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 19th and 20th 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 15th 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 upperdivision 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
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.
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 brainwashing 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