I have two groups of comments/questions/requests. The first pertains to ROTC, specifically; the second concerns more general matters.

1. ROTC-related comments:

As you may know, every person who teaches in our ROTC program (and, for that matter, every other ROTC program in the US) is a member/employee of either the US Army, US Air Force, or US Navy/Marines. That is, they're not UNM employees, and therefore they require LATs to work at universities as instructors. Their paychecks and insurance, of course, are provided by their respective branches of the military.

Further, it is standard military/ROTC practice nationwide to assign these individuals to 3-year assignments.

Finally, there is a standard nationwide correlation between the highest academic degree earned and the (LAT) faculty title bestowed — a correlation that does not exactly comport with the ways that other UNM LAT titles are assigned. I have sent a chart to the University Secretary showing how this correlation pertains to UNM's faculty titles specifically.

In light of the above, here are my requests:

- Can an exception be either (a) added to the language of the policy or (b) spelled out in a separate MOU to University College and our three ROTC programs that allows ROTC instructors to have 3-year (rather than 1-year) LATs as standard practice?

- Similarly, can we construct an MOU codifying the correlations on the chart and noting that they are for ROTC only?

2. General questions/comments/requests concerning the policy's structure and categories:

In the Procedures section of the proposed policy, section 1 discusses LAT Titles and Ranks. Then, section 4 discusses LAT Categories. I am finding these separate discussions of titles/ranks and categories to be confusing. Here's why:

- Is each title/rank a *member* of one of the categories? (For example, if an individual is an assistant professor via LAT, does that mean that the individual is *also* a member of category 4.2: Voluntary Teaching Affiliates?)

- Or are the ranks & titles discussed in section 1 completely separate from and unrelated to the categories discussed in section 4? (Thus, if a person has the specific rank of assistant professor via LAT, does it mean that that person is NOT a Voluntary Teaching Affiliate?)

If there is a relationship between the Categories and the Ranks/Titles, then I recommend that this be made explicit in the policy. To do so, you might want to introduce the Categories first, and then discuss the specific titles/ranks that are available under each category.

If there's no relationship, however, then I think you need to say that one large batch of LAT people are given specific ranks/titles while a separate/different batch of LAT people are given Category designations rather than ranks/titles.

Please feel free to contact me if this is not clear. Thank you.
David Weiss
University College

This revision attempts unsuccessfully to address the gendered nature of adjectives in Latin by adapting the common English language use of "they/them" pronouns to denote non-binary identity to a faculty status denoted by a Latin term. The proposed use of "emeriti" does not accomplish the goal, because this is the masculine plural form, not a neutral form, so the feminine gender is excluded.  Referring collectively to "faculty emeriti" is at least grammatically correct, but excludes female identifying faculty. Some parts of the revised policy refer to individual faculty members having the title "Professor Emeriti," which would misgender female faculty, is grammatically incorrect in Latin, and is not a term with a recognized meaning. As a male-identifying individual, I would have no intention of ever using the title "Professor Emeriti" if awarded, because doing so would be ridiculous and inaccurate. The proposed policy revision needs to provide that individual retired faculty can choose the title that is appropriate to their identity.  For a gender neutral option, I suggest we use "emerit," which is an English adaptation similar to referring collectively to "alums."  This has begun to be used at some other universities, and it at least avoids creating multiple gender and single/plural disagreement problems. The fact that some individual faculty retirees might prefer a gender neutral title should not deprive those of us who identify with one of the binary genders from using an historically established, understood, and linguistically correct title.  Another issue with the proposed changes is that it is unclear when they would take effect. Under the new policy, a department's recommendation must incorporate reference to the department's written standards for emeritus status, which few if any departments have in place. Award of emeritus status should not be delayed by the requirement that departments fashion a written standard. Furthermore, department written standards should be required to align with established department expectations and practices, to avoid the risk of a moving goal post late in faculty members' careers.

Regarding the proposed revisions to Policy C305, could the committee clarify how the term "retire" is defined for the purposes of Emeriti eligibility, particularly concerning a faculty member's subsequent activities?

Specifically, is "retirement" under C305 strictly tethered to Human Resources' age and service eligibility triggers for drawing post-employment benefits, or does it refer more broadly to a faculty member permanently leaving full-time academic service at UNM?

Furthermore, if a faculty member meets the 5-year minimum service requirement and steps down from their full-time appointment in good standing, does this definition place any expectations or limits on what they do next? For example, does the policy differentiate between a faculty member who leaves UNM to:

1. Fully exit the workforce (e.g., driving a Winnebago across the country),


2. Transition into a "working retiree" status at UNM a 0.25 FTE,


3. Pursue a late-career transition into private industry or entrepreneurship, or


4. Accept another academic or research position at a different institution?

Explicitly defining whether Emeriti status is an academic designation based on the cessation of full-time service at UNM, regardless of HR financial classification or subsequent career moves, would greatly help clarify the policy's application and intent.

Thank you for your time and work on these revisions.