President Joan Gabel announced in a systemwide email Thursday that three University of Minnesota leaders will be transitioning out of their roles.

The University plans to begin searches for all three positions within the coming weeks and hopes to conduct public interviews during the spring 2022 semester. New appointments for these roles will then be announced before the end of the spring semester. 

The University is accepting nominations of individuals to serve on the search committees for these positions until Nov. 12. 

Lynn Black, chancellor on the Duluth campus since 2010, announced his decision to retire this year. Black will remain in his role as chancellor while the University searches for his successor. 

Black was in charge of new degree creation and student life programming among other responsibilities on the Duluth campus. Black promoted the arts, economic development and diversity, equity and inclusion on both the campus and within the Duluth community. He also advocated for student success, research and Duluth campus athletics. 

Michael Goh has served as vice president for the Office for Equity and Diversity since 2017 and recently announced his departure from the office. He plans to return to the College of Education and Human Development as a faculty member. 

As vice president, Goh worked to increase “representational diversity” at the University, improve the campus climate and build systemwide partnerships surrounding equity and diversity. 

The University is also launching a search for the next vice president for research after Chris Cramer’s departure in June. Michael Oakes has been serving as interim vice president since June and will continue to do so until the search process is complete.

University of Minnesota senate members recently passed a resolution to increase current safety measures in classrooms amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.
Passed by the Faculty and University Senates at special meetings on Oct. 6, the Resolution on Classroom Health and Safety under COVID-19 is a culmination of concerns raised by faculty, staff and students throughout multiple special meetings, open letters, town halls and forums over the past several months.
The resolution, which 18 faculty senators brought to leadership in September, includes seven proposed comprehensive safety measures for University President Joan Gabel and senior leadership to consider implementing.
“This resolution is saying the representatives of the faculty and the representatives of the students and staff feel these are things the president needs to take seriously, and we feel we have not had a necessary voice in forming these policies,” said Faculty Senator William Jones, one of the resolution’s authors.
The passing of the resolution by both senates signals widespread support across the University community. Gabel and senior leadership will provide a response at the Nov. 4 University Senate meeting; however, leadership is not required to implement any of the actions outlined in the resolution.
“Even if the voices from the senates are only advisory, a good [leader] would be circumspect about ignoring advice of this kind,” said Faculty Senator Gopalan Nadathur in an email to the Minnesota Daily.
The provisions include a robust COVID-19 testing policy that would require routine testing for all employees and students. The University does not require regular testing for students or most staff and faculty.
It also asks that instructors have the ability to disclose the existence of a positive test in classrooms without divulging a student’s private information. Currently, instructors are not permitted to notify their classes if a student in the class tests positive for COVID-19.
Faculty are also advocating for increased flexibility in choosing classroom modalities. Currently, they cannot teach remotely if a family member is immunocompromised. The resolution proposes individual departments, rather than the University’s central administration, have the authority to choose course modality.
The resolution also calls for a more comprehensive staff and faculty vaccine mandate, which the University is now implementing in order to comply with President Joe Biden’s executive order. Originally, these groups were only required to attest to being vaccinated or agree to regular testing.
“We’re in the classrooms, we’re teaching, we’re interacting with students … and we think that these are some of the adjustments that need to be made in order to make the classroom safer for everyone,” said Faculty Senator Michael Minta, a co-author of the resolution.
According to Minta and Jones, the ideas incorporated into the resolution began formulating in the summer during a series of meetings and public forums, where faculty, students and staff voiced concerns about returning to campus under the University’s safety measures.
“After the public forum … on Sept. 3, the open letter written by the graduate students and coalition of faculty, staff and students, and the sentiments that many of the senators who endorsed the resolution were hearing from their colleagues, it felt necessary to take a step to address this,” Nadathur said.
While the resolution passed in the University Senate, indicating support throughout the community, some stakeholders said they did not agree with the process faculty senators used to pass the resolution.
Leaders and members from the Civil Service, P&A and Student Senates said they wanted more consultation regarding the resolution, as it includes specific language that may affect staff and students. According to these leaders, faculty senators did not robustly and formally consult with them or their constituents prior to passing the resolution.
“It affected everybody, and we didn’t get a chance to make our two cents known or ask questions,” Civil Service Senate Chair Missy Juliette said.
Since the University Senate includes 146 faculty senators, 25 P&A senators, 25 civil service senators and 50 student senators, the faculty hold a majority membership. According to Senate leaders, this means it is generally easier for faculty to pass a resolution without broad consultation with students and staff.
Typically, the consultation process includes discussion between elected members and leaders from each senate to ensure a more accurate and comprehensive opinion of entire constituencies, P&A Senate Chair Scott Creer said.
While Faculty senators may not have conducted formal consultation, they said they used public forums and open letters to illustrate a shared consensus among students, staff and faculty regarding the resolution.
Regardless of how the procedure played out, it is now up to Gabel and senior leadership to respond to the resolution — either by implementing some or all of the proposed actions, or by maintaining the University’s current COVID-19 response.
“We [faculty] feel like we have a responsibility to ensure the safety of our students and ourselves, our colleagues and our family members,” Jones said. “I think if the University does act, that will help to fulfill that responsibility.”

`

A team of scientists led by a University of Minnesota researcher recently concluded a five-year project which counted the population of Weddell seals in Antarctica, providing critical insights into the impacts of climate change and commercial fishing on the Antarctic ecosystem.
If researchers can prove through population counts that climate change and commercial fishing are negatively impacting seals and other animals in Antarctica, they can propose changes to government regulations relating to both environmental and commercial fishing policies, said Leo Salas, a co-author of the study and senior scientist at Point Blue Conservation Science.
Seals utilize ice sheets for protection against predators and to give birth. When the ice melts due to climate change the seals lose necessary parts of their habitat, resulting in decreasing populations.
“If that ice were to melt, then the seals would be in trouble, and we need desperately to create baselines to know what the condition is now,” Salas said.
Commercial fishing in Antarctica is another problem impacting seal populations researchers are trying to learn more about by counting seals.
The toothfish, or Chilean sea bass, is an important food source for seals because it is the largest fish in Antarctica, Salas said. Currently, fisheries are targeting this popular breed of fish to sell for human consumption. Decreasing toothfish populations pose a problem for Weddell seals, as they rely on this food source to survive.
“So that’s a problem, and that’s affecting the marine protected areas and the food web,” Salas said. “We cannot prove it yet, but we’re seeing impacts in some parts of Antarctica where these fisheries operate.”
In order to prove climate change and commercial fishing are significantly impacting seal populations and propose changes in governmental regulations, researchers need to create a baseline count and timeline of the seal populations over several years and compare differences, Salas said.
To complete this baseline count of seal populations, the research team employed the help of about 330,000 untrained volunteer citizen scientists to help produce the count, said Michelle LaRue, a University of Minnesota research associate and lead author of the study, in an email to the Minnesota Daily.
“We never really know exactly who helped us, but the beauty of the [software] platform is that people from many walks of life can help us do our work,” LaRue said.
Citizen scientists counted the number of seals present in thousands of satellite images. Then, researchers with more expertise and scientific background checked their work.
“We couldn’t count them [ourselves] because it would take us months if not years to do so,” Salas said.
The only way to complete a full and accurate count of the species is through satellite imagery, LaRue said. This is the first time researchers have used satellite imagery to track and count an animal population over a wide range of land. Researchers found 202,000 female seals along the Antarctic coastline while previous estimates were around 800,000.
“With this baseline information, we can now track how populations do over time and try to connect patterns of population change with patterns in the environment,” LaRue said.
In the future, researchers will aim to determine how seal populations have fluctuated over the last 10 years in Antarctica. This larger picture will help scientists better understand the impact of climate change and commercial fishing on seals and other Antarctic species.
“We need to have a baseline of what may happen in Antarctica when climate change ramps up, and it is ramping up,” Salas said. “This [study] allows us to get a good monitor reading of what the condition is now, and hopefully we can take it into the future.”

The University of Minnesota has recently created a formal disciplinary process for faculty who fail to comply with the COVID-19 attestation mandate.

The Faculty Senate approved the creation of a special panel consisting of five faculty members from across the University system at their Sept. 30 meeting. The panel will provide disciplinary recommendations to college deans for any faculty who did not comply with the University’s COVID-19 attestation form mandate, which asks faculty to attest to being vaccinated or agree to regular testing.

The hope is this process will provide a timely and uniform framework for instituting consequences across campuses and colleges, said Jerry Cohen, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee (SJC) and microbiology professor.

“I think a panel is the best way to deal with [noncompliance] simply because you can put people on there who actually understand those issues, and you can come up with a uniform decision,” Cohen said.

The SJC provides faculty an opportunity to appeal decisions of their supervisors. This typically deals with faculty being denied promotions and tenure, but the SJC also hears cases of disciplinary action.

One possible outcome of this process could be suspension without pay. However, University leaders said they want to work with faculty members to avoid highly serious consequences, said Vice Provost for Faculty and Academic Affairs Rebecca Ropers in an email to the Minnesota Daily.

As of the Sept. 17 attestation form deadline, only nine faculty had not communicated their vaccination status. As of Oct. 8 there is now only one faculty member who has failed to complete the form, and the University is currently working with them, Ropers said.

Due to low numbers of noncompliant faculty, some members of the Faculty Senate questioned if creating this panel was necessary. However, this panel process will cover any violation of the attestation policy, including those who violated testing commitments, Ropers said.

The University is not currently monitoring compliance for each faculty member, but is rather operating from a place of trust, Ropers said.

The panel is composed of five faculty members, three tenured and two contract, all with previous governance experience with the SJC or the Office of Conflict Resolution, Ropers said.

They will look at cases of misconduct that occur on the Twin Cities, Rochester and Morris campuses and provide deans with recommended consequences. Faculty at Duluth and Crookston are governed by their unionization agreements.

“I think people were looking for individuals to be on that panel who have been through processes like this … they understand the dynamics of what’s going on,” said Becky Yust, SJC chair and College of Design professor.

With only one panel submitting recommendations for misconduct instances throughout the system, the hope is the decisions deans make will be consistent. In the past, individual departments and colleges have been highly variable in how they interpret an issue, Cohen said.

“I think the worry is different colleges might deal with it slightly differently,” said Michael Rodriguez, dean of the College of Education and Human Development. “We want to be uniform in our approach.”

The provost and deans have discussed appropriate disciplinary measures for faculty to make sure decisions are fair across colleges, Ropers said. While the panel provides deans with recommendations, the final disciplinary action is ultimately the dean’s decision.

Faculty members have the ability to appeal a dean’s decision through the SJC. In that case, the University president, currently Joan Gabel, has final authority in these decisions. The appeals process can be lengthy and last months, Cohen said.

Rodriguez said deans will try to ensure due process by maintaining consistency through the panel, and by taking into account the needs of individuals and the larger community when making these decisions to preserve fairness.

“Right now, we’re trying to protect the needs of the community, but that’s not always easy to do,” Rodriguez said. “[It’s] that balance to protect individual rights and privacy, but at the same time, meet the greater good need[s] of the community.”

University of Minnesota researchers are developing a new vaccine that could be effective in fighting the COVID-19 virus in humans and has not previously been explored in the fight against the virus.

Research shows the vaccine is highly effective against COVID-19 and some of its variants. The newer variants, including Delta, had not emerged at the time of the study. Researchers are currently testing the virus against these new variants.
The virus causing the COVID-19 pandemic is just one type within the coronavirus family. In the past, there have been other coronaviruses, like the 2002 SARS epidemic in China. New types will most likely appear in the future, according to Fang Li, lead researcher and University veterinary and biomedical sciences professor in an email to the Minnesota Daily.

“The ultimate goal is to discover a broad-spectrum vaccine against many coronaviruses and their variants,” Li said.

The new vaccine is made of virus-like particles that mimic COVID-19 without injecting the virus into patients. This combines the advantages of two common vaccine types, virus-based and protein-based, while eliminating their drawbacks.

While certain virus-based vaccines are effective, they can cause side effects like symptoms of the targeted illness. On the other hand, common protein-based vaccines are safe but generally not as effective.

This new virus-like particle vaccine can maximize immune responses because it mimics the virus structure while retaining the safety of common protein vaccines, Li said.

The bacterial protein used in the new vaccine should not cause infection because it cannot replicate. In other cases, the virus in vaccines has the potential to replicate and infect the host, said Marc Jenkins, a research collaborator and microbiology and immunology professor.

“It’s an inanimate particle that looks sort of like a virus,” Jenkins said. “It stimulates a very good immune response.”

Researchers have been in touch with vaccine companies that have the capacity to manage and fund a human clinical trial to test the vaccine, Li said.

Li is one of the first researchers to study virus-like particle vaccines against COVID-19. This technology is used within vaccines to treat Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and Hepatitis B.

At this stage, researchers injected mice with the vaccine in order to test its effectiveness. Researchers then tested mice blood to determine if mice were producing antibodies, Jenkins said. Research showed the mice developed large amounts of antibodies, indicating the vaccine would produce immunity in humans.

“The antibodies are what provide us with protective immunity,” Jenkins said. “If you have the antibodies, you probably have immunity.”

While the COVID-19 vaccines currently being used around the country and world are effective and safe, this vaccine takes a different approach, according to Jenkins. He said he thinks it is wise to explore different approaches right now, given the state of the pandemic.

“Every time we think we have the pandemic behind us, it seems like we don’t,” Jenkins said. “I think it’s certainly worthy of pursuit until we fully have the pandemic under control because we don’t know what’s going to happen.”

Union negotiators returned to the table last month to continue bargaining with the University in hopes of negotiating a new contract that considers the various impacts of COVID-19 on employees and creates a more equitable workplace.

The two parties have been meeting frequently for day-long sessions to negotiate the demands.The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) represents clerical and some healthcare workers at the University as they negotiate a new two-year contract.

In an effort to encourage negotiations to continue at a faster pace, union leaders protested at the Oct. 7 Board of Regents meeting. They also held a rally in front of Coffman Memorial Union on Sept. 22.

“The University has been, I would say, a bit slow this time around and not as prepared in each session for meetings,” said Cherrene Horazuk, president of AFSCME 3800. “But it’s not uncommon for us to be bargaining into the fall.”

Work modality flexibility

One demand union workers are pushing for is increased flexibility to work remotely and in-person. AFSCME is pushing the University to create objective guidelines for work modality based on job descriptions and duties, Horazuk said.

“The decision was made back in June of this year by my manager to mandate all of us to be back on site 100% full-time regardless of what we were doing, particularly on the basis of us being clerical workers rather … than on [the] basis of what work we are doing,” said Jack Smith, a clerical worker with Research Animal Resources.

Smith said while he and his coworkers had to return to the office, his manager was able to continue working at home. He said he knows workers in other departments with similar situations.

Some workers who must return to the office are concerned about the effect it could have on their health, and the health of others around them.

Rachel Katkar, an administrative assistant in the School of Dentistry who works in the office three days a week, said her child cannot get vaccinated yet and has other health concerns.

“What we do in our private lives is really coming to the forefront … so there really is a lot more risk for certain individuals,” Katkar said. “It’s something that’s on my mind all the time, being as careful as I possibly can be, but there’s always a risk certainly in coming in.

Ultimately, individual departments and supervisors have a high degree of authority to make decisions and determine work modalities, which results in some departments providing more flexibility than others, Horazuk said.

Essential worker pay and pandemic response

Another demand union workers are pushing for throughout negotiations revolves around the University’s essential health workers, their working conditions and pay throughout the pandemic.

Deb Pavlica, president of AFSCME Healthcare 3260, said she does not think the University vaccine attestation policy is an effective measure to guard against increasing COVID-19 variants among faculty and students, nor is there sufficient mitigation of students going to gatherings and bringing the virus back to campus. As students continue to get sick, this creates more work and possible dangers for University healthcare workers.

AFSCME has a proposal for the University to create more comprehensive vaccine and testing requirements, Horazuk said. They asked the University to send testing reminders to staff and faculty who declined to answer if they’re vaccinated on the attestation form. The University denied this request saying some people who declined could be vaccinated.

“We think they’re more interested in protecting themselves from legal liability than they are in actually providing a safe and healthy environment,” Horazuk said.

Additionally, essential workers want a pay raise that equates to the extra work they have done and continue to do throughout the pandemic, Pavlica said. At the start of the pandemic, workers received an additional $2 each hour, but that ended in June 2020.

“You just keep pushing us further and further to the point where people have quit … and we can’t find people to come,” Pavlica said. “We’re tired. The front line is so tired.”

The University is currently offering a 1.5% pay increase as part of the contract in negotiations. This increase isn’t enough to keep up with inflation and increased energy costs, Sande said.

“For some of our workers who are some of the lowest paid employees at the University of Minnesota, that’s less than 25 or 20 cents an hour,” said Andrea Sande, president of AFSCME 3801 at the University of Minnesota Duluth.

Now, union workers are asking for an across-the-board increase of 75 cents an hour.

Meaningful raises would recognize the work of clerical employees throughout the pandemic, many of whom are typically women and people of color, Sande said.

Improving workplace equity

Another topic union workers are currently negotiating encompasses improving workplace social and racial equity, said Sarah Vast, a clerical worker in the College of Education and Human Development and secretary of AFSCME 3800.

Some of these demands concern accessibility for transgender and gender-nonconforming workers. For example, Vast, who is gender-nonconforming, said they must travel across three buildings on campus to access a restroom that is safe and comfortable for them.

AFSCME also has proposals around hiring practices. While many University jobs don’t require a four-year degree, oftentimes only degree-holding candidates are hired.

It is important to think about what jobs are truly entry level and keep in mind the historically marginalized groups surrounding the University community that may be applying for jobs, Vast said.

“[It’s important] getting the University to think about how they recruit and also train and support and develop and retain a truly diverse workforce,” Vast said.

AFSCME and the University began negotiating these contract demands, which consist of about 70 proposals, in June. The next bargaining session is set for Oct. 12. The University so far has not moved on many of the union’s top priorities, spurring members to mobilize more workers to push negotiations, Horazuk said.

“We know that when the University hears that buzz, that’s what moves them,” Horazuk said. “We’re bargaining not just for ourselves, but for the thousands of frontline workers at the University who deserve raises and respect.”

As the COVID-19 pandemic revealed an increased need for improved faculty governance communication, faculty leadership at the University of Minnesota are looking for new ways to improve communication and advertise what they do.
Faculty Consultative Committee (FCC) leadership and members are now implementing new processes to improve bidirectional communication between faculty and governance to improve the role faculty play in the University’s shared governance system. Faculty often do not see the behind-the-scenes work, so by sharing more explicit information about governance actions, leaders say they hope to close the information gap.
“The environment’s pretty dynamic with COVID, and faculty have a lot of concerns [and we] want to make sure that their voices are being heard and being considered in decision making,” said Colleen Flaherty Manchester, FCC vice chair and work and organizations associate professor.
The FCC started discussing the growing need for improved communication with faculty who are not involved in University governance prior to the pandemic, but it became a priority during the past year and a half, Manchester said.
Many critical and important decisions were made at the senior leadership level during the pandemic, and these decisions may not have always been communicated in the best way, said Mark Bee, FCC member and ecology, evolution and behavior professor.
“When communication breaks down, it can lead to a high level of discontent among the faculty,” Bee said. “I believe that the return to the fall semester and how some of those plans were communicated have caused a great deal of discontent among faculty.”
Part of the FCC’s responsibilities are to take concerns from faculty to senior administrators like the president, the provost or the Board of Regents.
“Some people know that and they email us, but I don’t know how clearly everybody knows that or [that] they can contact the senate with issues,” said Ned Patterson, FCC chair and professor of veterinary medicine and genetics. “So, we’re trying to improve access to that and the ability to bring up issues to us.”
The lack of widespread knowledge of how faculty can navigate University governance to voice their concerns is one reason why FCC leadership and members said improving communication is important right now.
There are some faculty who may be in the “trenches,” so they may not know the level of consultation the FCC conducts with senior leadership, Bee said.
“[They’re] unaware of how much consultation happens between the FCC leadership and administration, and I think that’s been one element that’s been missing is making faculty aware of just how much consultation does happen,” Bee said. “Because faculty are often unaware of that, it leads to this impression that the administration is not listening.”
While the FCC takes important faculty issues to senior leadership and advocates for faculty, it does not mean the administration will always implement their advice.
“They don’t always do what we say or what other people say, but in my experience, they always listen and consider it and do have some response,” Patterson said.
This fall, the FCC started sending biweekly FCC updates to the faculty senators as one approach for improving communication, Patterson said. Prior to this, senators might not have known everything the FCC was working on, even though senators are the elected representatives for faculty.
These updates include several items the FCC has accomplished as well as several action items the FCC is working toward, Manchester said. These updates are sent out in an email to the faculty senators, which also includes a form where faculty can communicate specific issues and sign up to speak at an upcoming meeting.
While these updates are only sent to faculty senators, they can send the information along to their constituents. Faculty can then directly voice their concerns to the FCC or communicate through their senators.
Another approach some FCC members have taken is reaching out to their colleges to discuss important issues that impact more than one college or campus and remind faculty of the avenues available for communicating issues with leadership, Bee said.
While the pandemic emphasized the need to improve communications, this will be something to prioritize and develop in the future post-pandemic as well, Manchester said.
“COVID has made it more critical right now,” Manchester said. “But I think it’s an ongoing need because there’s always going to be change and things to weigh in on, so I think it’s imperative right now.”

As the first semester with the majority of classes taught in-person ramps up at the University of Minnesota, an oftentimes overlooked part of the University community is sharing their concerns about returning to campus: graduate student instructors.
Many of these graduate students shared their concerns regarding COVID-19 working conditions in an open letter to the University, urging administration to create a stronger safety plan. Although the work by graduate students is essential to keep many classes functioning, they also work as teaching assistants and co-instructors, who said they are not always consulted in the same way as students, staff and faculty.
“I helped write that letter because I feel pretty strongly about how the University has dropped the ball, especially for us graduate students who are also TAs who haven’t been involved in the decision-making process,” said Thomas Eichlersmith, a co-author of the letter and physics lead mentor teaching assistant (TA).
Many graduate students said they were left out of conversations about classroom and workplace safety, conversations that led to decisions that directly impacted them. While poor communication between administration and graduate students is nothing new, the pandemic intensified it, said Annika Yates, a co-author of the letter and anthropology TA.
As a result of the lack of consultation between graduate students and administration, many students said they did not have the flexibility to choose the teaching modality that best fit their individual situation.
“When we got [our] TAs assignment, the modalities were set,” Yates said. “Our needs and our safety concerns were not taken into consideration when those TA assignments were made as far as I can tell.”
This became a problem for some graduate students who live with young children, immunocompromised people or have health concerns themselves, some students said. It became a choice between choosing the University or personal safety in some cases.
“You have to take what you can get or you lose your funding. You have no salary, no health insurance [and] you can’t take classes,” Yates said. “It’s through teaching that we are able to be here as PhD students.”
While graduate student TAs are not able to officially change the modality of their class sections, they can switch their courses to be temporarily online, Eichlersmith said. However, instructors are recommended to find a substitute before changing modality.
“If somebody is asking me to substitute TA for them because they’re out sick, what are the chances they had COVID? What are the chances they got COVID from that class that I’m going to be walking into?” Eichlersmith said. “This poorly thought out process just shows a lack of thought about graduate student workers.”
University Executive Vice President and Provost Rachel Croson sent faculty and staff emails throughout August with guidance to address some of their concerns. Among other things, these guidelines recommended assigned seating for contact tracing, what to do if a student doesn’t comply with the indoor mask mandate and reiterated that instructors cannot inquire if a student contracted the virus.
This guidance from senior leadership has not been enough for many graduate students though, some students said.
Many graduate students are also unsure how to deal with any possible outbreaks in their classes, according to the letter. Due to federal health information privacy laws, professors and TAs cannot ask a student if they have COVID-19, nor can they disclose to other students if their classmate tested positive.
Fears of an outbreak especially created concern for graduate students assisting with large classes, such as Alexander Provan, who is one of two TAs for a political science class of 150 students.
“Having that many people in a room, even if many of the people are vaccinated, present[s] a bunch of problems and there really has been no guidance from the University as a whole about this,” Provan said.
If a student discloses to a TA they were exposed to or tested positive for the virus, the University told TAs they can tell students they personally have been exposed, so the students should consider getting tested, Yates said.
Relating to possible exposures, graduate students are also worried about class sizes and locations because social distancing is not always possible, according to the letter.
“The class I’m teaching now is a 200 person class, and it’s meeting in a 200 person room,” history TA Eliana Chavkin said. “I was excited to return in-person because I thought it would foster better relationships with students and would make me better able to teach them, but I’m worried about safety.”
Many graduate students are also expressing their concerns about the University’s student vaccination requirement form, a stance that many faculty at the University have echoed. The vaccine mandate does not require documentation and any consequences for students who fail to fill out the form won’t take effect until spring 2022.
“What I wanted to see…[was a plan] that took into consideration the challenges and the different needs of not just grad students, but other students as well as other faculty and staff,” Yates said. “And it feels like that hasn’t happened.”

The COVID-19 pandemic has continued to impact many facets of life, and getting back to a sense of “normal” has been an oftentimes welcome but nerve-wracking process. Higher education was not left unscathed in this regard.

At the University of Minnesota, the current expectation is that most classes will be held in person with an indoor mask mandate and student vaccine requirement. Faculty at the University shared their responses to returning to campus, responses that ranged from trepidation and frustration to careful excitement.

“I think most faculty are happy to be back in the classroom,” physics professor Aaron Wynveen said. “[But] I see the anxiety among some of the faculty.”

While faculty generally support the mask mandate and student vaccine requirement, one concern among some faculty has to do with how the University structured the vaccine requirement forms, some faculty said. Currently, students only have to submit the dates of their vaccine doses and do not need to provide documentation of their vaccination.

“I don’t think it’s really out of the question to just ask for [students to] send a photo of the front and back of [their] vaccine card,” computer science professor Christopher Kauffman said. “If [they] had at least required a picture, I think that would have made me feel a little bit better about it.”

In response, some faculty wrote an open letter to the administration advocating for stronger safety guidelines. Among other things, the letter calls for a stronger vaccine mandate, clear guidance on mask enforcement and enhanced flexibility.
Some faculty said they worry there is too much room for a student to lie about their vaccine status if they felt compelled.

“The vaccine mandate is full of holes and that’s because it’s ‘trust and not verify,’” Eva von Dassow, an associate history professor said. “Chances are, most people are not going to lie, but…that’s not sufficient in the view of many people—that isn’t really a vaccine mandate.”

Concern about how the University decided to mandate vaccines reaches further than just the student requirements. Some faculty also said they wished there was a faculty vaccine requirement.

The University chose not to require the vaccine for staff and faculty because there is no vaccine policy for that group, like there is for students, according to University leadership. Faculty only need to attest to being vaccinated or can decline to answer.

“I think it is very unfortunate that there is a differential vaccination requirement between students, faculty and instructors,” dance professor Carl Flink said in an email to the Minnesota Daily.

An additional concern is that professors have no way of knowing if a student in their class has COVID-19 and cannot alert their other students due to legal privacy concerns related to health information.

“There are some indications that…there’ll be a certain amount of contact tracing and students who have been associated will be informed, but I don’t have a seating chart in my classroom,” biology professor Ruth Shaw said. “I don’t know how that’s going to get done.”

Some faculty also feel they were not given enough flexibility in choosing whether they taught in-person or online. Instructors are required to teach in person with exceptions on limited grounds, so many instructors who would prefer to teach online are teaching in person, von Dassow said.

Instructors chose their class modalities in June, and trying to change them now can be an arduous process, according to Shaw. There are only two conditions in which an instructor can request to switch online: for pedagogical reasons or individual safety. This means an instructor cannot switch to online because they have an immunocompromised family member or one too young for the vaccine.

Overall, some faculty said they feel the University’s senior administration and leadership have not listened to their concerns regarding the pandemic, and more should be done to protect the safety of the University community.
“It just pains me because it really feels to me that the leaders of the administration had plenty of opportunity over the summer to put much greater precautions in place,” Shaw said.

While some faculty feel higher administration has not listened to their concerns, others feel administration has consulted with faculty leadership going into the fall semester.

“There are some faculty members that don’t think there’s been much conversation or consultation or listening by the administration,” said Ned Patterson, veterinary medicine professor and Faculty Consultative Committee chair. “My experience in faculty leadership is that there has been.”

Patterson said when there was a consensus on significant concerns, like mask-wearing and vaccine requirements, faculty leadership advocated to the administration. This did not always result in an administrative decision that directly coincided with all faculty requests.

“We may give advice and some they take and some they don’t,” Patterson said. “When there’s a wide range of opinions, you’re never going to keep everybody happy, but you have to make a reasonable decision.”

In the end, while there are numerous concerns that many faculty share, and some anxiety returning to campus, generally most faculty said they still prefer teaching safely in person and returning to “normal.”

“COVID-19 may forever be with us…we therefore are entering a new stage of the COVID-19 epidemic: Normalizing and accepting its presence,” journalism professor Marco Yzer said in an email to the Minnesota Daily. “Going back to in-person teaching is a good way to start that process.”

The University of Minnesota Board of Regents approved the “Get the Vax 2.0” policy at a special board meeting Friday, a plan that makes the COVID-19 vaccine mandatory for students contingent on U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

Currently, the FDA has only approved COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use, but University leadership expects that full approval of at least one vaccine is imminent. Previously, the University chose not to require masks or vaccines for students, faculty and staff, until recent increases in cases and transmission with the delta variant.

“We need to take action here to prevent another period of remote learning in our University triggered by another surge in the pandemic,” board chair Kendall Powell said at the meeting. “This resolution would allow us to do that.”

As it stands, “Get the Vax 2.0” would impact the entire University community, but in different ways, according to University President Joan Gabel.

There will be qualifying exemptions that allow students to remain unvaccinated in certain situations. These include medical exemptions with the appropriate documentation from a clinician, as well as exemptions related to religion, Gabel said.

For current required vaccines, there are medical, religious, and conscientious exemptions, Regent Darrin Rosha said at the meeting. The COVID-19 vaccine requirement will not include a conscientious exemption, which allows students to opt out of the vaccine due to personal beliefs, so it will be treated differently than other required vaccines.

Under “Get the Vax 2.0,” faculty and staff will not need to adhere to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, but they will confirm whether they are vaccinated through online attestation, Gabel said. They will also undergo frequent testing when necessary if they are exposed to the virus or experiencing symptoms, especially if they are not vaccinated.

“The difference in how faculty and staff are being treated and how students are being treated is a reflection of the fact that students are currently covered under a vaccine mandate policy, and faculty and staff are not,” Gabel said at the meeting.

Gabel also said there is nothing preventing a vaccine mandate for staff and faculty, and the University might add those groups to the mandate in the future.

The indoor masking mandate will also continue as part of the “Get the Vax 2.0” policy, Gabel said. The University will regularly review this mandate as data is updated.

Gabel said the University’s decisions to mandate indoor masking and vaccines upon FDA approval were based on information from health experts, data and trends, both nationally and locally.

While the majority of the board was in favor of this policy with a 10-1 vote to approve it, there were still concerns among the University community.

One concern among students is the timeline of this policy, Regent James Farnsworth said at the meeting. Once the FDA approves a vaccine, the proposed student mandate would take effect six weeks later. Some people think this may be too late, according to Farnsworth.

Gabel said there will be a grace period with this policy as there is for other vaccines, however, full details of that grace period have not been finalized and released yet.

“Details on timing and grace periods for the vaccine requirement…and how we’ll work failure to comply and the consequences for that are forthcoming [and] being managed through shared governance,” Gabel said at the meeting.

The Senate Consultative Committee along with other University leaders will hold a virtual town hall at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, Aug. 18 to provide more details on the policy and answer questions from University community members that have not been addressed.

While this policy will mandate vaccines for students and more closely monitor staff and faculty, most of the University community that has been surveyed so far is already vaccinated, Gabel said.

“This [policy] is to close as much of the gap as possible in order to ensure the delta variant and other variants that may be coming do not interfere with our strong desire to have the most robust fall semester we possibly can,” Gable said at the meeting.