University of Iowa
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
Penn State Room, 337 IMU
Members Present: Gloria Bulechek, Christine Catney, Michael Cohen, Virginia Dominguez, David Drake, Vicki Grassian, Steve McGuire, Frank Mitros, Michael O’Hara, Catherine Ringen, Jarjisu Sa-Aadu, Linda Snetselaar, Downing Thomas, Brad Thompson, James Tomkovicz, and Jerold Woodhead
Members Excused: Linda Boyle, Donna D’Alessandro, and Paul Heidger
Faculty Senate Officers in Attendance: Sheldon Kurtz, President Victoria Sharp, Vice President, Jennifer Glass, Secretary, and Richard LeBlond, Past President
Guests: Diane Heldt (Gazette), Judie Hermsen (Human Resources), Nancy Hauserman (Council on the Status of Women), Marcella David (Equal Opportunity and Diversity), Carl Orgren (Emeritus Faculty Council), Jay Christensen-Szalanski (College of Business), Charlie Drum (University Relations), Lee Anna Clark (Psychology), Susan Johnson (Office of the Provost), Pat Cain (Office of the Provost), Michael Hogan (Office of the Provost), Salome Raheim (Office of the President), and Emileigh Barnes (The Daily Iowan)
I. Call to Order
Faculty Senate President Sheldon Kurtz called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm
He introduced Salome Raheim, Associate Professor in Social Work, and Senior Associate to the President. This is newly created faculty position in response to recommendations by the review committee of the President’s Office. It is a two-year, renewable term. She will regularly attend Council meetings and serve as liaison to the President’s Office
A. Meeting Agenda
The meeting agenda was approved by consent
B. Faculty Council Minutes, May 16, 2006
Motion to approve made by Professor O’Hara, seconded by Professor Woodhead. The meeting agenda was approved by consent.
C. Faculty Senate Agenda, September 5, 2006
The meeting agenda was unanimously approved following a motion by Professor Cohen, seconded by Professor O’Hara, to create a list of faculty who are generally willing to serve on collegiate and decanal review teams.
D. Committee Replacement, Victoria Sharp
Senate Vice President Sharp made the following recommendation for Committee replacements:
Parking Appeals Committee: Bryce Plapp, Biochemistry, to replace Naeem Haider, Anesthesia, 2006-08
Professor LeBlond moved, seconded by Professor Sa-Aadu, to accept this replacement; it was unanimously approved.
A. Faculty Senate President, Sheldon Kurtz
1. Honorary Degree Selection Committee - Following approval of the Honorary Degree Policy, the first order of business is to name an eight-member selection committee. Kurtz encouraged Councilors to forward nominations to him via email, including a short bio-sketch or statement about the nominee’s broad sense of the university. The Faculty Senate chooses five associate/full professors with a gender/ethnic balance. The Provost will choose two further faculty members and name one representative from his office.
2. Programmatic Comparative Review – President Kurtz briefly reviewed the discussion at the Faculty Council/Administration Retreat a week earlier. He felt there was not much else the Council could do at this stage, but encouraged councilors to be sensitive to the issue and to think about it within their own environments.
3. Diversity Action Committee, Marcella David, Special Assistant to the President for Equal Opportunity and Diversity and Associate Provost
Professor David said the UI’s strategic plan lays out some aggressive benchmarks to improve gender diversity numbers in faculty and the administrative ranks, to improve diversity numbers in our faculty, staff and students from traditionally underrepresented communities in higher education; and also to create a more welcoming campus climate. Every member of our university community is to be held accountable for these goals.
Members of the Diversity Action Committee, co-chaired by Sandy Boyd, Raúl Curto, and Professor David, were asked by Provost Hogan to supply concrete recommendations how to advance the UI’s diversity goals. She noted that some Faculty Councilors also participated in this process.
There are a number of recommendations for faculty and staff success which go beyond recruitment and retention. She called on the Faculty Council and Senate to help move forward Recommendations 8-13, concerning broad job searches and best practices, being good advocates wherever we are; and taking opportunities to introduce ourselves and promote our goals.
In particular, Recommendation #12 is related to recognition of diversity efforts in job performance of faculty and staff. There is concern that minorities and female faculty feel overburdened, as if the only service they are called upon to do is diversity work. It often conflicts with their other service, teaching and scholarship obligations. She asked the Council to consider ways to make diversity service feel valued so that other members of the university community will participate. Professor O’Hara commented that the committee had considered recognizing the need to develop mechanisms for salary increases.
Professor David also cited Recommendation #13, which calls for a broad-based diversity training program to be adopted to provide faculty, staff and students with the tools to be effective members of the University community. She noted that this dovetails neatly into the Sexual Harassment Survey, which has a recommendation about educating everyone about their responsibilities. She suggested bringing diversity training into faculty orientation sessions. Professor O’Hara noted that part of the recommendation focuses on providing more advanced training as faculty advance in their careers. Professor David called for assistance from the Faculty Council and Senate. She warned against losing ground if these issues are addressed only at orientation sessions.
Professor David’s specific recommendation was to create a subcommittee where these items could be discussed. She offered to meet and work with the committee to move it forward. This idea is already being considered within the Office of the Provost. President Kurtz will send her a list of existing committees to contact.
She was asked to define “diversity service.” Professor David said it can come in many different forms and is harder to define than service on collegiate committees. She suggested more faculty involvement in recruitment efforts at the undergraduate level, travel to college fairs, making phone calls to prospective students, answering questions about majors, sitting on diversity committees, being a mentor, and providing service programming to the UI’s cultural houses.
Council discussion ensued about how best to consider diversity service and noted that the term includes “aging, white men” as much as any other member of the university community. Professor Glass noted that junior faculty, especially women and minorities, need to be guided in their choices of university service so that they can make contributions to significant committees. Professor O’Hara raised the issue of recognition and reward.
Again, Professor David called upon the Council to identify some of the concerns that were brought to the table and to provide a broader perspective to the discussion.
VI. New Business
A. Sexual Harassment Survey and Report, Lee Anna Clark, Professor of Psychology and Nancy Hauserman, Professor of Management and Organizations, primary authors of the report.
This 170-page report is available on line via the President’s homepage, or follow links on the
One of the disturbing findings was that so few people, especially undergraduates, were aware that a sexual harassment policy existed and had no idea where to locate it.
This was a repeat of a survey initially conducted in 1992, which targeted only a sample audience. The current project endeavored to survey the entire campus population. Twenty-six percent of the campus responded. Given the nature of the topic, this was considered a good result. Regrettably, the least response came from the population most needing to be heard from: undergraduates. New ways to reach undergraduates other than a web survey need to be found, and to decide from whom it should be sent to lessen the prospect of it being deleted. Generally, undergraduates feel that an email from the President’s Office does not relate to them.
Essentially, the survey touched on two main points: (1) “Have you ever experienced a set of unwelcome behavior?” and, separately, (2) “Have you experienced sexual harassment, and what have you done about it, and were you satisfied with that?” It often came down to information about behavior that was not legally defined as sexual harassment, but rather respect issues.
Professor Hauserman said the biggest surprise is that there has not been much change on campus since the last survey. It’s not worse, but it’s also not better.
The survey committee set out ten recommendations, eight of which are specific to sexual harassment and two more general recommendations about respect. One of the recommendations concerning educating people about the Sexual Harassment Policy is already underway. There will be mandated sexual harassment training for everyone in a supervisory position, both faculty and staff.
Their findings suggested that most harassment took place within peer groups. Within the faculty group, most harassment was from tenured faculty to both tenured and non-tenured faculty. This could be a serious problem as there are serious power differentials in the latter relationships.
Alcohol is not surprisingly a problem. Survey responses came from nurses, doctors and other medical workers about tailgaters near the UIHC entrance.. Professor Hauserman suggested looking into these and other university-sponsored events to ensure alcohol is not served.
The overarching issue from the survey was respect. Many dozens of written responses addressed this.
Professor Hauserman suggested inviting others who worked on the survey to speak to departments; to inform graduate students about the sexual harassment policy—it s not currently addressed at their orientation sessions—and to make sure faculty and staff know how to respond if someone comes to them.
Professor Clark noted that each recommendation was tied to a particular finding in the study, often one that had appeared in multiple places. She wanted to underscore the fear of reporting. They followed up with people who said they had not reported cases of sexual harassment thinking that they would not be taken seriously, or based on past experience seeing that harassers got off easy while the people reporting the action was transferred out of the department. It has to come to a point where the person harassed feels they cannot come forward and go to the appropriate person.
Professor Hauserman commented that every time someone experiences unwelcome behavior, even if it is not legally sexual harassment, they must not feel that they are the only person who knows it. If their concerns are dismissed, they will not go back if a truly serious situation arises. She warned councilors to remember the ripple effect if the university appears not to take things seriously.
She also said it is important to get back to the person to inform them of the outcome.
The survey allowed answers regarding opposite and same sex relationships. The majority of answers were from a male/female perspective. Although not specifically targeted at harassment on sexuality, many respondents sent comments about it.
Other comments said the survey was biased from the outset as it was conducted by the Council on the Status of Women.
Professor Hauserman said the survey, as well as general research, revealed for the majority of people who experienced unwanted behavior who actually told the offender to stop, the behavior did stop. Training is now being conducted in the residence halls in conjunction with EOD and University Relations. But, whereas you might train people to be confident enough to say “stop,” there are whole groups of people who cannot or will not do so because of the power differential involved. Student Health is another good place to share information. Professor Raheim noted that there are six questions about sexual harassment in the “Alcohol.com” mandatory online course.
Professor Thomas said it is crucial that graduate students receive information and training, especially as regards the cross-cultural dimension. Professor McGuire suggested having guidelines for DEOs for departmental orientation programs.
Professor Hauserman said a number of other schools have already asked for copies of the report, which is a great compliment to the University of Iowa.
Professor LeBlond commented that faculty set the tone for civility and expectations of behavior on this campus. He said there is a need to articulate an expectation amongst faculty of a high level of respect and interpersonal civility.
B. Photo Identification Policy
1. Judie Hermsen, Senior Assistant Director, Human Resources (Chair) and Jay Christensen-Szalanski, Professor, Management and Organizations (faculty representative) served on the committee to consider the Photo Identification Policy. On occasion, the unit which dispenses university identification cards receives requests from departments to download their employees’ university ID photo. The committee considered whether this was an appropriate use of these photos. Their recommendation is that the sole purpose of the photo is for creating identification and badge cards, and it should not be released to anyone, except for legitimate security reasons.
A motion was made by Professor O’Hara to approve the recommendations of the review committee that UI photo IDs are meant for the sole purpose of creating identification and badge cards, and that they should not be released except under legitimate security conditions; seconded by Professor McGuire; motion was approved unanimously. It now advances to the Faculty Senate for a vote.
2. Directory Restrictions Proposal
The committee chaired by Ms. Hermsen also considered whether to restrict access to UI employees’ home addresses and phone numbers. Two years prior, the UI directory had a default setting allowing all new employees to be given two weeks to opt whether or not to restrict their information. When a recent case came to light where a new employee’s personal information was accessed before the end of the two-week period and which involved a restraining order, the committee felt they should consider their options. Their recommendation was that home address and phone numbers will permanently be inaccessible, unless the employee opts into the program, rather than the reverse.
Towards trying to protect individuals from unwanted intrusions that might happen as a consequence of being a UI employee, a motion was made by Professor Ringen, seconded by Professor Dominguez, to allow employees to opt in if they choose to provide home addresses and phone numbers on the UI directory. The motion passed unanimously. This issue moves forward to the Senate for a vote.
Professor Christensen-Szalanski wished to publicly congratulate Judie Hermsen for the excellent work she did organizing this committee.
VII. From the floor
There was no business from the floor
A. Faculty Senate meeting, Tuesday, September 5, 3:30 – 5:15 pm, Senate Chamber, Old Capitol
B. Faculty Council meeting: Tuesday, September 19, 3:30 – 5:15 pm, Penn State Room, 337 IMU
A motion was made by Professor Drake to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Professor O’Hara; all in favor; President Kurtz adjourned the meeting at 5:00 pm