ARIZONA FACULTIES COUNCIL

AFC – ABOR Report
June 22, 2006

          We want to thank the Regents, the Board’s staff and Stephanie Jacobson for their continued support of the Arizona Faculty Counsel and the faculty.  We also want to thank President Haeger and the staff here at NAU, specifically Dianna Grimaldi, Sandra Castro and Julie Hammond for helping with the AFC arrangements at this meeting. There are two matters that we would like to report to the Board about. 

          First, AFC members appreciated having breakfast with members of the Board at the April meeting and the dialogue regarding concerns about the faculty evaluation process. There are differences between the Academy and a business model. We believe the discussion about credentials, standards of hiring and the rigor of the tenure and retention process at the Academy, combined with the Regents comments was helpful.  We look forward to a continued dialog regarding these matters.

          Second, AFC members are discussing the defeated legislation regarding “objectionable materials” or “offensive course content” which was discussed at the April ABOR meeting.  At the April ABOR meeting AFC Chair Robert Mitchell spoke about the University of Arizona’s syllabus policy, which was enacted by their Senate in 2005. He spoke not as the AFC chair, but as the as the Vice President of the University of Arizona’s Faculty Senate. We had not discussed the matter at AFC.

          It is also important to understand that the statement passed by the University of Arizona’s Faculty Senate is advisory – not mandatory. It was passed in 2005, not in response to the defeated legislation.

          However, since the Board indicated this matter would be an item for the September ABOR meeting and you wanted the University Presidents to  report on the faculties’ response to the matter we are talking to each other and our administrations about it. In addition there are ongoing discussions at NAU and other campuses. We spoke about it at our AFC lunch today with the AFC members and the Provosts. Stephanie Jacobson gave us some good background on the legislative effort at our meeting.

          The advisory statement enacted at U of A states that syllabi may contain “Notification, if the instructor believes necessary, warning students that some course material may be deemed offensive by some students.” At our lunch we were in agreement that we want to positively affirm our support for academic freedom and the need for students to engage in study and discussions of diverse materials, some of which may be controversial and even offensive to some students.

          At the same time we do want to provide necessary information to students on course content. We are concerned with the issue and are aware of possible political repercussions, but the AFC is committed to protecting the integrity of course content as determined by the faculty. We are going to continue this discussion and work with each other and our administrators to report back to the Board in September as you have requested.

That covers our AFC report. Are there any questions?

Regent Calderon: Has the AFC determined or reached a consensus on what is “offensive or objectionable” material? 

Interim AFC Chair Marsha Yowell:  “No. I do not know if that is possible. What one student might find acceptable, even beneficial to learning, could be objectionable or highly offensive to another.”

Regent Palacios: “Thank you for your report.”