Faculty Beat isn’t Speaking the Same Language

The April faculty meeting, held on Monday, April 13, consisted of concerns over student security in regards to recent RCA break-ins, as well as updates from the Ad Hoc AI Committee and the Digital Accessibility Steering Committee (DASC). Kris Anderson, Professor of Psychology urged professors to RSVP for graduation. Discussion then turned to a motion that was brought up in the last faculty meeting.

Audrey Bilger opened April's faculty meeting by approving the minutes of the previous meeting and discussing the annual budget meeting that will be held next week. She then turned the floor over to Kathy Oleson, Dean of the Faculty. Before moving on, Kate Bredeson, Professor of Theatre, brought up concerns over student safety, sharing that the apartment of two students had been broken into and trashed over break. The assailants stole important documents, jewelry, medication, and other possessions, and covered one student’s room in ink and bodily fluids. The assailants left a hate note targeting one of the students for their intersecting identities. Bredeson used the phrase “hate crime” and noted that the college had only shared information with the community about this as a “break-in.” After this attack, the targeted student's mother flew here from another country and requested to meet with Bilger, but was denied a meeting either in person or over the phone. She then met with Student Life to discuss next steps and ensure that this doesn’t happen again, to her student or any others. The points of this discussion were written down and shared in an email, but there has been no follow up. After the first break-in and robbery, the affected students requested regular on site security at the RCAs given the nature of the attack. This request was denied, and on the morning of April 13, the same apartment was broken into again, this time by a different assailant. In both the first break-in and the second, the students were blamed for not locking their windows, despite the windows being shut, locked, and secured with wood. Bredeson also shared that her colleagues, experts in construction and design, had looked at the windows of the RCAs and found them to be unsafe and unsecure. Bredeson then asked that Reed do better for its students in ensuring safety by believing students instead of blaming them and others affected, and taking proper precautions such as installing adequate windows and adding adequate security. Bredeson then expressed, on behalf of the students involved, questions regarding how Reed will react to this and guarantee the safety of its students, and reiterated these concerns, asking Bilger, “What are you doing about this? What is Reed doing to help our students be safe? Why won’t we provide security to keep them safe?” Bilger then responded that travel over spring break made it impossible for her to meet with the concerned parent, and stated that the windows had been repaired after the first break-in, and that the concerns were being taken seriously. She shared that at that moment Karnell McConnell-Black, Vice President for Student Life, was meeting with the parent. It was later revealed that this was not the targeted student's parent who had requested the meeting; no administrator in the college has met with her. While the students reported both times that their windows were locked when their apartment was invaded, CSOs still blamed them for not locking the windows. When Bredeson expressed that students do not feel safe, or as though this is being taken seriously enough, Bilger reiterated her previous comment and turned the floor to Oleson.

Oleson started by reminding faculty that there was a packed agenda for both this month's meeting and May’s meeting, which will be the last faculty meeting of the 25-26 academic year. Oleson then discussed budget issues, sharing that the faculty wishes to decrease the budget and is searching for ways to do so. One consideration is to cut money from academic programs, as the academic budget was larger than other budgets combined. Oleson also shared that student enrollment was down about 8-9% this year, another driving factor for the need to realign the budget. 

The Ad Hoc AI Committee presented after Oleson, sharing how AI is a threat to education, and emphasized the need for action regarding this issue. They also shared their belief that Reed is uniquely situated to be able to combat AI use in the classroom quickly and effectively. They suggested that classes move towards device free classrooms, in-person/oral exams, and paper conferences to combat the usage of AI in the classroom, as well as hardcopy materials for those that need them. They ended their presentation by reemphasizing professor autonomy and encouraging faculty to make the decisions that are best for them and their classrooms in navigating this issue.

After this presentation, Chris Koski, Professor of Political Science and Environmental Studies, presented on behalf of the Future Vision Commission wherein he represents Reed College and other academic institutions in working with other members to envision what the greater Portland area will look like over the next fifty years. This project is expected to take about eighteen months to complete. Right now, Koski is encouraging faculty and others to complete a survey for the commission.

The Digital Accessibility Steering Committee (DASC) then shared their updates in regards to online accessibility, sharing that there is a new policy regarding digital accessibility on the new IT web page. They then shared that there are now federal regulations mandating that all online material be made accessible by May. Although there may be some difficulties in implementing this, DASC encouraged faculty members to keep doing what they’re doing and start moving things forward as they can.

Kris Anderson, Professor of Psychology, then reminded faculty members to RSVP for graduation next month to ensure that there will be enough chairs and gowns for everyone, and encouraged faculty to show up and support the graduating students. The Committee for Academic Planning and Policy (CAPP) then shared the new classes that had been approved and will be offered next year, and that more arts classes would be added after new faculty members were hired for the art department. 

After that, the Committee for Advancement and Tenure (CAT) reported that the faculty constitution is going through some revisions, and that proposed changes are meant to be approved later this year after the proposed revised draft circulates this week. CAT requested feedback as the draft circulates and that feedback will be considered until the end of this year. The proposed changes focus on teaching, scholarship, and service, and the new language used reflects and expands on how these areas are understood. This new edition also updated outdated language, attempting to better operationalize everything. After feedback is received, the new edition will be brought back for a vote, possibly in the fall.

Oleson took the floor again after the committees had made their reports, and brought up unfinished business from the last meeting. The motion was made to pause the implementation of the language requirement, which was moved to a secret electronic ballot and then passed by majority. The motion was brought up for discussion again in this meeting, where Jan Mieszkowski, Professor of German and Humanities, urged colleagues to vote to disapprove the motion, arguing that approval of this motion would set a horrible precedent. He then continued that the group requirements that Reed sets are the most direct expression of Reed’s educational goals and values. Mieszkowski then added that if Reed truly believes in resisting the Trump administration and the monolingual ideals of the current government, stating the importance of learning languages and implementing a language requirement would be one of the best ways to accomplish this. Another faculty member then responded that there is a better time and place for this discussion, and that language requirements have been left out of group requirements in the past out of fear that many introductory language courses would then be filled with students just trying to meet a requirement instead of truly wanting to learn the language, as well as emphasizing that other issues were more imminent, and that Reed needs to be attentive to students needs. They also argued that one semester of language study will not wipe out monolingualism, and that there is no harm in putting this discussion on pause until there’s a greater sense of calibration. Alexei Ditter, Professor of Chinese, then spoke up, emphasizing the importance of language study and pointing out the irony of having a humanities requirement but not a language requirement. If we truly believe that the humanities are a valid, important field worth studying, why not implement language requirements? Ditter then argued against the idea that now is not the time or place to have this discussion, and instead believes that now is an important time to stand up and reassert that Reed College believes the study of languages is important. 

Concerns of budget and the lack of incoming students were brought up in relation to the implementation of language requirements, with some faculty arguing that adding language study as a requirement would turn more students away from Reed and harm the financial well-being of the college. Anderson expressed this concern as well, sharing the concern that if we don’t have students coming in, we won’t have the budget to do anything, and that if there’s anything keeping students from studying at Reed, it’ll have poor repercussions.

Nicole James, Professor of Chemistry, responded by acknowledging the concerns, but pointing out that she doesn’t understand how pausing these requirements would help, especially considering the other aspects of Reed College that would potentially dissuade students from applying to or attending Reed, such as the unusual grading system, HUM 110 course, and other requirements. 

Milyon Trulove, Vice President and Dean of Financial Aid, then addressed the concerns over how adding the language requirements would decrease student applications, sharing that other schools with language requirements offer more ways to test out and that many high school counselors have shared that the language requirements are often a make-or-break when students decide where to apply to colleges. Nathalia King, Professor of English and Humanities, then asked that Trulove expand on how other requirements and aspects influence and drive the market of student admissions. Trulove responded that liberal arts colleges are marketed as a place that provides flexibility and allows for intellectual curiosity. He also shared that students and their families are making decisions in a particularly competitive environment, and aspects of the college are impacting admissions now in ways that they didn’t before, and it's important to stay open and marketable. Libby Drumm, Professor of Spanish, responded to Trulove’s comments by pointing out that there are lots of pathways through the college, as well as group, divisional, and departmental requirements, as well as HUM 110, Junior Qualifying exam, and the Senior Thesis, all of which are points where people can get derailed or hung up. Drumm asked why, with all of these restrictions, focus on the language requirements specifically? 

In regards to the voting that led faculty to this point in particular, Kyle Ormsby, Professor of Computer Science, Math, and Statistics, commented that the use of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a poor voting method to discuss complicated issues such as these. These sentiments were shared by Jerry Sherman, Professor of Math, emphasizing that all voting theories have their own flaws, and that RCV was not the best way to vote on this issue. Sherman also brought up that just because we have the correct diagnosis of a problem does not mean we have the correct remedy. Alex Montgomery, Professor of Political Science, suggested forming a group to look at this issue and present a better proposal, which was quickly rebutted by Jake Fraser, Professor of German, who pointed out that this suggestion was already brought up by such a group, who found RCV to be the best choice. Fraser also brought up that retention rates at Reed are better for students in the language houses or who study abroad. He also rebutted the idea that language professors wouldn’t want to have students taking so many introductory courses in languages and would prefer teaching upper level courses (such as those in comparative literature for their respective languages) by stating that the importance of having a language requirement outweighs other concerns. 

Greg Jensen, Professor of Psychology, tied the discussion back to AI, sharing that the students who come to Reed want to learn and put in the work necessary, although they don’t always know what that work looks like. Admissions paints a pretty picture of the college in order to get students through the door, and getting students to college also means undoing previously held ideas of college and showing them what this education really looks like. Jensen also expressed worry that having such a split faculty paints a poor picture of the college and its requirements, especially when half of the faculty is talking poorly about the requirements instead of communicating the importance of them and the values of each requirement. Jensen suggested letting students into that conversation and talking with those who see the value, phrasing the issue as one of retention, not admissions. Finally, Jensen asked that the dialogue revolve less around financial risk and more about framing the requirements to fit who Reedies want to become instead of trying to pinch pennies and save their budget.

Mieszkowski called the question, and the motion went into another secret electronic ballot. The faculty meeting then concluded promptly at 5:30pm.