Faculty Senate Special Meeting Minutes December 8, 2021

University of Louisiana at Lafayette Faculty Senate
Minutes, Wednesday, December 8, 2021, Zoom Meeting
Presiding: Philip Auter, Acting Secretary: Zack Stein

I. Call to Order

• 4:01

II. Quorum Call

• 57
• Meeting hit a total of 91 and was over 80 at the time of the vote.

III. Business

• T. Chambers’s Resolution
  • Move that the motion posted on the faculty senate webpage be adopted. T. Chambers read the entire motion, which included a background and discussion [henceforth known as the preamble]:

Background

On Thursday, Sept. 9, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 14042, which introduced a new condition of employment for all University employees. This new condition of employment goes against the deeply held religious beliefs of many of our colleagues, placing them in a position where they must choose between their faith and their employment. The conditions of the executive order and its implementation by the University allow an accommodation due to disability or religious belief, but the order is being interpreted in such a way that few if any accommodations are actually being granted. As a result, unless the order is rescinded or stayed through the legal process, the University will soon lose a disturbingly large number of highly valued employees of all classes, potentially including student workers, graduate assistants, classified staff, unclassified staff, and even tenured faculty.

Discussion

The executive order is imposing an intolerable hardship on the University, threatening both our ability to carry out our core mission as well as the social fabric that binds together our university community. The affected employees, many of whom have invested many years in this university, working long nights and weekends, some for over 20 years, feel betrayed and abandoned by the University and their colleagues. They are frightened for their livelihood and their families. The loss of these valuable employees will negatively impact the university either through the cancellation of many classes in the Spring semester, or the undue burdening of the remaining faculty and staff who will be asked to take on the load of the employees who are suspended or terminated. The executive order also undermines the trust between university employees and the administration. The concept of tenure is effectively nullified by stripping affected tenured faculty of the hard-fought rights and privileges obtained through the lengthy tenure and promotion process. One critical aspect of the social contract that keeps the academy working is the promise that when new tenure-track faculty members work very hard for a certain number of years and are successful, they will be rewarded with job security through tenure. If the precedent established by this executive order is allowed to stand, any future president with an axe to grind concerning higher education could just as easily impose new and unacceptable conditions of employment on university professors through the exact same mechanism, threatening the employment of another segment of the university community, and tenure will have lost its meaning entirely, making all university employees mere atwill employees.

Resolution

It is therefore resolved that:

1. The Faculty Senate firmly opposes the use of presidential executive orders to mandate changes to the conditions of employment for university employees through the coercive means of threatening to withhold federal funding, because doing so seriously undermines the ability of the University to govern itself and fulfill its core mission.
2. The Faculty Senate encourages the University administration to use all legal means to protect our existing employees from the immediate threat posed by this executive order.

• R. Gottumukkala seconded the motion.
• Discussion
  • A friendly amendment was proposed to strike the entire preamble, since it sounded too political. T. Chambers accepted it, R. Gottumukkala, the seconder, approved and the resolution was amended. The modified motion only contains the resolution:

Resolution

It is therefore resolved that:

1. The Faculty Senate firmly opposes the use of presidential executive orders to mandate changes to the conditions of employment for university employees through the coercive means of threatening to withhold federal funding, because doing so seriously undermines the ability of the University to govern itself and fulfill its core mission.
2. The Faculty Senate encourages the University administration to use all legal means to protect our existing employees from the immediate threat posed by this executive order.

• A concern is that many employees may be supportive of the mandate, as public health is a different issue than academic freedom.
• The University already has a precedent with Title IX regarding sexual harassment, in which tenured faculty can be removed if they are non-compliant with certain protocols. Therefore, it is believed that this motion is not Faculty Senate business.
• T. Chambers argued that there is a threat to the University’s mission since faculty and staff are at risk of being fired, which hinders departments abilities to do their jobs.
• There is a suggestion that accommodations available in the federal executive order were not being allowed in the University. Is this a question of processes?
  • T. Chambers feels that the university is implementing a new policy that affects employment of faculty and staff, which was rolled off without proper consultation with the Faculty Senate. University is willing to grant exemptions unless they impose an undue burden on the University. Affected people get rejection form letter for exemptions based on undue burden. For the last year and a half, faculty were required to find a way to continue work, and now this is being rejected. The way the University has interpreted the allowance for religious exemptions has not been helpful.
  • P. Auter made two points about this based on University Council meetings: 1) accommodation is a two-part process (is the exemption valid? Is it appropriate to have faculty work remotely?). 2) Administration is trying to get away from working remotely, since the environment is currently different.
• P. Auter mentioned that several federal district court justices filed injunctions to freeze the federal executive order. Louisiana may follow suit, which will force UL Lafayette to stop the mandate until the injunction is lifted.
• J. Maloy asked about P. Auter’s perspective on University Council and the kind of formal process that was undertaken regarding proposals from faculty about these policies. There seems to be no formal process.
  • P. Auter is not aware of a detailed formal process. Provost called P. Auter and wants Faculty Senate to know that the University is aware and looking into what they can do. They could freeze the process.
  • P. Auter also commented that it seems like getting anything fully processed is broken. Difficult getting things done quickly due to procedural delays-based timetables of senate, dept. heads council, deans council, as well as delays in other areas such as operational review.
• Faculty Senate may encounter this kind of problem again with other executive orders that could have negative effects on academic freedom. The issue is whether senators feel it is within the realm of this body to address executive orders.
• T. Chambers says this interpretation is correct, and that Part 1 of the resolution is addressed to the mechanism of the U.S. presidential executive order and the impact on higher education. Part 2 is about the university’s implementation.
• The term “immediate threat” is now problematic since the preamble has been removed. T. Chambers recommended changing some of the language.
• T. Chambers moves that his own motion be edited as such:

Resolution

It is resolved that:

1. The Faculty Senate firmly opposes the use of federal presidential executive orders to mandate changes to the conditions of employment for university employees through the coercive means of threatening to withhold federal funding, because doing so seriously undermines the ability of the University to govern itself and fulfill its core mission.
2. The Faculty Senate encourages the University administration to use all legal means to protect our existing employees from the immediate threat posed by Federal Executive Order 14042.

• ​R. Gottumukkala seconded.
• A friendly amendment was proposed. Instead of saying “immediate threat posed by Executive Order 14042,” say “any executive order.” This would make the resolution more generic since the preamble has been removed:

The Faculty Senate encourages the University administration to use all legal means to protect our existing employees from the threat posed by any federal executive order.

• T. Chambers accepted this as a friendly amendment. R. Gottumukkala seconded.

 

• Vote
  • D. Bazan called the question, K. Robinson seconded. Majority accepted.
  • Voting commenced for T. Chambers’s motion:

Resolution

It is resolved that:

1. The Faculty Senate firmly opposes the use of federal presidential executive orders to mandate changes to the conditions of employment for university employees through the coercive means of threatening to withhold federal funding, because doing so seriously undermines the ability of the University to govern itself and fulfill its core mission.
2. The Faculty Senate encourages the University administration to use all legal means to protect our existing employees from the threat posed by any federal executive order.

• Results of vote (excluding 3 invalidated votes).
  • Yes: 17
  • No: 36
  • Abstain: 9
• The motion does not pass.

IV. Announcements

• Next meeting is January 19, 2022. Please send any agenda items or reports to P. Auter before the meeting.
• Happy Holidays.

V. Adjournment

• 4:52pm

Submitted by Z. Stein
12/10/2021