Tuesday, April 14, 2026

3:30 – 5:15 pm
Executive Boardroom (2390), University Capitol Centre

I.   Call to Order – President Just called the meeting to order at 3:30 pm. 
 

II.  Approvals

A.      Meeting Agenda – Professor Mohr moved and Professor McGonagill seconded that the agenda be approved. The motion carried unanimously. 

B.      Faculty Council Minutes (March 10, 2026) – Professor Vogel moved and Professor Koch seconded that the minutes be approved. The motion carried unanimously.

C.      Draft Faculty Senate Agenda (April 28, 2026) – President Just indicated that changes may be made to the draft agenda prior to the Senate meeting. A final version will be approved at the meeting. Professor Walker moved and Professor Vogel seconded that the draft agenda be approved. The motion carried unanimously. 

D.      Faculty Senate and Council Election Results (Craig Just) – Professor Walker moved and Professor Shane seconded that the 2026 Faculty Senate and Council election results be approved. The motion carried unanimously. President Just thanked the departing Councilors for their service:  Professors Koch, Ayati, Welder, Farag, Schroeder, and Shane. 

E.      Committee Appointments (Roxanna Curto, Chair, Committee on Committees) – Vice President Curto indicated that vacancies on several committees were yet to be filled. The full list of committee appointments would be approved at the Senate meeting. Professor Ayati moved and Professor Mohr seconded that the 2026-27 committee appointment recommendations be approved. The motion carried unanimously. 

III.    New Business 

Professional Ethics and Academic Responsibility Policy Revision

President Just praised the process followed to revise the Professional Ethics and Academic Responsibility (PEAR) policy. The process began with the formation last summer of a faculty/administrator working group that drafted the initial revision. Members of the working group are Deputy General Counsel Maria Lukas and Deputy Counsel Ann Byrd (Office of the General Counsel), Associate Provost for Faculty and Strategic Operations Barry Thomas and Senior Director of Faculty Human Resources Alaina Hanson (Office of the Provost), and faculty members Professor Lindell Joseph (Nursing), Professor Dawn Anderson (Law), and Vice President Curto (Liberal Arts and Sciences and Faculty Senate leadership). The Faculty Senate’s Faculty Policies and Compensation Committee (FPCC) then engaged with the working group to review the proposed revision and offer additional suggestions for changes. The FPCC approved a final version of the proposed revised policy in a 6-0 vote. Now, the Faculty Council would also have the opportunity to review the proposed policy revision.

 Vice President Curto had given an overview of the revision process to the Council at the March 10 meeting. Today, she reminded the group that this policy had originated in the 1970’s and, despite various amendments over the years, had long been in need of a substantial update, especially since the introduction of new faculty tracks beginning in the 1990’s. Recent revisions of other significant policies impacting faculty (Faculty, Faculty Dispute Procedures, Ethics in Research, Conflicts of Interest and Commitment) had only increased the urgency for revising the PEAR policy, so that contradictions and redundancies related to those policies could be removed. The PEAR policy has been substantially revised and even has a new title now, Ethics and Responsibilities for University of Iowa Faculty. Vice President Curto referred the group to a document providing a summary of the changes. She indicated that the existing policy is divided into sections describing responsibilities to students, scholarship, faculty and staff colleagues, the institution, and the community. Over time, many portions of the policy had begun to overlap with other policies. The working group also became convinced that this sprawling policy lacked cohesion and focus. The members reviewed a similar policy relating to staff and decided to reconceptualize the policy based on a new structure aligned with principles. A new definitions section was added with the terms Faculty, Academic Administrators, and Members of the University Community clearly defined. 

Among the specific revisions that she highlighted, Vice President Curto noted that the requirement to be in-person in order to fulfill the responsibilities of a residential campus is now outlined in the proposed revised policy. This provision is based on an Iowa Board of Regents directive. A section in the existing policy on responsibilities to students has been removed from the revised version. This section contained numerous details about the syllabus, office hours, evaluation standards, etc. The working group felt that this information was better housed on a syllabi guidelines website rather than in the university’s Policy Manual. A newly-added section cross references other relevant university policies because this is an umbrella policy; violations of this policy may involve violations of other policies, as well. 

Vice President Curto then began leading Councilors through the proposed revised policy itself, indicating points of discussion between FPCC and the working group. She explained that language in the new definitions section (15.1) originally distinguished between academic and non-academic decisions. FPCC members found these terms ambiguous, so the language was changed to refer to faculty roles and administrative roles. The original definition of Members of the University Community was narrowed to cover faculty, staff, students, and other individuals with whom faculty may interact while carrying out their employment duties. In the Ethics and Responsibilities section (15.3), a reference was made in 15.3a. to the recently-revised Policy Manual III.10 Faculty. This reference was inserted because the existing policy includes references to academic freedom; FPCC members became concerned that the proposed revised policy had dropped these references. This reference to III.10 remedies this concern by linking to the university’s most robust and updated definition of academic freedom. The provision on faculty being in-person (15.3b.2.) was the subject of much debate by FPCC. The section on Fairness (15.3c.) does not have a counterpart in the existing policy; however, the working group thought it reasonable for a policy on ethics and responsibility to discuss fairness. This new provision was thoroughly workshopped by the working group and FPCC. FPCC discussion of 15.d. Respect centered on the extent to which a faculty member could intervene in a situation in which disrespectful behavior was exhibited. FPCC members agreed to language indicating that faculty members should strive to be respectful themselves and to address disrespectful behavior when it might affect the instructional setting.

Professor Thomas asked how to balance faculty interventions into behaviors deemed disrespectful with free speech rights of students. Asking a student not to be disrespectful could be perceived as limiting that student’s free speech. Vice President Curto responded that this would be a judgment call by the faculty member. The policy does allow for vigorous debate. Professor Koch asked whose perception of respectful or disrespectful behavior is prioritized in these situations. For example, some classroom topics might be considered disrespectful or unwelcoming to individual students. Vice President Curto indicated that reports of disrespectful behavior would be carefully evaluated. Past President Sheerin suggested that the policy indicate that an objective standard would need to be met. She then took issue with the phrase Faculty shall not use threatening, intimidating, or abusive language… (15.3d.2.), specifically the word intimidating. She pointed out that an individual could feel intimidated by someone, especially if there is a power imbalance, such as between student and professor, even when that person has not intended to engage in intimidating behavior. She found that the policy was applying a standard that was higher than necessary. Professor Thomas followed up her earlier comments by pinpointing the phrase Faculty shall address disrespectful behavior affecting instructional settings (15.3d.1.b.) and wondering how she might successfully intervene in a situation of disrespectful behavior without making the student angry enough to file a complaint against her for restricting their free speech. Without an objective standard for disrespectful behavior, the policy seems to allow for personal interpretations, which can vary widely. Vice President Curto responded that the working group had intentionally chosen the word address as a broad enough term to cover a range of reactions with the goal of not allowing someone simply to ignore the behavior. 

Secretary Greyser observed that the policy addresses ways of classroom interaction, while some of the examples put forward dealt with the content of the instruction. The policy seemed to implicitly differentiate between the two, but perhaps this could be made more explicit. Associate Provost Thomas, who was among the meeting guests, noted that concerns about instructional content fall under academic freedom policies and are not addressed by this policy. This policy does cover situations in which, for example, a student in a classroom uses profanity towards another student. The instructor should have the right to intervene to restore order to the classroom. Past President Sheerin reiterated her point about intimidating…language. She emphasized that a student could perceive an instructor as being intimidating without the instructor intending to be so. The standard is subjective. Associate Provost Thomas reminded the group that faculty members have the option to grieve an administrative sanction, if one is given. Past President Sheerin advocated for clearer language in the policy, so that the stressful grievance process can be avoided altogether. The standard should be objective, rather than subjective. She noted that threatening and abusive refer to conduct that can be objectively assessed, while intimidating could refer only to the subjective feeling that a person has about someone else. Professor Williams added that feeling intimidated could cause someone to misinterpret another’s words. Several Councilors agreed that the word intimidating should be struck. Vice President Curto reminded that group that allegations move through several levels of evaluation to determine the extent of policy violation.

Professor Vogel drew attention to the second clause in the sentence under discussion, …or otherwise engage in conduct that creates a hostile environment. It seemed to her that the clause served to equate the hostile environment with the threatening, etc., language, when in her view they were two different things. She suggested that the sentence be split into two. Professor Koch observed that the legal term hostile work environment, which seemed to be echoed here, has a very specific definition that does not seem to apply in this context. Professor Vogel suggested that the or… clause, therefore, be struck. Past President Sheerin suggested that the order of the two clauses be reversed, or that the legal definition of hostile work environment be added.

Professor Koch then took issue with the provision Faculty shall foster welcoming and respectful workplace environments and instructional settings (15.3d.1.a.), particularly the word welcoming. Professor Schroeder observed that one of the policy’s provisions indicated that Faculty shall treat Members of the University community with respect (15.3d.), a positive action, while another provision indicated that Faculty shall not engage in disrespectful behavior… (15.3d.1.), a negative action. She asked about the threshold for violation of these provisions, commenting that one can strive to treat everyone with respect, but one cannot control another person’s perceptions and actions. Professor Schroeder added that it is fine to state our values, but that the phrase shall treat is very strong language. Professor Vogel suggested modifying the aspirational statement in 15.3d.1.a. thus, Faculty shall foster welcoming and respectful professional and productive workplace environments and instructional settings. This would be an objective standard that provides room for respect. Professor Welder requested clarification regarding who arbitrates decisions on potential violations of this policy. Vice President Curto indicated that complaints would follow the reporting structures of the university (DEO, dean, provost) with violations deemed serious (repeated and/or egregious) rising higher. Associate Provost Thomas added that, at higher levels, the Faculty Investigations Unit would interview all parties to the complaint and produce a report. Vice President Curto reminded the group that the existing policy already contains similar language on responsibilities to colleagues. Professor Schroeder suggested that the policy list behaviors considered unacceptable. Associate Provost Thomas appreciated this point, but added that each situation that he has encountered in his position is unique and it would be impossible to list all unacceptable behaviors. Vice President Curto added that colleges could create their own policies for their particular environments as long as the collegiate policies align with the university policy. 

Moving on to the Stewardship portion of the policy, Professor Vogel requested clarification of appropriate parties, to whom faculty should allow access to financial records (15.3e.3. and 4.). She added that, in her experience as a faculty member, she would not have the authority to grant access to university financial records. Vice President Curto responded that, as a public institution, financial records cannot be hidden. Associate Provost Thomas added that this provision was inserted to prevent university-owned financial records from being withheld by employees. Professor Vogel then drew the group’s attention to the provision that Faculty shall foster the intellectual and professional growth of those whom they supervise (15.3b.4.). She asked if this provision related only to students or if it was extended to employees; it was unclear to her how one would foster the intellectual growth of staff that one supervises. Professor McGonagill commented that faculty supervisors do have the responsibility to provide training and guidance to staff members. The last provision that Professor Vogel noted was Fairness is the consistent, impartial, and transparent treatment of Members of the University Community (15.3c.). She pointed out that one cannot always be transparent, for example, if accommodations are involved. Vice President Curto responded that revelations of confidential accommodations are not contemplated by this policy, especially since there are federal policies in place around accommodations. Secretary Greyser observed that, while we must keep in mind the potential for misuse, the policy is in place to address serious misconduct only.

Councilors reviewed the many concerns raised to determine those for which they wanted to offer edits. Eventually only the provision in 15.3d.2. remained. Removal of intimidating in the first clause was agreed upon. After deciding that the or… clause echoed the established legal language on hostile work environment, which was linked to protected classes and covered by federal law, Councilors preferred to eliminate it, thus leaving only Faculty shall not use threatening or abusive language. Professor Welder expressed concern that this shortened provision could lead to one-time incidents provoking complaints, but Councilors emphasized that judgement calls would be crucial throughout the policy. Councilors also decided to include a provision requiring a review of the policy no later than five years after implementation so that there would be an opportunity to uncover and correct any weak spots. 

Past President Sheerin moved and Professor Farag seconded that the Council approve the revised Ethics and Responsibilities for University of Iowa Faculty policy, with the revisions to provision 15.3d.2. indicated above and the addition of a provision to review the policy no later than five years after implementation, and forward the proposed revised policy to the Senate for consideration. The motion carried unanimously.    

Councilor Roundtable – Topics for 2026-27 (All Councilors)  

Professor Williams recalled that President Just had earlier expressed a strong interest in bringing a deeper understanding of the university budget to the faculty. She asked about progress towards this goal. President Just noted the difficulty inherent in this effort, but he remained committed and hoped to continue making progress during his past president year. Vice President Curto asked if this is a topic that Councilors would like to explore in the coming year. Professor Williams commented that there appears to be a lack of understanding between upper administration and rank-and-file faculty members because the latter are unclear about how the university’s money is spent. If faculty members understood the budget better, it would alleviate the tension that sometimes arises. President Just commented that he had recently attended a meeting with upper administration and deans during which budgets were discussed in detail. He had advocated for faculty representation on collegiate committees addressing budget issues. Another suggestion would be to better inform DEO’s about the budgeting process, which may lead to an overall improved understanding of the budget among faculty.   

Professor Farag observed that the university’s fleet services have been turned over to a private company. Faculty and staff have expressed much dissatisfaction with the private company’s operations on campus. She asked to whom this negative feedback should be conveyed. Associate Provost Thomas indicated that upper administration is aware of the problems and will seek to address them. He encouraged faculty and staff to provide feedback to the Purchasing Office and to their deans. Professor Vogel commented that she has heard from faculty with concerns related to the university’s relationship with the state legislature. This is an ongoing issue and she suggested that Senate leadership consider possible solutions in the coming year. Vice President Curto asked if Councilors found the Council and Senate executive sessions helpful during this past year. Councilors concurred that they found the sessions, which provided an opportunity for collective brainstorming, very helpful. Secretary Greyser appreciated President Just’s efforts to solicit stories from faculty about potential impacts of proposed policies and legislation on faculty members’ real classroom environments. President Just noted a recent policy proposal from the Iowa Board of Regents that would enact a biennial review of undergraduate general education courses. The Senate officers will remain engaged with the Regents as the proposal evolves.    

Executive Session

There were no topics for Executive Session.
 

President’s Report (Craig Just)

President Just had earlier sent individual messages to Councilors with the following items to report:

• The Faculty Policies and Compensation Committee (FPCC) has played an active role in improving the proposed revisions to Chapter III.15, "Professional Ethics and Academic Responsibility,” initially developed by a working group of faculty and administrators. The revised policy was recently approved by the FPCC and is on the Faculty Council agenda for discussion and potential vote at the April 14 meeting.
• The Board of Regents Office is preparing weekly summaries of Iowa legislative activities relevant to higher education. These summaries can be viewed here: BOR 2026 Legislative Summaries

IV.     From the Floor – There were no items from the floor. 

V.       Announcements   

The next Faculty Senate meeting will be Tuesday, April 28, 3:30 – 5:15 pm, Senate Chamber, Old Capitol. Election of officers will take place.

VI.     Adjournment – Professor Welder moved and Professor Mohr seconded that the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously. Councilors expressed gratitude to President Just via applause for his work as Senate president this past year. President Just adjourned the meeting at 5:10 pm.