- learning about the retirement experiences of others;
- improving self-understanding in relation to retirement;
- emphasizing psycho-social aspects of retirement;
- accentuating the idea of “reimagining your retirement”; and
- stimulating positive retirement thinking and planning.
In this edition:
President’s Remarks
Dear Colleagues,
As I sit down to write this article on Halloween night, higher education is being haunted by the specter of political interference. Recently, I have heard from many UC faculty who are concerned about the Trump administration’s proposed Compact for Excellence in Higher Education. The Compact was initially offered to nine institutions of higher education, with the quid pro quo of increased federal funding in return for agreeing to a list of policies, including ideological litmus tests in admissions and hiring, restrictions on students’ freedom of expression and assembly, mandates to disproportionately fund students in the “hard” sciences, and pledges to abolish departments and programs that are perceived as being contrary to “conservative ideas” by discussing the existence of systemic inequity. To date, no institutions have accepted the Compact. This is due in part to advocacy by AAUP chapters at these targeted institutions and by faculty speaking out around the country. The national AAUP has been a leader in this fight. The AAUP and our affiliate organization AFT have jointly announced November 7 as a Day of Action to resist the Compact and other assaults on academic freedom and on the independence of institutions of higher education. The AAUP web site has resources to help faculty who want to take action.
UC was not chosen as one of the first set of Compact universities, but the invitation to join was later opened to all institutions in a social media post by President Trump. It is possible that UC will be drawn into the debate over the Compact, and faculty should make it crystal clear to the UC administration and Board of Trustees that we strongly oppose this threat to academic freedom. At our next AAUP chapter meeting on November 13, members will be asked to support a resolution denouncing the Compact and calling on President Pinto and the Board to reject it. We will ask Faculty Senate to pass a similar resolution. These will be the initial steps. It is possible that an escalating counter-campaign will be necessary at UC as we stand in solidarity with faculty across the country.
As challenging as things have been for faculty in Ohio, the situation in other states is even worse. In a particularly egregious example of the threats to academic freedom, Dr. Tom Alter, a tenured faculty member at Texas State University, was fired for remarks he made outside of work expressing personal political views. I encourage you to visit this website where you can find links to a petition and other ways to support the defense of Prof. Alter. (I thank Prof. Dana Cloud for bringing this case to my attention). Sadly, there will likely be more of these cases in the near future. Our hope for turning the tide in the long term is to stand together and advocate unceasingly for the rights of faculty and students to pursue knowledge without government interference or intimidation.
One of the important ways we can stand up for higher education is to exercise our shared governance rights, which are enshrined in our collective bargaining agreement and in UC board rules. In the coming days, Faculty Senate will be collecting feedback on revised versions of policies required by SB1. This is an important opportunity for UC faculty to make their voices heard by providing detailed feedback to their Senators. I urge you to do so.
The workload policy is the latest to be revised, in response to new guidelines issued by the Ohio Department of Higher Education. My own view is that these guidelines mandating teaching loads are not appropriate for Research-1 institutions like UC, and I have urged the UC administration to join with their counterparts at Ohio State, Kent State, and Ohio University to lobby ODHE for change in the guidelines so that R-1 universities can continue to thrive in Ohio. If you share my concern, I urge you to communicate that to Faculty Senate as well as to administrators.
In closing, I want to encourage you to stand firm in your commitment to the mission of public higher education. Whatever slander opponents may throw our way, I remain convinced that our work as UC faculty benefits not only our students, but also our city, state, country, and world. Higher education is a public good that is worth defending.
In solidarity,
Steve Mockabee
AAUP Chapter President
Shared Governance and SB 1
Faculty voice has never been more important at UC than it is right now. Shared Governance, the practice that has made American Higher Education the world standard, is how faculty exercise that voice. After Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) passed, UC was required to come up with a number of policies to comply with the legislation. UC’s administration did substantially involve both the AAUP and UC Faculty Senate on many of the policies, but on several critical policies such as the Intellectual Diversity policy they did not. Your involvement in both the AAUP and Faculty Senate are essential not only to mitigate the damage that poor policy can bring, but to deliver quality education in a challenging political environment. If you want to know what you can do to help, skip right to the end. If you want a little background on shared governance, read on.
What is shared governance?
In 1966, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) created the “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities” which set out the general principles for shared responsibility of the functions of the university and principles of cooperative action among the members of the university. The “Statement on Government of Colleges and Universities” calls for cooperative action and lays out responsibilities for decision making and the foundation for how the different components of the university should communicate with each other on shared areas of responsibilities.
Specifically, shared responsibilities include strategic planning, distribution of physical resources, and budgeting. The primary responsibilities of the governing board are to make sure the university adheres to its mission and has sufficient financial resources. The board has final decision-making authority and designates authority to administrators. The president is primarily responsible for making sure the university follows board rules and adheres to sound academic practices. The president also is responsible for leading the institution, facilitating communication between components of the institution, and acting as the public face of the university. Faculty are entrusted with the power to make decisions on matters of curriculum, instruction, research, faculty status, and aspects of student life that relate to education and academics. The president and governing body should only go against the decisions of the faculty on these matters in exceptional circumstances. If they do, they should communicate the reasons for doing so to the faculty. Faculty are also to share significantly in the responsibilities for program development, program review, department review, and department and college reorganization.
Shared governance requires that faculty elect the faculty representatives on 1) faculty committees, 2) joint standing and ad hoc committees, 3) faculty in administrative bodies, and 4) faculty representatives on the Board of Trustees. Not only should faculty elect these representatives, but they should also determine the policies and procedures for these elections. Faculty representatives on committees may also be appointed by administrators but should never supplant or dominate elected faculty leadership.
Most importantly, shared governance is designed to facilitate meaningful faculty participation in the decision-making process from the outset. Bringing policies or decisions to faculty to review in the final stages, for instance, is not true shared governance. Faculty should be involved in examining the nature of the problem, brainstorming possible solutions, and developing strategies to address the issues at hand. This benefits the educational mission by keeping pedagogical and research excellence at the forefront instead of political or economic expediency.
Shared Governance at UC
Through Faculty Senate and the AAUP, UC has the appropriate structures in place to engage in effective shared governance that leads to expedient solutions and builds relationships between administration, staff, students and faculty. When these structures are not used, the process is more likely to be chaotic and unpredictable. Moreover, when the accepted and appropriate structures are not used for shared governance, stakeholders are more likely to be suspicious and distrustful of the proposed solutions.
When stakeholders are involved early in the decision-making process, better decisions are made. Outcomes are improved because a diversity of perspectives leads to improved identification of potential problems and fosters creativity and innovation. Involvement of all key constituencies also increases buy-in and minimizes complaints after the fact.
After Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) passed, UC did employ shared governance for some policies, but for others, UC ignored the shared governance process. While UC went farther in shared governance than many universities across the state, we could and should do better.
At UC, several policies were drafted by a working group that included representatives from the AAUP and Faculty Senate as well as members of the provost’s staff and the staff of the general counsel. At the last minute, general counsel unilaterally made changes to some of the final policies without bringing them back to the working group for input or to review before the policies were forwarded to Faculty Senate and the Board of Trustees for approval. This did not follow general principles of shared governance. Other policies like the Intellectual Diversity Policy did not involve shared governance as there was no working group used to draft the policy, and the policy did not come in front of Faculty Senate for approval.
Faculty Senate rejected the majority of the policies that came before them in June due to shared governance issues. Despite their rejection, the board of trustees approved all seven policies at the June board meeting. Since the June board meeting, these policies were returned to the working group for revisions. In October, all but the Faculty Appeals policy were approved by Faculty Senate. (The issue there was a tight timeline for the appeals.) The Board approved all the policies at their October meeting. Revising the policies in the working group and seeking their approval by Faculty Senate shows a good faith attempt of administration to correct the shared governance failure with the first versions of these policies. University leadership claims that it is dedicated to this shared process now that the initial policies are in place.
Shared Governance Moving Forward
Since Senate Bill 1 stripped the AAUP of the right to bargain over tenure, performance reviews, and retrenchment, the role of Faculty Senate is more important than ever before. Previously, faculty voice was represented by the AAUP when these policies and processes needed to be changed to address problems, and they were negotiated in an organized manner every three years at the bargaining table. In the post SB 1 era, we have as of yet neither a definitive process for how changes to these policies will be made nor a policy that specifies shared governance in this process.
As we move forward, it behooves the entire university community to follow the best practices of shared governance to ensure efficient and expedient changes in policy. We propose that these policies have a problem-based revision process that is clearly laid out and codified. In this system, either faculty or administration could identify a problem that would trigger revision. Once the problem has been identified, faculty and administration should work in tandem to find a solution together. Having a clearly defined process that is problem driven will allow the most effective and efficient shared governance response to resolving these problems.
Finding Faculty Senate Representatives
Now that the Faculty Senate’s role in shared governance has expanded, we need to be diligent in electing our representatives responsibly. With thousands of faculty members, it is impossible to get individual feedback from every faculty member. Faculty Senators as elected representatives need to represent both the majority and minority positions of faculty within their college. Faculty Senators are responsible for informing their college about the issues that are coming in front of senate and soliciting feedback from their constituents. Senators also need to be committed to following communication channels at all levels of the university to stay informed on issues facing the institution and ensuring that shared governance is being utilized in a timely manner.
When we vote for senate representatives, we need to elect highly dedicated and committed faculty members that are not just trying to add to their CV for the purpose of RPT. Service is not just a quaint embellishment to teaching and research responsibilities, but creates the very environment in which those responsibilities are carried out. Policies hammered out in the shared governance process establish what grants we can or cannot apply for, what curriculum we can or cannot teach, and what we can or cannot research. We encourage you to carefully weigh your responsibilities to participate in shared governance, to uphold the principles of shared governance, and to elect responsible representation. When election season rolls around in the spring, be ready to act, because your action determines our shared future.
“REIMAGINING RETIREMENT”
A Panel Discussion for Faculty Considering Retirement
Sponsored by: The UC Emeriti Association
When: Thursday, November 13, 2025 from 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm
Where: Faculty Enrichment Center, Room 504E of Langsam Library
You may know that the UC Chapter AAUP and UC Human Resources cooperate to present a multi-hour seminar each year on retirement for Faculty Members. That seminar usually takes place in the Spring Semester, February or March, and deals largely with the retirement process and financial and health insurance concerns. We will soon start planning that event for Spring 2026.
You may also know that the UC Emeriti Association has been involved in making programs and information about retirement, particularly regarding the social and psychological aspects of retirement, available to Faculty Members. The Emeriti Association also has its own individual mentoring program for those contemplating retirement who would like to talk with emeriti who have been through the process. Recently, the Emeriti Association promoted two 3-part series hosted by the Association of Retirement Organizations in Higher Education (AROHE) and Fidelity Investments; they were titled “Reimagining Retirement: Exploring Your Life Plan” and “Reimagining Retirement: Holistic Cognitive Health.” In conjunction with the “Exploring Your Life Plan” series, the Emeriti Association also sponsored a panel presentation by four retired UC Faculty Members who discussed their real-life experiences.
The UC Emeriti Association and the UC Chapter AAUP have an ongoing cooperative relationship, including participation by the Emeriti Association in the AAUP/HR annual seminars. In this spirit, it is with pleasure that we would like to inform you of a second, upcoming panel presentation being sponsored by the Emeriti Association. This panel discussion, a continuation of the “Reimagining Retirement” theme, will be held at the Faculty Enrichment Center (Room 540E of Langsam Library) on Thursday, November 13, 2025, from 3:00 pm to 4:30 pm. New panelists for this session will be retired UC Faculty Members Roger Collins, Janice Denton, Arnie Miller, and Brad Wilson. Objectives of this panel discussion include:
In addition to in-person attendance, this panel discussion will be accessible online via Zoom. To register for this event, please indicate your interest in an email to Pam Person, Executive Director, UC Emeriti Association (personp@ucmail.uc.edu), and let her know whether you will attend in person or via Zoom. For those who register but can’t attend in person, a Zoom link will be sent to you as we get closer to the event.