After a yearlong trial, Washington University faculty remain divided over offering online classes.

About 150 faculty members filled Wilson 214 during Friday’s faculty meeting to debate whether to pass a resolution to continue working with the online education platform Semester Online, the for-profit business that currently runs the program.

Semester Online, a consortium of several major universities and colleges hosted by 2U that allows students to take online classes offered by any of the participating schools, has held a contract with Washington University on a trial basis for the past year.

While many faculty members feel that the trial should be extended for another two years through the spring semester of 2016 for further assessment, others came to the meeting to voice lingering concerns and frustrations with the pilot initiative. Some were concerned by the program’s lack of transparency, but others wanted to support professors’ rights to teach through online classes.

Faculty members will vote via an automated email so that members can express their decision without fear of judgment from their peers. The voting period will remain open until March 31, when the decision to continue or terminate the contract with Semester Online will be finalized.

Doug Chalker, chair of the Curriculum Committee, noted that his committee recommended passing the resolution but added that the recommendation was not unanimous.

The Curriculum Committee recommended further assessment on the basis that it remains unclear how the platform complements the University’s main programs and how it will affect enrollment in summer courses.

Michael Sherberg, a member of the Curriculum Committee who voted against the resolution, argued that the University’s relationship with 2U was questionable because of the lack of transparency and misrepresentation.

“Semester Online was conceived and advertised as bringing added value to our curriculum—in theory, students could take courses online that we do not offer here,” Sherberg said. “So far, only a few of the courses 2U has developed actually bring added value to our curriculum; the rest of the courses we already teach.”

Calling the relationship a “bait and switch,” he stated that he felt that 2U was not following through on its promises.

“Regardless of the intentions of 2U at the inception of this project, we are left now with a relationship that raises questions of bad faith. In part, we cannot trust this relationship because there is a frustrating lack of transparency about it,” he said. “The question here is not one of efficacy…nor is it a question of the role of online learning in arts and sciences, which is a broader conversation. Rather, it is a question of whether 2U and the University’s relationship with it are trustworthy.”

Professor of biology Allan Larson was skeptical about how useful voting on the issue would be.

“It seems like the online course issue is bound to return even if we vote no on it now,” Larson said.

Michael Wysession, an associate professor of earth and planetary sciences who is teaching a Semester Online class this semester, was pleased by the results of the program, which features online “discussion sections” via Skype.

“I have never felt more personal connection with students in any classroom, even in smaller seminar courses,” Wysession said. “The reason is that there’s no hiding…you see every facial twitch of everyone in the class and nobody hides. Everyone is right there.”

“I’ve been to a lot of these meetings…One point that we haven’t talked about is the academic freedom for people who want to teach courses this way. A lot of the times in these meetings, it seems like the people who have really spent a lot of time developing these courses and really enjoyed making the courses and teaching them have been kind of on the defensive, trying to justify what they’ve been doing,” Brett Hyde, professor of linguistics and philosophy, said.

Ed Macias, former provost, responded, “From the beginning, we only took volunteers. We only took people who were interested and wanted to try. It’s not uncommon to try a new teaching method…that’s something we’ve always prized and want to allow.”

Mark Pegg, professor of history, wanted to make it clear that the opposition is not afraid of change but rather is concerned by the process itself.

“Nobody opposing this motion has thought that online learning isn’t a good idea or that technology might not be useful. It’s not fear that our jobs are going away; it’s not fear of online learning or 2U,” Pegg said. “It’s the process. It’s the fact that there has been a lack of faith. It was a dictate from on high. We were told to fall into line; we never had any transparency.”

Provost Holden Thorp noted that discussions about online education are unavoidable, but regardless of what happens with the vote, the University will continue to look into the idea of online courses.

“We should just do these things, and then in a few years figure out if they work because we spend a lot of time talking about this, but as far as Semester Online is concerned, if it’s voted down, Wash. U. will withdraw from the consortium. But I’m sure we’ll be back here talking about larger online courses, free online courses…this topic is going to be here for a while,” Thorp said.