All - First, I will apologize for the posting length - not usually my style.

I just wanted to add something to this thread based on the my 40 or so years in the academic machine and recognizing that there have been some deviations into personal experiences and the state of education.

Back to the original topic of the article, which had to do with a professor not having his contract renewed based on negative student feedback. Here is what I know: It is doubtful that this was the full story of why the professor was not renewed. In my 40 years at one institution, I saw people "disappear" and sometimes (not always) a plausible explanation would be provided by the administration. In some cases due to my involvement I happened to know the facts of why that person "disappeared" and the plausible explanation was not usually complete. So, it is doubtful that any explanation ever communicated to the university or public is the full story. It is my opinion that there were likely other issues going on here between the administration and this professor and that the student petition just provided the plausible explanation for letting him go.

So, while it makes for a news story and interesting conversions, be cautious when extrapolating to talk of infringement on, and stifling of, academic freedom or the quality of education, educators, and students because we don't know the back story.

With regard to Ralph's reply on another posting:

"We need our students’ future employers to come to us and tell us what they look for in students and what they see as missing, and that rarely happens"

Last week (I believe) the 4th ACS Safety Summit addressed this question specifically, bringing together employers and educators of chemists to better define what chemical safety skills are important in the 21st Century workplace. I hope that we will see a report from this summit in 2023.

The ACS Presidential Safety Summit did occur last week in DC. The event (nearly 2 years in planning) brought together those from the relevant ACS divisions and committees, industrial partners, educators, and graduate students to listen to the industrial attendees about their expectations for new PhD hires - specifically what safety competencies would lesson onboarding time in an R&D laboratory. A report for the Summit will be produced (timeline unsure). Also presented at this meeting was a proposed clarification of the terms "Education" and "Training". These were developed by a small working group from the Committee on Chemical Safety (CCS). This also stems from an actionable item from a previous ACS Presidential Safety Summit on education.

With regard to Ralph's comment on issues of DEIR and the CCS

I agree that diversity, equity, and inclusion relates to cross-generational concerns as well as other identity issues, and that these issues have a direct impact on both practical safety and the safety culture of the chemistry profession.

So I appreciate Jack asking for CHAS to address this concern. With that in mind, I don’t speak for the Division, only for myself. I would also note that the Committee on Chemical Safety is the group that speaks on behalf of ACS as a whole on these topics.

While I don't know if CCS speaks for the whole of the ACS, per our charter in the Society Bylaws, we do provide guidance to others within the chemistry enterprise (among other things). In that vein, I can state that the CCS currently has a DEIR Task Force working on a communication to provide guidance on how issues of communication, marginalization, stress, and environment can impact laboratory safety and safety culture.

Additionally, and on a very encouraging note
In 2020, an Ad Hoc committee from the CCS (with members from CHAS, the DivCHED Safety Committee, and a CPT liaison) created a document to guide the CPT in the revision of the 2015 Guidelines with regards to safety.  A few weeks ago, the Committee on Professional Training (CPT) released their draft of the next version of "ACS Guidelines for Bachelor’s Degree Programs" for comment. Our Ad Hoc committee is in the process of formulating comments to provide back to the CPT. With that said, we were very pleased with the revisions we see in the safety section in the draft.
 
Sammye