Student Grievance Procedures

Policy Number: 
III.01.03
Reason for Policy: 

This policy outlines grievance procedures for students at the University of Oregon unrelated to employment matters.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

All members of the UO community.

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, please contact Human Resources at 541-346-3159, hrpolicy@uoregon.edu

Enactment & Revision History: 

10 May 2023 - Temporary emergency policy enacted by Interim President Moffitt, in replacement of 571.003, pending the completion of permanent student grievance policy procedures (expires 10 November 2023)

Policy: 

Student Grievance Procedures

Introduction

(M) Sections apply as specified to students including undergraduate, post baccalaureate, community education, and graduate students. For the purposes of this policy, a student is an individual who, having paid the appropriate fee or having the fee officially waived, is enrolled in courses at the University of Oregon or was so enrolled at the time the action grieved occurred:

(a) Work-Related Graduate Teaching Fellow Grievances: Graduate students with complaints arising from their employment as Graduate Teaching Fellows shall follow the grievance procedures specified by their applicable collective bargaining agreement;

(b) Student Versus Student Complaints: Students who wish to make a formal complaint against a fellow student or students or a student group (unless the complaint is against a student for actions taken as a University employee) shall use the procedures specified in the Student Conduct Code, Policy III.01.01;

(c) Fees, Fines, and Other Charges: Students with grievances related to the assessment of fines, imposition of charges or the applicability of but not the waiver of fees, shall use the procedures described in Policy 571.060(A) et seq.;

(d) Financial Aid: Students who face the loss, reduction or suspension of financial aid other than as an application against delinquency pursuant to federal, or state law, or published Oregon State Board of Higher Education or University policies or directives, may request a contested case hearing under OAR 571-002-0000 et seq. Students with other grievances regarding the administration of Financial Aid may use the procedures described in Section R; [Note: Chapter 571, Division 2 was repealed on December 11, 2014.]

(e) Student Records: Students with complaints about access to or the contents of their student records shall use the procedures described in the University's Student Records Policy, Policy 571.020;

(f) Prohibited Discrimination: Students who believe that one or more University of Oregon employees or agents have acted in a way that constitutes prohibited discrimination (including sexual harassment) shall file any formal grievances under Policy 580.015(R);

(g) Petition Processes: Many University offices and academic units have established petition processes for students who believe an exception to applicable policy or procedures should be made in their special situations. Students wishing to alter a decision affecting them should contact the office responsible for making the decision to see if there is a procedure established for petitioning for a change. The University administration reserves the right to create petition processes that comply with the requirements of Section N or to eliminate petition processes as it deems desirable;

(h) Graduate Student Academic Grievances: A graduate student with an academic grievance including graduate qualifying examinations, comprehensives, dissertation preparation, research evaluation, doctoral orals, or advising relationships shall use the procedures established under Section Q;

(i) Family Housing Grievances: Individual family housing resident's grievances against University Housing shall proceed solely under UO Policy 571.022.0020-80(E);

(j) Other Grievances: A student who believes that one or more University of Oregon agents or employees has acted in an arbitrary manner or has acted in non-compliance with federal or state law, policies, directives, or administrative rules, or has acted in a way that exceeds authority or abuses discretion, to the personal detriment of that student, shall file a grievance under the process described in Sections O and P.

(2) General Guidelines:

(a) Statements of Grievance: Formal grievances filed by students under this policy shall be in writing and shall include at least the following information:

(A) The approximate date and nature of the events that lead to the filing of the grievance;

(B) The names of all persons the aggrieved knows to have been directly involved in or responsible for the events alleged;

(C) All the relevant facts the aggrieved knows that support these allegations, including any stated policies or procedures that are alleged to have been violated. The aggrieved may add to this statement if more information becomes available during the course of the grievance;

(D) The relief the aggrieved seeks to resolve the grievance.

(b) No Retaliation: Students using this or any other authorized grievance process shall be protected from retaliation for using the process. While the actions that have prompted the grievance may be carried out in due course while the grievance is pending and normal academic processes and events including testing and grading shall go on unimpeded, no other actions proposed subsequent to the filing of the grievance adverse to the student's interests may be taken unless those proposing such action can prove to the appropriate vice president's satisfaction that such action is free of retaliatory intent;

(c) Grievance Counseling: Students who are uncertain whether a problem can be addressed through a petition process, a grievance process under this policy, or through another resolution process, should consult the ASUO Office of Student Advocacy or the Office of Student Affairs;

(d) Choice of Process: In some cases students may have a choice of formal procedures under which to file grievances and complaints rising from the same incident. In such situations, the affected student must select one and only one formal process. The University shall not hear a second complaint from the same student on the same facts, and shall not hear a grievance if a similar complaint is filed with an external agency or court. Preliminary efforts at informal solution shall not be deemed the filing of a grievance;

(e) Advice and Counsel: Student complainants may secure advice and counsel as they see fit throughout both the formal and informal procedures described herein. Participation by advisers in meetings or hearings shall be permitted to the extent provided for in this policy. A University officer may refuse to include a student's adviser in such a meeting, unless the student advises the officer, at least five working days in advance of the meeting, that a named adviser will be present. During the course of a student grievance, all parties shall be responsible for the costs, if any, of their personal representation;

(f) Time: All mention of days throughout Sections M through Rare calendar days unless otherwise specified;

(g) Personal Records: By filing a complaint under any student grievance policy, a student authorizes the appropriate authority to inquire into the matter as necessary to discover the applicable facts and to communicate as specified in this policy, its findings and reasons to the concerned parties.

N. Student Petition Processes

(1) Mandatory Use: The University has established a number of formal petition processes that apply when students wish to request a waiver of or exception to University policy or procedure

(2) Procedural Requirements: University offices with established petition processes shall make reasonable efforts to publish the availability of the process, shall train staff to advise students on the use of the process, and shall maintain an adequate store of appropriate petition forms or other relevant materials.

(3) Informal Petitions: Where no formal petition process is established, students are free to request reconsideration of decisions affecting them by writing to the decision-maker and making such a request.

(4) Grounds for Appeal: The denial of a petition is not a subject for a grievance complaint unless the student believes prohibited discrimination, abuse of discretion or arbitrary and capricious action has occurred. If this appears to be the case, the student may file a grievance under Sections O and P of this policy or under Policy 580.015(R).

O. Procedural Requirements


(1) Students (as defined in Section M(1)) who believe they have been individually wronged by arbitrary or capricious action or non-action, abuse of administrative discretion, or noncompliance with applicable law, rules, or policies by the University, its agents and employees, may grieve in accordance with the procedures outlined in the applicable policy.

(2) A student must institute a formal grievance within 45 days of the time the student knows or by reasonable diligence should have known of the matter prompting the grievance. The running of the 45 day period shall be suspended during examination and vacation periods, including the period between the end of spring term and the beginning of fall term if the student is not enrolled in summer session.

(3) All decision-makers' written decisions required by this policy shall include a statement of findings and conclusions, a recitation of the applicable facts and the law, rules, and policies which support the conclusions, and a description of any appeals procedures available to the parties to the grievance.

(4) If the decision at any level requires taking action, the decision shall include a copy of the instructions to the appropriate University personnel for implementing that action.

(5) Failure of a decision-maker at any level to communicate the decision within the applicable time limits shall permit the aggrieved to proceed to the next step. The failure of the aggrieved to appeal a decision within the time limits shall be deemed to be an acceptance of the decision.

(6) Informal Resolution: Before filing formal complaints, students are urged to consider direct conversation with the individual causing the problem or with that person's supervisor, in an effort to resolve misunderstandings and to achieve solutions as quickly as possible. The use of informal processes does not prevent the filing of a formal grievance so long as the formal grievance is filed within the applicable time limits:

(a) Informal Discussion: Students may request a meeting with the problem-causing person or with that person's supervisor;

(b) Mediation: Students may request mediation through any available campus mediation program;

(c) Local Processes: Students may use any informal processes established within the unit in which the complaint arose.

P. Formal Grievance

(1) Students may choose to proceed directly to a formal grievance process, or they may wish to file a formal grievance if they believe informal efforts at resolution have failed. Formal grievances must meet the requirements stated in Sections O(1) and O(2).

(2) Step One: An aggrieved student shall either file a written complaint according to the established grievance process within the appropriate administrative unit or if one is not established, with the immediate supervisor of the person grieved against. The complaint shall comply with the requirements set forth in Section M(2)(a):

(a) A University employee who receives a grievance under this rule that has as its basis allegations of prohibited discrimination or sexual harassment against a student shall direct the complainant and the grievance to the Office of Affirmative Action for a proper filing under Policy 580.015(R);

(b) If mediation did not take place in an effort to reach an informal resolution, the Step One decision-maker, who believes mediation could be productive and if the aggrieved and the person grieved against agrees, may refer the matter to any available campus mediation service. Such mediation suspends the time limits described in this subsection for up to 30 days or until mediation is concluded, whichever is earlier. If the grievant does not agree to mediation, the Step One decision-maker shall proceed with the investigation of allegations in the grievance;

(c) The Step One decision-maker or a designee may investigate the allegations contained in the grievance and interview the parties and others as appropriate in order to come to a decision on the issues in question. The Step One decision-maker shall either deny or resolve the grievance within 20 days of receipt of a written grievance, except if mediation is undertaken, as described in Section O(6). The Step One decision-maker shall communicate his or her decision to the parties to the grievance in the form required in Section O(3).

(3) Step Two: Complainants who are dissatisfied with the decision at Step One may appeal by filing a written notice of appeal within 14 days of receiving the decision at Step One. The appeal shall contain a copy of the Step One decision, a statement of the issues remaining unresolved, and a description of the relief or resolution sought:

(a) Grievances against faculty may be appealed to the Student-Faculty Committee on Grievances or as an alternative, to the appropriate Vice-President (see subsection (b) of this section). The Student-Faculty Committee on Grievances operates under the charge, procedures and time lines stated in Section F(3). No person involved as a party to the grievance or as a participant in either the informal resolution efforts or the decision-making at Step One of the formal grievance process shall serve on the Student-Faculty Committee on Grievances when it considers a grievance under this subsection;

(b) Grievances against any University employee may be appealed to the Vice-President to whom the grieved-against person reports. The Vice President may elect to investigate the grievance or to designate an investigator, or may decide the grievance on the record already assembled. Both parties shall have access to the record presented to the Vice-President (including all documents and communications relied on by the Step One resolver and the Step Two investigator) and shall have the opportunity to comment on it before the Vice President's decision. The record of the grievance includes all statements and evidence submitted by the parties and the Step One decision report. The Vice-President shall have 30 days from receipt of the grievance to investigate and render a decision in writing. Within that time, the decision shall be given to both the aggrieved and the person grieved-against.

(4) Step Three: If either or both parties to the grievance are dissatisfied with the result of Step Two, they may file a written appeal to the University President within 14 days of receiving the Step Two decision. The President may elect to decide the grievance on the record already assembled, may elect to investigate personally or by appointing an investigator, or may remand the grievance to the decision-maker at Step Two for further clarification and additions. Both parties shall have access to the record presented to the President upon appeal and shall have the opportunity to comment on it before the President makes a decision. The same records considerations apply to this step as to those before. The President shall render a written decision within 60 days of the receipt of an appeal. Both parties shall receive a copy of the Step Three decision. The President's decision is final.

(5) Withdrawing the Grievance: The grievance may be withdrawn by the aggrieved at any step in this procedure by submitting a signed and dated written notice to the decision-maker who currently is considering the grievance.

(6) Extensions of Time: Time limits within this rule may be extended by the decision-maker when to do so will enhance the fairness of the process, by giving written notice to all parties.

(7) Failure to appeal a decision at any step within the specified time shall terminate the grievance.

Q. Graduate Student Academic Grievances

(1) A graduate student with a grievance concerning graduate qualifying examinations, comprehensives, dissertation preparation, research evaluation, doctoral orals, advising relationships, or other academic grievance shall use the procedures established under this policy.

(2) A graduate student must institute a formal grievance within 45 days of the time the student knows, or by reasonable diligence should have known of the matter prompting the grievance:

(a) For the purposes of this policy, a graduate student is an individual who, having been formally admitted into a recognized graduate degree program, and having paid the appropriate fee or having the fee officially waived, is enrolled in University courses for academic credit, or was so enrolled at the time the action grieved occurred;

(b) The running of time under this policy shall be suspended during examination and vacation periods, including the period between the end of Spring term and the beginning of fall term if the student is not enrolled in summer session, unless both parties agree not to suspend the time limits. After the filing of a formal grievance, more time may be allowed at any level if both the aggrieved and the decision-maker agree more time is needed;

(c) In addition to stating the decision-maker's conclusion, all written decisions shall include a recitation of the applicable facts and the law, rules, and policies which support the conclusion:

(A) If the decision at any level requires taking action, the decision shall include a copy of the instructions to the appropriate University personnel for implementing that action;

(B) Failure of a decision-maker at any level to communicate the decision within the applicable time limits shall permit the aggrieved to proceed to the next step. The failure of the aggrieved to appeal a decision within the time limits shall be deemed to be an acceptance of the decision.

(3) Informal Resolution: Before filing formal complaints, students are urged to consider direct conversation with the individual causing the problem, or the appropriate department head or dean, in an effort to resolve misunderstandings and to achieve solutions as quickly as possible. Graduate students may also consult with the Dean of the Graduate School in trying to achieve an informal solution to their problem.

(4) Formal Process:

(a) Step One: The graduate student shall file a written grievance with the department head, department grievance committee, the college/ school grievance committee, or the dean, whichever is applicable:

(A) The student's statement of the grievance shall comply with the requirements of Section M2)(a);

(B) A University employee who receives a grievance under this policy which alleges illegal discrimination against a student including sexual harassment, shall send a copy of the grievance to the Assistant to the President for Legal Affairs and to the Office of Affirmative Action;

(C) The decision rendered at Step One shall be in writing and shall be provided to the aggrieved and all other named parties to the grievance within 30 days of the receipt of the formal grievance.

(b) Step Two: If the aggrieved graduate student is dissatisfied with the decision at Step One, the aggrieved shall file a written appeal of that decision to the dean of the school/college, or if the dean made the decision at Step One, to the Dean of the Graduate School, within 14 days of receipt of the decision made at Step One:

(A) The dean to whom the appeal is addressed may decide the grievance on the record presented or may investigate the grievance, appoint a designee to investigate, or refer the grievance to an appropriate committee or group to investigate;

(B) The decision rendered by the dean to whom the appeal was addressed shall be in writing and shall be provided to the aggrieved and all other named parties to the grievance within 30 days of the receipt of the formal grievance;

(C) If the appeal is to the Dean of the Graduate School, see the procedure set forth in subsection (c) of this section.

(c) Step Three: If the graduate student aggrieved is dissatisfied with the decision at Step Two, the aggrieved shall file a written appeal of that decision to the Dean of the Graduate School within 14 days of receipt of the decision at Step Two, but if the Dean of the Graduate School made the decision at Step Two, the aggrieved may proceed to Step Four:

(A) The Dean of the Graduate School or the Dean's designee shall appoint an ad hoc Advisory Committee normally composed of three members selected from the Graduate Council (one student and two faculty members or three faculty members) to investigate the grievance and to make a recommendation to the Dean of the Graduate School, within 15 days of receipt of the decision made at the prior step;

(B) The Dean of the Graduate School shall render a decision, in writing, within 30 days of receipt of the appeal, and provide copies of the decision to all the parties named in the grievance.

(d) Step Four: If either party is dissatisfied with the Dean of the Graduate School's decision, an appeal may be made to the Provost by filing a written appeal within 14 days of receiving the decision at Step Three. The Provost may decide the grievance on the record already developed or may investigate further, or designate another to investigate. The Provost shall provide a copy of the decision at this level to all the parties named in the grievance within 45 days of receiving the appeal. The Provost's decision shall be final.

R. Student Financial Aid Appeals Procedure

(1) A student who believes that the Office of Student Financial Aid (OSFA) has made an error in deciding eligibility for financial assistance, or nonrenewal or diminution of financial assistance may appeal that decision through the procedure described in this rule. This procedure applies to all forms of student financial aid including Athletic Department grants in aid.

(2) Within 30 days after being notified of the decision, the student shall submit a written request that the case be reviewed:

(a) Upon receipt of such a request, OSFA staff shall schedule a meeting for discussion and reconsideration of the decision with the student and a Financial Aid counselor. If possible, the student shall meet with the counselor who made the complained-of decision. Unless it is inconvenient for the student, the meeting shall take place within seven days of receipt of the student's appeal;

(b) If the student at any time during this process alleges that financial aid was reduced or denied because of illegal discrimination, OSFA staff shall send copies of the complaint and all subsequent decisions and appeals to the Assistant to the President for Legal Affairs and to the Director of the Office of Affirmative Action;

(c) The OSFA counselor shall inform the student in writing of the counselor's decision regarding the appeal within seven days of the appeal meeting.

(3) Appeal to Director: If the student believes the counselor's reviewed decision is in error, the student may file a written appeal with the Director of OSFA. Such an appeal must be received within seven days of the student's learning of the counselor's decision:

(a) Upon receipt of such an appeal, OSFA staff shall schedule a meeting for discussion and reconsideration of the decision with the student and the Director of OSFA, or the Director's designee if the Director is not available. Unless it is inconvenient for the student, the meeting shall take place within seven days of receipt of the student's appeal;

(b) The Director of OSFA shall inform the student in writing of the Director's decision regarding the appeal within seven days of the appeal meeting.

(4) Appeal to Board: If the student still believes a mistake has been made, the student may request a hearing before the Financial Aid Appeals Board. Such a request must be submitted to Dean of Students within seven days of the student's receipt of the Director's decision:

(a) The Financial Aid Appeals Board shall schedule a hearing at which the student's and the OSFA positions can be presented. Counsel may participate on behalf of either party. Spoken testimony and argument shall be tape recorded;

(b) The Financial Aid Appeals Board shall make its decision by a majority vote of all voting members who participated in the hearing provided that at least one student member of the Board participated in the hearing. It shall produce a written report of its decision, citing the law, rules and policies affecting its decision, and all applicable facts as found. The report shall be sent within 14 days of the hearing to the complaining student, the Director of Financial Aid, and the University President;

(c) Either party may appeal the Board's decision to the President. If neither party appeals within seven days, the Board's decision is final. The President may inquire further concerning the issues raised, or may base the decision on the record developed by the Appeals Board. The President shall report the decision within 30 days. This report shall set forth a final determination as to the Student's Financial Aid entitlement.

(5) The Financial Aid Appeals Board shall include seven voting members and one ex-officio (non-voting) member. The seven voting members shall be appointed as follows:

(a) Two students with class standing of junior or higher shall be appointed by the President of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon;

(b) Four members of the University's faculty shall be appointed by the Provost; one member of the Law School faculty shall be appointed by the Dean of the Law School; the ex-officio (nonvoting) member shall be appointed by the Director of Financial Aid from among the staff of the Financial Aid Office;

(c) Regular appointments to the Financial Aid Appeals Board shall be made on or before June 30 to take effect September 16. Regular appointments shall be for a term of one year with reappointment for successive terms permitted. Substitute appointments to fill unexpired terms may be made as necessary by the proper authority during the year;

(d) Appeals Board members who feel they are too close to either side of the issues presented to make an objective evaluation of the claim shall abstain from the proceedings. A quorum of four voting members must be present at any hearing. A majority vote for decision purposes is defined as a majority of all eligible voting members.

Chapter/Volume: 
  • Volume III: Administration of Student Affairs
  • Chapter 1: Conduct and Student Activities
Original Source: 
UO Policy Statement

Faculty: Rights and Privileges of Faculty Retired With Merit

Policy Number: 
II.02.03
Reason for Policy: 

To describe the non-financial benefits available to emeritus and retired faculty.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

Faculty who are or will meet the criteria to be retired with merit. They will be able to use the titles Professor Emerit, Emerita or Emeritus per their preference.

Responsible Office: 

Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost: 541-346-3186, provost@uoregon.edu

Enactment & Revision History: 

03 August 2022 – Policy renumbered by University Secretary (formerly 02.02.10)

24 June 2022 – Revisions reviewed and approved by President Michael Schill

26 April 2022 - Revisions reviewed and forwarded to the President for the Policy Advisory Council

March 2022 – Revised and approved by the University Senate

01 May 2012 - Revision approved by Interim university president Robert Berdahl <signed copy>

11 April 2012 - Revised and approved by UO Senate

08 February 2010 - Policy number revised from 3.130 to 02.01.10

02 February 1991 - Originally issued

Policy: 

A. Appointment to Emerit (or Emerita/Emeritus) Faculty Status

The University will award “emerit”status to any faculty member who retires with merit, retiring after at least five years at the highest rank available to her/his appointment type; provided, however, that any faculty member retiring, or contracting to retire, before December 31, 2014 will not be subject to the foregoing five-year requirement.

The Provost or their designee--in consultation with the appropriate dean, department head, or director--may award emerit status to a retiring faculty member without regard to the foregoing standard.

The titles available for faculty who retire with merit are Professor Emerit, Professor Emerita, or Professor Emeritus. In the case that a faculty member does not select one of these titles, Professor Emerit will be applied as their default title.

Emerit Faculty status, if awarded, normally will become effective immediately upon a faculty member’s retirement. Deans, department heads, directors, and the Provost or designee will strive to complete all necessary paperwork by that time.

Emerit faculty will be listed in the University Bulletin, in the appropriate school or department.

The Provost or designee, with consent of the Faculty Personnel Committee, may withhold or withdraw Emerit Faculty status for good cause, defined as any act that would justify dismissal for cause of an active, tenured faculty member.

B. Participation in Faculty Governance

 Emerit Faculty may introduce and address motions in the University Senate and Statutory Faculty Assembly, as provided by the Constitution and bylaws adopted by those bodies.

”Emerit Faculty also will retain full governance rights--including voting rights--within her/his school or department whenever on the University payroll and serving actively in an instructional or research capacity. In addition, a school or department may, if it wishes, grant such rights to Emerit Faculty at other times.

C. Use of University Facilities and Resources

The University will provide, insofar as reasonably possible, working space and academic services to Emerit Faculty so they may continue their academic activities. Deans, department heads, and directors will be responsible for assigning such space and services, considering, among other criteria, the likelihood an Emerit Faculty will make sustained, productive use of them.

Emerit Faculty also may apply for University financial support for research, travel to professional meetings, and the like. Again, deans, department heads, and directors will rule on such applications, considering always the typically higher priority of regular, active-duty faculty members.

D. Additional Privileges

The University’s Human Resources Department regularly compiles a list (http://hr.uoregon.edu/benefits/retirement/university-services-available-retired-unclassified-employees) and provides descriptions of all privileges extended to retired employees. Currently, these privileges include such items as staff-rate class enrollments, discounted athletic tickets, and free campus parking when not on the University payroll.

In order to encourage the continuing academic and intellectual contributions of Emerit Faculty, the University will make every reasonable effort to continue granting to such faculty free campus parking whenever they are not on the University payroll.

Chapter/Volume: 
  • Volume II: Academics, Instruction and Research
  • Chapter 2: Appointments, promotion and tenure
Original Source: 
UO Policy Statement

Equal Opportunity

Policy Number: 
V.01.01
Reason for Policy: 

To set forth the University of Oregon’s commitment to equal employment opportunities in the workplace and equal access to university educational programs and activities.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

All members of the UO community, including students, faculty, staff, and others affiliated with the university.

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, please contact the Office of the Vice President for Finance and Administration, (541) 346-3003, vpfa@uoregon.edu, and the Office of Investigations and Civil Rights Compliance.: (541) 346-3123, oicrc@uoregon.edu.

Enactment & Revision History: 

10 June 2022 – Revised and renumbered former policy OUS-22 Equal Opportunity, and repealed three related policies: 01.00.06 Equal Opportunity Statement; 02.01.15 Faculty: Hiring of Women and Minority Faculty Members; and OAR 580.15 Discrimination; as approved by the University President.  

Policy: 

The University of Oregon has an enduring commitment to equality of education and employment opportunity by affirming the value of diversity and by promoting an environment free from discrimination. The university believes that diversity among its many members strengthens the institution, stimulates creativity, promotes the exchange of ideas, and enriches campus life.

The university provides equal opportunities to all students and employees and does not discriminate or retaliate based on any protected characteristic set forth in the university’s Prohibited Discrimination and Retaliation Policy and/or state or federal law. This policy extends to all university programs and activities, including, without limitation, admissions, financial assistance, educational and athletic programs, course offerings, counseling and guidance services, housing, health and insurance benefits, and access to university services or facilities. This policy also applies to all terms and conditions of employment, including but not limited to recruiting, hiring, placement, promotion, working conditions, termination, layoff, recall, transfer, leaves of absence, compensation, and training.

Consistent with its obligation as a federal government contractor, the university has written affirmative action programs to address the underrepresentation of women, minorities, persons with disabilities, and qualified covered veterans. The university also prepares an affirmative action plan on an annual basis in conformance with federal regulations, and regularly reviews progress on affirmative action goals. It is the university’s intent that women and minority students be appropriately represented in academic programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels. It is also the university’s intent that women and members of minority groups be appropriately represented in the administrative staff and in the teaching and research faculty.

The university does not discriminate between employees on the basis of protected characteristics in the payment of wages or other compensation for work of comparable character. 

All university job postings and advertisements should include approved equal opportunity language, available under the Resources link below.

The Office of Human Resources and Office of Investigations and Civil Rights Compliance oversee the implementation and administration of the university’s equal opportunity, affirmative action, and nondiscrimination policies and programs. It is expected that every employee of the university will share this commitment and cooperate fully in helping the university meet its equal opportunity and diversity objectives.

Chapter/Volume: 
  • Volume V: Human Resources
  • Chapter 1: Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity
Original Source: 
OUS Board Policy

Community Standards Affirmation

Reason for Policy: 

To set forth and affirm the standards for behavior that promote an inclusive and respectful university community.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

All members of the UO community, including students, faculty, staff, and others affiliated with the University.

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, please contact the Office of Human Resources at 541-346-3159 or uoelr@uoregon.edu.

Enactment & Revision History: 

10 June 2022 – Policy revisions approved by the University President. Policy renumbered from 01.00.10 to V.04.03.

08 February 2010 - Policy number revised from 1.000 to 01.00.10

13 April 2000 - Approved by the university president’s Small Executive Staff and Promulgated as Policy

12 April 2000 - Unanimously endorsed by the University Senate

March 29 2000 - Unanimously endorsed by the Faculty Advisory Council and endorsed by vote of 13-3 by the Student Senate

Policy: 

The University of Oregon affirms its commitment to the advancement of knowledge and promotion of respect for all. A culture of respect and inclusion, both in-person and in online forums, that honors the rights, safety, dignity, and worth of every individual is essential for this community to thrive and excel. The university further affirms its commitment to the freedom of thought and expression of all its members.

We further affirm our commitment to:

  • Practice personal and academic integrity and expect it from others.
  • Value the rights, dignity, and essential worth of all individuals.
  • Respect the privacy, property, and freedom of others.
  • Reject bigotry, discrimination, violence, or intimidation of any kind.
  • Promote the diversity of opinions, ideas, and backgrounds that contribute to meaningful intellectual discourse.  
  • Foster equity and inclusion in pursuit of a welcoming, safe, and respectful community.
Chapter/Volume: 
  • Volume V: Human Resources
  • Chapter 4: Workplace
Original Source: 
UO Policy Statement

Human Research Protection Program

Policy Number: 
II.06.06
Reason for Policy: 

To articulate the University of Oregon’s guiding principles and program elements for the ethical conduct of research involving human subjects/participants.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

Employees, officials, students, and agents of the university, and anyone else while using University facilities or resources, engaging in the conduct of research involving human subjects/participants.

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, contact the Office of the Vice President for Research and Innovation’s Research Compliance Services unit at 541-346-2510 or researchcompliance@uoregon.edu.

Enactment & Revision History: 

22 April 2021 - Approved by the university president upon recommendation by the University Senate (senate motion US20/21-11, 7 April 2021).

Policy: 

The University of Oregon (the University) is committed to ensuring the safety, rights, and welfare of all human subjects/participants in research conducted at or by the University. All research, funded or not funded, involving human subjects/participants conducted by members of the University community (employees, officials, students, and agents) or using University facilities or resources, will be governed by the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). The HRPP is guided by the ethical principles of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research report entitled Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (the “Belmont Report”), applicable professional and ethical standards and codes, and carried out in compliance with applicable federal laws, state laws, University policies or procedures.

The University defines research involving human subjects/participants using current Department of Health and Human Services and/or Food and Drug Administration definitions. The current definitions are as follows, with citations to the relevant code of federal regulations (CFR):

  • Human subjects/participants include any individuals who meet either of the following definitions:
    • A living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research: (i) obtains information or biospecimens through intervention or interaction with the individual, and uses, studies, or analyzes the information or biospecimens; or (ii) obtains, uses, studies, analyzes, or generates identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens (45 CFR 46.102(e)(1));
    • An individual who is or becomes a participant in research, either as a recipient of the test article (e.g., drugs or devices) or as a control. A subject may be either a healthy human or a patient (21 CFR 50.3(g)).
  • Research includes any effort that meets either of the following definitions:
    • A systematic investigation, including research development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge. Activities that meet this definition constitute research for purposes of this policy, whether or not they are conducted or supported under a program that is considered research for other purposes (45 CFR 46.102(l));
    • Clinical investigation which means any experiment that involves a test article (e.g., drugs or devices) and one or more human subjects/participants and fits the definition of research under Food and Drug Administration regulations. The terms research, clinical research, clinical study, study, and clinical investigation are deemed synonymous for purposes of this policy (21 CFR 56.102 (c)).

The Vice President for Research and Innovation (VPRI) is responsible for the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). The HRPP is the core ethical, regulatory, and administrative organizational umbrella under which all aspects of the University’s human subjects/participants protection activities are directed and managed. The HRPP implements policies and practices to ensure the adequate protection of human subjects/participants in order to be compliant with relevant laws, regulations, professional and ethical standards, and to support and enhance researchers’ endeavors.

The HRPP includes the following elements:

  • Oversight for all human subjects/participants research conducted by or at the University. No research involving human subjects/participants may be conducted without review and oversight by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) or other entities designated by the HRPP to ensure the protection of human subjects/ participants in accordance with the HRPP Plan.
  • A University designated Institutional Official (IO), who is legally authorized to act for and on behalf of the University in matters related to human subjects/participants research and the protection of human subjects/participants. The IO is responsible for ensuring the HRPP is adequately resourced to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects/participants and functions in compliance with requirements applicable to research involving human subjects/ participants.
  • A written HRPP Plan specifying procedures governing the conduct of human research to promote institutional and individual compliance with applicable regulatory, legal, external sponsor, and ethical standards. The HRPP Plan may include definitions, functions of the IRBs, integration of research integrity standards, steps for quality assurance and compliance monitoring, and processes for reviewing ethics concerns. The HRPP Plan will document procedures for determining when activities are overseen by the HRPP. The HRPP Plan is subject to the approval of the IO. Unless necessary to immediately protect the rights and welfare of human research participants, significant changes to the HRPP Plan which divert from regulatory standards will be executed with appropriate consultation from stakeholders.
  • Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) with independent authority to review, approve, suspend, terminate, and monitor research involving human subjects/participants.
  • Maintaining any federal, state, and other registrations and/or assurances.
  • Mechanisms for education, training, and support to investigators.
  • Processes to seek input from stakeholders and support continuous improvement in the HRPP.
Chapter/Volume: 

Consensual Relationships

Policy Number: 
OUS 17
Responsible Office: 

Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost: (541) 346-3186, provost@uoregon.edu

Enactment & Revision History: 

Became a UO policy by operation of law on July 1, 2014.

Adopted by the SBHE September 9, 2005.

Policy: 

State Board of Higher Education administrative rule OAR 580-022-0055 requires institutions to take steps to ensure that employees do not participate in employment decisions, supervision, or grievance decision-making over family members. Consistent with that policy, the Board recognizes the potential conflict of interest that occurs when romantic or sexual relationships develop in which there is an inherent power differential between the parties to the relationship. Accordingly, whenever such potential conflict occurs, any employee involved in such a relationship has a duty to disclose the relationship and to cooperate in institutional efforts to prevent an actual conflict. Institutions shall develop policies to address problems that may result from consensual relationships.

Institution policies shall:

  1. Establish procedures for eliminating conflicts of interest related to consensual relationships.

Consensual relationships to which this policy applies are those romantic, intimate, or sexual relationships where one of the parties has institutional responsibility for or authority over the other or is involved in evaluation of the other party, whether the other party is an employee or a student.

  1. Institutional policies must contain provisions:

  • Requiring an employee in a consensual relationship to advise a higher level administrator of the relationship and to cooperate in eliminating any actual or potential conflict of interest resulting from the relationship;

  • Notifying and encouraging employees and students where they can express concerns regarding actual or potential conflicts of interest resulting from consensual relationships;

  • Identifying the risks and conflicts associated with consensual relationships, and

  • Prohibiting retaliation against persons who report concerns about consensual relationships.

  1. Campus-wide educational programs.

The policy shall be broadly and regularly disseminated to the entire campus. Institutions shall also offer training to faculty and administrators and ensure that those resolving actual or potential conflicts of interest resulting from consensual relationships or responding to concerns regarding consensual relationships have the training and knowledge necessary to fulfill their responsibilities. Institutions shall periodically assess the effectiveness of their notification and training processes.

Chapter/Volume: 

Search Procedures for Academic Administrator Positions

Policy Number: 
II.02.02
Reason for Policy: 

To set forth the values that should inform leadership hiring practices at the UO and to articulate best practices for filling vacancies in high-level academic administrator positions. This policy pertains only to the positions articulated within the policy (or their substantially similar position if a title changes). Other positions not articulated within the policy were intentionally excluded.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

Those involved in searches for academic administrator positions.

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, please contact the Office of the Provost at (541) 346-3081 or otp@uoregon.edu.

Enactment & Revision History: 

27 May 2020 – Approved by the university president for enactment.

Policy: 
  1. Purposes

These procedures present a set of guidelines that have two purposes. First, they set forth the values that should inform leadership hiring practices at the UO. Second, and drawing on these values, the guidelines articulate best practices for filling vacancies in high-level academic administrator positions.

These procedures should be read in conjunction with HR guidance regarding issues such as direct appointments or scope of recruitment (see “Related Resources” below for hyperlinks).

  1. Guiding Values

Decisions around hiring processes reflect the university’s values around shared governance between faculty and professional administrators, professional excellence, rational decision-making, efficient and responsible management of resources, and diversity and inclusion. As such, whenever possible, searches for new academic administrators should be conducted with broad and meaningful participation from faculty and the university community. In addition to providing an appropriate voice for the university

community in such decisions, participation leads to more informed decision-making and positions new hires for success when they arrive at the UO.

Administrative hiring, as in all hiring, is an employment action and as such hiring processes must be conducted with an appreciation for confidentiality and a recognition that all searches might not function completely alike. While it is preferred that all searches be publicly posted to give equal opportunity for any candidate interested in the position to apply and that searches be openly conducted with opportunities for meaningful engagement by the campus community, some degree of discretion needs to be available to those responsible for hiring academic administrators in order to retain flexibility under unique circumstances or avoid unnecessarily impacting a candidate’s current position. Tailoring a search to a particular situation may be required for the university to secure the best possible candidates.

For the large majority of searches, these values are closely aligned. However, it is natural that there may be instances when they are in tension with each other. These procedures provide guidelines that are intended to help manage that tension by setting forth procedures that provide for substantial, meaningful participation while making room for the responsible exercise of discretion. Accordingly, and consistent with our mutual commitment to shared governance, the Administration and Senate will collaborate to ensure an appropriate balance.

  1. Academic Administrators

The academic administrator positions covered by these guidelines include the following (or the substantially similar position if a title changes):

    1. Administrators with university-wide academic responsibilities:
      1. Provost and Senior Vice President
      2. Executive Vice Provost for Academic Affairs
      3. Vice President for Research and Innovation
      4. Graduate School Dean
    1. Administrators with unit-specific academic responsibilities:
      1. Clark Honors College Dean
      2. College of Arts and Sciences Dean
      3. College of Design Dean
      4. College of Education Dean
      5. Lundquist College of Business Dean
      6. School of Journalism and Communication Dean
      7. School of Law Dean
      8. School of Music and Dance Dean
      9. University Libraries Dean
      10. Vice President and Executive Director of Knight Campus (NOTE: The Vice President and Executive Director of Knight Campus will only remain on this list so long as the Knight Campus is directly offering academic programs with enrolled students.)
  1. Hiring Officials

The hiring official is the person who is ultimately responsible for developing the hiring process and making the hiring decision. The President is the hiring official for a search for a provost and senior vice president, for example, and the Provost is the hiring official for searches for school/college deans.

  1. Guidelines for Hiring Academic Administrators

The following general guidelines apply to searches for the positions listed above in Section III:

    1. Gathering Information
      1. Before constituting a search committee, the hiring official should consult with relevant advisory bodies (i.e., individuals or groups who have an in-depth understanding of the vacant position and its requirements, or those who have expertise in search processes, such as University Senate leadership, Academic Council, faculty and staff from any affected units, and human resources) to solicit input on the position and the hiring announcement, search committee membership, type of search (open or closed, internal or external; see below for more details), and projected search timeline.
      2. Such consultation should be face-to-face when practicable and should provide opportunities for meaningful involvement from campus stakeholders. For example, when preparing to hire a new dean for a unit, the hiring official could convene a unit-wide meeting for the express purpose of gathering information about the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges facing the unit.
    1. Designing the Search Process

The hiring official is responsible for designing the search process. This includes determining whether the search is open or closed, internal or external, and if a search firm should be used. Furthermore, the hiring official determines what kinds of opportunities for participation should be available.

      1. Search Firm
        1. If a search firm is employed, they will be involved in many aspects of the search process including, but not limited to, helping to draft the hiring announcement, direct recruitment of candidates, and planning for the interview process.
      2. Open or Closed
        1. In an “open” search, finalist candidates’ identities are disclosed, at the appropriate time, to the faculty and public. In a “closed” search, finalist candidates’ identities will only be known to those running the search, subject to the university’s legal obligation to produce public records.
      3. Internal or External
        1. In an “internal” search, only candidates who are employed at the university may apply. In an “external” search, candidates from inside and outside the university may apply.
      4. Opportunities for Open Campus Participation
        1. Except in the case of closed searches, the hiring official should put together a schedule for candidate interviews that provides for open, meaningful participation of campus community members. The search committee chair(s) are typically involved in helping develop this schedule.
        1. Examples of opportunities for meaningful participation include scheduling candidates for meetings with various campus constituencies, posting candidate CVs and supporting materials online, and recording public presentations.
      1. After designing the search process, the hiring official should announce the search via email to the campus community. In this announcement, the hiring official should provide information about the position being hired; the parameters of the search (open/closed, internal/external); the reasons for setting these parameters; and the planned opportunities for campus participation. In addition, the email should provide a link to the search web page and contact information so that input on the search process can be provided to the search committee.
      2. Search information should be posted on its own web page and include the position title, list of committee members and search timeline. Variations or deviations in the approach should then be posted to the web page with the accompanying rationale.
    1. Assembling the Search Committee
      1. The hiring official should select search committee members and the chair(s) based on consideration of expertise, diligence, willingness to invest time in the search, disciplinary representation, and diversity (e.g., demographic diversity; committee members who have contributed to diversity, equity and inclusion in scholarship, teaching, advising, or service).
      2. Faculty members should make up the majority of membership of the search committees.
        1. The hiring official may solicit nominations for the committee from the Faculty Advisory Council, University Senate Leadership, the Academic Council and other relevant advisory bodies.
        2. Other constituencies (e.g., officers of administration, classified staff, students, advisory board members) should be represented insofar as their academic and/or professional activities are influenced by the position being hired or they have expertise or experience closely related to the position.
      3. Search committee members should be clearly identified on a web page dedicated to the search.
      4. When searching for university-wide administrators, the following guidelines will help ensure meaningful participation and effective representation:
        1. At least one faculty member shall be a sitting member of the university senate, selected by mutual agreement of the Senate leadership and hiring official.
        2. At least one Officer of Administration shall be selected after consulting with the OA Council.
      1. When searching for unit-specific administrators, the following guidelines will help ensure meaningful participation and effective representation:
        1. The majority of faculty members on the search committee should be, wherever possible, members of the academic unit and shall represent as diverse a cross-section of disciplines within the unit as practicable.
        2. At least one faculty member shall be a sitting member of the university senate (not necessarily from the unit in question), selected by mutual agreement of the Senate leadership and hiring official.
        3. At least one Officer of Administration from the unit shall be selected after consulting with the OA Council.
      2. When a “closed” search process is used, regardless if at the university-wide or unit-level, an additional faculty member will be added to the search committee by mutual agreement between Senate leadership and the hiring official. This additional faculty member does not need to be a member of the University Senate. In this case the Senate leadership is acting on behalf of the University Senate in the case of university-wide positions, or of the school or college faculty in case of unit-specific (i.e., dean) positions.
    1. Charging the Search Committee
      1. The hiring official should meet with the committee to deliver the charge to the committee and to provide information and guidance specific to the search. The general charge to all search committees is to identify qualified candidates.
        1. The hiring official also should describe what kind of evaluation of the candidates the committee should provide.
        2. For example, the hiring official may want a verbal report on behalf of the full convened committee detailing each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, along with an overall rating of acceptable or unacceptable.
      2. The hiring official should provide the hiring announcement to the search committee for review and feedback before the position is finalized and posted.
        1. Typical materials required of applicants include a current vita, references, and letter of application that articulates suitability for the position, summary of relevant accomplishments (including contributions to diversity, equity and inclusion), management style, vision for the unit, and ideas for accomplishing that vision.
        2. Deadlines for applications should generally be at least 30 days from the date the position is first publicized.
        3. Even for open searches, it is understood that portions of the applicant materials will remain private, shared as appropriate during the process such as with search committee members for their review or a summary of qualifications with campus prior to on campus interviews. References will be contacted only after permission is obtained from candidates.
    1. Undertaking the Search
      1. Searches should be designed to identify talented candidates of diverse backgrounds, ensure that search criteria and processes do not create barriers to underrepresented candidates to participate in the search process, and are consistent with the university’s expected search practices.
      1. The search committee should solicit input broadly from the university community and from external constituencies as appropriate. Such input may be collected by various means. For example, the search committee may make available surveys soliciting opinions regarding public presentations, group meetings, and one-on-one interviews with finalists.
      2. After the search committee has completed its review and provided its evaluation, the hiring official should meet in person with the full search committee to discuss the committee’s recommendations and evaluations of the finalists. This meeting should happen before the hiring official makes a hiring decision.
    1. Deviating from these Procedures
      1. All hiring officials and search committee chairs should be provided copies of these guidelines and checklist at the outset of every search that falls under the guidelines.
      2. Any deviation from practices delineated here, either on the part of the hiring official or the search committee chair, must be explained in writing and shared on a web page dedicated to the search.
  1. Guidelines on Other University-Wide Academic Administrators

The guidelines in this section refer to vice provost and assistant/associate vice president positions that hold significant academic roles (e.g., oversight of the promotion and tenure process, research and innovation, or curriculum matters), that have roles that are anticipated to be filled by faculty members drawn either from within the UO or via external search, and that report directly to either the Provost or Vice President for Research and Innovation.

    1. If possible, an open search should be conducted for these positions.
      1. The hiring official should select search committee members and the chair(s) based on consideration of expertise, diligence, willingness to invest time in the search, disciplinary representation, and diversity (e.g., demographic diversity; committee members who have contributed to diversity, equity and inclusion in scholarship, teaching, advising, or service).
      2. When practicable, the search committee should be composed of a majority of faculty members.
      3. Composition of the search committee should be informed by consultation with groups with a broad perspective on the academic impacts of the given position (e.g., Senate Leadership, Faculty Advisory Council, Faculty Promotion Committee, Academic Council, Research Advisory Board).
      4. Other constituencies (e.g., officers of administration, classified staff, students, advisory board members) should be represented insofar as their academic and/or professional activities are influenced by the position being hired or they have expertise or experience closely related to the position.
    1. If a search committee is not appointed to assist in selecting a candidate for the position:
      1. Before an appointment is made, the hiring official shall make available the following:
        1. the rationale for not appointing a search committee;
        2. the vacancy announcement; and,
        3. the plan for faculty consultation that ensures meaningful faculty input from units most directly related to the position, as outlined above.
      2. After selecting a candidate, the hiring official shall make their vita available to the university community.
  1. Implementation and Follow-Up

Unless expressly renewed or modified by the Senate in writing and signed by the University President, the policy shall automatically expire seven years after the effective date of the policy.

Chapter/Volume: 

Recruiting UO Students for Employment Opportunities

Policy Number: 
III.09.02
Reason for Policy: 

To describe the University's policy on prospective employers recruiting University of Oregon students.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

Students, prospective employers/recruiters

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, please contact the University Career Center at (541) 346-3235 or career@uoregon.edu

Enactment & Revision History: 

20 March 2020 - Revisions approved by the university president and renumbered to III.09.02.

08 February 2011 - Reviewed.  No changes necessary.

08 February 2010 - Policy number revised from 1.000 to 01.00.09

07 June 1985 - Reviewed and recommended by the university president's staff; reissued by the associate provost for student affairs01 May 1977 - Promulgated as AM 16.080

Policy: 

The University of Oregon (“University”) believes that Prospective Employers should be free to recruit UO students through job postings, events, presentations or interviews, and that all students should be free to determine whether they desire to participate in such activities.

For the purpose of this policy, “Prospective Employers” may include graduate schools, branches of the US military, non-profit and volunteer organizations, as well as other employers.

The University’s posting of an employment opportunity on its website or the scheduling of a Prospective Employer's representative on the University’s campus are not an endorsement by the University of the Prospective Employer or of the Prospective Employer's organization's policies

Recruiting representatives of Prospective Employers, whether public or private, are treated equally. Prospective Employers must abide by all University Career Center policies and procedures. Coordination of and arrangements for job postings, events, and employment interviews are the responsibility of the University Career Center or career services offices housed in UO colleges and schools, as appropriate.

Chapter/Volume: 
  • Volume III: Administration of Student Affairs
  • Chapter 9: Student Life, General
Original Source: 
UO Policy Statement

Academic Employment: Appointment, Promotion, Tenure & Salary Procedures

Policy Number: 
OUS 03
Responsible Office: 

Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost: (541) 346-3186, provost@uoregon.edu

Enactment & Revision History: 

01 July 2014 - Became a University of Oregon Policy by operation of law (former OUS Policy 3).

21 February 1986 - Adopted by the Oregon State Board of Higher Education

Policy: 

The Board directed System institutions to adopt written procedures for appointment, promotion, tenure, and salary decisions. The procedures were to include, at a minimum, the following specific requirements:

  1. Vacancy announcements for academic positions shall include the tenure status of the position being offered.
  1. The successful applicant shall be informed of factors to be considered in determining the hiring salary above the minimum.
  1. The factors actually used in fixing the salary of an employee shall be recorded and placed in the faculty member's file.
  1. Each institution shall determine and publish the salary increase to accompany promotions in rank.
  1. Each institution shall identify separately, and record in the faculty member's personnel record, administrative or other special stipends that are to occur only for the time during which the special circumstances occur.
  1. Each institution shall advise faculty of factors to be considered in awarding merit increases.
  1. Each component of a faculty member's salary adjustment shall be recorded and placed in the faculty member's file.
  1. Each institution shall adopt procedures to review salaries for equity at least every two years.
Chapter/Volume: 
Original Source: 
OUS Board Policy

Tandem Appointments

Reason for Policy: 

This policy addresses tandem appointments and required approval before such an arrangement is engaged.

Entities Affected by this Policy: 

All UO employees and students.

Responsible Office: 

For questions about this policy, please contact Human Resources at 541-346-3159 or the Office of the Senior Vice President and Provost at 541-346-3186.

Website Address for this Policy: 
Enactment & Revision History: 

4 September 2015 - Technical revisions enacted by the university secretary

1 July 2014 - Became a University of Oregon Policy by operation of law

Former Oregon Administrative Rule Chapter 571 Division 4 Section 0010

Policy: 

Tandem Appointments

Specific work sites, circumstances or job responsibilities (e.g., grants) may warrant the hiring of tandem teams. Tandem team appointments must receive prior approval of the appropriate Vice President:

(1) A tandem team is defined as a group of two or more individuals working together in a department or on a project toward specific objectives (e.g., grant) and does not refer to job-splitting appointments. In tandem teams the combined qualifications of the individuals who make up the team shall be used in the determination of employment decisions.

(2) Nothing in this policy should be construed to deny any member of a tandem team equal opportunity in University employment, provided the appointment has been based upon open competition and merit, and other members of the team have not unduly influenced the selection process.

Chapter/Volume: 
Original Source: 
Oregon Administrative Rule

Pages

Subscribe to University of Oregon Policy Library RSS