Over 200 faculty members voted on whether to retain or remove student evaluations for the Fall 2020 semester, during the college’s monthly faculty meeting held on October 2nd. This meeting, and particularly, the results from this vote sought to put to rest circling unease surrounding the administering of Student Ratings and Feedback surveys and their inclusion in hiring decisions. These have been perceived by certain members of the faculty to carry a disproportionately biased risk towards their livelihoods.
The meeting, held atypically but also in accordance with COVID protocol over Zoom, commenced at 3:30pm sharp, premised by some brief formalities and pleasantries by Dean of the Faculty and Vice President for Academic Affairs Michael Orr. In his opening remarks, Dean Orr addressed the difficulties that faculty may be currently enduring as they maneuver teaching during a pandemic-infused semester. Then, Casey Schofield, Associate Professor of Psychology and Chair of the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) was invited to take the virtual floor, to read a customary motion for the beginning of the academic year, inviting a vote for the adoption of the 2020-21 Faculty Handbook that had been laid over from the previous meeting.
The crux of Friday’s meeting came when Feryaz Ocakli, Associate Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Committee on Educational Policies and Planning (CEPP) read the second set of motions. These concerned the contentious subject of whether Student Ratings and Feedback surveys (i.e., all-college quantitative forms and departmental long forms) would be administered online this semester. The vote also implored faculty to decide whether the results of these Student Ratings and Feedback forms should be provided not only to instructors, but also to department chairs and program directors, and, when appropriate, the Appointments & Tenure Committee (ATC), Promotions Committee (PC), and the college administration.
Ocakli urged those in attendance to not postpone the vote any further, as doing so would prevent any chance of student evaluations being prepared and held effectively within the time remaining this semester. He further acknowledged how student voices were a significant factor throughout the process--noting that the final set of motions would look very different had it not been for the work of the Student Government representatives on CEPP.
The two student representatives, Sean Heaney and Sophia Paulino Adames, were then briefly given the space to read a statement from their crafted motion. Their statement recognized that centering student voices was essential during this time but that at present, student evaluations specifically penalize, women, Black Indigenous and People of Color, and otherwise marginalized professors without tenure. They emphasized that it is essential to establish a student ratings system that removes pressure from these specific faculty members and, instead, holds all faculty members--tenured and untenured--to the same degree of accountability. They concluded their motion by recognizing the importance of student evaluations as a tool that is not only used in advancement options that disproportionately affect BIPOC professors on Skidmore’s campus, but rather as a continuous tool of assessment for both non-tenured and tenured faculty.
A number of faculty were able to speak to the experience of feeling disproportionately impacted by student evaluations within the Zoom function’s chat group. Lara Ayad, Assistant Professor of Art History, spoke to the “bias inherent in student ratings” in having “profound, negative impact on marginalized faculty in [their] reappointment and promotion reviews.”
Several faculty members also noted the margins of error present within the current iteration of student evaluations. Pushkala Prasad, Professor of Management and International Affairs, brought up the issue that “due to the relaxation of attendance policies this semester,” students who may not have attended many classes would still be able to assess the instructor without having been substantially present to make an informed gauge about the quality of instruction.
The results of the vote for the four motions proposed are as follows:
That Student Ratings surveys (i.e., all-college quantitative forms) be administered online in Fall 2020 and the results made available to instructors: Passed
That the results of Student Ratings surveys be made available to department chairs and program directors, and, when appropriate, ATC, PC, and the college administration: Failed
That Student Feedback surveys (i.e., departmental long forms) be administered online in Fall 2020 and the results made available to instructors: Passed
That the results of Student Feedback surveys be made available to department chairs and program directors and, when appropriate, ATC, PC, and the college administration: Failed
Tensions during Friday’s meeting were at a high and observing the results of this vote, it is clear that the issue remains a polarizing one within faculty circles. It is suspected that some of the anxiety surrounding this vote comes from faculty fears on Skidmore’s position on hiring during this pandemic. Currently, the College is operating on a hiring freeze, but there is talk circling about the administration proposing to reduce faculty numbers in the next four years, which would come from a mix of retirements and not renewing a number of faculty.
Nevertheless, as the College proceeds to complete the arrangements for administering student ratings and feedback surveys in accordance with the motions passed this semester, it is safe to assume that student evaluations will take on a new role henceforth, in determining how student voices are heard and represented on this campus. This semester, students have rallied with heightened intensity to demand for a more equitable education, and it is evident that the fight is far from over.
At its essence, this issue has unfortunately created a situation where student and marginalized faculty interests have felt “pit against” one another, even unintentionally so. It is clear, however, that for sustainable progress to be made moving forward, and especially in order to protect the interests of both students and marginalized faculty, student evaluations as they currently exist are in dire need of being reworked.