For the first time in five years, the University of Minnesota shared governance met in-person on Thursday to discuss institutional speech and core curriculum. 

The University Senate and Faculty Senate met in the Cowles Auditorium in the Humphrey School. The University’s Duluth, Morris and Rochester campuses met on their own campuses, using Zoom to join the meeting. 

University President Rebecca Cunningham said meeting in-person was an example of how the world has recovered from the pandemic. 

This meeting followed an emergency meeting of the University Senate on Feb. 27 where senators approved a resolution requesting the removal of the Board of Regents resolution on institutional speech. The resolution was introduced at the February meeting and was met with backlash. 

Senators discussed their concerns with the resolution and administration’s involvement.

Institutional Speech

At the emergency meeting, Senator Teri Caraway said the discussion began on Feb. 7 when Senate members learned a resolution related to institutional speech would be on the Board of Regents agenda. 

The Senate pushed a resolution asking the Board to work with the University Senate on this project and allow for more discussion on the topic before creating any policy. Of the 210 voting members, 63 senators co-signed the resolution. 

Eric Van Wyk, chair of the Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee, said the task force, led by Phil Buhlmann, was charged with reviewing institutional speech at the University this summer.   

“Many of us were shocked and confused to see the Board’s resolution,” Van Wyk said. 

The resolution says the Board’s plan directly conflicts with the position of all shared governance and asks the Board to retract it.

Van Wyk said there are three concerns with the Board’s resolution — process, content and first amendment violations. He said he was concerned about how the Board operated on the resolution. 

“All those meetings, all those discussions, all that consultation, it’s the shared understanding that is being discarded by the Board’s resolution,” Van Wyk said. 

The Faculty Consultative Committee wrote a letter to the Board asking for clarity on the resolution on Feb. 13. They questioned how the Board views issues like academic freedom and the role of the University Senate. 

Several members of the Faculty Consultative Committee, including chair Jennifer Goodnough, met with three members of the Board to express their concerns over the Board’s plan.

Goodnough said she liked that her voice was heard, and that it was a moment for the Board to listen. 

Carrie Booth Walling, director of the Human Rights Program, said the resolution would be disastrous for the program. Walling feared any communication released by her program could be seen as political speech. 

Graduate student Cal Mergendahl said they were concerned about overstepping by the board.

“The board is not designed for policy like this,” Mergendahl said. 

Michael Gallope, the College of Liberal Arts Assembly vice-chair, said they are concerned about what the Board resolution means for the entire institution. 

“I fully support academic freedom and the shared governance process,” Cunningham said during the meeting. “I appreciate that those two are in conflict right now.” 

Cunningham said she had no involvement in the Board’s decision. The Senate’s resolution passed and was communicated to the Board. The Board will discuss the resolution at the March 14 meeting.

Core Curriculum

The faculty Senate debated a proposed update to core curriculum on the Twin Cities campus. The plan was first introduced to the Senate in December and was discussed at the February Senate meeting. 

The plan would require each student to choose a focus area — equity, environment, civic life or well-being. The students would take three courses in that focus area and then take a multidisciplinary synthesis at the end.

The multidisciplinary synthesis requires students to apply material they learned in their focus area courses and accumulate in a group project. The class will be taught by regular faculty and academic professional staff at the University. 

Core curriculum taskforce chairs Kathryn Pearson and William Durfee presented the changes, addressing concerns previously discussed like the implementation of the plan.

Pearson said if the plan passed, then a task force would be assembled to begin the implementation process. 

Koryn Zewers, assistant budget director, said the budget office will not create any estimates for the curriculum changes. She added that revenue and expenses should not drive these issues. 

A faculty member asked Vice Provost Rachel Croson if any deans had voiced concerns about this plan. Croson said her feedback focused on the opportunity being given to each college and discipline. 

“We need to be making curriculum decisions that are focused on student interests,” Croson said. 

Senator Nathaniel Mills questioned the need for a new curriculum. He said the current curriculum is not outdated and updates are being consistently made. 

Other senators said the plan feels minor and is too specific. 

Former Undergraduate Student Body Vice President and student representative on the committee Sara Davis said the plan allows students to pick something that aligns with their future path. She said the plan will support students, allowing them to dive deeper into their major. 

Hubbard School Director Elisia Cohen asked the Senate to think critically about implementation of the plan, citing how budget issues could make this plan difficult.

The final vote on the plan will occur on April 3.