Class A legislation 161

May 16, 2022

GENERAL LEGISLATIVE ACTION

At its meeting on May 12, 2022, the Faculty Senate approved legislation that would amend the Faculty
Code related to a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Statement for Promotion and Tenure. These changes
have been approved at every step of the legislative process. The Faculty Council on Race, Equity, and
Justice has developed and approved this legislation.

Please vote by June 6, 2022.

Proposed Legislation
Background and Rationale

On March 1, 2022, the Faculty Council on Race, Equity, and Justice approved the following proposed
Class A legislation for submission to the Faculty Senate.

The University of Washington lists diversity as one of six core values that drive its vision and strategic
priorities. The UW Diversity Blueprint 2022 – 2026 articulates six diversity goals: To “cultivate an
accessible, inclusive, and equitable climate.” To “attract, retain, and graduate a diverse and excellent
student body.” To “attract and retain a diverse academic personnel.” To “attract and retain diverse staff.”
To “develop place-based education and engagement to advance access, inclusion, and equity.” And to
“improve accountability and transparency at all levels.” The FCREJ selected Faculty Code Chapter 24.32
(Appointment and Promotion of Faculty Members) for proposed revision to support the University’s
ongoing effort to meet these goals.

In 2021, this chapter of the code was revised to require new faculty applicants to submit a statement on
contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion during initial hiring, and for these statements to be
considered “as part of a comprehensive evaluation of scholarship and research, teaching, and service.”
Because of the University’s expectations for both new and existing faculty to contribute to diversity,
equity, and inclusion, it is important to incorporate discussions of these contributions during both initial
hiring and promotion and tenure review.

The proposed change implements a requirement for faculty to submit a discussion of their own
contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion in their self-assessment when being considered for
promotion and tenure. This change will complement the existing requirement that new faculty applicants
provide a statement of such contributions during the hiring process. The proposed change strengthens
procedures for faculty promotion by providing additional information to promotion and tenure review
subcommittees. It also supports the University’s strategic priorities by allowing for research, teaching, and
service that contribute to diversity, equity, and inclusion to become more explicitly considered during
promotion and tenure review.

Procedural Background

At the initial meeting of the FCREJ in October 2021, the council developed goals in conjunction with
Senate leadership. Among the goals was a FCREJ-generated mandate to “develop Class A legislation on
Diversity Statements'' to ensure that contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion are recognized as
important elements in faculty achievement and leadership during the promotion and tenure processes.
During the first presentation of this legislation to the Senate, the rationale pointed out that several
universities (e.g., some University of California campuses and University of Oregon) already require that
comments about contributions to equity, diversity, and inclusion be included in applications for promotion
and tenure, either in a separate statement, or as part of a personal statement. In this updated background
and rationale for the proposed legislation, the council provides more clarity on the requirements at
different universities. See specifics below. The FCREJ proposal requires that faculty being considered for
promotion and tenure describe their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion within the self-
assessment. This would apply to voting faculty only.

Operative Date of This Legislation

This proposal stipulates that this legislation will become operative on September 16, 2024 (as opposed to
the usual timeline in which legislation becomes operative as soon as it is signed by the president). This
legislation will be effective for any promotion and tenure initiated after it becomes operative. This is
because faculty hired prior to this legislation have assembled their promotion and tenure record without
the understanding that comments on their contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion would be
required. The delay of the operative date for the proposed legislation by two years allows faculty sufficient
time to plan and document their goals and accomplishments.

Sample diversity statements for initial hiring

• Berkeley recommendations on diversity statements

• UC Davis describes various types of contributions to diversity
• UC San Diego offers examples of diversity statements
• Six examples of submitted diversity statements

Sample guidance for writing about contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion for promotion
and tenure at universities where statements are encouraged or required

• UC Berkeley provides guidance for faculty who are writing self-evaluative statements about
contributions to diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging
• UC Irvine provides guidance for writing inclusive excellence activities statement
• University of Oregon offers examples of contributions to institutional equity and inclusion

Questions Considered

• At what other academic institutions are contributions to DEI required to be described

for promotion and tenure?

The FCREJ found several examples in which public universities incorporate practices related
to this legislation, which we have summarized below:

o UCLA requires that contributions to DEI be collected for ladder rank faculty promotions. The
UCLA CALL, which describes policy matters regarding Academic Personnel, states that
“although [the UC Academic Personnel Manual] does not make it obligatory to incorporate
comments about such contributions in applications for appointments, merits and
advancements, UCLA is requiring such information in the file” for promotion and tenure.
Moreover, it states that “candidates may provide their contributions to DEI in their personal
statement or as a separate statement.” The Provost’s Office implemented this in 2019.

o At the UC-wide level, the use of DEI statements for promotion and tenure review has been
recommended by the UC Academic Council. In 2019 the UC Academic Council, a non-
legislative body of the UC Academic Senate, recommended that campuses should
implement, within two years, the use of DEI statements consistent with each campus’s use of
research, teaching, and service statements in academic review.

o At the University of Oregon, tenure-track faculty and career faculty being evaluated for
promotion and/or tenure are required to include a discussion of contributions to institutional
 equity and inclusion in their personal statement. The Provost’s Office specifies that
“candidates who do not address equity and inclusion in their personal statement are asked to
revise their personal statement before their files are reviewed by the UO Faculty Personnel
Committee (TTF) or the Provost (Career).” In relation to discussions of contributions to
institutional equity and inclusion, the UO and United Academics “agreed to make this
expectation mandatory rather than optional to encourage all faculty to play a proactive role in
fulfilling the UO’s institutional goals of equity and inclusion.” This was part of their Collective
Bargaining Agreement in 2013. For AY21-22, the Provost’s Office announced that
“candidates may choose to discuss their contributions to equity and inclusion either as a
separate section of their personal statement or to integrate discussion of their contributions
into the other sections of the personal statement.”

o The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) is planning on requiring all faculty

members to submit a non-optional statement on contributions to DEI to be considered for
tenure or promotion starting in 2025. In 2022, the Provost’s Office announced revised Criteria
and General Guidelines for Promotion and Tenure which included instructions to include a
statement on DEI activities. Prior to this revision, the instructions included non-optional
statements on Research and Teaching, and an optional statement on Service. This statement
“will be optional for candidates through Academic Year 2024-2025, after which the Provost
will move to make it a requirement.”

• Would this impact merit and re-appointment?

o The proposed legislation intends to amend section 24-32 as it relates to tenure and
promotion only. Merit and re-appointment require separate considerations.

• Why delay the operative date of the legislation for two years?

o The delay of the operative date of the proposed legislation by two years allows faculty
sufficient time to plan and document their goals and accomplishments. This mirrors a similar
recommendation by the Academic Council of the University of California that “campuses
should implement, within two years, the use of DEI statements consistent with each campus’s
use of research, teaching, and service statements in academic review.”

• How are contributions to diversity defined?

o The FCREJ is unaware of a University-wide definition of diversity. Individual schools and

units do have local definitions of diversity and the definitions are not uniform across the
University’s three campuses. The FCREJ provides links to sample guidance from other
universities for writing about contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion.

• Not all faculty have not been trained in DEI work or in writing DEI self-assessments.

o In its 2021 session, the Washington State Legislature mandated antiracist and DEI training
for faculty, staff and students at all state universities and colleges. This training will begin next
year. In addition, faculty are required to complete Title IX training. Just this month, the
Graduate School is hosting this training. The university community offers many opportunities
for training.

• Is there any data on whether required DEI statements (either for appointment or
promotion) result in positive change?

o There are limited data to prove or disprove this because required and recommended diversity
statements are new in higher education.
 • How do units ensure that DEI self-assessments are not just a performative exercise
rather a driver of effective actions?

o Just as units and other reviewers in the review process evaluate a faculty member’s self-
assessment of research, teaching and service, so too will they evaluate the characterizations
of DEI work. It is expected that faculty will present narratives of actual contributions they have
undertaken (and will continue to undertake) in any aspect of dossiers where diversity, equity
and inclusion may come into play.

• The requirement is inequitable because it doesn’t apply to merit, therefore full

professors do not have to include DEI contributions.

o Merit is covered in a separate area of the faculty code and the council thought it prudent and
equitable to build on the recent DEI requirement for all new hires. Some units include DEI
contributions in their annual merit reviews; that is an excellent place for all faculty to gather
data for eventual inclusion in tenure and promotion dossiers.

• Who and how will these statements be evaluated and will the evaluators be trained in
DEI?

o The development of a system for evaluating the contributions is left to individual units, just as
is the case for evaluating contributions to teaching, service and research. Leaving this
evaluation to individual units is critical because meaningful contributions to DEI vary across
different disciplines, and just as individual units evaluate diversity statements of job
candidates, so would be the case for candidates up for tenure and promotion.

• Required self-assessments on DEI contributions will require more work for already
busy faculty.

o Self-assessment of one’s contributions to DEI as part of tenure and promotion can take many
forms and does not have to be a stand-alone lengthy statement. Training could be a
contribution. A shift in class readings could be an effective contribution. Participation in a unit-
or university-level service project, as well. Shifting deadlines or meetings to accommodate
working parents, for example, could be meaningful. Contributions can be undertaken and
incorporated in myriad ways.

Counter Arguments to Proposal

Concern was expressed about the additional workload on candidates already facing a stressful
procedure, especially on young faculty members not previously trained in DEI work.

Concern was expressed about the extent to which, as a practical matter, the evaluative metrics likely to be
developed in response to the legislation would focus on the DEI significance or effectiveness of contributions
described in such statements.

Concern was expressed about how significance and effectiveness would be defined in a way that avoids a
Eurocentric orientation.

Concern was expressed that differences in the viewing of DEI work may cause disparate outcomes
between units in the promotion and tenure process.

Concern was expressed over lack of training or a rubric for review committees assessing DEI work.

Concern was expressed over lack of an explicit definition or understanding for the meaning of DEI.
Concern was expressed over a lack of data or evidence demonstrating the impact of requiring such
statements.

Concern was expressed that descriptions of contributions might put faculty in jeopardy with colleagues
who do not share perspectives.

Concern was expressed that the legislation already is out of date vis-a-vis approaches that emphasize
“belonging” in addition to, or in replacement of, “inclusiveness.”

Concern was expressed that the legislation does not adequately specify which reviewers must consider
contributions.

It was argued that the legislation is superfluous because the Faculty Code already recognizes DEI
contributions.

Concern was expressed that the legislation does not adequately specify what is to happen when
descriptions of contributions are lacking or considered to be insufficient.

Concern was expressed that the legislation provides a slippery slope to mandated consideration of a
whole host of other values such as “integrity” and to other types of evaluation such as merit.

Proposed Changes

This legislation proposes the following in the Faculty Code: One change to the section governing the
appointment and promotion of faculty members, specifically to the Section 24-32, governing the Scholarly
and Professional Qualification of Faculty members.

Please see the specific language beginning on the next page.

The Proposed Class A Legislation

Be it resolved by the Faculty Senate to submit to the faculty for approval or rejection that Chapter 24 of
the Faculty Code be amended to read as shown below.

Proposed Amendment to the Faculty Code:

(Additions are underlined; deletions are struck through)

University of Washington
Faculty Code and Governance
Faculty Code Chapter 24
The Proposed Class A Legislation:

Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate submit to the faculty for approval or rejection:
1. That Chapter 24 of the Faculty Code be amended to read as shown below.
2. That the amendments to Chapter 24 shall become operative on September 16, 2024.

Section 24-32 Scholarly and Professional Qualifications of Faculty Members

The University faculty is committed to the full range of academic responsibilities: scholarship and
research, teaching, and service. Individual faculty will, in the ordinary course of their development,
determine the weight of these various commitments, and adjust them from time to time during their
careers, in response to their individual, professional development and the changing needs of their
profession, their programs, departments, schools and colleges, and the University. Such versatility and
flexibility are hallmarks of respected institutions of higher education because they are conducive to
establishing and maintaining the excellence of a university and to fulfilling the educational and social role
of the institution. All candidates for initial faculty appointment to the ranks and/or titles listed in Chapter
21, Section 21-32.A (Voting Membership in the Faculty) shall submit a statement of past and planned
contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Academic units and search committees shall consider a
candidate's statement of contributions to diversity, equity, and inclusion as part of a comprehensive
evaluation of scholarship and research, teaching, and service. Faculty members under consideration for
the granting of tenure or for promotion to the ranks and/or titles listed in Chapter 21, Section 21-32.A.
(Voting Membership in the Faculty) shall reflect on past and planned contributions to diversity, equity, and
inclusion in the self-assessment of their qualifications for tenure or promotion as provided in Section 24-
54.B. In accord with the University's expressed commitment to excellence and equity, any contributions in
scholarship and research, teaching, and service that address diversity, equity, and inclusion and equal
opportunity, shall be included and considered among the professional and scholarly qualifications for
appointment, and promotion, or tenure outlined below.

A. Scholarship, the essence of effective teaching and research, is the obligation of all members of
the faculty. The scholarship of faculty members may be judged by the character of their advanced
degrees and by their contribution to knowledge in the form of publication and instruction; it is
reflected not only in their reputation among other scholars and professionals but in the
performance of their students.

B. The creative function of a university requires faculty devoted to inquiry and research, whose
attainment may be in the realm of scholarly investigation, in constructive contributions in
professional fields, or in the creative arts, such as musical composition, creative writing, or
original design in engineering or architecture. While numbers (publications, grant dollars,
students) provide some measure of such accomplishment, more important is the quality of the
faculty member's published or other creative work.

Important elements in evaluating the scholarly ability and attainments of faculty members include
the range and variety of their intellectual interests; the receipt of grants, awards, and fellowships;
the professional and/or public impact of their work; and their success in directing productive work
by advanced students and in training graduate and professional students in scholarly methods.
Other important elements of scholarly achievement include involvement in and contributions to
interdisciplinary research and teaching; participation and leadership in professional associations
and in the editing of professional journals; the judgment of professional colleagues; and
membership on boards and committees.

C. The scope of faculty teaching is broader than conventional classroom instruction; it comprises a
variety of teaching formats and media, including undergraduate and graduate instruction for
matriculated students, and special training or continuing education. The educational function of a
university requires faculty who can teach effectively. Instruction must be judged according to its
essential purposes and the conditions which they impose. Some elements in assessing effective
teaching include:
 o The ability to organize and conduct a course of study appropriate to the level of
instruction and the nature of the subject matter;

o The consistency with which the teacher brings to the students the latest research findings
and professional debates within the discipline;

o The ability to stimulate intellectual inquiry so that students develop the skills to examine
and evaluate ideas and arguments;

o The extent to which the teacher encourages discussion and debate which enables the
students to articulate the ideas they are exploring;
o The degree to which teaching strategies that encourage the educational advancement of
students from all backgrounds and life experiences are utilized;

o The availability of the teacher to the student beyond the classroom environment; and

o The regularity with which the teacher examines or reexamines the organization and
readings for a course of study and explores new approaches to effective educational
methods.

A major activity related to teaching is the instructor's participation in academic advising and
counseling, whether this takes the form of assisting students to select courses or discussing the
students' long- range goals. The assessment of teaching effectiveness shall include student and
faculty evaluation. Where possible, measures of student achievements in terms of their academic
and professional careers, life skills, and citizenship should be considered.

D. Contributions to a profession through published discussion of methods or through public

demonstration of an achieved skill should be recognized as furthering the University's educational
function. Included among these contributions are professional service activities that address the
professional advancement of individuals from underrepresented groups from the faculty
member's field.

E. The University encourages faculty participation in public service. Such professional and scholarly
service to schools, business and industry, and local, state, national, and international
organizations is an integral part of the University's mission. Of similar importance to the University
is faculty participation in University committee work and other administrative tasks and clinical
duties, including the faculty member's involvement in the recruitment, retention, and mentoring of
scholars and students in an effort to promote diversity and equal opportunity. Both types of
service make an important contribution and should be included in the individual faculty profile.

F. Competence in professional service to the University and the public should be considered in
judging a faculty member's qualifications, but except in unusual circumstances skill in instruction
and research should be deemed of greater importance.

Section 13-31, April 16, 1956; S-A 58, May 16, 1978; S-A 64, May 29, 1981; S-A 71, February 5, 1985; S-
A 75, April 6, 1987; S-A 86, December 8, 1992; S-A 99, July 9, 1999; S-A 125, June 11, 2012: all with
Presidential approval; RC, October 27, 2017; S-A 143, June 22, 2018 with Presidential approval.

Approved by:
Senate Executive Committee
March 28, 2022
 Approved by:
Faculty Senate
April 7, 2022

Approved by:
Senate Executive Committee
May 2, 2022

Approved by:
Faculty Senate
May 12, 2022