We believed that there would be a serious hole in the university's structure if we did not apply this to all academic staff and are so proposing. When the floor was opened for discussion, English professor Joan Larsen Klein moved that the senate take an advisory vote on the issue of whether the proposal should include academic professionals. Philosophy professor Richard Schacht seconded the motion. Emanuel Donchin, a professor of psychology, said he intended to vote against including academic professionals in the proposal. It's important to make a distinction between faculty members and academic professionals.
Faculty have a very different relationship with the university.
An advisory vote was taken, and the senate voted that academic professionals should not be included the proposal. Afterward, the senate debated an amendment from Peter Loeb, a professor of mathematics, designed to clarify the wording of an item in the original proposal. In addition, law professor Matthew Finkin flagged several areas of concern, including the sanction of suspension with pay, which he said would be viewed by the general public as the awarding of a paid vacation for misconduct. But I. David Berg, a professor of mathematics, voiced his support of the appeals committee. These are not trivial sanctions being described, so I think it's reasonable to have a fairly elaborate process to make sure they are justly assigned.