Several faculty senators are calling for the Syracuse University administration to explain why it chose to overrule the University Senate motion to keep promotion and tenure decisions in the hands of the faculty, rather than the provost.

At Wednesday’s University Senate meeting in Maxwell Auditorium, Robert Van Gulick, a philosophy professor and chair of the Committee on Instruction, and former dean of the College of Arts and Sciences Sam Gorovitz requested the senate hear from the administration and the Board of Trustees about this issue.

The meeting began with a eulogy for Scott Strickland, an associate professor of history who died in May and then moved on to reports by the Agenda Committee and ended with a report by the Committee on Computing Services.

Last year, the Appointment and Promotions Committee worked to evaluate SU’s promotion policies and later recommended the university create a committee of tenured faculty that would review appeals from the administration and individual schools and colleges on promotion decisions. The motion passed almost unanimously in the senate.

In a May 10 decision, the board directed Chancellor Kent Syverud and Vice-Chancellor and Provost Eric Spina to change the promotion policy in several ways, including that the provost make decisions on a school or college’s request for tenure, then forward it to the board.

Gorovitz said the senate needs to hear why the administration and the board decided to act against the senate’s decision—one in which some faculty were suspicious of administrative involvement in promotions.

“I met with a group of faculty and senators the Monday after the Board made its decision and I agree that some report back and discussion is appropriate,” Syverud said at the meeting. “I spent a lot of time thinking about this, so I’m happy to talk when you’re ready.”

Senate Moderator Doug Armstrong, who is also chair of the Agenda Committee, said he felt the senate should wait to see what the Appointment and Promotions Committee is working on before it submits a formal request for an explanation from the administration.

After moving through various agenda matters, Fred Easton, chair of the Computing Services Committee, gave a report on the quality of the university’s digital media services for students, faculty and staff with disabilities.

Easton said about 11 percent of students and six percent of staff are classified as disabled by the federal government, adding that almost everyone’s life is affected by digital media. The committee found that SU’s Information Technology and Services department created a workshop on how to create digital media that is accessible, or can be utilized by students with disabilities.

Easton said ITS recently appointed an Interim Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator and is nearing the end of its search for a permanent coordinator. Among other responsibilities, the coordinator would be charged with developing a university-wide policy for accessible digital media, according to the report.

“Awareness of accessibility issues and the creation of digital media aren’t universal,” Easton said. “So we’ve still got a little bit of work ahead on this.”

Alan Foley, a member of the Computing Services Committee, said an example of accessible digital media might be to enable all Adobe Acrobat programs on campus to be compatible with screen readers, so students who are blind can view scanned PDFs. If the university makes more content accessible, Foley said students with disabilities won’t have to “seek mediation.”

Just before the meeting closed, Mark Rupert, a political science professor, spoke about a motion he created with Margaret Susan Thompson, also a political science professor, in support of academic and shared governance at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Steven Salaita, a professor at U of I, was fired after the university discovered Salaita’s tweets about Israel’s conduct in Gaza. The motion states that U of I should either honor Salaita’s contract or explain why firing him was necessary.

Rupert said he was contacted by several non-senator colleagues who requested more time to review and provide opinions on the motion. He then requested that the motion be tabled until the next University Senate meeting on Nov. 8, which passed.

Published on October 9, 2014 at 12:01 am

Contact Annie: [email protected]