Skip to main content

April 26, 2024

Meeting of the Faculty Council

Friday, April 26, 2024
3:00 p.m.
1001 Kerr Hall (Eshelman School of Pharmacy)

The meeting was streamed live. Access the recording at this link.

Agenda

3:00 p.m.   Chair’s welcome and remarks
                         Chair of the Faculty Beth Moracco

3:05 p.m.   Remembrance of faculty colleagues

Slideshow [PDF]

3:10 p.m.   Recognition of former Chair of the Faculty Jane Brown
                         Professors Emeriti Ray Dooley (Dramatic Art) and Lynne Vernon-Feagans (Education)

3:15 p.m.   Chancellor’s remarks
                         Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts

3:25 p.m.   Provost’s remarks
                         Provost Chris Clemens

3:30 p.m.   Q&A with Interim Chancellor Roberts and Provost Clemens

3:35 p.m.   Educational Policy: Annual report and Resolution on University Approved Absences
                         Professor Lorraine Cramer (Microbiology and Immunology), EPC chair

4:10 p.m.   Preliminary report of the ad hoc committee on faculty governance processes
                         Secretary of the Faculty Jill Moore

4:20 p.m.   Office of Faculty Affairs updates
                         Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Giselle Corbie

Presentation slides [PDF]

4:35 p.m.   Committee Reports (by title)

Note: all forthcoming reports will be posted as soon as possible on 4/25.

4:45 p.m.   CLOSED SESSION: Special Report [PDF] of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards
                             Chair Lynn Blanchard (Health Behavior) [Accessible by Council members only; Sakai log-in required.]

Video of Proceedings

Watch the full video [Streaming]

Journal of Proceedings of the Faculty Council

The Faculty Council of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill convened on April 26, 2024, at 3:00 p.m. in Kerr Hall, Room 1001 at the Eshelman School of Pharmacy. A Zoom webinar option was provided for Council members who were unable to attend in person. Other faculty and members of the public were able to observe the meeting on a livestream.

The following 66 Faculty Council members attended: Alderman, Ansong, Azcarate-Peril, Balasubramanian, Becker, Berkoff, Blythe, Budhiraja, Campbell, Charles, Cilenti, Cook, De Fays, Dooley, Drummond, Ebert, Estroff, Frederick, Freeman, Goralski, Hannig, Hessick, Jackson, Johnson, Juffras, Kasthuri, Krause, Kucera, La Serna, Lauen, Lee, Lin, Ma, Maman, McEntee, McNeilly, Mehrotra, Mendez, Metcalfe, Meyer, Mohanty, Moore (Secretary of the Faculty), Moracco (Chair of the Faculty), Nichols, Oliveira, Penton, Pérez-Méndez, Raff, Renner, L. Roberts (Interim Chancellor), M. Roberts, Schlobohm, Sena, J. Smith, Smith Taillie, Stewart, Turi, Vernon-Feagans, Vines, Weiler, Whitmire, Wolfe, Yaghoobi, Zeeman, Zhu, and Zomorodi.

The following 20 members received excused absences: Aikat, Binz, Boyd, Brownley, Cai, Colford, Divaris, Donahue, Entwisle, Gates-Foster, Haggis, Halpern, Hodges, Mersini-Houghton, Pier, Reissner, Reyes, K. Smith, Winget, and Young.

The following 6 members were absent without excuse: Charles, Dillman Carpentier, Lain, Sathy, Thomas and Thorp.

Others in attendance: Provost Chris Clemens, Nikolas Morrison-Welch (Graduate Observer) and Margaux Sherwen (Undergraduate Observer).

Call to order

Chair of the Faculty Beth Moracco called the meeting to order at 3:00 p.m.

Chair’s remarks

Chair of the Faculty Beth Moracco welcomed everyone to the April Faculty Council meeting and gave brief remarks focusing on three key updates.

The faculty listening session on the Chancellor Search is scheduled for April 29 at 3:00 PM in Kerr Hall, with a Zoom option available. The session will occur during the first part of the scheduled Faculty Executive Committee meeting.

The results of the faculty election were announced and are available on the Office of Faculty Governance website [HTML]. Chair Moracco congratulated the newly elected members and thanked those finishing their terms for their service.

The Board of Governors’ (BOG) University Governance Committee met on April 17 and discussed a proposal to repeal and replace a 2019 policy on diversity and inclusion, affecting all 17 campuses of the UNC System. This proposal was introduced with minimal notice and approved for the consent agenda of the BOG meeting on May 23. Chair Moracco solicited faculty feedback from our campus through a survey that received 34 responses in a short amount of time. Faculty expressed widespread concerns about both the process and content of the proposed changes. While most respondents opposed the new policy, a minority was content with it despite disapproving of the process. Chair Moracco shared the feedback with UNC System President Peter Hans. She expressed appreciation for the faculty’s prompt responses and emphasized that their voices were being heard. More detailed updates will be provided along with opportunities for further feedback.

Remembrance of Faculty Colleagues

Faculty Council members watched the In Memoriam presentation [PDF] that honors UNC-Chapel Hill faculty who have passed away during the past year. Afterwards, the Council observed a moment of silence. Chair Moracco thanked the staff of the Office of Faculty Governance for creating this annual observance.

Recognition of former Chair of the Faculty Jane Brown

Professors Emeriti Ray Dooley (Dramatic Art) and Lynne Vernon-Feagans (Education) paid tribute to James L. Knight Professor Emerita of Journalism and Media Jane Delano Brown, who was awarded the Jonathan B. Howes Lifetime Achievement Award at the April 8 meeting of the Retired Faculty and Professionals Association. The award recognizes Professor Brown for her scholarship, extensive service to the UNC-Chapel Hill campus, and community involvement. A nomination letter highlighted her as a role model and for her efforts to create inclusive and supportive environments. Specific contributions included her research on adolescent portrayals in mass media; her leadership as chair of the faculty (1994-1997); her mentorship of junior faculty, particularly women; and her service on numerous campus committees. During her career, Professor Brown’s leadership extended to community organizations such as the Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood, and the North Carolina Association for Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention. The Howes Award, established in 2015, honors previous association president Jonathan B. Howes. It has been awarded to notable faculty, such as William E. Leuchtenburg, John L. Sanders, and Joe W. Gresham. Professor Brown is the first woman to receive this distinguished award.

Chancellor’s remarks

Interim Chancellor Lee Roberts began by acknowledging recent events on campus, specifically the recent students protests and the discussions surrounding the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policy. He acknowledged that students have a right to protest peacefully, but emphasized the need to adhere to University rules, particularly regarding threats, disruption of campus operations, and erecting tents without permits. He commended both the students and the University administration for handling the situation respectfully and constructively.

He expressed openness to questions about the DEI policy and clarified that the policy has not been finalized. The interim chancellor encouraged comments and suggestions for improvement and offered reassurance to faculty that academic freedom would not be compromised by the updated policy, as it does not affect classroom activities. UNC System President Hans has said that the policy does not affect student cultural centers, such as the Women’s Center and the Stone Center. He reflected on the University’s commitment to diversity, emphasizing the need for the institution to mirror the State’s evolving demographics and to ensure that all members of campus feel welcome.

He highlighted positive events on campus that he has attended, including a dinner for Carolina Covenant Scholars, a BeAM@CAROLINA signing ceremony for a new building at the Kenan-Flagler School, and interactions with graduating students. These moments underscore the University’s vibrant and inspiring environment.

Provost’s remarks

Provost Chris Clemens began by expressing his gratitude to those who serve on Faculty Council, expressing congratulations to those who were elected to the Faculty Council, while bidding farewell to those whose terms are ending. He highlighted the significant but often unnoticed work of faculty members on the Council and on various committees, expressing deep appreciation for their contributions.

The provost announced that Dean Fouad Abd-El-Khalick of the School of Education has accepted a position as provost at University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Provost Clemens acknowledged this loss but wished Dean Abd-El-Khalick success in his new role. He hopes to appoint an interim dean next week and to initiate a national search over the summer to find a replacement.

He spoke briefly about the proposed DEI policy and read from it pointing out that it aims to ensure inclusivity and equal treatment for individuals from diverse backgrounds. He emphasized the importance of these principles and reiterated his commitment to upholding them within the University community. He reiterated the Office of Faculty Affairs’ dedication to student success and employee well-being, as spelled out in the policy. He also emphasized the University’s mission to invite, include and respect individuals from all backgrounds and affirmed his commitment to continuing this work in the future.

Q&A with Interim Chancellor Roberts and Provost Clemens

Professor Allison Schlobohm (Business) acknowledged the challenge of recent weeks and expressed appreciation for the updates about the protests and the proposed DEI policy. She asked about the narrative being presented to the BOG, legislators, and donors regarding the significance of campus community and freedom at UNC-Chapel Hill.

Interim Chancellor Roberts emphasized the core value of free speech and free expression at UNC-Chapel Hill. Most concerns from parents, donors, and other constituents revolve around safety, both psychological and physical, particularly for Jewish students.  The administration has been engaged with various campus communities, including attending events like an Iftar dinner during Ramadan, to ensure all groups feel heard and seen.

Professor Schlobohm shared an experience she had with a student who expressed fear of losing their scholarship and being unable to attend UNC-Chapel Hill if they exercised their freedom of speech in relation to their Palestinian identity. The student was concerned that their freedom of speech was at risk, which contradicted their initial expectations about the University. Professor Schlobohm asked Interim Chancellor Roberts how he would respond to such a student.

Interim Chancellor Roberts has heard similar concerns from other students. He emphasized that no student should fear consequences for exercising their right to free speech, especially in an academic setting. The University has broad and comprehensive protections for free speech, and even when students push the limits, as in the recent protests, the administration strives to be sensitive and accommodating. He encouraged the student to speak out and make their voice heard, just as any other student should feel free to do.

Professor Misha Becker (Linguistics) commented that two years ago, the Faculty Council passed a resolution on salary equity for faculty at UNC-Chapel Hill, which included several key components: forming a salary equity advisory committee, providing an annual report on salary equity to the Council, conducting a biannual study on salary trends, and creating an online dashboard to track progress. While the advisory committee was formed and an annual report was provided last year, there has been no report this year.  Professor Becker sought assurance that efforts would be undertaken to fulfill these priorities in the future.

Provost Clemens acknowledged that while the chancellor was charged with overseeing this work, with the change in leadership, it has come to the Provost’s Office. Steps have been taken to address the salary equity for faculty. An external consulting group was brought in to validate methodologies due to complexities in data aggregation. A draft salary equity study report for this year has been reviewed by multiple offices and revisions are underway with the goal of finalizing and releasing the report soon. The process typically occurs biennially, and efforts will be made to adhere to the original resolution’s requirements, including reconvening the committee to discuss the report and next steps. Provost Clemens apologized for the delay.

Professor Roxana Perez-Mendez (Art and Art History) raised concerns about the proposed new DEI policy’s language that implies maintaining institutional neutrality at UNC. She questioned whether such neutrality has ever existed at the University. She highlighted the benefits of past initiatives on equity, not just within classes and hiring but also in the improved health care received due to better physician training in areas such as African American maternal health, Latino community, and diverse relationships. She asked Provost Clemens and Interim Chancellor Roberts for their perspectives on the notion of neutrality and its impact on the community.

Interim Chancellor Roberts clarified that the language in question is aimed at political neutrality. He acknowledged the importance of ongoing efforts in three areas: engagement, outreach across the State and affordability, which need to be continued and possibly intensified. He highlighted the need to actively recruit students from all counties in North Carolina and to ensure that all students feel they belong and can thrive at the University. He emphasized the significance of programs like the Carolina Covenant for affordability and the importance of student centers in campus life. The University has a good story to tell in offering a high-quality affordable education. The student centers will not be affected. The interim chancellor believes they are an important part of student life.

Professor Perez-Mendez said that messaging alone will not address the issue at hand, which is equity. She believes that while funding and supporting students through programs like the Carolina Covenant are important, true effectiveness requires training to ensure equitable interactions. She argued that it’s not just about attracting students or keeping centers open but ensuring that all students receive proper care and attention. She highlighted the need for training that fosters equity, especially in pre-professional programs, to maintain and enhance Carolina’s national reputation.

Educational Policy: Annual report and Resolution on University Approved Absences

Professor Lorraine Cramer (Microbiology and Immunology), chair of the Educational Policy Committee (EPC), presented the committee’s annual report [PDF] and gave a presentation [PDF] on the revision of the class attendance policy, which the Faculty Council will be asked to approve. The revision process, which lasted over a year and a half, aimed to address misconceptions and to update the policy for clarity.

The presentation began with an overview of University Approved Absences (UAAs).  UAAs constitute a minimal policy that covers the minimum requirements needed to allow students to deal with emergencies and other situations that make it impossible for them to attend classes. Faculty do not need permission to approve and/or excuse any absences. There have been common misconceptions about UAAs, such as the belief that students need a UAA to receive an excused absence and any needed accommodations from their professors in association with those absences, such as make-up work. It was clarified that students should approach professors directly regarding absences. Another misconception is that it is optional to comply with a UAA. If a UAA is granted, the professor must accommodate it.   A final misconception is that faculty are not permitted to accommodate a student whose UAA is not approved. Professor Cramer stated that is “absolutely false” and encouraged faculty to support their students, regardless of the UAA approval.

The UAA policy was established in 2018 and led to the creation of the UAA Office to review UAA requests. Nonstandard requests are reviewed by a subcommittee of the EPC, which Professor Cramer has served on. After reviewing numerous requests and identifying misunderstandings, the committee decided to revise the policy for clarity. Due to significant changes over the past five years, including the impact of COVID-19, a comprehensive update was necessary. The original policy writers and members from across campus comprised the task force that worked on the revision.

Professor Jennifer Weinberg-Wolf (Physics and Astronomy), EPC member, continued the presentation by addressing the problems with the current attendance policy and the proposed solutions.

She acknowledged a lack of clarity regarding what qualifies as an Authorized University Activity and the process for making such requests. She reviewed some of the areas of the existing policy that need updating. She identified short-term military leave as a federal legal requirement that wasn’t included in the original policy and that needs to be added to the revision. She noted that the timing of the policy’s original implementation coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic.  During that time, the changing landscape of CDC requirements posed challenges for the long-term medical absence policy, which now needs to be clarified. She commented that there have been challenges in implementing the UAA policy fairly without overburdening teachers, recognizing that courses of different sizes or different methodologies have different needs.

To address these issues, the committee proposed several major updates to the existing policy. The first major update would clarify what counts as an Authorized University Activity under the UAA policy. The proposed revision clarifies that an absence for Authorized University Activity is permitted when the absence serves a purpose for the whole university as a collective entity. Individual activities such as participating in a conference do not constitute an Authorized University Activity. This does not mean that professors should not allow absences for such activities; it means simply that they are not absences for which a UAA will be provided.

The second major update addresses absences that we are required to accommodate under various laws. These include short-term military leave, religious observations, and pregnancy accommodations.

The third major update clarifies what constitutes a significant health condition, defining it as a condition that requires the student to miss five or more consecutive days of class. Specific language has been added to clarify that respiratory viruses such as flu, strep throat, or COVID-19, would not qualify as UAAs. This aimed to reduce the burden on resources and streamline the process for students and faculty.

The final major update addresses make-up coursework and assessments. The proposed policy changes recognize the need for varying approaches that are tailored to the specific course and learning objectives, rather than applying a one-size-fits-all approach.

Overall, the proposed revisions aimed to streamline the policy, clarify definitions, and update terms to reflect current circumstances while ensuring fairness and flexibility for both students and faculty.

Professor Joy Renner (Radiologic Science) clarified a point related to attendance policies. The policy does not mean instructors can simply state in their syllabi that they only allow a certain number of absences. Instead, the policy includes a process involving student course instructors and University officials to determine if a student’s absences have made it impossible for him or her to meet course objectives. The policy is not about arbitrary attendance limits but about ensuring students can achieve learning goals despite absences.

Professor Jennifer Smith (Linguistics) sought clarification on the definition of “five consecutive class days.” She asked whether it refers to consecutive days of a particular class for an individual instructor or five consecutive days on which classes are held.

Dean of Students Desirée Rieckenberg clarified that “five consecutive class days” means five consecutive days in which classes are held.

Professor Mark McNeilly (Business) asked if there is data on the attendance rate in classes.

Dean Rieckenberg said that specific data is not available. Her office can provide broad data on the number of students requesting UAAs, but they do not have precise numbers due to the diverse attendance policies across campus.

Professor Doug Lauen (Public Policy) expressed appreciation for the flexibility that the UAA policy provides to faculty in accommodating student needs. He highlighted challenges faced during the pandemic due to ambiguity in reasons for student absences and the varying lengths of absences. He was able to accommodate students for classes with less complex assessments but struggled with tests or collaborative projects. He asked who makes the final decisions on fairness in these cases.

Professor Weinberg-Wolf said that timing constraints throughout the semester may influence the type of makeup assessments provided to students. Faculty members should use their judgment to determine appropriate makeup assessments based on the specific circumstances of each absence. Additionally, she advocated for a review process to address any disagreements between students and faculty regarding makeup assessments, potentially involving the department chair or a designated representative.

Professor Cramer said that such a review process is a matter of ongoing discussion. The UAA Office would need additional resources and perhaps a committee to facilitate the review process. She noted that students might feel uncomfortable going over their instructor’s head to address disagreements over makeup assessments. A committee could provide a flexible and timely avenue for students to address these concerns.

Professor Lauen asked for affirmation of his understanding, which is that the instructor of record has the authority to make accommodations, but those decisions may be subject to an appeal to the department chair.

Dean Rieckenberg stated that this is the current process. If a student receives a UAA and the faculty member offers an academic adjustment that the student feels is not appropriate for some reason, the policy gives the student the ability to speak to the department chair or the chair’s designee. Adjustments that are made should allow the student to demonstrate competency in the course’s learning objectives and should not penalize the student for having a UAA.

Professor Perez-Mendez asked whether students receive guidance on how to request absences or accommodations in coursework and assessments for their absences. She described receiving requests for absences that are very impactful to hear and sometimes beyond the faculty’s role to address as mentors.

Dean Rieckenberg stated that the current process allows students to share detailed information regarding their need for a UAA and if the UAA is approved the reasons are not communicated to faculty. However, she recognized that several requests will not fall within the UAA policy and that students are encouraged to take those matters to professors. She also acknowledged that different faculty members have different expectations about the amount of information students should provide to support an absence that falls outside the UAA policy.

Professor Cramer introduced Resolution 2024-6, On Amending the Policy on University Approved Absences [PDF] to the Council for adoption.

Resolution 2024-6 was approved with a vote of 52-0 and two abstentions.

Preliminary report of the ad hoc committee on faculty governance processes

During the March Faculty Council meeting, Secretary of the Faculty Jill Moore led a discussion on faculty governance processes and procedure that gave Faculty Council members an opportunity to provide their input.

One primary theme being considered by the ad hoc committee charged with studying these issues is the need for more time in dealing with resolutions. This need includes more time to receive resolutions in advance, to contemplate them as they are being conceived, to discuss them during meetings and to reflect on them. Additionally, there have been specific suggestions for procedural changes. The ad hoc committee will hold more meetings on this matter and will return to the Council in the fall with recommendations for changes to procedures and ways to educate stakeholders about them.

Office of Faculty Affairs updates

Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Giselle Corbie (Social Medicine) expressed gratitude for the opportunity to address the Faculty Council. Her presentation [PDF] highlighted the importance of the Office of Faculty Affairs and its role in supporting faculty members across all career paths. The office’s mission is to foster an inclusive environment and support faculty success through collaboration with academic units, talent development and comprehensive programs.

She described the structure of the Office of Faculty Affairs, which includes herself as the Senior Vice Provost, Associate Provost for Faculty Development and Success Erin Malloy and Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs Lachonya Thompson.

The office works in three main areas: faculty development and leadership, faculty advancement and well-being/building community. Within these areas, initiatives include leadership development programs, performance and conduct policies, leave programs and faculty well-being support.

Vice Provost Corbie introduced new initiatives like the COACHE [Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education] Data Project that aims to provide faculty with valuable survey data and the Interfolio Faculty Information System, a technology solution to streamline dossier management and the promotion process. Additionally, she highlighted ELEVATE, a suite of faculty support programs focused on mentoring, career advancement, and teaching support.

She also discussed various policy updates, including ones to the Faculty Workload Policy intended to standardize workload distribution and annual reporting and to the Post-Tenure Review Policy, which aims to streamline the process and emphasize faculty recognition. She emphasized the importance of clarity, equity and transparency in these policies and mentioned ongoing efforts to gather and share data with faculty members.

Committee Reports (by title)

The annual reports of the Administrative Board of the Library [PDF], the Advisory Committee [PDF], the Committee on Community and Diversity [PDF], the Faculty Assembly Delegation [PDF], the Faculty Executive Committee [PDF], the Scholarships, Awards, and Student Aid Committee [PDF] and the Status of Women Committee [PDF] were accepted by title.

CLOSED SESSION: Special Report of the Committee on Honorary Degrees and Special Awards

Secretary Moore requested a motion to move into closed session to prevent the premature disclosure of honorary degree and special awards information. Professor Jason Metcalfe (Mathematics) made the motion, which was seconded by Professor Meg Zomorodi (Nursing). The motion carried, and the Faculty Council went into closed session.

While in closed session Professor Lynn Blanchard (Health Behavior), chair of the Honorary Degrees and Special Awards presented a special report of the committee.

Adjournment

Upon returning to open session, the Faculty Council adjourned at 5:02 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Kadejah Murray
University Program Associate

Jill Moore
Secretary of the Faculty

 

 

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Office of Faculty Governance
Henry Owl Building

230 E. Cameron Avenue
Campus Box 9170
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-9170

919-962-2146 (main)