The most recent collective bargaining agreement between United Academics and the University of Oregon went into effect August 1, 2022. This agreement includes substantive changes to many articles in the CBA which necessitate revisions to several unit policies. What follows are highlights of areas units should be aware of and consider as they revise policies. In addition, units should carefully review Appendix 1 and 2 in the new CBA for implementation agreements, unit-policy development guidelines, and the standards and criteria for major reviews.
Highlights - CBA Changes that Impact Unit-Level Policies
The Office of the Provost has provided process instructions and templates required for unit policy revisions. The templates primarily consist of exact language from the CBA. That text should not be changed at any level of the process. There are clearly marked areas of each template for faculty to provide their unit-level, descipline-specific text, and for deans or their designees to accept or revise the faculty-developed text.
The below guidance for policy development, as it pertains to DEI and Service, should be reviewed by your unit at the start of your process:
- Diversity Equity and Inclusion in Faculty Personnel Reviews
- Teaching-related policies - TEP guidance and resources
- Professional Responsibilities Policy and Promotion Policies with regard to Service
Units may elaborate on or nuance, but not replace, standards or criteria in the CBA. Exceptions may be made when standards or criteria are inapplicable or irrelevant due to disciplinary norms and practices. In general, unit policies should not only accord with the CBA, but must use language that closely resembles that found in the CBA. The intent is to minimize discrepancies between the CBA and unit-level policies.
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion in Faculty Personnel Reviews (Career and Tenure-track Faculty)
CBA REference | Guidance |
|---|---|
UO CBA, Appendix 1 | Indicates that unit-level review and promotion policies for both Career and Tenure-track Faculty “should be modified as necessary to address the University’s goals on diversity, equity, and inclusion.” |
UO CBA, Appendix 2 | For research, teaching and service, “unit-level policies must consider and define contributions that demonstrably promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.” |
UO CBA, Appendix 2 | “All faculty are expected to contribute to the University's goals regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion. These contributions may be in the areas of research, teaching, and service activities, as appropriate given the faculty member’s job duties.”; |
UO CBA, | In the previous CBA (2015-2018), faculty members, both tenure-track and career, were required merely to include a “discussion of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion” in their personal statements. The new CBA, like the old, requires faculty discuss “contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion” in their personal statements. Faculty may discuss their contributions to equity and inclusion either as a separate section of their personal statement or integrate the discussion into the other sections of the personal statement. Both approaches are equally acceptable. DEI and OtP offer guidance to assist faculty in writing personal statements. |
Definitions of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for Unit-level policy development
The new CBA calls for greater clarity on the relationship of diversity, equity, and inclusion to academic excellence as one way to move the whole institution forward.
Contributions to institutional values and priorities of diversity, equity, and inclusion may include efforts to address and remove barriers to allow Black, Indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC), people with disabilities, women, and people with the full range of gender and sexual identities to contribute fully to institutional success. This may involve efforts to restructure existing systems, practices, and norms to ensure the meaningful participation, and leadership, of people from diverse backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives in decision-making processes. Such efforts also may include efforts to incorporate individuals or groups from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, first generation college students, students from urban and rural communities, and those who speak English as a second language.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion: Examples for Research, Teaching, Service and Recruiting
The examples below are intended to assist personnel committees as they consider the wide range of contributions that can be made to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.
- Research - Specific examples of scholarship, research or creative activity related to institutional diversity, equity, and inclusion.
- Teaching - Specific examples of evidence that faculty might use to show their contribution to institutional diversity, equity and inclusion in their teaching. See also the Senate Legislation on inclusive teaching.
- Service - Specific examples of service related to advancing institutional diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Additional references and resources that may be useful in unit-level policy development are available here.
Professional Responsibilities Policy and Promotion Policies with regard to Service (Career and Tenure-track Faculty)
The CBA addresses the university and professional service that faculty are expected to perform in the course of their duties. Furthermore, several articles define what constitutes service for the purposes of major reviews (e.g., Art. 20, Section 38 on Post-Tenure Reviews).
The Office of the Provost advises units to review the report from the University Senate Taskforce on Service to inform policies on service. The Assignment of Professional Responsibilities template explicitly states that units should describe "general expectations" for service. (III.A.3, pg 7). This should include expectations for service to the department, school/college, university, and profession.
- Describe process for assigning unit service, paying particular attention to how unit maintains equitable service loads.
- Describe how unit considers faculty service outside the unit. Unit policy should acknowledge the value of service to the school/college, university, and professions while ensuring that faculty have resonable service loads that count in reviews. (Assignment of Professional Responsibilities template, III.A.3)
The Office of the Provost will be paying close attendion to this section of the professional responsibilities policy to ensure that units have created clear processes.
Article 17 - Assignment of Professional Responsibilities
This article has been updated to:
- include the possibility of considering caregiving responsibilities in scheduling of assignments
- provide clear guidance for all faculty on what reassignment options exist when a course is canceled for insufficient enrollment.
- say that units should revisit their professional responsibilities policies and modify them “as necessary to address the University’s goals on diversity, equity, and inclusion with particular focus on course loads of 9 or more. Discussions should include course allocation across terms, preparation time, number of new course development and preparations, number of contact hours, size of classes, teaching load variation, course maximums, and support mechanisms for faculty with heavy teaching loads.”
In updating unit policy for Assignment of Professional Responsibilities, consider the following:
- The OTP-provided template now calls for just one unit policy on this topic that incorporates all faculty types
- Units are to consider the University’s goals on diversity, equity, and inclusion with a particular focus on managing course loads of 9 or more.
- Units are to describe their process for assigning service, with particular emphasis on how the unit maintains equitable workloads.
- Units are to describe how service outside the unit is factored into workload such that faculty have reasonable service loads that count in reviews.
- At faculty request, caregiving responsibilities may be considered in the scheduling of assignments.
- The policy template contains expectations of faculty related to university policies on course content and pedagogy, syllabi, addressing academic misconduct, use of Canvas and student attendance and engagement.
Article 19 – Career Faculty Review and Promotion
This article has been updated to:
- better define the types of reviews for Career faculty
- establish a mechanism for performance improvement plans
- change the eligibility requirement for promotion from an annualized 0.3 FTE or greater over six years to an annualized 0.5 FTE or greater over six years;
- establish a new type of review for Career faculty who have achieved the highest level of promotion, “Continuous Employment Reviews”. Successful Continuous Employment Reviews result in a salary increase of at least 4% for meeting expectations in all areas or at least 8% for exceeding expectations in all areas (see Article 26 of CBA). In addition, reviews are to include an evaluation of contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion across the categories of job duties.
In updating unit policy for Career Faculty Review and Promotion, consider the following:
- The timing and frequency of reviews was changed with the implementation of the continuous employment agreement as there are no longer contracts. These new timelines are detailed in the CBA.
- Eligibility for promotion is changed from an annualized 0.3 FTE or greater over six years to an annualized 0.5 FTE or greater over six years. This is effective immediately, but cases involving positions below 0.5 FTE may be considered for promotion with the approval of the Office of the Provost.
- Career faculty who have accumulated six years of service at 0.5 FTE or greater since their appointment in a single-rank category (e.g., Professor of Practice) or since achieving promotion to the highest rank in their category are eligible for a new type of review, a “Career Continuous Employment Review”. If the review results in a “Meets” or “Exceeds” expectations, the faculty member will receive an increase to their base salary as described in Article 26. Units will need to incorporate these new types of reviews into their review processes, as outlined in the policy. In general, these reviews closely resemble, and are based on, the criteria for promotion.
- Faculty reviews should address contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion in the categories of professional responsibilities as applicable to the discipline and the specific job duties of each faculty member. As the university standards for teaching include inclusive teaching, all faculty who teach courses are already expected to demonstrate inclusive teaching practices.
Article 20 – Tenure-track Faculty Review and Promotion
This article provides greater detail with regard to post-tenure reviews than the previous CBA provided. Specifically, it:
- creates a formal, 3rd-year post-tenure review option for Associate Professors, shifting away from the informal structure of reviews between tenure and promotion to full professor to allow for formal reviews for tenured associate professors if there are indications they are not on track for promotion to full professor; full professors can also undergo formal 3rd-year post-tenure reviews.
- clarifies that only full professors will have 6th-year post-tenure reviews; associate professors will have 3rd-year reviews—whether formal or informal—every 3 years.
- introduces formal criteria for post-tenure reviews and describes in detail how performance issues for tenured faculty should be addressed (i.e., Development Plans).
- clarifies and elevates the role of contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in major reviews.
In updating unit policy for Tenure-related Faculty Review and Promotion, consider the following:
- There is now a formal 3rd-year post-tenure review option for Associate Professors built into the template, but units should review Article 20 for the process to be followed. The existence of the formal review option should not impact unit-level standards or criteria. As the new CBA introduces formal criteria for post-tenure reviews and describes in detail how performance issues for tenured faculty should be addressed (i.e., Development Plans), units should indicate clearly whether PTR criteria differ at all from promotion criteria. Such modifications are acceptable as long as they are consistent with the CBA. The detail provided in the new CBA should assist units in this effort.
- Since the role of contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in major reviews is clarified and elevated in importance, units must ensure that standards and criteria for evaluation reflect this change.