faculty who departed UC were women.
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1990-‐ 1994
1995-‐ 1999
2000-‐ 2004
2005-‐ 2009
2010-‐ 2014
Percen
t of Faculty
Faculty ARriNon Rates: Assistant Professors
Women
Amrinon in Women
Men
Amrinon in Men
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
1990-‐ 1994
1995-‐ 1999
2000-‐ 2004
2005-‐ 2009
2010-‐ 2014
Percen
t of Faculty
Faculty ARriNon Rates: Associate and Full Professors
Men
Amrinon in Men
Women
Amrinon in Women
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
1990-‐ 1994
1995-‐ 1999
2000-‐ 2004
2005-‐ 2009
2010-‐ 2014
PErcen
t of Faculty
STEM Assistant Professor Faculty ARriNon Rates
Assistant Women
Amrinon in Women
Page 16
In contrast, the percentage of Asian or Asian-‐American faculty who leave UC is comparable to the percentage of faculty at UC who identify as Asian or Asian American, both for men and women. In 2010-‐2014, 14% of represented faculty were Asian or Asian-‐American, and 12% of those who left were Asian or Asian-‐American. In 2010, they comprised 9% of all female faculty, and 7% of female faculty who left UC]
Currently, URM faculty also leave UC at parity. By 2015, URM faculty comprised 7% of represented faculty, and 7% of all faculty departures were URM. We find similar rates when looking at men and women URM faculty separately.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
1990-‐ 1994
1995-‐ 1999
2000-‐ 2004
2005-‐ 2009
2010-‐ 2014
Percen
t of Faculty
Asian/Asian-‐American Faculty ARriNon Rates
Men
Amrinon in Men
Women
Amrinon in Women
2%
3%
4%
5%
6%
7%
8%
1990-‐ 1994
1995-‐ 1999
2000-‐ 2004
2005-‐ 2009
2010-‐ 2014
Percen
t of Faculty
URM Faculty ARriNon Rates
URM Faculty
Amrinon in URM Faculty
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
1990-‐ 1994
1995-‐ 1999
2000-‐ 2004
2005-‐ 2009
2010-‐ 2014
Percen
t of Faculty
URM Faculty ARriNon Rates
Women
Amrinon in Women
Men
Amrinon in Men
Page 17
The recent gender disparity in retention for assistant professors on the tenure track in STEM units results from two different issues. Some STEM women have been recruited away by other schools. Some STEM women have failed to earn promotion and tenure. But while these appear to be so very different that it would be important to study gender discrepancies separately for these two kinds of attrition, both point to the same solutions: UC has to do better at recruiting good female candidates, ensuring that they have every opportunity to succeed, and making UC the kind of place where great women STEM scientists want to stay. POSITIVE TRENDS
No Difference in STEM Faculty Salaries The 1990 Quality of Work Life Study highlighted major challenges facing women faculty, including salary inequity. The study found that female faculty were less satisfied with merit pay than male. They found both the size and the distribution of the merit pay pool problematic. Quantitative analyses of salary and raises were not performed for this report, however. The 2014 LEAF external evaluation report found STEM women’s attitudes toward salary had improved: Salary inequity is no longer among major concerns reported by women and URM faculty. Importantly, there are no significant differences in salary for STEM faculty by gender, race/ethnicity, after controlling for title, years in rank, college, and years of prior experience. No Difference in STEM Faculty Space Allocation Faculty satisfaction with space has also improved over time. The Status of Women at the University of Cincinnati 1981 report found that while there were no significant differences in satisfaction with quantity and quality of lab space based on gender, there were significant differences based on rank and race. Assistant professors and African-‐American faculty in particular were more dissatisfied than other faculty. By 2014, however, there were no statistically significant differences in lab space allocation by gender or race/ethnicity, after controlling for title, college, years in rank, and years of prior experience. Over half of the women in STEM indicated they were Satisfied or Very Satisfied with their research/lab space.
Minutes of the Faculty Senate Meeting held Thursday May 14th 2015.
Prepared by Gail J. Pyne-Geithman, D.Phil. secretary.
1. Call to order.
The meeting was opened by TH (Chair).
2. Approval of the April minutes.
Motion to approve: SM, seconded: DJ. Minutes were approved unanimously, no abstentions.
3. Report of the faculty chair (TH).
The report is reproduced here as provided by TH and posted on the FS website.
TH: We recently conferred some 6400 degrees. We really need to increase faculty attendance. Any comments
on the ceremony or suggestions for improving faculty participation?
JT (who was on the stage): It was too crowded and impersonal. They need to expand the breadth of the
podium. Unless you were near the speaker, you could not get to graduands and you could not really see what
was happening. I felt like we were just decoration.
TH: Faculty used to be in the stands, but then we were even more disconnected. One problem was that
graduates and their families started to leave after the morning session.
SM: If you are a marshal, you get to be in with the graduands.
JT: It was more personal and manageable when graduation was at a college level.
Emeriti: You could invite emeritus faculty, some would come.
TH: Faculty Senate boot camp will be on August 20th, 2015; details to be found on the Faculty Senate Website
http://www.uc.edu/facultysenate.html
What do you think about us extending our meetings to 3 pm until 5 pm?
GJPG: Hard work for the secretary, but if chair and student government reports are provided, it would be OK.
JT: During the school year, the teaching grid ends at 3.20. Most of us a rescheduled to teach until then. So, if
meetings started at 3 pm, it would limit those who could be senators.
TH: Let’s keep it at 3.30 then.
4. Report of the President (S. Ono).
Thanks to Tracy and the faculty senate for their service. At the recent commencement we graduated
some 7700 students; a record for UC. The speaker was Kirk Perry (Google Brands) and he was excellent. The
large size of the commencement was a [problem; we exceeded capacity of the venue. Can we continue to do
this or introduce a third ceremony? We were able to accommodate some of the overflow, but people were
being turned away which garnered criticism. One problem was people want4ed to take selfies with me…took
at least an hour longer per ceremony than previous years. I want to talk to student body about whether it
should be a one big ceremony at Nippert stadium or to split it up. A survey showed that the students wanted
to shake my hand and have their name called, but attention span is about 2 hours for most people.
EMERITI: Nippert might be a problem if the weather is bad.
SO: Some Uni’s do it anyway and have a backup inside venue. That would be a big concern. One big ceremony
and then disperse.
JT: I would endorse that model. One big ceremony then go back to individual colleges. For instance come back
to DAAP to show families their degree work.
SO: Clermont College already does that; it would decrease the length of the big ceremony.
There was general support for this model from the floor.
CA: Don’t underestimate the power of shaking the president’s hand!
SO: Nancy Zimpher began making it all one big ceremony because the students wanted it that way.
CA: it is a more meaningful experience if the students get to meet the president.
AP: We can get a “bigger and better” speaker if it is one big ceremony.
JT: I still think keep that big ceremony then disperse to colleges.
SO: recently had an excellent “research week” at COM. David Baltimore (Nobel Laureate) spoke and it
included High School students from Summit and Seven Hills. We want to expand this to invite Nobel Laureates
in non-medical science fields and do a better job of representing all aspects of research next time.
Great news regarding fundraising. Doing better this year than at the same point last year. 1600 new donors
and many major gifts. I have just learned that we are to receive a $5M transformational gift! There has been
an uptick in donations because of outreach, Keck foundation etc.
It is likely that tuition will be capped for a t least the next 2 years; enrolment may flatten and we don’t yet
know if we will get any more money from the State of Ohio. Federal funding is up, so I hope we will be able to
move through the next 2 years without cuts.
5. Old Business.
(i) Academic Affairs Committee— A Resolution Regarding Policy Development for Distance Learning
in Courses and Programs
Sally Moomaw (Chair Academic Affairs) presented the resolution, which is reproduced below).
TH: Since this comes from a Faculty Senate Committee, there is no second needed.
AP: A colleague from UCBA expressed a concern that it is too generic, but that it has to be in order to Adapt to
multiple colleges.
SM: You are correct, but this addresses a specific concern.
AP: We will develop a poor reputation based on the quality of the weakest courses.
TH: This does not have to be the only resolution though. We can have further more detailed resolutions
regarding academic integrity.
SM: We were concerned that some colleges would cherry-pick.
DC: Was there any discussion of the Quality Matters rubric?
DH/SM: Yes, this is included as a “whereas”.
TH: Any further discussion? Thank you Sally and the Academic Affairs Committee.
The resolution was passed unanimously with no abstention, and will be adopted.
(ii) Planning Committee—A Resolution Regarding the Implementation of a Tobacco-Free Campus
Jeff Tilman (Chair Planning Committee) presented the resolution, which is reproduced below.
JT: A previous resolution failed with the faculty and graduate students, but this may come from higher up. We
would ask that UC respond by committing to support those affected.
CA: I thought a lot of tobacco provisions were removed in the last iteration?
JT: Our Governmental Liaison sent me the Ohio Senate verbiage that was passed. It is likely to stay the same
since this about health, not tax.
AP: I think it would be good to have this in place whether or not the resolution passes in the Ohio house.
JT: Absolutely; there could be up to 6000 UC persons that use tobacco at UC.
SM: I really like that the resolution is supportive of people that want to quit.
JT: Students seemed unaware that the enactment of the local resolution would affect them.
AM: A quick vote from the graduate students indicated support of this resolution.
JT: Is there any other discussion?
TH: The resolution is unanimously approved with no abstentions. Thank you.
(iii) April Committee Reports
Reports are available online:
o Budget & Priorities: http://www.uc.edu/facultysenate/standing_committees/budget.html
o Research & Scholarship:
http://www.uc.edu/facultysenate/standing_committees/research_and_scholarship.html
(iv) Any other business?
None raised.
6. Residency (Presented by Rich Miller, Provost’s Office).
Dr. Miller proceeded to present a powerpoint presentation regarding residency requirements for students to
get a degree from a particular college of UC (eg. UCBA, Main Campus).
RM: I am asking for feedback on these ideas. There are minimum credit hours necessary to obtain a degree.
RR: If you want to set a higher standard a college can do this (for transfer students).
RM: If a student transfers from a foreign University, I would make them take the US code classes, because it is
a licensing issue (engineering). You could not graduate from a US University in Engineering without the US
Codes. I expect there are similar issues with Law, COM and Pharmacy.
CA: The wording-we can specify that any rotation or transfer is approved by COM faculty.
SM: In A&S with PBB: what if I am a COM student and take history classes, would A&S get the money?
RM: Yes. Not for occasional class, but for a regional student.
7. TH: Motion to not hold June and July FS meetings
No objections. There will be no faculty senate meetings in June and July of 2015.
8. Report from the Undergraduate Student Government Association (A. Naab)
Andrew distributed a handout, which is reproduced below.
The USGA is asking that any changes in fees should come before the student tribunal; not as an approval step,
but to get input from the student body.
Emeriti: This is an excellent report, and I admire that you are taking on issues that should be the responsibility
of the administration.
AN: We are also working with the College of Nursing on mental health internships.
SS: Regarding textbooks; we are stuck in a hard place. Sometimes older editions are fine for many things-could
we have some PR?
AN: Some programs, such as Professional Practice, are using online textbook resources. We applaud this.
9. Report from Graduate Student Government Association (A. Mazman)
We are currently going through an evaluation of our GSGA. It is not currently a sustainable model. We don’t
have a review of the travel grants and now we have more students and better applications. There has been no
budget increase since 2011. We are changing the structure for graduate student conference travel awards.
Right now we have over 1000 applications all coming to one person. CCH, CCM and Engineering (from whom
most of the applications come) will be processing applications and then passing on the appropriate ones to
GSGA. We would also like to increase the number of GSGA executive officers. I will be writing a proposal for
that.
SM: Where will colleges other than the three you listed send their GSGA travel applications?
AM: We will be implementing this incrementally as we get more money for GS travel. Those applications will
still come directly to GSGA.
10. Report from AAUP President (G. Loving)
Debbie Herman is leaving for the University of Wisconsin, Madison on August 18th. We are hiring Eric
Palmer as executive director. Regarding House Bill 64: there was some anti-faculty union language which went
to R and D senators in Columbus. It appeared they were trying to categorize faculty as managers. Due largely
to UC AAUP Chapter efforts, we were able to gear up fast and send appropriate language. The senate doesn’t
like the house bill and are writing their own-problem! This is proof that our organizational structure works in
the short-term. The bill was released on a Wednesday and we had the poor language removed by Friday.
Q. There was a CityBeat article; Union response?
GL: Yes, this was the report on statewide sports spending written by a Pulitzer-prize winning journalism faculty
member’s investigative journalism class.
A link to this article is provided here: http://citybeat.com/cincinnati/article-32706-robin_hood_in_reverse.html
11. Q & A with the Provost—Faculty Morale (B. Davenport)
I have recently talked with Bleuzette Marshall (Chief Diversity Officer) so that we can do a better job of
directing students when they come to her with claims of discrimination. CDO is difficult and has not been a
long-standing role. I have just come from Title IX discussion with Jyl Shafer (Title IX Coordinator); faculty are on
the front line and knowing what to do and who to go to is vital.
One of the issues is consent: what it is, and is not.
Our office has also been working to prioritize the budget for the Board of Trustees. We use the
guidelines of the Third Century initiative: (i) Investing in faculty, (ii) reimagining the student experience and
(iii) eLearning. Here’s what we invested on top of the $1M from AAUP.
Provost’s fellow program (there will likely be 2)
Funds for study in a second discipline; release time for faculty
Fellowships, money, time for faculty to work in another Department for a semester
Cluster hire initiative: we have been too slower to get these funded searches started
BD then gave an example of such an interdisciplinary program that was successful at Purdue.
AN English department faculty member won a National Poetry award. She spent a semester studying
anatomy, a second in a life art class and then went to Spain to work on art science poetry.
So far, 46% of faculty hires under the cluster hiring and dual career program have been underrepresented
minorities.
We have been and will be using our spendable revenue to invest in faculty development, digital tools and
support to move from “classrooms” to “learning environments”. We want all faculty to be active using
Blackboard.
TH: Can we refocus on Faculty Morale? Shared governance at the College level, some colleges have moved
away from that.
SM: Linked with what BD already said, CECH has invested heavily in digital classroom technology. No one has
ever come to see how I teach and what I might need; people just tell us what we need. Moving toward
electronic teaching without our consultation or input is affecting our morale.
TI: There is an eClassroom committee that takes suggestions for methods and sustainability: I’d be happy to
pass on your comments. The majority of opinion seems to be that we should leverage technology to improve
pedagogy-not replace it.
BD: We identify our needs from the students, committees and faculty. I hope that we can get more of your
input.
GJPG: There is evidence that actual paper is more effective than electronic interfaces for reading,
understanding and retaining information.
JT: You should probably get ProPel involved. It would be grate for academic faculty to get back into industry if
they have been teaching for a spell or are moving to a new discipline. We send our students out on Co-ops for
real life experience, but we faculty lose touch with the real world of, for instance, architecture, when we
teach.
TH: Meeting adjourned?
RH propose, MH second.
