Minutes 11-13-20

Minutes 11-13-20

Faculty Assembly, School of Liberal Arts 2:00–4:00pm, Friday, November 13, 2020, ZOOM

Faculty Attendees: Marta Antón, Emily Beckman, Bill Blomquist, Maria Brann, Herbert Brant, Marilee Brooks-Gillies, Andy Buchenot, Jonas Bjork, Jen Bute, Chad Carmichael, Thorsten Carstensen, Subir Chakrabarti, Mary Ann Cohen, Matt Condon, David Craig, Kevin Cramer, Holly Cusack-McVeigh, Tom Davis, Andre De Tienne, Cornelis De Waal, Tijen Demirel-Pegg, Owen Dwyer, Jonathan Eller, Estela Ene, Leslie Etienne, Carrie Foote, Steve Fox, Beth Goering, Phil Goff, Nancy Goldfarb, Claudia Grossman, Jennifer Guiliano, Ray Haberski, Sara Harrell, Katharine Head, David Hoegberg, Laura Holzman, Sue Hyatt, Lynn Jetpace, Sumana Jogi,  Samuel Kahn, John Kaufman-McKivigan, Jason Kelly, Daniella Kostroun, Liz Kryder-Reid, Keiko Kuriyama, Pam Laucella, Kathryn Lauten, Sarah Layden, Tim Lyons, Jennifer Mahoney, Enric Mallorqui-Ruscalleda, Tom Marvin, Amira Mashhour, Kate Miller, Leslie Miller, Kyle Minor, Kenzie Mintus, Malcolm Moran, Anita Morgan, Wendy Morrison, Megan Musgrave, Elizabeth Nelson, Steve Overbey, John Parrish-Sprowl, Josh Prada, Rob Rebein, Charles Reyes, Audrey Ricke, Nancy Robertson, Stephanie Rowe, Steve Russell, David Sabol, Kristy Sheeler, Rebecca Shrum, Carrie Sickmann, Lois Silverman, Brian Steensland, Shana Stump, Vidhura Tennekoon, Joseph Terza, Rosa Tezanos-Pinto, Elizabeth Thill, Jennifer Thorington Springer, Peter Thuesen, John Tilley, Joseph Tucker Edmonds, Thom Upton, Jing Wang, Scott Weeden, Rachel Wheeler, Julie White, Robert White, Kim White-Mills, Andrew Whitehead, Jeff Wilson, Jeremy Wilson 

Guest Attendees:  Sandy Balint, Julie Carriere, Heather Ellison,  Liz Goodfellow,  Rick Hanson, Merle Illg, Tiea Julian, Shannon Kelley, Thomas Mason,  Sherry Minton, Mary Price, Emilio G. Robles, Mike Scott, Candy Smith,  Sam Walters

1. Ray Haberski announced that he was going to start the Zoom recording and called the meeting to order at 2:00.
2. The minutes from the September 11, 2020, Faculty Assembly meeting were approved as written.
3. President's remarks
   1. Ray Haberski explained that the agenda for today doesn’t include any voting items, but we do have one important discussion item.
   2. Ray acknowledged the work that Rob Rebein has done in his time as interim dean and thanked him for his tireless commitment to SLA, highlighting the leadership he provided in developing initiatives such as the dual degree advantage and the pathway minors, his active involvement with students, the work he did in tackling tough issues such as the school’s financial challenges, the coordination of staff support, and the school’s response to COVID-19. Ray's remarks about Rob Rebein: Rob Rebein has served as our interim dean since August of 2018, though very little of what he did felt interim to most of us. Rob accomplished a great deal through a combination of cajoling, inspiring, and, at times, pushing the school to take action on important items. I think we might forget just how big our school is, though our FA zooms have attracted many more of us than usual. Rob has presided over 250 faculty and staff who work in a tangle of departments, offices, programs, research centers, and committees. He spearheaded the Dual Degree Advantage and the development of the Pathway minors. He championed the career communities and the peer mentor programs; and before the Covid lockdown, could be found bouncing from student event to student event every week. He also took on some pretty tough issues in the financial management of the school and the coordination of staff support and communication. And I think it is reasonable to say that Rob has put issues of diversity and inclusion into conversation across the school in a way that has made our school a healthier place. This is the final FA for 2020 and when we gather again in the new year, we will welcome a new dean. Therefore, I’d like to say thank you to Rob for his service as our dean. He continues to be our colleague and, I need to emphasize, an advocate and ally for many of the things that make our school progressive and productive.  Thanks Rob.

4. Dean's remarks
   1. Interim Dean Rob Rebein thanked Ray for his words and confirmed his commitment to moving the school forward in his last few months in the interim dean role.
   2. Interim Dean Rebein provided the following updates:
      1. Ad hoc committee progress repots
         1. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Strategic Planning Committee, which is being co-chaired by Jennifer Thorington Springer and Estela Ena, has met twice. The committee will be seeking input from Faculty Assembly, the faculty as a whole, alumni and students. Their work is off to a good start and moving forward.
         2. The ad hoc committee that was charged with planning and rethinking SLA events has also begun meeting. The committee is co-chaired by Meagan Musgrave and Liz Goodfellow.
         3. More than a dozen people responded to the call for volunteers interested in working on the ad hoc committee to address staff issues. The committee will be given its specific charge and start meeting soon.
      2. New tools to watch for
         1. A new dashboard is being introduced that will replace some of what we do through IRDS. The dashboard allows chairs and faculty to look at 3 areas of data (student/enrollment, HR data, and financial data) and synthesize all 3 to create reports.  The tool promises to be really useful for us.
         2. Major Key (see https://majors.iupui.edu/) is a tool that helps students explore majors in SLA. Students can enter career, job titles, or interests, and majors come up.  We need to make sure SLA programs are as well-represented in this database as possible. 
      3. Enrollment numbers
         1. Campus is tracking early enrollment numbers. For Spring 2021, new applications are down 25%; new admits are down 20%; and overall beginners are down 30%. For Fall 2021, applications are down 23%, and new beginners down almost 35%.
         2. Interim Dean Rebein suggested that we be cautious in interpreting what these numbers mean but recognize that campus is tracking them.
      4. Pathways Minors
         1. We have enrolled the first students in the pathways minors and initial recruitment efforts are underway. Rachel and her team have been doing presentations in other schools. 
         2. Enthusiasm is high, particularly for the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Pathway Minor. The dean’s office and Rachel Wheeler, the director of the program, are doing everything they can to get the program off to a strong start.
   3. Interim Dean Rebein closed his remarks by offering thanks to the Dean’s Staff (Merle, Scott, Candy; Sandy, Rick, Liz), the Associate Deans (Thom, Jennifer, Jeff, and Marta), past and current Faculty Assembly presidents (Kim White-Mills, David Craig, and Ray Haberski), Chairs and Program Directors, and the  entire faculty, particularly for what everyone has done over the last 2 semesters. 
   4. Ray pointed out the positive feedback and many expressions of gratitude to Rob Rebein for his service as interim dean that were being posted in Zoom Chat. 

5. New business
   1. Nominating Committee
      1. Elizabeth Nelson, committee chair, announced that the Nominating Committee will be distributing a survey assessing interest in being nominated for SLA elected positions.
      2. The survey will be sent out by Candace Smith on Monday, Nov. 16. All faculty are requested to indicate their interest in potentially serving on any of our elected committees.
      3. This survey will help the Nominating Committee put together the slate for Faculty Assembly elections. A second survey will be distributed in the spring soliciting volunteers for the Appointed Committees.
   2. Online Teaching Committee
      1. Jennifer Mahoney, committee chair, provided a summary of the Online Teaching Conversations that were co-hosted by the Online Teaching Committee and the Dean’s Office on October 29 and 30. Jennifer thanked everyone who participated in the conversations and encouraged attendees to complete the survey that was distributed asking for feedback.
      2. Jennifer announced that the committee is working on creating a clearinghouse for online teaching strategies, ideas, and resources. The goal is to create a Canvas site of resources specific to SLA. We will be looking for focused and helpful online teaching tools as well as assessment tools for evaluating online offerings.  Faculty with ideas or suggestions in these areas should contact any of the committee members.
   3. Faculty Affairs Committee – Discussion of the “Faculty Annual Report Supplement: Documenting Pandemic Impacts” document.
      1. Jonas Bjork, committee chair, explained that the document was created in response to campus concern about what COVID-19 would mean for annual reviews and P&T. This document is a recommended strategy that has been reviewed by chairs and revised on the basis of their feedback.  Use of the form would be completely voluntary.  Individual faculty do not have to use it, but if they do, chairs are obligated to take it into account when completing the annual review
      2. Thom Upton emphasized this is a conversation that is taking place at the university level, and schools are being asked to find a way to acknowledge and take into account that so much of what we do has been modified and interrupted by COVID-19. This document draws from a best practices document developed at UMass-Amherst, the same document the campus is using to develop campus guidelines.  Thom invited Brian Steensland to articulate a counterpoint to the approach taken by this document. 
      3. Brian Steensland thanked the Faculty Affairs committee for their good work that has led to this point. He summarized some of the concerns he has heard about the UMass document. One concern is that the differential impacts of COVID-19 (e.g., for women and in communities of color) will be exacerbated by this report.  If the impact of COVID is documented and becomes part of one’s permanent record, there’s the potential for stigma and bias.  There is also concern about the intrusive nature of the form. Some impacts are easier to talk about and others are much harder to talk about and can feel intrusive.  Finally, there is concern about the added mental and emotional work providing the documentation adds to what is already a taxing moment.  He proposed an alternative approach that would conceptually reorient how we think about it: instead of asking people to document how they’ve been impacted, we assume everyone has been impacted and make a universal adjustment to how we do assessments this year.  Individuals who don’t feel they have been negatively impacted can opt out of the adjusted assessment if they want.  By assuming everyone is doing their best, we minimize the risk of future stigma or bias in the promotion and tenure review process.  
      4. David Craig stated that he finds Brian’s argument very compelling. He identified three aspects of annual reviews: scoring, evaluating, and providing formative guidance.  If we make universal adjustments, we might reconsider scoring people and focus instead on the formative function of the annual review. 
      5. Elizabeth Thill emphasized that there’s a lot going on for a lot of people, so she would favor anything that can take some of the burden off. She initially thought the proposal was a good idea, but if there is a less-work intensive way, that would be better.
      6. Emily Beckman, speaking as a member of the Faculty Affairs committee, noted that the number one issue is that this can’t be more work. None of us can do more work.  On the other hand, we need a way to recognize that all have been impacted by COVID-19, but we don’t all fall under the same umbrella.
      7. Dana Kostroun noted that it’s a problem to assume we all have been affected in the same way. She suggested it would be fairer to ask everyone to document the impact COVID has had on them.  The school and chairs need to know how faculty were affected.  If we remain silent, we’re perpetuating the structural inequalities. 
      8. Liz Thill asked whether it could it be optional in that you can add it later, and avoid adding additional work right now. She also wondered if it could be even more informal. The document that was distributed was pretty extensive.
      9. Jen Guiliano suggested that the list could be turned into a 1 page checklist with an open box at the bottom. She emphasized that we need to be documenting this, but asking people who are spread so thin to spend more time documenting is unfeasible.
      10. Rachel Wheeler asked a question about what happens this year vs. what happens down the road in terms of how we define essential labor. The long term makes doing the documenting more important. 
      11. Steve Fox raised a question about the practical impact of annual reviews for people. We assume there won’t be raises anyway, which is one reason for “scoring.” There might also be practical impacts related to how schools address repeated negative reviews.  He reminded us that P&T is not an accumulation of FARs.  He suggested that one alternative might be to take away some of the scoring of FARs and keep the record of impact of COVID.
      12. Herb Brant affirmed Jen’s idea of streamlining the reporting, but noted that he also sees the historical value in having documentation.
      13. Phil Goff provided the link in Chat to academic policy 21 (https://policies.iu.edu/policies/aca-21-faculty-librarian-annual-reviews/index.html). This policy, which was set by the Board of Trustees, mandates annual reviews, but gives schools authority to determine what the annual review is. We can change the review process, but we need to do it within the framework of that policy.
      14. Shana Stump expressed her appreciation for everyone’s thoughtfulness and care about this issue. She expressed concern about people having to disclose things that will end up going up an entire chain of review. Even checking a box about impact might not be something some will feel comfortable doing, and we should be respectful of that.
      15. Rosa Tezanos-Pinto reported that IFC Executive Committee met yesterday, and she shared our concerns with Kathy Johnson, who thanked us for having a discussion on this topic.
      16. Kim White-Mills expressed concern for 2 groups: those going up for P&T and those nearing enhancement reviews. She also noted that some faculty have actually had a more productive year.  Can we separate the annual review process from recording the effect of COVID on us all? 
      17. Thom Upton noted that we can’t throw out the review. Having chairs provide annual reiews for those going up for P&T is essential. He affirmed the ACA21 mandate for us to complete annual reviews in some form. In addition, we need a way to reflect our Herculean efforts (i.e., in teaching).  He noted that he sees two options: provide faculty with some sort of opportunity to provide input on the impact of COVID-19 in their annual review, or reframe it and assume that all have been impacted.  Chairs would frame their comments starting with that assumption.  We don’t need “scoring” and could talk just about satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance, even assuming satisfactory performance unless something clearly indicates otherwise.
      18. Ray Haberski asked the committee if there are other issues they would like feedback on in order to take the next step. He pointed out that if we want to change the review process, we’ll need to vote on any changes electronically because we can’t wait until the next Faculty Assembly meeting to make changes.
      19. Jonas Bjork said that he thinks the committee could take the feedback provided here and work on streamlining the document. He emphasized that this is not a mandatory form – no one has to use it. If you use it, your chair has to take it into account. 
      20. Emily Beckman asked if the Faculty Affairs committee could get a copy of the chat and invited people to email her with any concerns or recommendations.
      21. Brian Steenland suggested that the committee consider the 3 discreet components of the annual review: 1) weighting of teaching, research and service (since research productivity has probably taken the biggest hit for most faculty, perhaps the weighting could be revised), 2) scoring (perhaps numerical scoring could be replaced with satisfactory/unsatisfactory rating), and 3) supplementary narrative about the year (that would allow faculty to document COVID-19 impacts).
      22. Dana Kostroun, who is also a member of the Faculty Affairs committee, noted that the conversation here mirrored the conversation the committee had had. The committee shares the strong desire to avoid adding extra work, but recognizes the need to mark this very special year.  She invited people to send their ideas of what the “dream form” would look like to the committee.
      23. Ray Haberski asked Faculty Affairs to take this discussion into consideration and work up another document that can be sent out for vote electronically.
      24. Nancy Robertson suggested that anything we come up with be checked by the IFC Executive Committee and Kathy Johnson before it’s sent out for a vote.
      25. Thom Upton agreed with that suggestion and said he’ll take care of that.
      26. Kenzie Mintus emphasized that many of the checklist items are fairly neutral, but items that are more personal shouldn’t be part of this official record. There are other methods for documenting those other impacts.
      27. Gen Guiliano reported that a campus wide survey on COVID impact is being done.
6. The meeting was adjourned at 3:09 p.m.