Privilege & Tenure's Role in Systemwide Faculty Discipline Policies
Currently under review at the request of the systemwide Academic Senate are proposed revisions to the Faculty Discipline process and APM-015 (Faculty Code of Conduct) and APM-016 (University Policy on Faculty Conduct and the Administration of Discipline).
In addition the below systemwide guidelines are subject to systemwide review in the same document:
- Faculty Respondent Disciplinary Sanction Guidelines for Misconduct Related to Expressive Activity
- Companion Document – Faculty Disciplinary Sanctions Guidelines re Expressive Activity
- Non-Senate Academic Appointee Respondent Corrective Action/Disciplinary Sanction Guidelines for Misconduct Related to Expressive Activity
- Guidelines on Good Cause Factors re Extensions of Time
A summarized 6-slide powerpoint on the key elements of this systemwide review can be found here. Also, the original document under review can be found on the UC Academic Senate website here.
The UCSF Academic Senate has concerns over these proposed revisions in two key areas:
- Proposed change in hearing panel from a UCSF body of faculty peers, to a systemwide body of faculty peers. This could include faculty from the Humanities, Political Science, Literature, etc., who are not familiar with the Health Sciences Compensation Plan or the processes/practices within UCSF.
- Vague definitions on key terms including:
- Expressive vs. disruptive activities (definitions of either appear subjective)
- Review of such activities by an unknown administrator (rather than a body of faculty peers). Further if the administrator changes, does the definition of such activities change?
- Protection foremost of the institution rather than the faculty under disciplinary review
Because of the far-reaching nature of these revisions, we are offering an anonymous comment space here for faculty to express concerns and questions. Comments are filtered for spam and may take up to 24 hours to post to the website. Our campuses response is due to systemwide in early November 2025.
Comments
Concerning suppression of academic free speech
I would strongly recommend against implementing this limit on expressive activity, I am worried it will be used to dsicipline faculty who are participating in necessary protest against an increasingly authoritaritarian government. In addition criminalizing protest or dissent is a dangerous precedent for students and trainees. Our job is to serve the people of California.
Privilege & Tenure's Role in Systemwide Faculty Discipline Polic
This document seems highly problematic for UCSF where a very small minority of faculty are tenured. Most are in residence, clinical X, HS clinical, or other title series that bear little resemblance to tenured faculty at the other UC campus. In addition, I find the definition of expressive vs. disruptive activities to be worryingly vague and the tier 1 criteria of misconduct as "failing to comply with instructions of UC or public official upon initial instruction" to be extremely problematic and likely an unconstitutional encroachment on first amendment rights.
Also-it is worth noting that nearly all UCSF faculty are self-funded Principal Investigators, meaning that if faculty view the UC administration as encroaching on their rights they will simply walk out the door and take their millions of dollars with them to other, competing universities that are less heavy handed.
I can respect the initial…
I can respect the initial intent to expand "peers" to outside UCSF faculty. But there will be regional differences challenging whether they are true "peers" and their ability to reasonably comment/assess a perceived violation. Expanding (for example as clinical faculty) the definition of "peers" to non-clinical faculty is misguided and would not allow for a reasonable assessment of a situation requiring peer review. If you do not practice medicine it is virtually impossible to simulate the environment and pressures and therefore assess a clinician's behavior.
APM-015/016
The language of these revisions to the Faculty Code of Conduct are quite worrisome. They seem to value University's regulation of speech rather than the that of individuals' protected by the First Amendment. Also unclear is which University and Public leaders get to decide what is allowable speech for faculty. It leaves completely unclear who is making these decisions and could readily be interpreted as the UC President or US President, or any number of university administrators or local politicians. The overall limitations and punitive actions against expressive speech seem to be completely at odds with the concepts of academic freedom, freedom of speech and our constitutional rights.