Dear UFWW Members,

I write to inform you of the action taken by Faculty Senate this week regarding the amendment to Section 2 of the Faculty Code of Ethics.

After months of debate and discussion, which included the admirably brave and impactful testimony by many WWU students of color who have been, and continue to be, personally impacted by racial discrimination both on and off campus, the Faculty Senate voted to amend Section 2 of the Faculty Code of Ethics to read as follows:

“As teachers, the Western faculty encourage the free pursuit of learning by students, and demonstrate by example the best scholarly standards of their respective disciplines. The faculty respect students as individuals and adhere to their designated role as intellectual guides and counselors, make every effort to foster honest academic conduct and to assure that evaluations of students reflect their actual performance. The faculty are to avoid and condemn racism, sexual harassment, intimidation, the exploitation of students, and discrimination against students based on all protected characteristics. In particular, faculty condemn verbal use of the n-word racial slur in learning environments. Faculty do not participate in discrimination based on all legally protected characteristics, including the following: Race, Color, Creed, Religion, National Origin, Citizenship, Sex (including pregnancy and parenting status), Gender Identity and Expression, Sexual Orientation, Disability, Age, Veteran Status, Marital Status, and Genetic Information. The confidential nature of the relationship between professor and student is respected, and any exploitation of students for private advantage is avoided by the faculty member who acknowledges significant assistance from them. Faculty strive to help students develop high standards of academic competency and respect for academic freedom. Academic freedom is a right that does not protect or provide cover for racism or any other form of discriminatory behavior.”

I wholeheartedly support the sentiment of the proposed resolution, however as UFWW President I could not vote to approve the resolution in its current form. The Faculty Senate resolution as it is currently written is a bad tool trying to fix an important problem, and bad tools often make the problem worse.

UFWW Exec provided the following statement to Faculty Senate to consider before taking their vote on Monday:

“UFWW supports efforts by the WWU community to make our university a safe and inclusive environment for all its members. We strongly oppose the use of slurs to undermine, intimidate, or create a hostile environment for any students, faculty, or staff. From different disciplinary positions and fields of expertise, we strongly advocate for classrooms where we investigate, interrogate, and question the conditions of inequality in our society at large. Thus, rather than offering piecemeal resolutions for pervasive problems or resorting to actions that may infringe on academic freedom, UFWW encourages the Senate take advantage of this moment to orient its energy towards addressing root structural causes for the persistence of anti-black racism on campus.”

It is the daily work of UFWW to support efforts by the WWU community to make our university a safe and inclusive environment for all its members. Along with the members of the UFWW Executive Board, I strongly oppose the use of racial slurs to undermine, intimidate, or create a hostile environment for any students, faculty, or staff. We fiercely advocate for classrooms where we can investigate, interrogate, and challenge the conditions of inequality on our campus and in our society at large.

This is a foundational tenet of the CBA, found in Section 13 Discrimination and Harassment Prohibited:

13.1 The University and the Union are committed to the principle of equal employment and educational opportunity as expressed in various state and federal laws and in University policies, including, without limitation, laws and policies on prohibiting illegal discrimination, sexual and other harassment, and bullying. See relevant policies: "Ensuring Equal Opportunity and Prohibiting Discrimination and Retaliation" (POL- Ul600.02); "Accommodating Persons with Disabilities" (POL-U1600.03); "Preventing and Responding to Sex Discrimination, Including Sexual Misconduct" (POL-U1600.04): "Implementing Affirmative Action Program" (POL-U1600.05): and "Prohibiting Intimate Personal Relationships Between Supervisors and Supervisees" (POL-Ul600.06). See also Appendix D - Code of Faculty Ethics. (my emphasis)

The Faculty Code of Ethics is a legal document, as it is ratified by the CBA, which is the legal contract between the administration and the faculty on our campus. Its conditions are the ruler by which faculty conduct is measured, and those faculty members who do not comply with those conditions face disciplinary action including dismissal from their positions at WWU:

13.2 Faculty who violate policies and laws referenced in Section 13.1 are subject to discipline as described in Section 19 and have rights to Union representation and grievance procedures as described in Sections 19 and 20.

My biggest concern with the Senate’s resolution was that the term ‘racism’ does not have a legal definition, which makes the language of the proposed resolution unenforceable.

Additionally, the lack of precise and legally enforceable language in the proposed resolution is open to interpretation by the administration, and could be used in future years to discipline faculty for teaching/researching on subjects such as white supremacy or white privilege. These are just a few examples of the ways in which the vagueness of the proposed resolution might lead to the erosion of academic freedom resulting in limits to speech, curriculum or access to research by our faculty and students. Like one colleague who provided feedback to Senate, on manners like these, I refer to the legal experts of organizations such as the ACLU:

"To be clear, the First Amendment does not protect behavior on campus that crosses the line into targeted harassment or threats, or that creates a pervasively hostile environment for vulnerable students. But merely offensive or bigoted speech does not rise to that level, and determining when conduct crosses that line is a legal question that requires examination on a case-by-case basis. Restricting such speech may be attractive to college administrators as a quick fix to address campus tensions. But real social change comes from hard work to address the underlying causes of inequality and bigotry, not from purified discourse. The ACLU believes that instead of symbolic gestures to silence ugly viewpoints, colleges and universities have to step up their efforts to recruit diverse faculty, students, and administrators; increase resources for student counseling; and raise awareness about bigotry and its history." (my emphasis). - (https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus)

As UFWW president, I have become keenly aware of the strength that clear, unequivocal language brings to our contract. It is the strength of that contract that helps students and faculty at Western to find justice in the face of discriminatory actions, such as those that may occur on the basis of race or ethnicity. UFWW will continue to work in whatever ways we can to ensure that the academic environment at WWU is one in which we may all pursue the hard work of dismantling systems of oppression.

-Rich Brown

UFWW President

Unsubscribe »