senateagenda
MEMORANDUM
TO: Faculty Senate
FROM: Senate Operations Committee
RE: Modifications of the Mediation and Grievance System
DATE:
The process of proposing changes to the Mediation Document (Appendix B of the
Faculty Handbook) has been a long one. The following proposal merges desires of
the Provost and desires of the Faculty. The Faculty Senate understands that Dean
Rogers, speaking for the Deans' Council, has accepted and will support the
principles, if not necessarily all the details, of these changes. (This proposal
replaces one which passed the Senate and was circulated to the Provost and the
Deans in the winter and spring of 2000-01.)
The first change streamlines the process of selecting the panel from which Hearing Tribunals are chosen by the parties to a grievance. The Provost desired to replace the burdensome mechanism of selecting a large number of faculty panelists from the Faculty Directory at random each August. The faculty considers the Mediation and Grievance Process a faculty process, and notes that the Provost and President, in review of a Tribunal's decision, acting for the administration, can always correct any perceived pro-faculty bias. Under the proposal, the Faculty Senate will elect a 21-member Board of tenured faculty, each serving a three-year nonrenewable term, from whom Tribunal panels will be chosen. Concomitantly, the number of panel members on any Tribunal has been lowered from 5 to 3, responding to another request from the Provost to lessen the amount of time taken up from faculty as a whole in the grievance process.
The second change satisfies the desires of the Provost, and a large number of faculty, to eliminate professional attorney participation in the grievance Tribunal stage of the process, to the extent possible. Under the proposal, attorneys will be allowed only in a grievance concerning the dismissal of a faculty member or the imposition of a severe sanction. Many have found the presence of attorneys at hearings to be harsh, confusing, productive of delay and an excess of adversariness, and unhelpful. The proposal encourages academics to deal with difficult academic problems within an academic context, and thus encourages faculty governance. It also establishes a process for a Tribunal to select an attorney if it wishes, in a relatively cost-free manner.
The third change eliminates the confusion surrounding "sanctions" and the dismissal of faculty members. It collects all of the pertinent provisions in one place, eliminates the terms "petitioner" and "respondent" and resulting confusion, clarifies matters of procedure and burden of proof, and confirms that the grievance process is a faculty matter. The bulk of these changes have been strongly desired by the Provost and faculty, while other changes have been made to clarify the system and protect faculty interests.
The fourth change, a relatively minor one, requires the University to provide
a copy of any transcript of a hearing, without cost (but does NOT require a
transcript of each Hearing), and requires the University to bear the cost burden
of a Tribunal (but NOT the cost of any attorney of a faculty member, where
permitted).
PROPOSED CHANGES
A. Delete the entire Part II.C.2, pp. 89-90 ("Constituting Hearing Tribunals"), and replace it with the following:
2. Constituting Hearing Tribunals
Each hearing Tribunal will consist of three members selected by the processes
described below.
At the April meeting of the Faculty Senate next following adoption of this
language, the Faculty Senate shall select 21 tenured members of the faculty of
The University of Alabama, each of whose FTE in teaching and/or research is 0.5
or greater, to be Tribunal Board members. The 21 should then be divided by lot
into groups of 7 members each. The three groups shall serve terms of three, two,
or one year(s) respectively[, commencing May 1]. At each succeeding April
meeting of the Faculty Senate, the Faculty Senate shall select 7 tenured faculty
members (as above) to serve three-year terms as Tribunal Board members. [A
Tribunal Board member whose FTE in teaching and/or research drops below 0.5
shall immediately vacate the position.] The Senate shall fill any vacancies by
selecting similarly qualified faculty members, who shall serve out the remainder
of the term(s) vacated.
The members of the Tribunal Board shall elect a chair to serve a one year term,
and shall fill vacancies in the chair for the remainder of the term vacated.
Upon completion of a term (or portion of a term) of service on the Tribunal
Board, a faculty member shall be ineligible for reelection to that Board for a
period of three years.
When it becomes necessary to have a Tribunal, the University Mediation Committee
shall inform the chair of the Tribunal Board about the pertinent grievance.
Tribunal Board members after discussion and consideration may recuse themselves,
but the central importance of faculty participation in University governance
requires that Board members recuse themselves only for compelling reasons such
as bias or interest.
The parties to the grievance shall choose the Tribunal members from those
Tribunal Board members remaining. Beginning with the faculty party, each party
shall alternately strike a name from the list until only three remain. If either
party declines to strike, the other party may continue. If both parties cease to
strike, the Tribunal shall be completed by lot, from the names remaining.
No person may [be compelled to] serve on more than one Tribunal at a time.
A person who leaves the University's employment during the course of a grievance
may retain his or her seat on a Tribunal. In the event the person leaving the
University chooses not to retain his/her seat, or if a Tribunal member is
otherwise unable to continue, the remaining member(s) of the Tribunal shall
proceed. Any person selected to a Tribunal may serve on the Tribunal until the
work of the Tribunal is completed.
The three Tribunal members shall select their chair.
Advisors appointed by the Mediation Committee may continue to assist the parties
at their request, but otherwise than as herein stated the Mediation Committee
shall have no further role in the proceedings of a Tribunal. The chair of the
Tribunal Board will notify the office of Academic Affairs of the needs of the
Tribunal, and will act as liaison from the Tribunal to the administration, in
order to arrange locations, timetables, and the availability of desired and/or
required resources which the University may or must provide. The chair of the
Tribunal Board shall maintain a model set of timetables for Tribunals to
consider when adopting their rules and procedures.
B. Amend Part I.C.1, p. 85 ("The Role of Attorneys") by replacing the whole with the following, concomitantly deleting the first paragraph, and the third (and longest) sentence of the second paragraph, of Part II.C.3, p. 90 ("Procedures in Cases Involving Formal Hearings"):
1. The Role of Attorneys
In order to further collegiality, to have grievances of faculty which relate
to the academic world dealt with by faculty, to lessen time spent in the
grievance process, to minimize the adversarial nature of both mediation and
proceedings before hearing Tribunals, and to eliminate the harshness which
attorneys may bring to the resolution of grievances, the use of attorneys in the
Mediation and Grievance System at The University of Alabama is discouraged.
During the mediation stage, the parties to a grievance may be neither
represented nor accompanied by any attorney at any of the meetings called as
part of the mediation process, though they are free to consult attorneys before
or after such meetings.
With the exceptions mentioned below, during any post-mediation proceedings in
the system, including those before hearing Tribunals, no party may be
represented or accompanied by an attorney. No advisor or observer named by
either party may be an attorney. Attorneys may not be consulted by any party
when a hearing Tribunal is sitting, nor may a recess be obtained for the purpose
of consulting an attorney; nor may any party consult an attorney during the
process of selecting a Tribunal. Any party may consult an attorney before or
after any hearing, Tribunal selection, or other process which forms part of the
post-mediation proceedings. This paragraph also applies if the parties choose
not to engage in the mediation stage.
The exceptions are (1) the instance of the attempted revocation of the tenure of
a tenured faculty member for adequate cause, where a dispute exists as to the
facts or the adequacy of the cause presented (see Chapter Two, Part XIV); (2)
the instance of an administrator seeking to dismiss a probationary faculty
member or a full-time temporary faculty member before the end of the term of
employment specified either by the Faculty Handbook or by a contract between the
University and the individual; and (3) the instance of a faculty grievance
against the imposition of a severe sanction. In any such instance, if a hearing
before a Tribunal is scheduled, the faculty member has the option of deciding
whether the parties may be represented or accompanied by attorneys during
proceedings before the Tribunal; the opposing party may not be represented or
accompanied by an attorney during proceedings before the Tribunal unless the
faculty member exercises this privilege. Special procedures and rules apply to
such hearings. (See below, Part II.C.4, "Special Rules and Procedures in
Cases Involving Severe Sanctions, Tenure Termination, or Early Dismissal.")
A Tribunal may choose to be represented by an attorney, or to have its observer
be an attorney. In such an instance, the attorney may be present at all
sessions, including any prehearing sessions, but may only advise the Tribunal or
any member of it and shall not participate in the proceedings otherwise. The
Tribunal Board shall maintain a list of attorneys on the University faculty. A
Tribunal that desires counsel shall canvass the persons on the list, in any
order it chooses, to ascertain the willingness of any of them to help the
Tribunal. If the Tribunal is unable to obtain the services of an attorney on the
University faculty, it shall negotiate the matter of its counsel directly with
the Provost's office, taking the chance that it will be unrepresented by
counsel, with each Tribunal member retaining the option of resignation from the
Tribunal. No member of the Office of University Counsel may serve a Tribunal as
its attorney or observer.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent a faculty member who is an
attorney from bringing a grievance, nor an administrator who is an attorney from
being a party to a grievance.
C. Delete Part I.C.3, p. 85 ("Sanctions by Administrators"); delete
the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of Part II.C.1, pp. 88-89
("Requirements for Formal Hearings"); replace the word
"petitioner" with the word "grievant," and replace the word
"respondent" with the words "opposing party," at each place
those words appear in the 3rd and 11th paragraphs of Part II.C.3, pp. 90-91
("Procedures in Cases Involving Formal Hearings"), and in what is now
Part II.C.5, p. 92 ("Findings and Reports of Hearing Tribunals");
delete the parenthesis in the 3rd paragraph of Part II.C.3, above; add a new
Part II.C.4 ("Special Rules and Procedures in Cases Involving Severe
Sanction, Tenure Termination, or Early Dismissal"), as follows, on p. 91;
renumber the presently numbered parts II.C.4-6 respectively as Parts II.C.5-7,
pp. 91-92; and renumber the reference in what is now II.C.5 to "Section
II.C.4" as "Section II.C.5" (p. 92):
4. Special Rules and Procedures in Cases Involving Severe Sanctions, Tenure Termination, or Early Dismissal
The following special rules and procedures apply to cases involving severe
sanctions, the attempted termination of the tenure of a tenured faculty member
for adequate cause, or the instance of an administrator seeking to dismiss a
probationary faculty member or a full-time temporary faculty member before the
end of the term of employment specified either by the Faculty Handbook or by a
contract between the University and the individual. Unless a situation is
covered herein, the rules and procedures stated elsewhere in this Appendix B
apply.
Severe sanction.* An administrator may choose to impose a severe sanction on a
faculty member. Any of the following shall constitute a severe sanction:
suspension of a faculty member from service for a stated period, relieving a
faculty member from teaching duties in other than extraordinary circumstances
(see Chapter Two, Part XIV), reduction in academic year salary (unless all
faculty members have their salaries reduced pro rata due to emergency), or
violation of a written and duly approved departmental, divisional, or University
policy, rule, or regulation that has a negative impact on the faculty member.
Other actions may constitute a severe sanction, but decisions made by
administrators in the ordinary course of their administration that do not
discriminate unfairly against a faculty member will not be considered severe
sanctions for these purposes.
If a faculty member thinks that an action taken against him or her by an
administrator constitutes a severe sanction, the faculty member will so notify
the Mediation Committee in writing within two work weeks after having been
notified of the action.
The Mediation Committee will decide whether an action taken by an administrator,
other than those specified above, constitutes a severe sanction. A decision
adverse to the faculty member may be reversed upon immediate appeal to the
Provost, who will in writing so notify the administrator. If the Committee
agrees with the faculty member, it will in writing so notify the administrator.
In this instance, or the instance of a reversal by the Provost, the
administrator who does not decide to withdraw the severe sanction will then
expeditiously follow the steps set forth herein, commencing by putting the
severe sanction in writing (see below).
Hearing Tribunal Option Required. The University is required to provide to the
affected faculty member the option of a formal hearing before a Tribunal in
instances when an administrator decides to impose a severe sanction, or to
terminate a tenured faculty member for adequate cause where a dispute exists as
to the facts or the adequacy of the cause presented (or both), or to dismiss a
probationary faculty member or full-time temporary faculty member before the end
of the term of employment specified either by the Faculty Handbook or by a
contract between the University and the individual.
Written notification; settlement. To commence any such action as is mentioned in
the preceding paragraph, the administrator wishing to invoke a severe sanction,
dismiss such a probationary or full-time temporary faculty member, or terminate
the tenure of a tenured faculty member for cause, will notify the faculty member
in writing of the action to be taken[, with a summary of the reasons and charges
made]. The faculty member and appropriate administrative officers will then
discuss the matter, looking toward a mutual settlement. If during the process,
at this or any future stage, the parties reach agreement, no further steps are
necessary.
If the faculty member is not so notified in writing, no such severe sanction,
dismissal, or termination of tenure may be made.
Written statement; rebuttal. If a mutual settlement is not achieved within a
reasonable time following such notification to the faculty member, the
administrator will expeditiously provide to the faculty member and to the
Mediation Committee a full written statement of reasons and charges, framed with
reasonable detail and particularity. If the faculty member disputes the
sufficiency of the detail and particularity of this notice, he or she will so
notify the Mediation Committee, which will deal with issues of the required
amount of detail and particularity, and can require the administrator to amplify
the statement of reasons and charges. Within a reasonable time after receipt of
a proper full written statement (no less than two work weeks, unless the faculty
member opts to submit it sooner), the faculty member shall submit a written
rebuttal of the full written statement to the administrator and the Mediation
Committee.
Additional requirements and provisions in an attempted termination of tenure. In
the instance of attempted termination of a tenured faculty member, normally the
termination date will be set at least one calendar year in the future. The
written statement (just mentioned) shall state the cause or causes deemed
adequate, in detail, with supporting facts. The administrator shall also deliver
to the faculty member copies of all supporting documents, plus other material
deemed relevant by the administrator. All documents and other items merely
referred to in the writing will be provided to the faculty member immediately
upon request to the administrator.
When a faculty member does not dispute either the facts or the adequacy of the
cause, the faculty member may resign immediately or receive immediate
termination, or may serve out all or a portion of the period specified, as the
parties may agree.
The faculty member may dispute either the facts or the adequacy of the cause (or
both), by filing a written rebuttal with both the administrator and the
Mediation Committee within a reasonable time (not less than two work weeks,
unless the faculty member opts to file sooner) after receipt of the full written
statement of reasons and charges and the supporting documentation.
Committee determination. Within a reasonable time after the rebuttal has been
received, the Mediation Committee will expeditiously undertake an informal
inquiry to determine whether in its opinion proceedings should be continued, and
shall communicate its opinion to both the administrator and the faculty member,
without its opinion being binding on either. (In divisions which have a regular
standing committee of faculty members elected by the faculty for this purpose,
or elected by the faculty to serve as advisors to the dean, the administrator
may ask such committee to undertake the informal inquiry in the place of the
Mediation Committee, by delivering a copy of the full written statement of
reasons and charges and the faculty member's rebuttal to that committee,
simultaneously notifying the Mediation Committee in writing.)
Waiver. If the administrator decides to proceed after receiving the opinion of
the committee, the Mediation Committee will inquire whether the faculty member
waives the right to a hearing Tribunal. If the faculty member waives this right,
the University may impose the penalty requested by the administrator, or any
lesser penalty (including, in the instance of the termination of a tenured
faculty member, a period of continued teaching or service). Otherwise, the
Mediation Committee will proceed to the establishment of a Tribunal.
Posture of the Grievance. The faculty member will be considered to grieve the
written statement of reasons and charges presented by the administrator. The
party with the burden of proof will put on evidence first.
Burden of Proof. In instances of attempted termination of a tenured faculty
member, or a severe sanction of reduction in academic year salary, the burden of
proof will be upon the administrator, to be satisfied by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Findings. The hearing Tribunal will make written findings of fact concerning
each reason and charge stated by the administrator, and will decide whether an
allegation has been rebutted, or, when the burden of proof is on the
administrator, established, by a preponderance of the evidence. The Tribunal
will also make written recommendations.
*A severe sanction and a minor sanction are differentiated in Section Seven of the 1990 Recommended Institutional Regulations on Academic Freedom and Tenure, on page 27 of the AAUP Policy Documents and Reports (1990 Edition).
D. Add to the end of the 5th paragraph of Part II.C.3 ("Procedures in Cases Involving Formal Hearings"), p. 90, the following:
Otherwise, if the University makes a transcript of any Tribunal hearing, it
will provide a copy without cost to the faculty party. All paper and other costs
generated by a Tribunal,
except the cost of the faculty member's attorney if any, shall be borne by the
University.
E. Add a new subsection 3 to Part I.C (Additional Aspects of the System), as follows; also, add the words and commas ", faculty member," between the words "administrator" and "or faculty committee" in the 2nd paragraph of Part I.B (Scope and Purpose of the System), in the 1st paragraph of Part II.A (Administrative Resolution of Grievances), and in the 2nd paragraph of Part II.B (Mediation of Grievances):
3. Grievances by One Faculty Member against Another
It happens infrequently that one faculty member perceives that another faculty member is abusing his or her position as a faculty member to the prejudice of the first faculty member in an academically-related matter. Where process and remedy for such perceived abuse are set forth elsewhere in this Handbook, the Mediation and Grievance System shall not apply. (See, for example, Appendix I, Sexual Harassment Policy, and Appendix L, Policy on Academic Misconduct in Scholarly Activities.)
It is a part of the task of administrators to resolve such problems properly and fairly. Few such perceived abuses-and only those resulting in grave prejudice, or of primary importance to the academic community-should be brought into the Mediation and Grievance System.
It may be that the appropriate administrator is unable to resolve the problem, or that the nature of the problem, involving an untenured faculty member, renders it seemingly inadvisable for the problem to be brought to the appropriate administrator. The faculty member will then (in either situation) present the problem to the Faculty Ombudsperson (the Vice President of the Faculty Senate), who will determine appropriate paths of administrative resolution. The Ombudsperson will expeditiously ensure that every useful attempt to resolve the problem through normal administrative channels is pursued, simultaneously respecting the delicacy of the problem and assuring that the matter is dealt with as confidentially as possible.
If in the opinion of the faculty member an appropriate resolution has not been reached, after the Ombudsperson has so acted, and after hearing the advice of the Ombudsperson, the faculty member may appeal to the Mediation Committee, which will then follow its usual procedures (see Part II.B, Mediation of Grievances, below). The Committee's standard of acceptability is higher in such instances: the action of the offending faculty member must have been gravely prejudicial, or the matter must be of primary importance to the academic community, or the actions of the administrator(s) to resolve the matter must have been perfunctory or sham.
The complaint of the faculty member to the Mediation Committee will name as the opposing party the highest-ranking administrator (beneath the level of the Provost) who was unable to resolve the problem. The administrator will then be a party to the action and will associate with him or her the offending faculty member, who will cooperate with the administrator in any further action in the Mediation and Grievance system which concerns this issue. The word "faculty member" as usually used in this Document means the grievant, not such an offending faculty member.
A
RESOLUTION CALLING FOR DESEGREGATION OF THE GREEK SYSTEM AND THE MEANS TO
ACCOMPLISH THIS END
Whereas
integration of the student body at The University of Alabama has not ensured
that the structures and organizations within
the University are desegregated, and Whereas
the most egregious failure to achieve desegregation within the University occurs
in a system of 36 all-white Greek social fraternities and sororities with
approximately 3,000 members, and
Whereas
desegregation of the white Greek system was addressed in Student Affairs in the
1970s and has been the focus of Faculty Senate legislation in the mid-1980s, the
early 1990s, and the year 2000. And
whereas the goal of the Greek Accreditation Program was to end segregation in
the Greek system by 1996, and
Whereas
none of
these efforts or other efforts by the Administration and students have resulted
in a single African American joining an all-white fraternity or sorority, and
Whereas
a segregated
Greek system is especially offensive to and discriminatory of African American
citizens and students who, as taxpayers, share in the ownership of the state
property on which these race-exclusive organizations reside, and Whereas
a segregated Greek system is especially pernicious and threatening to the rights
of minorities because the system exists on state
property, thus giving race-exclusive organizations the implicit approval by the
state, and Whereas
failure to desegregate the white Greek systems relegates African Americans to a
second class citizenship through denying them the equality, freedom, and respect
called for in the Constitutional, moral, and theological frameworks that shape
our country, state, culture, and University, and
Whereas
desegregating the Greek system better prepares students for work environments
and societies that are increasingly multiracial, multicultural, and
international, and
Whereas
the Faculty Senate believes that the majority of our students are not actively
racists; that students desire an integrated Greek system; that a minority
of racist students, alumni, citizens, and administrators obstruct desegregation
of the Greek system; and that various structures, policies, traditions, and
practices of the Greek system cause an “institutional” racism that inhibits
the desegregation of the system. And,
whereas this institutional racism includes segregated rush; blackball and
recommendation systems; selection practices that give preference to legacies;
and reward structures that fail to encourage faculty involvement with Greek
organizations, and
Whereas
desegregation of the Greek system affords The University of Alabama a rare,
profound, and historic opportunity to turn the page on our racially divided past
and to write a new chapter in the racial history of our University.
Therefore
be it resolved
that the Faculty Senate calls for a desegregated Greek system at The University
of Alabama that transcends token integration to realize a racial inclusivity
that will bear the test of time and serve as a model of excellence for other
institutions of higher learning. We
call for a Greek system that will be a beacon to all that the University of
Alabama is a sanctuary where minorities are welcomed, included, protected, and
celebrated in all aspects of university life.
To this end, the that Faculty Senate advocates the following approaches
to achieving a desegregated Greek system:
A.
Unified
Rush.
Be
it resolved that the Greeks and Administration work together to develop a system
of unified, or integrated, rush that ensures that African Americans are exposed
to the White fraternities and sororities and that Whites are exposed to African
American fraternities and sororities. Such
a system will enhance appreciation and understanding of the diversity of Greek
organizations, identify who is interested and capable of pledging, broaden
choices for rushees, and make a clear statement that the University has one
Greek system, not two racially bifurcated systems. Be
it resolved that racial differences in rush systems, rush traditions, and
threats to the financial viability of fraternities and sororities are
unacceptable justifications for failing to develop and implement a unified
system of rush. Let the
Administration make clear that allowing minorities to realize their social
equality, freedom, and self worth overrides short-run inconveniences and other
morally shallow objections to a unified system of rush.
Let the Greeks make clear that the success of unified system of rush is
contingent upon their meaningful participation in the development of the system.
B.
Modifications
to Blackball Systems and Recommendation Systems.
Be
it further resolved that fraternities and sororities implement modification to
selection practices, such as blackball systems, that would allow a small number
of racially motivated Greeks to prevent a worthy minority from receiving an
invitation to join a fraternity or sorority.
Be it further resolved that sororities implement modifications to the
practice of requiring recommendations from alumni in order for a prospective
minority to receive a bid to join a sorority.
Given that African Americans and other minorities have never
been a part of the white Greek system at the University of Alabama, they cannot
be expected to have the network of Greek alumni support that white rushees have.
C.
Modification
to Selection Practices that Give Preference to Legacies
Be
it further resolved that the White Greek organizations modify practices or
policies that give preference to legacies in selection of new members.
Although it may be natural for parents to want their children to share a
common Greek experience by pledging their fraternities or sororities, systems of
legacy preference create a social nepotism that is antithetical to the values of
inclusiveness and personal merit that are essential to organizations that are
part of public institutions.
Since no African American students are legacies of the white Greek
system, they and white students from non-Greek families are burdened with a
substantial disadvantage relative to students who are legacies.
Be it resolved that our Greek students resist the pressure to perpetuate
a social system based on family association to create a system that embraces
diversity and rewards the truly worthy in membership selection. D. Zero Tolerance for Alumni and Citizen Threats and Actions Be
it further resolved that the University should not accept financial donations to
the University that are contingent upon maintaining a racially segregated Greek
system. Be it further resolved that
the University should not waiver in its commitment to desegregate the Greek
system when alumni and citizens threaten to send or follow through with sending
their children to other institutions because of Greek desegregation efforts.
We recommend that the University adopt a policy of zero tolerance for the
bigotry of those who attempt to hold the University hostage by threatening to
withdraw or following through with withdrawing their children or financial
support if the University proceeds with Greek desegregation.
E. Sanctions for Racial Discrimination in Selection and for
Social Boycotts
While
sanctions should be reserved for extreme and recurring problems, denying an
individual admission to a fraternity or sorority because of their minority
status is an invidious act that should be met with University sanctions.
Threats to socially boycott (e.g., refuse to date members of or hold
social functions with) fraternities or sororities that want to integrate and
actions that coerce individuals to socially boycott fraternities or sororities
that do integrate are also invidious acts that should be met with sanctions.
F.
Faculty Involvement and Rewards for Involvement
Be
it further resolved that we the faculty extend ourselves beyond our admonitions
to desegregate the Greek system to become a part of the team to help implement
the changes necessary for desegregating the Greek system.
We implore the faculty to attend Greek functions, to become advisors to
Greek houses, to help identify students who might be interested in integrating
fraternities or sororities, and to inspire inclusiveness by setting an example
of inclusiveness. We further encourage
the administration to demonstrate its commitment to the desegregation of the
Greek system by rewarding faculty and staff who become involved in this
important cause.
G. Greek Accreditation
Be
it further resolved that the University re-institute the Greek Accreditation
Program in which fraternities and sororities are expected to make progress
toward racial inclusiveness within a timeframe. Timeframes should be sensitive to the genuine efforts and
progress of Greek organizations and to the historical passivity of some Greek
organizations. Failure to make
efforts or progress within reasonable timeframes should result in measures
commensurate with the seriousness of the failure.
Measures might include increased Student Life assistance in and oversight
of desegregation efforts, more aggressive plans for desegregation, reductions in
social functions (parties), limits on participation in intramural sports, and
suspension from campus. Suspension
from campus should be reserved for fraternities and sororities that are the most
passive and resistant to desegregating the Greek system and for fraternity and
sororities that arbitrarily discriminate against minorities.
Although the Faculty Senate prefers that Greek desegregation occurs
without force or sanctions, we recognize that, without such means as a final
resort, desegregation has not occurred and minority rushees have been subjected
to discrimination.
Recognizing
that Greek organizations at the University of Alabama have increased their
interracial outreach in recent years, the Faculty Senate commends the
interracial Greek Week teams, the interracial philanthropic activities, and the
interracial dinner swaps among Greeks. We
commend Alpha Phi Alpha, Delta Kappa Epsilon, Omega Psi Phi, and Phi Pi Kappa
Phi for their interracial social events. We commend the white sororities that participated in National
Pan-Hellenic Council step show and the fraternity and sororities that have
eliminated their blackball systems. We
also commend the Dean of Student’s Office for its advice and inspiration for
many of these activities and for conducting diversity training of Greek
Presidents and recruitment officers over the past two years.
However, we especially commend the racial integration that has occurred in the
African American fraternities and sororities in past years and the Dean of
Students’ Office efforts to identify and cultivate existing Greek
organizations that are committed to integration, students who might be willing
integrate the white Greek system, and new fraternities and sororities that would
colonize at UA as a racially integrated organizations.
I. Concluding Charge
Believing
that the majority of our student are not actively racist, the Faculty Senate
implores our Greeks to let their conscience rise to the level of voice and
action against the individuals, policies, and structures that prevent African
American and other minorities from realizing their rightful status on our
campus. We implore the Greeks to
stand tall against the forces of racism in the Greek system and to let no one
stand alone in this struggle. And
to this end, the Faculty Senate pledges its support and calls on Greek alumni,
the national Greek organizations, University administrators and staff, and the
citizens of our State to stand alongside the Greeks who step forward to bring
about the changes necessary for desegregating the Greek system. Let us unite to open all
the doors within the University of
Alabama so that no student will fear or experience rejection because of the
color of their skin or any other arbitrary physical characteristic.
Let us unite to show all the people that the racially divisive forces
that tarnished the image and reputation of the University of Alabama in the 20th
century will not be permitted to restrain the open arms and warm embrace of The
University of Alabama in the 21st century.
A
SOFTER AND SHORTER VERSON OF THE JUSTIFICATION SECTION OF THE RESOLUTIONS
Whereas
equality under the law and individual freedom can only be realized when
the structures and organizations within
an institution are desegregated, and
Whereas
efforts to desegregate Greek social organizations at the University of
Alabama date back to the 1970s and have been the focus of Faculty Senate
resolutions in the 1980s, the early 1990s, and the year 2000.
And whereas the Greek Accreditation Program goal was to end segregation
of the Greek system by 1996, and
Whereas
desegregation
of systems that exist on state property is an imperative because minority
citizens share in the ownership of that property, and
Whereas
desegregating the Greek system better prepares students for work environments
and societies that are increasingly multiracial, multicultural, and
international, and
Whereas
the Faculty Senate believes that the majority of our students are not actively
racist; that students desire an integrated Greek system; that a minority
of racist students, alumni, citizens, and administrators obstruct Greek
desegregation; and that various structures, policies, traditions, and practices
of the Greek system cause an “institutional” racism that inhibits the
desegregation of the system Whereas
desegregation of the Greek system affords the University of Alabama a rare,
profound, and historic opportunity to turn the page on our racially divided past
and to write a new chapter in the racial history of our University.
MEANS TO ACHIEVING
A DESEGREGATED GREEK SYSTEM
H.
Commendations for Outreach