Faculty Beat is Happening Again

On Wednesday, September 23, the faculty held a special meeting to discuss and vote on proposed changes to the Faculty Code. President Audrey Bilger began the meeting at 4:15pm by announcing the agenda and inviting the assembled faculty to reflect on the changes to the Faculty Code as a gateway to a future review of all of the faculty’s governing documents, a process which will “take as long as it takes.” 

Dean of the Faculty Kathy Oleson spoke next to introduce the Ad Hoc Committee for Governance Documents and Procedures, which was formed two years ago with the goal of clarifying these texts. The committee’s starting point was the Faculty Code, which they reorganized and streamlined, while keeping “the fundamental policy intact.” Oleson also laid out the planned motions for the meeting: to define the Code in the Faculty Bylaws, to move text to the Bylaws from the Code, and to approve the complete revised Code. She remarked that the committee had presented and received feedback on a revised Code in the March 9 meeting, but there was no time for the Code to be voted on during the April 13 and May 15 meetings. Proposed amendments to the Code were also sent out to the faculty during the past week, which would be brought up alongside the final revised Code.

Nigel Nicholson, Professor of Greek, Latin, and Ancient Mediterranean Studies and Humanities, presented the first motion. This was a change to the Bylaws, adding a clear definition of the Faculty Code and its place within the governing documents, as well as removing outdated language that placed “student living and conduct” and “fees” among the faculty’s responsibilities. A new section was added to define the role of the Course Catalog as a document for students that would be subordinate to the Bylaws and department policies. The proposed change also included the statement that any college policy in conflict with state or federal laws would be superseded by the relevant law. 

Shohei Kobayashi, Assistant Professor of Music, brought up the statement about state and federal laws, questioning whether this language would be “complying in advance” with future government policies. Nicholson responded by saying that the college has to comply with the law and this addition to the Bylaws would be “making clear a fact.” Kobayashi then asked why the faculty had to formalize this fact in writing, and Nicholson replied that the change was “more honest,” even though it was always implicit that the college would have to change policies to match the law.

Bilger then chimed in to say that the faculty has previously had to call votes on changes to their governing documents when federal laws have changed and conflicted with college policy. Adam Groce, Associate Professor of Computer Science, brought up that the college president had authority in the past to make a temporary change to align with federal laws, but left long term changes up to be voted on by the faculty. Nicholson said that a clause in Title IX allowed this to happen before, but there are generally no overarching provisions to allow the president to make a temporary change and then have the faculty vote in these situations.

Peter Ksander, Professor of Theatre, moved to table this motion for the next faculty meeting, and was seconded. Ksander said that “more voices could be heard” before voting. “They could have come!” retorted Nicholson. Bilger then brought up that this motion had already been delayed in two past faculty meetings. Nicholson suggested offering an electronic ballot for faculty not present at this meeting to vote, which was carried after the motion to table failed to pass. 

Next, Ksander presented the second motion, which would add a description of the Committee on Graduate Studies and clarify the description of the Library Board in the Bylaws. This motion was carried after minimal discussion. 

Oleson presented the final motion of the meeting, the revised Code. Associate Dean of the Faculty Suzy Renn joined her to add that the faculty would first have to vote on several amendments to the revised Code, as some adjustments had been made after its initial release among the faculty. These amendments specified that candidates to Reed must have a diploma or the equivalent from an accredited institution (rather than an institution specifically accredited by the Department of Education), that “guests who are not members of the faculty” must seek special permission to attend thesis orals (rather than just “non-Reed faculty”), and that students must submit their theses to both the Registrar and their orals board before the deadline (rather than just to the Registrar). 

Zajj Daugherty, Professor of Mathematics, asked what faculty were supposed to do about late thesis submissions, anecdotally remarking that half of the theses she receives come closer to 3:15pm than the 3pm deadline. Renn stated that the amendment was not the place to determine policies on late submissions, but it was made to allow for electronic thesis submissions. 

Michael Breen, Professor of History and Humanities, remarked that “3pm was more of a concept” back in the days before electronic submissions. Margot Minardi, Professor of History and Humanities, added that students will no longer have to wait for the Registrar to approve their thesis before sending it to their orals board under the new amendment.

Kobayashi brought up the change to the language about prospective applicants, highlighting the “tenuousness of accreditation and the ways it’s eroding.” Renn responded that the change was meant to be more open to international institutions, and Minardi added that the previous language technically excluded private schools, which are not all accredited by the state Department of Education. Kris Anderson, Professor of Psychology, remarked that she did not have a high school diploma and asked whether the amendment would account for students in such a situation. Renn replied that a separate part of the Code specified that the Vice President of Admission has the power to waive the requirement in special situations.

The motion to amend these parts of the revised Code carried, leaving the next matter of business as the approval of the entire Faculty Code. The only remark in the discussion was one professor saying “thank you” to the committee, and the motion to approve the new Code carried after a chorus of unopposed ayes. Bilger ended the meeting by reminding the faculty that the Code and Bylaws are “living documents,” and expressing her appreciation for her “wonky” and wonderful colleagues. The meeting concluded at a brisk 4:56pm, to the joy of many of the assembled faculty.

For more riveting excitement, tune in for the next real faculty meeting on Monday, October 12. Students who are interested in attending should email presidentsoffice@reed.edu.