Category Archives: updates

Professors Carter, Glass and Moore nominated for Civitatis Award

Civitatis Award Nomination
Professors Mia Carter, Jennifer Glass, and Lisa Moore

October 7, 2016

I nominate three outstanding faculty colleagues for the 2016 Civitatis Award: Professors Mia Carter, Jennifer Glass, and Lisa Moore. Although the Civitatis Award is usually given to an individual faculty member, the joint efforts of these three professors warrant this special recognition. (I received approval for making this multiple nomination from Dr. Hillary Hart, Secretary of the Faculty Council.)

The Civitatis Award is given “in recognition of dedicated and meritorious service to the University above and beyond the regular expectations of teaching, research, and writing.” These three distinguished professors have proven their “above and beyond” dedication to the University through their opposition to concealed handguns on our campus. Their courage in speaking out against the campus carry law attests to their overwhelming commitment to the safety and wellbeing of students, faculty, and staff at the University.

In his State of the University Address, President Fenves noted that on the issue of “campus carry, where many passionately disagree, we have had an open and constructive debate where all voices were heard,” and he thanked the University community for their efforts in this regard. Professors Carter, Glass, and Moore deserve to be singled out for our gratitude. It is because of their tireless and ongoing work that the interests of the vast majority in our community have been represented in this debate.

Citizenship requires sacrifice. These three professors, all nationally-recognized scholars, have sacrificed their time and energy to make the University a better place. They are standing up for what they believe is best for our community, even at considerable personal and professional risk. Their actions inspire pride among alumni, faculty, staff and students, and offer hope to everyone opposed to the proliferation of firearms on college campuses. The Civitatis Award is a fitting tribute for their meritorious service.


Christine L. Williams Professor of Sociology

The following UT Chairs, Directors, and Dean emailed me in support of this nomination:

Kamran Aghaie, Chair, Department of Middle Eastern Studies
Jossianna Arroyo-Martínez, Chair, Department of Spanish and Portuguese Robert Crosnoe, Chair, Department of Sociology
Elizabeth Cullingford, Chair, Department of English
Andrew Dillon, Dean, School of Information
Anthony Di Fiore, Chair, Department of Anthropology
Steven Friesen, Chair, Department of Religious Studies
Susan Heinzelman, Director, Center for Women’s and Gender Studies Richard Meier, Chair, Department of Linguistics
Jacqueline Woolley, Chair, Department of Psychology
Mary Neuburger, Chair, Department of Slavic and Eurasian Studies
Martha Selby, Chair, Department of Asian Studies
Debra Umberson, Director, Population Research Center

Download Civitatis Nomination

Get armed…with reason, what you can do now

Concealed carry permits do not decrease crime: There is no statistically significant correlation between changes in concealed carry licensing and crime rates. Armed citizens rarely successfully defend themselves in mass shootings or during other crimes; instead, in a number of mass shooting events, an armed citizen nearly endangered other bystanders. (Phillips 2015, Journal of Criminology;

Suicide is the second-leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24. But college student suicide rates have actually been lower than the general population since 1960 because firearms were effectively banned from campuses. (American Foundation for Suicide Prevention; Schwartz 2006, Journal of American College Health)

The majority of Texans are opposed to Campus Carry: 63% are opposed to allowing college students to carry concealed handguns onto college campuses. 72% are opposed to allowing college students to bring concealed handguns into the classroom. (March 2015 SurveyUSA News Poll)

The High Costs of Campus Carry: The UT System says it will pay more than $39 million to further train campus police, add personnel, build gun storage facilities, purchase equipment and signage, and update security systems. (Houston Chronicle, Feb 2015)

Guns have a chilling effect on the free speech and free discourse that are the core of UT’s mission. Students must feel comfortable asking questions and discussing complex, charged topics. Faculty and staff must be able to challenge students to engage with difficult subjects. Family members need to be confident that UT is protecting their loved ones. Guns in classrooms and offices erode the foundation of higher education.

We are already seeing the fallout from the impending implementation of SB11. The Dean of our nationally celebrated UT School of Architecture stepped down, as have several professors, all citing campus carry as a reason for their departure. Numerous top academic hires and outstanding graduate students have turned down offers from UT-Austin or withdrawn from consideration because of campus carry. More than a few out-of-state students are transferring, while greater numbers are choosing not to apply. Even in-state families are seeking other options.

Losing even one professor or student because of campus carry is one too many.

What you can do:

●  Join more than 1,700 faculty members and thousands of staff, students, parents and alumni who have signed petitions against guns on our campus at
●  Add your name to our mailing list to receive updates at:
●  Tell us your story of how an experience you’ve had on campus could have turned dangerous or deadly if someone had had a gun at:
●  Connect with us on Facebook (Gun-Free UT) and  Twitter (@gunfreeut)

Armed with reason, we’re fighting against guns on Texas campuses

By and , Feb. 26, 2016
Originally published on at this link

“An armed society is a polite society.”

Gun advocates recite that line approvingly, sometimes misattributing it to various historical figures. If they took our literature classes, though, they’d learn that it’s actually a line from a science fiction novel by Robert Heinlein, and he’s describing a culture where people censor themselves because any offense might escalate to a shootout. That’s pretty much where we are now.

The single most common circumstance leading to gun homicides in the United States, according to the FBI, is an argument. That’s right, the heated exchange of conflicting ideas — the very reason universities exist.

Shooting deaths resulting from arguments vastly outnumber those related to gang violence, drug trafficking or any other known circumstance. University campuses, which by and large have been gun-free zones, have been relatively insulated from this kind of violence, and also from the self-censorship meant to pre-empt it. With the spread of campus carry, coming to Texas on Aug. 1, that’s changing.

This week, our colleagues at the University of Houston came up with some recommendations for classroom management in the Age of Campus Carry. Tips for professors include: “Be careful discussing certain topics. Drop certain topics from your curriculum. Don’t ‘go there’ if you sense anger. Limit student access to office hours.” As faculty at The University of Texas, we sympathize. The safety of our students directly conflicts with the legislative mandate to allow guns in classrooms. It’s our job to involve students in well-informed discussion and debate—to start arguments. And where guns are present, arguments can be dangerous.

Last week’s headlines in national and international press announced UT’s “recommendation” that guns be allowed in classrooms. Readers might have the understandable misperception that President Greg Fenves — or anyone representing the UT community — actually thinks this is a good idea.

The UT faculty council overwhelmingly supported a resolution opposing guns in classrooms. So did the graduate students association. The student body president lampooned campus carry in an editorial. Every member of the president’s working group on campus carry is on the record opposing guns in classrooms. So is Fenves himself. Chancellor Bill McRaven categorically opposed campus carry. Forty-two academic departments and programs have published statements opposing guns in classrooms; zero have published statements in favor.

None of this matters, though, because the Legislature never intended to give any meaningful autonomy to public universities in determining the implementation of campus carry. When it became clear that a strong consensus opposed guns in classrooms, Senator Brian Birdwell, a sponsor of the campus carry bill, asked the attorney general’s office to straighten us out, and Ken Paxton warned universities that they could face lawsuits if guns were banned from classrooms. The message from state officials was clear: every public university in Texas must issue a recommendation on guns in classrooms, and that recommendation must welcome them.

By asking us to participate in an empty ritual of debate and forcing us to pantomime consent, the Legislature seeks to make us all complicit in whatever consequences campus carry precipitates. To be clear, nobody can predict specifically what those consequences will be. Will an armed professor literally shoot himself in the foot in front of a class full of students, as one did at Idaho State shortly after campus carry was implemented there? Will a legally armed student accidentally discharge a handgun into his neighbor’s dorm room, as one did last year at Montana Tech? We’ll see.

What we do know, statistically, is that campus crime has not declined in any state that has adopted campus carry. We do know, from decades of epidemiological data surveillance, that the presence of guns is a risk factor for suicide. We do know that implementing campus carry will involve significant expenses that the state has not funded.

To anybody doubting that campus carry will harm the university: It already has. Prospective students, faculty, and staff have passed up recent opportunities at UT, citing this policy. On Thursday, the distinguished Dean of the College of Architecture, Fritz Steiner, said he is quitting UT for the University of Pennsylvania. He’s turned down Ivy League offers before, and says he wouldn’t be leaving now if not for campus carry. Colleagues have told us they’reretiring early, applying for jobs out of state, or planning to teach only online courses and hold office hours via Skype. Many of us have postponed work on books and other research projects — our jobs, in other words — to focus instead on gun policy this year.

That last point is not wholly a bad thing, though. Due to a congressional threat to defund the Centers for Disease Control, there’s been a decades-long freeze on research into guns and gun policy. There are only a few academic programs studying gun violence in the United States, and only through the lens of public health. There’s been relatively little academic study of gun policy through the disciplines of social science, history, government and the humanities. That will soon change.

One upside of campus carry is that it has brought together a community of interested scholars at UT. As Gun Free UT, we’ve begun to collaborate across disciplines. Few experiences are more bonding than being shot and executed together in effigy, as we all were in December. It is increasingly rare for academics from disciplines as diverse as neuroscience, film studies, gender studies, language arts, psychology, theater, music, area studies, history, government, economics and sociology to collaborate on the same research topic, but that’s what’s happening at UT right now.

As gun rights advocates across the country force guns into academia, academics will feel compelled to bring scholarship to the gun debate. We’ve asked the UT administration to create a new center for the study of personal safety, which could play a meaningful role informing public understanding of guns and risk.

Armed with reason, we’re ready for the argument.

Lisa L. Moore, UT-Austin professor for
Matthew Valentine, UT-Austin lecturer for

TribTalk, a digital forum for dialogue and debate about the day’s news, isa product of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization. Learn more at

Gun-Free UT Statement on President Fenves’ Campus Carry Policies

GunFreeUT Statement on President Fenves’ Campus Carry Policies – February 17, 2016

Download GunFreeUT Statement on President Fenves

GunFreeUT is a large group of faculty, students, staff, parents, and alumni that support common-sense policies that ban the civilian carry of handguns on the University of Texas at Austin campus.

We acknowledge that President Fenves’s policy adopts some provisions supported by the campus community, including banning concealed handguns in university-run student dormitory rooms, facilities hosting children, and areas with dangerous substances.  It also permits occupants of individual offices to disallow guns in those spaces.  But the policy does not go far enough.  We strongly oppose President Fenves’ decision to permit guns other areas of campus, including classrooms, shared offices, student dining areas, and lounges.  We call upon the Regents of the University of Texas to use their power to amend Campus Carry policy by banning guns in all campus buildings.

Stakeholders do not want guns on campus.  More than 1,700 UT-Austin professors, nearly 1,800 graduate and professional students, a majority of polled undergraduates, and almost 9,000 members of the community oppose guns in classrooms.  The UT-Austin Faculty Council opposes guns in classrooms as do 43 campus departments and 11 academic professional societies.

In our view, the first responsibility of the university president is to protect the safety and welfare of its students and employees.  President Fenves’s policy fails this simple test.  The policy prohibits concealed carry where animals and certain chemicals are present due to concern over accidental discharge, but does not prohibit guns where students, faculty, and staff teach, learn, and work.  The Campus Carry Working Group whose recommendations President Fenves adopted concluded that accidental discharge represents a major risk if guns are handled. 

Campus Carry Policy will make concealed handguns easily accessible for many members of the campus community.  Nearly all faculty, staff, graduate students, and other employees can obtain a concealed carry permit by attending a four-hour course and with no prior or subsequent training of any kind.  If that is too much red tape, Texas has reciprocity agreements with 31 states, including some that issue licenses to nonresidents and have no training requirement.

Campus carry advocates argue that armed citizens will better protect themselves and others, but actual research shows that claim is false.  States with laxer gun laws have more violent crime, no armed civilian (who was not affiliated with law enforcement or the military) has ever neutralized a school shooter, and one of the most substantial studies on the subject shows that even trained police officers achieve just an 18% hit-rate during gunfights.

Failing to ban guns in classrooms and other areas not only makes our places or work and study more dangerous, but it also threatens academic freedom and free speech, compromises our educational mission, and diminishes the university’s reputation.  The university should be known for its distinguished faculty, the quality of its education, and the excellence of its athletes.  Campus Carry damages our reputation at home and abroad.  Governor Abbott and Texas lawmakers recently adopted SB 632 to fund the recruitment of world-class faculty to the university, including its new medical center, yet guns on campus have already repulsed potential recruits and talented faculty have resigned.  We are certain to suffer more losses to our reputation and our donor-base.

Education and research is what we do best and we are struck by the absence of fact-based and data-driven debate on gun safety on college campuses.  We call upon President Fenves to respond to Faculty Council and GunFreeUT requests to establish an institute for the study of gun safety at UT-Austin.  Such a center would make a positive contribution to the study of guns on college campuses and attract some of the best researchers on gun safety to our campus rather than repelling some of its best minds.

The longer President Fenves and the Regents wait to implement the common sense and campus community-supported ban of concealed guns on campus, the more disruptive it will be for our educational mission.  GunFreeUT will oppose the intrusion of guns into our educational spaces by legal actions guided by the best advice we can obtain.  Students and faculty are also planning numerous direct actions.  As faculty, we would prefer to invest all of our energy and talents into what we do best: teach Texas’s young adults, produce world-class research, and fulfill the university’s core mission.  As students, we would prefer to focus on our studies and future careers.  As staff, we would prefer to propel the university to new heights.  Let us keep guns off campus and keep building the university of the 21st century for the State of Texas.

Press Release: Longhorns Rounding up National to Local Legislative Hopefuls for Q&A on #ClassroomCarry

22nd February,  2016, For Immediate Release

Link to Document

Longhorn Cattle Call: Longhorn’s Rounding up National to Local Legislative Hopefuls for Q&A on #ClassroomCarry
There will be no roping or riding, Friday 26th February at 2pm, but Longhornsnational to local legislative hopefuls (including UT’s GSA) who’ve thrown their hats into the civil service ring, are being asked to attend the Longhorn Cattle Call; a Q&A session to answer specific questions about Campus Carry on the West Mall Steps. Following recent direct actions within campus, UT Graduate Students Against Classroom Carry and the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly are now pivoting from their focus on President Fenves to the Texas State Legislators who have imposed #SB11 and #ClassroomCarry on a community that is entirely opposed to it (Faculty Council, Graduate Student Assembly, and Student Governance have all passed resolutions opposing guns in classrooms). UT faculty and grad students say they suffer ongoing frustration with the current law as implemented. Among the queries: “Do you support an emergency injunction of SB11 in order to address real and anticipated harms caused by SB11 and its implementation as planned?” and “Do you support an ‘equality’ amendment allowing public universities to opt out?” To help ease the mood, the event will feature BBQ and music. The press is invited to attend.


UT Graduate Students Against Classroom Carry:  Coordinators
Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly: Chair, Michael Barnes

“Photo courtesy of Dickinson Cattle Co. LLC

# # #

February 26 — Longhorn Cattle Call, Q & A with candidates on Campus Carry

Longhorn Cattle Call: Longhorns rounding up all candidates and elected officials for Q&A on SB11 and Classroom Carry

Friday February 26,  2PM
Details coming soon

Facebook Event

Graduate Students Against Classroom Carry and the Legislative Affairs Committee of the Graduate Student Assembly have come together once again to continue the fight against #SB11 and #ClassroomCarry. We are now pivoting from our focus on President Fenves to the Texas State Legislators who have imposed this law on a community that is entirely opposed to it.

Press Release: “Grad Students say ‘Don’t Waste Your Breath’ to Tabled Measure”


2nd February,  2016
For Immediate Release

Contact : UT Graduate Students Against Classroom Carry
Link to File
Facebook Event

The University of Texas, Austin: “Grad Students say ‘Don’t Waste Your Breath’ to Tabled Measure”

On January 27th, in an unexpected and surprising action, the Graduate Student Assembly (GSA) refused to cast a vote on a proposed resolution (G.R.16(S)1) that opposes concealed handguns in classrooms at The University of Texas at Austin.  The GSA Legislative Affairs Committee, which introduced the original resolution, authored by chair Michael Barnes, called for an amended version of the resolution to be reconsidered by GSA on Wednesday, February 3rd in a special session.  The Legislative Affairs Committee worked last week with vocal critics of the original resolution in drafting the amended version.

In advance of the special session, we are calling for direct action in order to ensure graduate student voices are recognized and respected. UT Graduate Students Against Campus Carry, working in partnership with the Legislative Affairs Committee, invites all graduate students to an event titled “Don’t Waste Your Breath” (Wed., Feb 3rd, 3:00-5:30 pm on Gregory Plaza). We will put our “hot air” to use by asking each graduate student to blow up a balloon as a visible “vote” for or against implementation of Campus Carry (SB11) at UT. We will then haul the balloons — our collective breath — to the GSA Special Session to visually represent our strength in numbers.

The disappointing indecision within GSA last week comes as a very unwelcome surprise to nearly 1,800 graduate students who join the voices of 1,700 faculty members, the Faculty Council and 40 academic departments, centers, and schools who support making classrooms “gun-free zones.”

The concerns of graduate students regarding SB11 were evident during the first forty minutes of the GSA meeting, during a discussion with Vice President Vance Roper about the Campus Carry Working Group’s Report. Graduate students overwhelmingly raised concerns about the implementation of SB11, and specifically about the Campus Carry Working Group’s recommendations that guns should be allowed in classrooms, and that graduate students who share offices should not be allowed to ban guns in those spaces.

One student stated that she would not have come to UT if she had known that SB11 was a possibility and asked what kind of options graduate students who have just commenced their doctorates are left with, and whether her only remaining option now is to withdraw completely from PhD process. Another graduate student questioned the logic of the recommendations that guns should be prohibited from laboratories but not classrooms:  If it is not safe to have guns in labs, why is it okay in classrooms? Isn’t “accidental discharge” equally concerning in a class full of students? Another GSA representative explained that it was becoming apparent that graduate students and others concerned about SB11 are not being heard on this issue –  especially with regards to the Working Group’s recommendations – and stated that a group of graduate students are prepared to engage in acts of civil disobedience.

Last Wednesday’s event follows a steady march of recent activity among graduate students at UT Austin in the campus carry debate, and precedes the anticipated release in February of campus carry policy recommendations by President Gregory Fenves. Several public forums were well attended by graduate students in the Fall.  On December 1st, 1,789 graduate and professional students across 132 programs in 18 Colleges and Schools wrote a public letter to President Fenves outlining their opposition to guns in classrooms at UT-Austin. In early December, the Legislative Affairs Committee hosted a campus carry conversation, inviting graduate students in particular to express their concerns and ask questions about SB 11. This conversation, and the forums that preceded it, led the Legislative Affairs Committee to issue two open letters on campus carry to President Fenves, which the committee delivered in person on December 9th, 2016. The first, An Open Letter Expressing Opposition to Firearms in UT Classrooms expressed opposition to handguns in classrooms, while the second, An Open Letter Addressing Graduate Student Questions on Campus Carry, raised serious questions and concerns regarding the specific details of implementing campus carry, beginning August 1.

Until last week, the GSA had not discussed legislation concerning SB11 since before it was signed into law, in June of 2015. This stands in stark contrast to the Faculty Council at UT Austin, which has already passed two separate resolutions, both of which outline opposition to guns in classrooms. Getting the GSA to pass a resolution now is key, especially as Fenves is due to make his decision by mid February – there may not be another chance for the GSA to pass a resolution on behalf of concerned graduate students. Will our GSA be able to reverse the current trend toward inaction, and deliver a strong statement concerning campus carry that represents UT Austin’s graduate and professional students’ voices? If you help us by participating in our direct action Wednesday, at the very least, the GSA will be required to engage with and consider the collective voice of the graduate student body that it promises to represent.


Coordinators for: UT Graduate Students Against Classroom Carry

For more information about Campus Carry visit Gun Free UT and access the Graduate Student Petition here.

# # #

UT Faculty Council Passes New Resolutions on Campus Carry

On November 16, 2015, the UT Austin Faculty Council passed a resolution concluding that it “strongly opposes allowing guns in The University of Texas at Austin classrooms, laboratories, residence halls, university offices, and other spaces of education.”

In December 2015, the Campus Carry Policy Working Group (CC working group) released its report recommending the gun-exclusion zones that should be allowed when Senate Bill 11 (SB 11) is implemented on August 1, 2016.

Consistent with the Faculty Council’s resolution, the CC working group recommended excluding guns from:

      • Laboratories
      • Animal Facilities
      • Dormitories (but not public spaces)
      • Assigned offices (with responsibility for notifications and off-site meetings).

Although the working group expressed its strong opposition to guns in classrooms, it did not recommend excluding guns from them, and it reached no consensus on mixed use buildings.

Responding to the CC working group’s recommendations, the Faculty Council recognizes that the CC working group had a difficult job and that they “made every effort to remain true to the charge President Fenves gave us: to recommend steps he can take that will promote safety and security for all members of the campus in a way that complies with the law” (Report p. 7).  The Faculty Council also wishes to express its support for maintaining campus safety, but it also affirms its broader responsibility, one that includes protecting free inquiry and academic freedom from intimidating influences that impede learning and creative activities.  With that responsibility in mind, the Faculty Council endorses the following resolutions:

Resolution 1.  Classrooms should be gun-exclusion zones.

Commentary:  All members of the working group felt that guns should not be allowed in classrooms.  They were, nevertheless, concerned that excluding guns from classrooms would be considered a general prohibition and therefore illegal.  They considered but rejected the alternative, which is to exclude guns from classrooms while providing secure storage for guns for students and instructors in class.  Such storage could be provided as secure gun lockers in enclosed spaces at various locations on campus.

The working group reasoned that storing and retrieving guns introduces risks that are greater than just carrying guns.  While it is true that there is a risk to storing guns, the risk is borne mainly by the gun owners, not the whole campus.  If the risk is unacceptable, the gun owners have the option of leaving their guns at home.  Students and faculty who feel intimidated, or at risk because of guns in the classroom, do not have the option of missing or cancelling classes.

Resolution 2:  When any part of a building is a gun-exclusion zone, the whole building should be a gun-exclusion zone.

Commentary: Having parts of buildings as exclusion zones will be very difficult to enforce, while treating buildings as units will reduce requirements for signage, which is a goal of the Chancellor’s.  This policy will solve the problem of how to treat mixed-use buildings.  In addition, it means that common areas in dormitories would be gun-exclusion zones.

Resolution 3.  University personnel who have declared their office a gun-exclusion zone should be able to post appropriate signage if the “whole building” policy proposed in Resolution 2 is not adopted.  They should also not be required to meet an armed person at another location.

Commentary:  Recommendation #18 in the CC working group report proposes that an office holder who has prohibited concealed weapons should give oral notice to visitors and arrange somewhere else to meet with gun owners.  The expectation of oral notice and having to arrange external meeting space is complicated, time-consuming, fraught, and intimidating, and it is an unjustifiable burden on University personnel.  Gun owners who wish to meet with staff in a gun-exclusion zone  should store their weapons and not create unnecessary work for already overburdened staff and faculty.

Resolution 4.  The University Police should receive extensive training to deal with the implementation of SB 11.

Commentary:  A recent demonstration adjacent to campus and in a campus parking garage evoked a confused response from campus police.  Several men with semiautomatic weapons   on the roof of a parking garage were not considered reason for alarm.  Open display of a handgun or a very good replica was also deemed acceptable.  Students and staff asked officers on the scene if the open carry of handguns was permissible, and whether the garages were considered university premises, and the officers were unable to give clear answers. The University needs to establish a policy that assures the campus that the police are properly trained and will not allow armed individuals to intimidate or threaten the community.

Resolution 5.  The University should mount an initiative to study gun violence, and non-lethal means of enhancing personal safety, both on-campus and off-campus.

Commentary: As the CC working group recognized, this important area of study has long been neglected. The University of Texas at Austin could quickly become a national leader by establishing an interdisciplinary research center or institute spanning STEM and Humanities disciplines and recruiting outstanding senior scholars to lead innovative approaches to these complex problems.  This effort should include a robust multi-media Public Scholarship effort to make research results on gun violence and violence prevention accessible to the public. A working group should be tasked with developing a plan to establish these research and outreach efforts.  One useful step might be an initial workshop on campus bringing leading scholars from other institutions to interact with UT faculty, staff, and development officers to help jump-start this process.

Faculty Council Meeting January 25, 2016


President Fenves has agreed to postpone making a final recommendation on campus carry until after the Jan 25 General Faculty/Faculty Council meeting.

Schedule for Monday, January 25:
Location: MAI 212

1:30 PM The annual meeting of the School of Undergraduate Studies (UGS). All members of the General Faculty are invited to attend.

At approximately 2:15 and immediately following the UGS meeting, President Fenves will preside over the annual meeting of the General Faculty.

Business items include:

Election of the Secretary
Discussion of Suggestions on Faculty Voting Rights from the Faculty Rules and Governance

Immediately following the annual meeting of the General Faculty will be the regular meeting of the Faculty Council, which all faculty are invited to attend. At that meeting, you will hear an Update on and Understanding of the Campus Sexual Assault Initiative by Noel Busch-Armendariz and an update on Campus Carry by Steve Goode and Coleman Hutchison. President Fenves will also address questions on Campus Carry received from members of the General Faculty.


If you are unable to attend, you can watch all three meetings from the Video-streaming link: