The newly drafted diversity plan and the long-lasting search for more funding for faculty salaries were topics of discussion at Wednesday’s University Senate meeting. University Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Greg Vincent addressed concerns about the process for drafting the diversity plan, and Senior Vice President and Provost John Moseley defended the administration’s role in the search for salary funding.
Steve Hsu, chair of the Senate Budget Committee, outlined where the average University professor’s salary stands in comparison with other universities. He emphasized that the differences in average salaries are becoming so problematic that the overall quality of the University as an academic institution is suffering.
The average total compensation for faculty members stood at 82.5 percent of faculty compensation at universities considered to be the University’s peers, according to the report. Last year, that figure was 84.9 percent.
When comparing salary only, University faculty members made 77.3 percent of the average faculty salaries at competing
universities, down from 79.3 percent the previous year.
The University is currently in the middle of a $600 million fundraising campaign, and Hsu said a portion of those endowments need to be dedicated to fixing the salary crisis that is threatening to remove the University from its position as a leading research institute.
“If you make a choice not to do it, how can you claim that faculty compensation or faculty quality are your top priority?” Hsu said.
Moseley responded to the comment.
“The endowments are all designated for specific purposes,” he said. “It is a misstatement to say that the administration could make a decision to direct $150 million or even $10 million of that.”
Hsu agreed that the statement was “a little overly provocative” but said he intended it to be that way in hopes of getting the administration’s attention.
Moseley said he agrees that faculty compensation is a pressing issue but emphasized the difficulty of finding one solution to the problem.
“I absolutely place it as a top priority, and I am very concerned about the warnings that you give based on these numbers,” Moseley said. “But let’s not get a message out that there’s some simple solution if the administration would just get off its rear end.”
Vincent updated the Senate on the Diversity Work Group’s recommendation, a recommendation Senator and math professor Huaxin Lin said is not at all reflective of what was discussed during the diversity advisory council meetings.
“Last Friday, I found a printed document from somebody else with my name on it without being able to read or see it” prior to its publication, Lin said. “The first line of this document is incorrect. This is not the product of the council.”
Moseley said the need to move forward in the process was such that some points clearly do need more examination and approval, “but it is not the case that it was not put together by this work group.”
Vincent outlined the communication steps taken within the council when drafting the plan and said many conversations have taken place between council members over the past several months concerning the revisions. He emphasized that the draft is nowhere close to being a finished version of the diversity plan.
“We anticipated that this would be seen as a draft and subject to major revision and influence from the campus community,” Vincent said.
Kassia Dellabough, who served on the advisory council, expressed frustration that such concerns about the draft and the need for more input were not expressed during the many opportunities provided throughout the year.
“I’m frustrated because there are a lot of people working on this, and there’s opportunity to show up and voice those concerns, and we’re now in May of a year — more than a year — of working on this, and it’s just, it’s frustrating,” Dellabough said. “There’s been lots of opportunity to voice this concern all along the way.”
Also discussed at the meeting was the student conduct code. The University is one step closer to revising the code for the first time since 1964. A draft of the new code is complete and has been forwarded to a newly created senate committee for review.
The Senate’s Committee on the Status of Nontenure-track Instructional Faculty and the Office of Academic Affairs’ NTTIF Practices and Procedures Implementation Group released a report with specific recommendations concerning NTTIF treatment within their departments. Recommendations included the introduction of a system to track and monitor salary compensation for the teachers.
The Senate also passed a motion tightening the rules for how instructors grant “Y” grades to students. The motion specified that grade changes involving a “Y” mark made after a term’s deadline for grade submission would need to be
accompanied by a letter of explanation to the Office of the
Registrar, which could approve or deny the change.

[email protected]
News reporter Adam Cherry
contributed to this report