This story is a corrected version of an article of the same name written by a different author. The previous article was removed for containing incorrect information. For a more detailed explanation, please see the bottom of this page.
COVID-19 has done more than just change how we interact with one another. All across campus, groups are forced to reconsider what “normal” operations and assessments we maintain this semester. The faculty faced such a decision on Sept. 1 at their monthly meeting, when they voted on whether or not to suspend student evaluations this fall semester.
In typical semesters, students submit online evaluations of their courses at the end of each semester. This practice was suspended in the spring of 2020, as the sudden shift to online courses after spring break called the validity of both student and faculty assessments into question. This semester, the faculty’s Committee on Appointments (COA), chaired by Silas D. Childs Professor of Chemistry Karen Brewer, submitted a motion to extend last semester’s suspension of course evaluations but reinstate solicitation of random student letters for faculty standing for reappointment, tenure, and promotion from the spring 2020 semester, which was also temporarily suspended last semester.
The COA, a committee mainly charged with making recommendations to the Dean of Faculty on reappointments, tenure, and promotion of faculty, cited the “extraordinary circumstances and uncertainty” faculty face this semester in their rationale. Indeed, the introduction of new blended, hybrid, and on-line courses is new to all faculty. The COA argued that this renders the current course evaluation form, which was designed for evaluation in regular circumstances, “not useful in annual review and personnel decision processes.”
“At the beginning of September, it was really hard to imagine what the semester was going to be like,” Brewer explained to
The Spectator
. “Going remote in two weeks was a distinct possibility, so there was a lot of uncertainty this semester about the modalities of teaching and the evaluation of it.”
As a recommended change to the faculty handbook, the motion required a two-thirds vote of the faculty to pass, followed by concurrence of the President and the Board of Trustees. The faculty voted it down, meaning that survey of courses by students will continue normally this semester. Course evaluations themselves constitute only one aspect of evaluating the teaching of faculty for annual reviews, and for reappointment, tenure, and promotion. In total, teaching evaluations include a variety of forms, including student letters, peer observation, personal statements, and the review of instructional materials.
Opposing votes may have been influenced by student resistance to the motion. On Aug. 31, Student Assembly (SA) sent out an email to the Hamilton community expressing the Assembly’s collective disapproval of the proposed extension. SA expressed concern over what it interpreted as a double standard.
“In determining that course work this semester will receive standard grades, the faculty has signaled that it expects the students to perform at their usual level; it follows that faculty should likewise be held to the same high standards,” the letter stated.
SA Vice President Eric Kopp ’22 agreed with this statement. “Faculty ruled that students should perform at the same level as pre-pandemic,” he said. “Many students saw it as faculty having them held to the same standard while faculty could just float by. This double standard frustrated many students.”
SA also expressed concern over a “lack of student consultation in considering this proposal and the desire of faculty to extend this policy so early in the semester,” which they argued “suggests the change may not be a genuinely temporary or extraordinary measure.”
Kopp reiterated this concern about a lack of student input regarding evaluations and decisions about faculty. “We thought it was important that students [still] have some way to really decide how faculty should be evaluated. It seemed like a rushed decision that was made without really consulting the students,” Kopp stated.
In actuality, time constraints forced the COA to present the motion in the September meeting. Had the motion passed, it would have required the concurrence of the President and the Board of Trustees, who meet in early October. Waiting for that October faculty meeting to present the motion would have meant missing this critical window. “It had to be Sept. 1,” Brewer explained. “It couldn’t be later.”
The writing of the motion itself was also far from rushed; Brewer added that the proposal took about six weeks and several meetings of the COA in July and August to put together.
Despite differences in opinion, Brewer expressed recognition of SA’s feedback. “I can see where students are coming from. It’s their voice, and we need that voice. Student perspectives are important.”
––––––––
NOTE:
This article is the corrected version of an article previously published by another author. The previous story included the following errors:
- It implied that course evaluations constitute the entirety of faculty evaluations.
- A misquotation.
- It stated that the motion was proposed by the Committee on Evaluating Teaching (CET).
- It stated that the motion was voted down by the Committee on Appointments (COA).
- It mis-identified the chairs of the COA and the CET.
We take factual reporting seriously at
The Spectator
and sincerely apologize for the mistakes included in the past version of this story, which we removed from our website on the day of its publication. We hope that this corrected version clarifies any confusion, and we are actively working to prevent such errors from occurring again.
Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like more information on our future plans and current practices regarding fact-checking and accountability.
