1
Minutes of the Academic Faculty Meeting June 4, 2008
Seminar II E1105
Call To Order
Stephen called the meeting to order at 1:15 p.m.
Announcements
Monica Ragan (monica4ya@earthlink.net) and Nina Hinton (Ninahintn@aol.com) spoke
with the faculty about the restitution they are being required to pay after the [events of
February 14th]. They talked about their love of the community and the college, and the
fact that they had taken responsibility for their role in the events that day. As restitution,
however, they and two other students are being required to pay for the entirety of the
damages. They expressed their feeling that it is unjust for four people to pay for the
entire amount. They asked the faculty for support/donations, etc. and for any ideas they
may have. They asked the faculty to email them if so. In response to their
announcement, Joe Tougas talked about the need for finding alternatives to the Criminal
Justice system, ones that move away from blame and towards restorative justice.
Stephen announced that an institutional Policy Review will begin this summer, led by
John Carmichael and Kitty Parker. Areas of policy that are identified for review include
the Social Contract, the processing of Public Records Requests, etc. Stephen asked the
faculty to contact John and Kitty if they identify other policies that they think should be
reviewed.
Emeritus Nominations
The faculty nominated two colleagues for Emeritus status in addition to the four
nominated at the May 21st meeting: Susan Preciso nominated Helena Meyer-Knapp, and
Jim Neitzel nominated Jan Ott. The nominations will be considered and voted on by the
Board of Trustees at their June 12th meeting. The ceremony will take place from 3-4:30
outside of Seminar 2 B1107.
SDS Suspension
Representatives from Student Affairs, (Phyllis Lane and Art Costantino), and Students
for a Democratic Society, (Brendan Dunn, Courtney Frantz and Stefanie Gottschalk), `were
each allotted 5 minutes to present information related to the suspension of the student
organization. Stephen pointed out that while general agreement has not been reached
about the faculty meeting being the appropriate venue for this discussion, all venues in
which it could be discussed are in some way problematic.
SDS: (Synopsis)
The SDS representatives distributed a handout of materials related to the planning for and
authorization of the event in question. They indicated that they were coming to the
faculty because of their importance and their influence. The SDS was suspended for
holding an event during the event moratorium. One such event drew around 50 people.
The event that the SDS was suspended for holding was in fact two separate events. The
SDS was the only group to speak out about racism after the events of February 14th and
2
about the port protests. The SDS received an unprecedented punishment for the
violations in question. The SDS is currently negotiating with the administration, and is
only asking the faculty for support. SDS is not just about the members of the student
organization. Members of SDS thought Evergreen was a different kind of place, and
have seen it changing. Students have experienced varying forms of repression – students
have been tasered, officers have abused students, housing for families has been lost. SDS
members believe in being assertive and building the power of students. They believe
there can’t be a true community without a balance of power. The SDS talked about the
Founding Values of the institution and called on the faculty to join them in protecting
those values. SDS requests that the faculty ask the administration to negotiate in good
faith with SDS and ask for a committee to be formed which will investigate repression on
campus.
Student Affairs (Synopsis)
As negotiations with SDS are ongoing some details of the events need to be withheld.
The appeal of the suspension has been suspended until the negotiations are concluded.
The event was not cancelled because of the political nature of the events. There were
serious problems with the planning of the event. The concert moratorium that was in
place at the time in which this event was held included the stipulation that all events
would be reviewed for approval by the Dean of Student and Academics Support Services.
Some events were permitted to proceed that had musical performances built into them but
they were not concerts. Likewise some events that were advertised outside of the local
community were permitted to proceed. The event which resulted in the suspension of
SDS was framed as a panel discussion, not as a concert. Concern was also expressed at
the time about having it in the longhouse based on damage to the facility that occurred
during previous concerts. It was also pointed out that another problematic aspect of this
event was that it included a fundraising function, and state institutions are not permitted
to host fundraisers. Although the SDS contends that the panel discussion and concert
were separate, they were advertised as one event including a benefit. Student Activities’
staff made a real effort to make the event work, but had lots of trouble getting accurate
information about what was really planned for the event. There were other events that
were cancelled because of the moratorium.
Discussion:


Faculty asked why a final copy of the campus production reports for the event
was not included in the handouts. (The final CPR did not list a concert.) The
event was presented as one event on this CPR. The SDS reps responded that this
was an oversight.
It was asserted that the campus is becoming an increasingly repressive
environment in which students are being tasered, threatened, etc. A resolution was
introduced: The faculty urge the administrators involved in negotiations with
SDS to bargain in good faith to resolve the suspension of SDS. (This was
amended to read “continue to bargain in good faith.”) This resolution was voted
on and passed, 36-4-16.
3



It was noted that the reps from SDS had called on the faculty to help them protect
the founding values of the institution. They were asked if they had specific ideas
about how they could contribute to that collaborative work. The SDS responded
with issues they would like to see worked on – the role of police on campus,
better housing and health care for students, faculty and staff, and an end to
discrimination on campus.
Faculty asked what discretion Student Activities had re: the sanctions which were
applied in this case. It was explained all student organization go through training
and are provided with a handbook that lists the sanctions for violating policies.
The penalties range from warnings to suspension. In this case, the students
admitted to deliberate wrongdoing and were assessed the maximum penalty.
(SDS reps pointed out that there had been no prior violations on the part of the
SDS, and they have held 30 events this year.)
It was pointed out that the performer in this case featured a very low-key folk
singer. (The reps from Student Affairs responded that the nature of the performer
was not the problem, and that it was never the intention to void the campus of
music. The advertisement of the event as a concert for external audiences was a
serious problem. The reps were asked if there were any concerns about the
Muslim group that was the co-sponsor for the event, and the Student Affairs
representatives said no).
Hiring Priorities Recommendation
Paul Przybylowicz presented the recommendations from the Hiring Priorities DTF. He
talked about the process from this year, which was different from previous years in that it
included the use of the governance groups format to generate proposals for positions in
addition to the ones proposed by the planning units. He pointed out that every position
which was proposed could be argued for and would be beneficial to the college. He
presented the following Final List of positions, which includes some left over from the
previous HP DTF’s list*:
1. British Literature*
2. Experimental Media*
3. Sustainable Agriculture
4. Sustainable Design
5. Creative Writing
6. Social or Developmental Psychology
7. Communications/Journalism
8. 3-dimensional art/ Ceramics
9. Comparative Religion
10. Spanish Language and Latino/Chicano Studies
11. Biology
12. Energy/Physics/Sustainability
13. Computer Science
14. Art History
15. Climate Justice
4
Paul also presented a synopsis of the other recommendations of the DTF (the full report
was subsequently provided to all faculty via e-mail). The following were discussed:



Faculty asked if the Biology position was the one identified in the Enrollment
Growth process. Paul answered that this is a new position, not the EG position.
It was pointed out that one of the recommendations involves changing the way
faculty are hired for the graduate programs. They would be hired with an
increased expectation that they will continue on with the program and only rotate
out at regularly scheduled intervals. This is needed to address chronic staffing
issues in the graduate programs. It was pointed out that this has not been the
problem for MES but that it has been for the other programs.
Faculty asked why positions that were only supported by one area sometimes
ranked higher than ones which were supported by multiple areas. Paul responded
that certain positions are needed because of specific, current holes in the
curriculum, and pointed out that not all venues for making proposals provided the
opportunity for multiple group support.
Concern was expressed about the mentality of “filling holes,” but it was pointed
out that in past years “filling holes” was all that got accomplished in this process,
and the inclusion of other kinds of positions in these recommendations may imply
a more creative direction that can be taken regarding staffing for the future. It
was also pointed out that “holes” do not necessarily reflect the kind of
disciplinary planning that goes on in traditional departments; the way Evergreen
creates and identifies “holes” is related to the way communities of faculty at
Evergreen are built. There will always be more such “holes” than the college can
fill.
It was also said that these are not “holes” but rather perceived needs. Some are
things the college may not need to continue to teach, but which folks are tied to;
others are things the college cannot step away from teaching, and a last group is
represented by the need to have faculty with adequate disciplinary expertise to
offer and teach upper-division work.




Faculty were asked for some reflection on the increased governance burden that
resulted from the process this year. The need for a determination about whether
the time spent on this process was well spent was expressed.
Faculty asked how many positions will likely be hired this coming year. It was
said that there is too much uncertainty about the budget to make realistic
projections at this point.
It was said that including the governance groups in the work this year has opened
the process up more and broken some of the calcification in the planning units.
It was said that the Sustainability and Justice thematic planning group was treated
essentially like a planning unit in this process. This points to an opportunity for
other faculty to create more such planning groups. They could become more
influential and promote interdisciplinary thinking in a way which can influence
future hiring.
5

Faculty asked about the implications of the Long-Term Visiting and Adjunct
Faculty Appointment Policy for the Hiring Priorities work. This is an unknown at
this point, but could trump the Hiring Priorities process if put into play.
Adjournment
Stephen adjourned the meeting at 3:00 p.m.