Meeting Minutes, September 12, 2013 Skaggs Building, Room 169 Members Present

Meeting Minutes, September 12, 2013
Skaggs Building, Room 169

Members Present:	L. Ametsbichler, J. Bardsley, D. Beck, B. Borrie, S. Bradford, J. Cavanaugh, A. Chatterjee, M. Chin, M. DeGrandpre, H. Eggert, L. Frey, E. Gagliardi, C. Galipeau, S. Gordon, L. Gray, N. Greymorning, K. Harris, J. Hirstein, H. Kim, A. Kinny, C. Knight, A. Larson, J. Laskin, B. Layton, S. Lodmell, D. MacDonald, M. Mayer, N. McCrady, K. McKay, C. Merriman, J. Montauban, P. Muench C. Palmer, E. Putnam, M. Raymond, S. Richter, D. Schuldberg J. Sears, S. Shen, D. Shepherd, D. Shively, A. Sondag, M. Stark, S. Tillerman, E. Uchimoto, R. Vanita, K. Wu, K. Zoellner
Members Excused	A. Belcourt, L. Gillison, M. Neilson, E. Plant, R. Premuroso
Members Absent	M. Bowman, W. Chung, J. Crepeau, T. Crawford, J. Eglin, R. Fanning, J. Glendening, C. Hahn, W. Holben, D. Hollist, M. Horejsi, P. Silverman, D. Sloan, A. Szalda-Petree,
Ex-Officio Present:	President Engstrom, Provost Brown, Interim Associate Provost Hinman, Interim Registrar Hickman
Guest:	H. Ausland, B. Chin, M. Cole, E. Gutierrez, P. Zagalo-Melow, M.Valentin

Chair Putnam called the meeting to order at 3:10p.m. She asked that Senators sit in the first four rows and guests in back. Interim Registrar Hickman called roll.

The minutes from 5/9/13 and 7/11/13 were approved.

Communication:

• 
  President Royce Engstrom
  The President welcomed senators to the new academic year and thanked them for their service.
  
  

Missoula College Location
The University is in the final stages of deciding on a site location for the Missoula College. Two forums are scheduled for September 19^th and 20^th to hear from the Missoula Community, the Missoula College faculty, staff, and students, as well as others interested in the issue. The focus is on two locations: the South Campus / Golf Course location, which has been controversial over the past year; and East Broadway / MonTec Location. Each location has pros and cons that will be discussed at the public forums. For example, the East Broadway location has some cost saving advantages related to infrastructure. He intends to make a final decision shortly after the forums. An additional environmental assessment will be needed for either site. Once the decision is made it will likely be 8-10 months before construction begins. The University is in the process of raising the additional $3 million for a total of 32 million required to fund the project.

Events
The 15^th day of instruction is the official census day. Enrollment numbers will be made public sometime next week. The budget was built last spring based on enrollment projections. The budget is approved at the Board of Regents meeting next week in Butte. Additional business items at the meetings include approval of academic programs, building projects, and policy items. Agendas are posted to the website and meetings are open to the public. Faculty members interested in the process are encouraged to view the agenda and attend meetings.

Senator Baucus’ Economic Development Summit is in Butte next week as well. Several Keynote speakers will discuss economic opportunities for Montana. Attendees from UM will learn about opportunities for our students and ensure the companies understand that the University is a major contributor to Montana’s economy.

Sandra Day O’Connor will receive an Honorary Degree from the University tomorrow at 3:00 p.m. in the Dennison Theatre. A reception will follow the ceremony. Granting honorary degrees is a privilege that often originates with faculty. If you know an individual deserving an honorary degree please work through your college structure to complete the nomination materials and submit them to the Provost’s Office.

Questions / Comments
Both locations are workable for both current and projected parking needs. Seven hundred and forty parking spaces are required for the student population at the Missoula College. The South Campus location will require parking spaces to be constructed with some overlap with the Park and Ride. The road that services the parking would also need to be built. The East Missoula site has existing parking that is underutilized and the land on the other side of East Broadway is available for lease as well. Missoula College parking is currently free but requires a permit. Whether this will continue at the new location is still up for discussion, but is a separate decision from the site location.

Senator Frey is appalled by some of the content in the agreement with the Department of Justice. On pg13 the agreement requires the University to submit a list of employees’ names and job titles who completed and failed to complete training. This is reminiscent of loyalty oaths and is counter to a democratic institution. Non-US citizens find this intimidating. What is the justification for signing something like this?

President Engstrom: The University agreed with the Department of Justice to make UM a safer campus free from fear of sexual assault. This is one of the mechanisms to do this. Individuals unwilling or unable to complete the training provide a written statement that includes the reason for non-participation. Hopefully most employees will complete the training. The University was in a very difficult situation given the circumstances. The University was advised by outside attorneys that this was the best agreement available at the time. You should make your views known if conditions of the agreement are unacceptable.

Senator Frey is embarrassed to be associated with UM. She is even more appalled that the DOJ flaunts this agreement as the blueprint for the future. UM’s name is going across the nation with these Gestapo tactics.

Senator Vanita understands that opposing the Department of Justice could have led to an expensive law suit, but on the other hand committing to the very wide definition of what constitutes harassment (includes sexually explicit materials or any unwanted advance, which could be asking someone out on a date) makes the University susceptible to frivolous lawsuits.

President Engstrom: The definition of sexual assault in the agreement specifies that it interferes with the student’s education and is not just an unwanted advance, but repeated unwanted advances.

Professor Mayer opposed the use of the broader definition to Lucy Franz. It was removed from the policy but is still in the tutorial. The President indicated the tutorial would be fixed.

Negotiations for faculty salary increases are ongoing. Until an agreement is reached, the details are confidential. The Legislature appropriated 2.5-3% increase for state employees (including faculty and staff). How this is configured into a salary package is part of the negotiations.

• 
  Provost Perry Brown
  Provost Brown also welcomed senators to the new academic year. His first item of communication was the presentation of the Non-tenurable faculty list. With the exception of Missoula College at 56%, all colleges are well within the 25% required by academic policy 101.2, Non-Tenuarable Academic Appointments. The other percentages range from 11.9% to 23%. A link will be provided to Senators once available. The Provost received the report this morning.
  

A Taskforce will be established to identify and communicate innovative learning techniques. He has asked someone to chair the Taskforce, but has yet to receive a response. He will send a campus communication once the chair is in place.
The Missoula business community and some faculty are engaged in the topic of big data analytics and cyber security. A Big Data Analytics Certificate proposed at the bachelor level and a Missoula College Cyber Security Certificate will be working through the curriculum review process. A few Missoula companies have agreed to donate equipment and other resources in order to establish a Cyber Security Lab to teach the skills needed for current jobs. The administration is looking for an appropriate space. A recent report identified Missoula as one of the top 25 innovation cities in the country because of the number of newly started businesses in big data and cyber security. Keynote speakers at the Economic Summit included the Google CEO, Hewlett Packer, and Facebook.
Searches

Administrative searches in Academic Affairs include the Deans for Journalism, Law, Health Professions and Biomedical Sciences and a Registrar. He is also looking at how to configure the Office because there is one interim Associate Provost and Associate Provost Walker Andrews will be retiring at the ending of the fiscal year. The Faculty Senate will be involved with staffing the search committees.
Questions
The data from the non-tenurable report includes FTE of all faculty, but there is not a summary of full-time faculty compared to part-time faculty. There are federal programs that provide loan forgiveness for full-time employees doing public service. Senator Bradford wonders how many of her colleagues are eligible given that Missoula College faculty teaching 6 classes are not considered full-time. The disparity in the work load also misrepresents the percentage in the report. This is important public information.

• 
  Director Paulo Zagala-Melo, Office of International Programs
  

Director Zagalo-Melo thanked the Senate for the invitation. He has been on campus for 5-6 months. He spoke briefly on the state of international education and his rationale for internationalism. A handout was provided to Senators. The number of international students in the US is growing, driven by China, Saudi Arabia, and Brazil. Students from China are funded by their families whereas students from Saudi Arabia and Brazil are supported by large government grants. Joint and dual degree programs are the most sustainable way to create international partnerships.

The most important driving force towards internationalization should be the Office of International Programs and the President of the University not the faculty. Faculty have a history of developing international partners, but the University must create structures to sustain the programs. He views internationalization not as a goal but a mechanism or tool used to achieve the same goals Universities have always had- to give students a strong academic preparation, and to prepare students to enter society and the labor market. Internationalization has to be part of the ongoing work of the university.

The most valuable principle of leadership is to enable change because change is the only constant in an organization. The mission or goal is always the same but the way the organization meets its goal is determined by how it adapts to change. Good leaders have a sense of adventure and can see the value in the unknown.

The mission of the Office of International Programs is to promote and provide international life-changing experiences and related educational opportunities, serving as a resource that contributes to the culture of a globally minded community. The Office manages study abroad and international partnerships. The Office also provides assistance to all units on campus in developing international partnerships. The strategic goals of the Office are to:

• 
  Enhance the quality of international activities and experiences provided by the university.
  
• 
  Develop sustainable interdisciplinary campus and community collaborations: This is a long term approach to internationalization. It will involve developing opportunities for k-12 students to take advantage of university resources (knowledge, expertise and experience). This could entail invitations to international celebrations on campus or visits to classrooms by international students to foster international perspectives.
  Promote mutual understanding and intellectual diversity: Internationalization is useful in this way because different cultures have different ways of thinking and different methodologies that are important for collaborations in a variety of disciplines.
  
• 
  Promote the integration of global competence into the UM curriculum and academic experience. 
  

Currently the Office of International Programs is focused on financial sustainability and on its campus identity. It is evaluating how to coordinate its services within the campus structure, and looking at innovative approaches to managing its operations.
Questions:
The Office of International Programs coordinates with departments to place students in appropriate courses. It must also adhere to the requirements of the exchange organization and make sure the students get the necessary courses for their major.

What is the University doing well in the international arena and where do we have challenges?

The University is trying to address competency (which he considers the third dimension of internationalism). We have students crossing boarders both ways and have internationalization without anyone crossing borders by internationalizing our curriculum. The Global Leadership Initiative is a good example of this.
International recruitment is necessary to capture the increasing numbers of international students, but it requires a customized approach. In Saudi Arabia and Brazil we must convince the students that we can provide them with a good education and that Missoula is a good place to study and to live. They are not concerned with the price once they are awarded the government grant. In China the best approach is to staff an office to work daily with high schools and universities.

• 
  Director Eric Gutierrez, Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action Director and Maria Cole, Diversity Retention and Recruitment Coordinator– Discrimination Tutorial
  

Director Gutierrez has been on campus 2 months. He brought Maria Cole, the Diversity Retention and Recruitment Coordinator to address questions about the content of the tutorial.

There are several options for people who have issues with the tutorial. Those that are uncomfortable with the sexual assault content or the reason for the tutorial can meet with him. Those that are having technical issues should call the IT Help Desk.

The Department of Justice, the Department of Education, and the Department of Civil Rights enforce the law. If they become aware of an institution that is not following the law they have the authority to enforce compliance. The terms were negotiated. His sense is that the list of names is required to address the compliance issue. It is highly unlikely that the DOJ will track individuals at this level.
Individuals who have experienced sexual assault or discrimination want people around them to know what it means and how the reporting process works. This knowledge helps everyone. Most of the time people understand this after the discussion. Sometimes people object to the tutorial being mandatory.

Cole: It is not unusual for educational or state institutions to have mandatory training for employees, especially something that aligns so closely with the laws. The tutorial was started long before (8-9 months earlier) the agreement was in place. The content was taken from information normally presented at new employee orientation. Several focus groups provided feedback on the material. The tutorial was designed to be completely different from the Personal Empowerment through Self Awareness (PETSA) tutorial for students. She co-authored the tutorial and it was vetted by Director Gutierrez, Legal Counsel Franz, the DOJ, and others. The DOJ requested edits. Some were adopted. The tutorial doesn’t include everything employees should know with regards to Title 7 and Title 9. The intent was to provide everyone with a basic level of understanding, consistency in definitions, procedures and most importantly reporting. It was the inconsistencies in policies and procedures that in part caused the investigation. There must be one person (Director Gutierrez)/ office responsible for investigating reports and collaborating to respond appropriately. She and director Gutierrez invite discussion about the tutorial or other issues.

The videos set the stage for learning. The question / answer / check for correctness system was designed so adult learners would think on their own before answering. There were many comments on the videos. They did not include content because that was PETSA’s delivery method. The scenario method was designed to entice employees to want to learn more about the story and the correct response that provided additional information about policy and procedure.

Questions /comments
There were some Native American employees that were offended by the content of the scenario with the Native American. These comments along with many others are being considered. The tutorial may be changed to address some of the comments.

The tutorial was rather confusing. You are prompted to take a quiz after the videos, but the videos don’t teach anything. So you wonder whether the video actually worked correctly. The learning is contained within the quiz, so perhaps different labels would be helpful.

The tutorial should not use a definition that the Supreme Court specifically has not condoned. Shouldn’t the University’s training be in alignment with Supreme Court decisions? The issue was brought up with the University’s Legal Counsel, but the tutorial continues to define sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance. The Supreme Court has held that it must be severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.

It is not clear why the tutorial could not be similar to PETSA. A clear presentation of the definitions would be helpful in the initial video. Some people won’t read the expository of the answer if they got the answer right. The definitions need to be more prominent. Faculty members want to know their rights to present material that some students might find offensive. This information was not included in the tutorial.

Cole: The tutorial is just one part of a multi-pronged approach. Additional materials are still in the development stage. A lot of information available in the frequently asked questions (FAQs).

Some of the objections made by the focus groups seemed to be cast aside in the final product. It is an Orwellian idea to have this kind of thought control for the faculty. The well intentions are understood, but the means are offensive. It is an infantilization of the faculty.

Gutierrez: The President holds office hours to discuss these types of issues.

Professor Valentin, a guest was recognized to speak by Chair Putnam.
He understands the goal is to curb violence, but he won’t take the tutorial. It is infantile and insulting. He teaches about rape and violence in literature. He doesn’t need training about discrimination; he has experienced it as a foreigner. He knows about the speech code. The mandated tutorial reminds him of McCarthy (North Korea). He thought this was a free country. Why is the US Government tracking employees who don’t take the tutorial? Why wasn’t the Faculty Senate involved in negotiating the agreement? The administration’s function is to help the faculty, not to speak in lieu of us. His colleagues are afraid. He is not because he has tenure.

Gutierrez: The wonderful thing about America’s legal system is that if you feel aggrieved you can hire legal counsel to represent you.

Faculty members in the Math department truly appreciate any educational, professional development opportunities to help them with issues of discrimination and sexual harassment. They want to know what to do when they become aware of incidents of discrimination or sexual harassment. They care about their students and appreciate the work that went in to the tutorial.

UFA President Dave Shively

The University Faculty Association has an Executive Board that has been very active over the past couple of years. The UFA is in the process of transitioning to a new web site. He provides bargaining updates via a faculty list serve. Please contact him if you are not receiving updates. There will be a general Faculty meeting next Tuesday from 4:10- 5:00 p.m. in UC 326 to discuss issues that are on the table. Please make sure your department has a representative at the meeting who will bring information back to the unit.

Question
The UFA was not consulted with regards to the agreement with the DOJ. It was invited to provide feedback on the policy in collaboration with the Faculty Senate and to participate in the focus groups.

Chair Putnam clarified that the Faculty Senate was consulted with regards to the policy language but this did not carry over to the tutorial. The Senate leadership will follow-up on this.

• 
  Chair’s Report
  Quite often senators do not bring feedback from their departments back to the Faculty Senate. Part of shared governance is bringing issues from the units to a discussion forum where something can be done together. Please keep this in mind for the upcoming year and the future. Please inform your departments about Senate Communication and Business and speak on its behalf about issues.
  
  Program of the Senate
  The Program of the Senate is the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate’s priorities for the year. Some of the goals have been ongoing for several years others are new this year. One of the most important goals is to facilitate effective communication with the administration and outside constituencies. Many of the problems on campus result from a lack of communication. The Senate works with the UFA and other campus governance groups. The Senate leadership attends Board of Regents meetings to represent the faculty and works with the Montana University System Faculty Association Representatives to ensure faculty concerns are heard. A critical issue this year is performance based funding. Through curriculum committees the Senate maintains curriculum standards. The Senate stays informed of various initiatives that impact faculty such as prerequisite checking and credit for military service, which has become an interest of the Board of Regents. The Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate conducts Center Reviews and interim assessments of new programs. The last goal is to think about initiatives for the next legislative session.
  
  Performance Based Funding
  Last spring the Legislature voted that 5% of the Montana University Systems budget would be allocated according to a performance-based-funding metric. Thus, the university was forced into a short term decision making process to create metrics that would do no harm because there was nothing that could be done to influence the metrics given the timing. A small Steering Committee consisting of Provost Brown, Associate Vice President Russel, and herself worked with other MUS members to develop the metrics.
  The Steering Committee is now working on long term planning to make metrics appropriate, measurable, and as non-gameable as possible. The metrics need to be responsive to the various types of campuses.

  The Commissioner’s Office contracted with Public Agenda, a company that facilitated performance based funding transitions in other states, to survey MUS campuses within the next month. It is critical that the faculty complete the survey to show that faculty are engaged and care about this issue. Public Agenda will also moderate focus groups in late October or early November. Again it is critical to have faculty from all disciplines participate because performance based funding affects all of us. Please take this information back to your departments and urge your colleagues to participate. The trend is for states to incrementally increase the percentage allocated to performance based funding. Some states’ (Washington and Tennessee) budgets are entirely based on performance based funding.

  
  

Question
Public agenda will facilitate the process by distilling the information from the survey and focus groups. It will not be involved with the final decision process. A recent article in the Chronicle of Higher education indicated that the Gates and Lumina Foundation are behind the performance based funding trend. The best defense is to assure we are represented the way we want to be in the metrics (responsive and reflective of our university communities). It is most likely that the different university categories (research intensive, 4-year, 2-year) will have different metrics.

The Commissioner’s Office has created a performance based funding website at http://mus.edu/CCM/performancefunding/default.asp. It includes the model for FY 13, Frequently Asked Questions, Resources and Examples. Please take a look and provide feedback. The link is available on the Faculty Senate’s web site.

Committee Needs
There are still vacancies on several committees. Committee service is an important function of faculty governance. Please take a look at the vacancies and consider serving or referring a colleague. The Research Council is a newly created Committee that needs representation from every School / College.

Committee Reports

• ASCRC Chair Henderson

The motion to change the title of the General Education Program group 1 from English Writing Skills to Writing was approved. It was clarified that the Writing requirement is only satisfied with the English language, but is not only taught by the English department.

The Writing Assessment motion is brought as an information item for senators to consider, discuss with their programs, and vote next month. The motion is in two parts: (1) to end the UDWPA, and (2) to implement a University-wide Program-level Assessment of Student Writing Proficiency in Approved Writing Courses. There has been considerable discussion regarding the utility of the UDWPA, including whether it is meeting its intended goal, and whether it is affecting students writing proficiency. The rationale and details for both motions are detailed in the document posted to the agenda. If the motion is approved, both parts would be implemented immediately. Students will not take the UDWPA knowing it will be discontinued and the University needs to have an assessment that will lead to improvements in students’ writing.

It was clarified that the assessment applies only to approved writing courses not the upper-division writing requirement required by the major. There is a list in the catalog of courses that have been reviewed and approved by the Writing Committee.
Even though students are allowed to use earlier catalogs for their graduation requirements, the UDWPA requirement would no longer be required because the exam is not offered. Catalog language will be drafted for clarity.

Writing Committee Chair Beverly Chin provided clarification regarding the function and mechanism of the program-level assessment. Approved writing courses must meet certain criteria and learning outcomes. Several of these outcomes were used in the creation of a rubric used to score a random sample of student papers from the courses. Approved Writing Courses Instructors require their students to upload a course assignment paper into Moodle. The identity of the instructor and student is removed. The papers are scored at a retreat by faculty and others involved with teaching students to write across disciplines. The scores show how the students are doing in the approved writing courses. It is not an assessment of the individual student or instructor. The scoring will identify strengths and weaknesses of students’ writing so that campus-wide we can develop strategies for faculty development and resources for students. The Writing Committee has conducted a pilot project over the past two years.

The UDWPA does not help students become better writers nor is it a valid indicator that students are prepared for writing in their majors. The exam is not connected to course content and often students take it in their senior year. The report from Program-Level Assessment will provide feedback to instructors. Students demonstrate their writing proficiency in the context of the approved writing courses. The grade in the course is the student’s individual assessment. The retreat provides an opportunity for faculty across disciplines to discuss writing preferences and differences within the context of expected learning outcomes and agree on proficiency.

Geography recently worked on a rubric to assess their students writing in upper-division course. One problematic issue is that many of their students transfer with more than 27 credits so are exempted from the approved writing course. The Writing Committee should also pay attention to writing proficiency of transfer students at the sophomore level. There should be smooth transitions and articulations for the students.

The scoring results were not published for the pilot project because it only including a sampling of writing courses. The Pilot Project was designed to test whether the process was feasible and sustainable. If the motion is approved writing instructors will be requested to have students upload papers from each writing course taught going forward.

Given the time Chair Putnam requested that any additional questions be communicated to the Writing Committee.

New Business

• 
  The membership on ECOS is not representative given the current number of faculty in Professional Schools and the College of Arts and Sciences. Senate membership is comprised of 1 senator for every 10 full-time equivalency faculty member. However, the language in the articles and bylaws specifies 4 members from the College and 3 from the Schools. Currently there are more faculty members in the Professional Schools than in the College of Arts and Sciences. The proposed amendment will assure that the membership on ECOS is representative of the faculty. The amendment will be voted on at the next meeting.
  

Good and Welfare

• 
  A statement to be read during Good and Welfare was delivered by Chair Putnam by Professor Ausland. It was in support of Senator Frey’s concerns about the Department of Justice agreement. Because the meeting was running late and the statement was lengthy it was sent to senators electronically and is appended below.
  
  

The meeting was adjourned at 5:10 pm.
Statement prepared for UM's Faculty Senate meeting of September 12, 2013
I would second Linda Frey's qualms about the so-called UM employee sexual "tutorial" – in fact an ideological imposition of a lamentably politicized US Department of Justice.
Those of us who were here in the early 'ninties will recall an entertaining rumpus over a report issued by George Dennison's "Task Force on Sexual Harrassment", which had found -- among other things -- that our class reading lists should be edited by qualified experts to make sure that they did not contain any items that might encourage what professional feminists of the day denominated "rape culture". While Professor Dennison absent-mindedly endorsed this initiative at the outset, he was at length induced prudently to retreat the needed distance by the general outcry it generated.¹
By 2011, thinking of the kind animating the report just mentioned, as well as other initiatives built on it, had infected the US Executive, with the partly fortuitous result that the problem has come back to UM in a big way. Addressing it effectively has been complicated by the fecklessness of our current administration.
Which now offers to fix things by obscuring the issue. University Counsel suggests that perhaps professionals who have principled objections to being treated as as if they were kindergarten pupils might be exempted from the mandatory tutorial by invoking a disability of some kind. On this campus maintaining principled objections to sophmoric thought-control is to be treated as a medical disability. Welcome to the cuckoo’s nest.
Trouble just is that report has it that they have agreed to turn in to the federal authorities, not only lists of the names of those who have taken the tutorial, and when they did so, but also the names of those who have not submitted to it. So we will now all have our behavior on file in Washington DC as a result of the administration's actions.
It puts me in mind of George Orwell's 1984. The premiss is a totalitarian society of the future in which (and I quote) "nothing was illegal, because there were no longer any laws", but there is still something called "thoughtcrime", and everywhere one sees signs reading "BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU". Something of the kind now seems destined to be our situation in an institution of higher learning.
So what is a university faculty to do? Facilitate the administration's attempt to have it both ways, or make a point of objecting in principle? Fortunately, the Federal authorities have made this decision a no-brainer, since they have broadcast their intention to make the results of their experimentation on UM a model for broader efforts nationwide. This means we owe it to our colleagues all across America to see to it that UM sets the right kind of precedent. Possible approaches are rich, since the administration's precipitate actions have raised multiple academic and legal questions: Has it respected the Montana Constitution's provisions for open meetings and public participation in arriving at its decisions relative to this agreement? Does it have any solid contractual basis for the mandatory training of unionized employees that it has promised the Department of Justice? Does it have the right to divulge private personnel information to a federal executive agency? Do UM's administrators even recognize such things as freedom of speech and freedom of conscience anymore -- not to speak of academic freedom? Perhaps some judge will prescribe a few remedial tutorials for our administrators.
Finally, let us set aside our own relatively minor inconvenience for a just moment. Is it at all proper for mere administrators to be demanding that our students willy-nilly suffer through politically correct brain-washing as a condition of their enrollment in a university? Should not it be the academic Faculty that is deciding what instruction UM students need to undergo?
For the sake of our profession, our selves, but most of all our students, we should question, resist, and oppose this unjust imposition to the best of our collective ability. Right here is one place such an effort should begin. I hope someone on the Senate will propose a commensurate and viable resolution.
Hayden W. Ausland

Professor of Classics, UM

1 I have a file containing key public documents describing this episode of political correctness gone to so silly an extreme, which I will be happy to show to anyone interested upon request.