三亿体育官网

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

After moving approval of the minutes of the Faculty Meeting held September 7, 2018, President Glotzbach reported corrections that had been received since the minutes were distributed.  He asked if there were any other corrections to, or comments regarding, the minutes of the Faculty Meeting held September 7, 2018.  Hearing none, he announced the minutes, as amended, were approved.

PRESIDENT鈥橲 REPORT

President Glotzbach called on Professor James Kennelly to make a brief introduction.  On behalf of the search committee for the Vice President for Finance and Administration and Treasurer (VPFA), Professor James Kennelly introduced Donna Ng as 三亿体育官网鈥檚 new Vice President for Finance and Administration and Treasurer.  A welcoming round of applause was given to VPFA Ng.

President Glotzbach announced that the Dean of Students, in collaboration with other campus offices, is planning a series of events during the week of November 5-8, 2018 focusing on free speech. Events being planned include speakers, workshops, community conversations, and a campus video to provide smart and relevant options for the community to engage in a discussion on free speech.  Invited speakers include Dr. Sandy Ungar, Zachary R. Wood, Scott Jaschik, and Dr. Sigal Ben-Porath.  Further details will be forthcoming.  

President Glotzbach then called on Joshua Woodfork, Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity.  VP Woodfork announced upcoming In It 3 events scheduled for October 11-12, 2018.  In It 3 is a suite of diversity and inclusion programs open to faculty, staff, and students designed to raise our cultural fluency and strengthen our community.  Details of the programming can be found on the In It 3 website (/diversity/init3/index.php). VP Woodfork thanked the inclusion liaisons and the Committee on Intercultural and Global Understanding for their assistance with the planning of these events.

President Glotzbach concluded his report by reading a statement concerning the CAPT Annual Report discussed at the September 8 Faculty Meeting:

鈥淎t the September 2018 Faculty Meeting, I agreed to comment further on the report from the Committee on Appointments, Promotions, and Tenure (CAPT) that was issued in August 2018.  Because of the need to preserve confidentiality, I appreciate the Faculty Executive Committee鈥檚 (FEC) decision not to hold a faculty-only meeting to discuss this matter.  But I also recognize that some questions may still remain in the minds of people who necessarily do not have 鈥� nor should they have 鈥� access to all (or any!) of the details of the underlying events.

In making a decision regarding tenure and promotion 鈥� and in discussing any such decision 鈥� three values come into play:

• • Adherence to the processes, procedures, criteria, and standards stipulated in the Faculty Handbook;

  • Attention to 鈥渓arger institutional and budgetary considerations鈥�  pertaining to the College;

  • Fairness to the candidate, including preservation of confidentiality, which strongly restricts what any involved parties legitimately can say in public.

Given concerns expressed by some faculty members regarding both the process and the broader implications of my decision, it is important to note that the Committee on Academic Freedom and Rights (CAFR) also was involved in the case at issue.  At the same time, we need to understand clearly that CAFR was not called upon to evaluate or assess CAPT鈥檚 processes or recommendation.  Instead, as required by the Faculty Handbook, these two committees considered two different aspects of the process; their recommendations drew upon different sources of evidence; and they sought to answer different questions.

As required by our policies and procedures, after completing its process, CAFR made its recommendation to me.  It then became my responsibility to consider that recommendation 鈥� which, again, addressed material considerations outside the CAPT process 鈥� and determine a course of action, based on all the information then available to me.  Before reaching my decision, I consulted extensively and on multiple occasions with CAPT, CAFR, the Office of the Dean of the Faculty, the Chair of the Tenure Review Board (TRB), the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees, and the College鈥檚 legal counsel.  CAPT is correct that the case at issue was complicated, raising procedural questions about which reasonable persons could disagree.  Specifically, through the various consultations in which I engaged, it became clear that, in resolving this issue, several sections of th