Today: Senate to elect new VP, awards, remarks from Pres Schill, reception

After informative statements from both candidates, and questions, the Senate elected Chris Sinclair as VP and President Elect.

Video from last week’s meeting is here:

Senate Meeting Agenda May 25, 2016. 

Browsing Room, Knight Library; 3:00-5:00 pm

3:00 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:00pm    1.   Call to Order

3:05 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes 2.1      May 18, 2016

3:05 pm    4.   New Business

3:05 pm          S.1      [Suspension of the Rules] Report: “Academic Continuity;” Academic Integrity Taskforce

3:20 pm          4.1      US15/16-30: Addendum to Spring 2016 Curriculum Report: Minor Changes to the MA/MS in Folklore:Public Folklore track; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair of the Curriculum Committee

3:25 pm          4.2      US14/15-40: To Promote Representative Attendance at Senate Meetings; Senate Executive Committee

3:35 pm          4.3      US15/16-31: Announcement and Confirmation of Spring 2016 Committee Appointments; Committee on Committees

3:45 pm          4.4      Election of the Senate President-elect (Vice President) for 2016-2017

Chris Sinclair
Associate Professor
Rich Margerum
Professor/Dept Head
Planning, Public Policy & Management
Candidate Statement Candidate Statement

After informative statements and questions, the Senate elects Chris Sinclair as VP and President Elect.

3:55 pm          4.5      Year – end remarks by President Schill

Thanks to Randy Sullivan for doing the difficult job of Senate VP so well. Generally pleased with the progress over the past year.

4:15 pm          4.6      UO Senate Award for Shared Governance, Transparency, and Trust: Bill Harbaugh, Professor (Economics)

4:25 pm          4.7      UO Senate Classified Staff Leadership Award: Dorothy Attneave, Campus Planning, Design &  Construction

4:35 pm          4.8      UO Senate Wayne Westling Award: Robert Kyr, Professor (School of Music & Dance)

4:45 pm          4.9      UO Senate Officer of Administration Leadership Award: Kimberly Johnson, Office of Academic Advising

4:55 pm          4.10    Passing of the Gavel to the Incoming Senate President Bill Harbaugh (Economics); Randy Sullivan (Chemistry), Outgoing Senate President

4:55 pm    5.   Open Discussion

4:55 pm    6.   Reports

4:55 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

4:55 pm    8.   Other Business

5:00 pm    9.   Adjournment

5:00 – 6:00 pm          Senate Awards Reception – same location

Baylor fires Ken Starr after mandatory prayer policy fails to end rapes

It’s the usual big-time college sports story: the athletes were raping undergrads, and the coach and president were doing their best to cover it up.

The WaPo has a report here. Baylor’s faith-based sexual assault policy doesn’t seem to have worked out so well for the survivors:

Pray for the wisdom of our leaders as they shape efforts to prevent interpersonal violence and care for survivors of sexual assault.

I Timothy 2:1-2: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for everyone, for…all who are in high positions, so that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and dignity.

But I’ll guess that Baylor’s board of trustees will pay President Ken Starr plenty to leave “in godliness and dignity.” The UO board spent $940K to get rid of Mike Gottfredson. Getting rid of Ken Starr has to be worth twice that.

Screen Shot 2016-05-24 at 11.59.15 PM

Shelton & Moffitt to discuss UO budget in open SBC meeting, Wed at 11

Wednesday May 25 at 11:00 AM in the Johnson Hall Conference room.

Brad Shelton and Jamie Moffitt will be in attendance to talk about the budget and the budget (re)alignment process.

The agenda is:

1) State of the UO budget (15 minutes)
2) Moving forward with budget processes (45 minutes)
a. The budget plan
b. The budget process
c. The role of the SBC
d. Identifying priority areas and measuring quality/impact
e. How do decisions get made

I’d actually asked the committee to meet about a different topic – budget realignment:

There’s an interesting article about realignment at Berkeley, here:

I’d like to propose that the SBC ask the administration for the spending cut proposals that have been prepared by the various academic and administrative units, and meet to discuss these.

Instead we’re getting the generic Brad and Jamie show.


Brad Shelton is starting the process of setting up committees to get faculty input into budget priorities and reallocation, including hiring of faculty.

The administration set up the Budget Advisory Group a few years ago to do some of this, but it’s not part of the Senate – all members are picked by the administration.

Similarly with the committee Brad has set up to develop a new budget model – no Senate input into who is on it.

Dreiling asks what the role of the SBC will be. Shelton says that he gets some BAG members from the SBC.

Chalmers asks Brad about Academic Analytics. (We spend $100K on this, CAS refuses to even use it.) Coltrane says he’s seen the problems raised by Linguistics, and that he is conducting a study and might cancel the contract. Or not.

Federal Court rules students should get fee-waivers for public records

UO’s public records office routinely uses fees and delays to frustrate the intent of Oregon’s public records law, aided by the desultory enforcement efforts of the local DA and the Oregon DOJ. UO even charges its own student journalists fees, and refuses to let them use ASUO i-fee money to pay those fees.

The federal government is much more reasonable about fees – I get anautomatic waiver up to $250, as a blogger, and so do student reporters. And now the D.C. Circuit courts has significantly expanded fee-waiver for students.  Frank Lo Monte has the news here:

… When a requester asks a federal agency to produce documents, the government normally is allowed to charge hourly fees for the time spent finding and reviewing the documents. But the federal FOIA statute limits what agencies can charge “educational institutions” to just the actual cost of making copies.

University of Virginia graduate student Kathryn Sack, aggrieved by a $900 bill from the Pentagon to locate records needed for her doctoral research, insisted that the “educational institution” discount should apply to her. A U.S. district judge disagreed, but on Friday, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit ruled in Sack’s favor.

“If teachers can qualify for reduced fees, so can students,” Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote in the court’s 3-0 opinion. “ Students who make FOIA requests to further their coursework or other school-sponsored activities are eligible for reduced fees under FOIA because students, like teachers, are part of an educational institution.”

Students affiliated with journalistic publications were already eligible for the fee reduction, which extends to “a representative of the news media.” But a student doing a research paper for a journalism course unaffiliated with a recognized media outlet – or perhaps with nothing more than the aspiration of selling the work as a freelancer – fell into a zone of uncertainty that the appeals court has now helpfully clarified. …

Prof. Freyd posts resource page on opposition to mandatory reporting policies

Check her website here for updates, page down for the current links. Among many other resources she provides a link to the recently updated University of Michigan policy, which explicitly excludes faculty from the list of “Responsible Employees”, thereby allowing them to talk to students and employees about sexual and racial harassment without being required to report the details to the university administration. The executive summary of the UM policy explains:

The development of the policy was a comprehensive and collaborative effort that included a rigorous and iterative drafting process with broad input from students, faculty and staff across the university, including those who work in this area. It also includes guidance from national experts outside the university and at other universities.

The policy balances important principles of autonomy and agency for the claimant; 1 due process rights and considerations; and the university’s responsibility to maintain a safe, nondiscriminatory environment free from sexual and gender-based harassment and other forms of interpersonal violence.

During the UO Senate debates we were told the OCR was opposed to exempting faculty from mandatory faculty. But the UM document notes that their policy was was shared with the DoE OCR before being finalized:

APPENDIX A – POLICY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS A proposed draft policy, titled The University of Michigan Policy on Student Sexual Misconduct Including Intimate Partner Violence and Stalking in the Context of Intimate Relationships (the Draft Policy), was shared with all students, faculty, and staff Oct. 1, 2015, with an invitation to review the policy and provide feedback by Nov. 6, 2015. The university received feedback from more than 325 individuals. The draft policy was also shared with OCR in October 2015.

The relevant language from the new UM policy is here:


1. Responsible Employees and Other Individuals

Responsible Employees must immediately report any information they know about
suspected Prohibited Conduct to the Office for Institutional Equity or the Title IX
Coordinator. Responsible Employees may include non-employees in addition to
employees. Failure by a Responsible Employee to timely report a suspected Prohibited
Conduct may subject them to appropriate discipline, up to and including removal from
their position. Responsible Employees may report to the Title IX Coordinator through
any of the reporting options previously noted in Section VI(B).

The following individuals are Responsible Employees and Other Individuals:

• Regents;
• Executive officers (including those serving in the role of Associate or
Assistant Vice President/Provost, as designated by the executive officer);
• Deans, directors, department heads/chairs (including those serving in
assistant or associate roles);
• Graduate and undergraduate chairs;
• Supervisors who have hiring or firing power over at least three employees
who are not student or post-doc employees;
• Any individuals, whether employees or not, who serve as advisors to or
coaches of University-recognized student group

Faculty and staff who do not meet any of these criteria are not considered Responsible Employees and Other Individuals. Individuals who are Confidential Resources are not Responsible Employees. Any questions regarding who is a Responsible Employee should be directed to the Office of the General Counsel at (734)764-0304 or the Office for Institutional Equity at (734)763-0235 2.

2. All Other Employees

Reporting is an important tool to address Prohibited Conduct. Thus, while all other employees who are not designated as Confidential Resources should safeguard an individual’s privacy, they are also strongly encouraged to share any information about such conduct with the Office for Institutional Equity, the Title IX Coordinator, or a member of the Dean of Students Office.

Freyd website as of 5/22/2016:

Ethical and Practical Problems with Required Reporting of Sexual Violence on College Campuses

A Compilation of Articles and Resources

Compiled by Jennifer J Freyd

Disclosure: I have an opinion on this issue — I’m opposed to so-called required reporting on ethical grounds: I consider it a violation of basic human rights to privacy and autonomy; I believe removing autonomy is harmful to survivors based on what we know from social science research; and I believe the policy is fundamentally counter to academic freedom, learning, and equal access to education (and is thus a civil rights violation). I’m also opposed on practical grounds: I believe required reporting will chill reporting on campus and, in the meantime, there are good approaches available to encouraging voluntary — and instiutionally accountable — reporting.

This Site is Under Construction

News Articles:

Professors Are Being Forced To Reveal Sexual Assault Confidences, Like It Or Not by Tyler Kingkade, The Huffington Post, 10 May 2016.

Endangering a Trust by Colleen Flaherty, Inside Higher Ed, 4 February 2015

Faculty Commentary Opposing Required Reporting:

The Problem with “Required Reporting” Rules for Sexual Violence on Campus by Jennifer Freyd, Huffington Post Blog, 25 April 2016.

Ohio University faculty members want mandatory reporter rule reevaluated by Miriam Shadis and Patricia Stokes (and many signers), The Post, 22 October 2015

The Chilling Effect of Mandatory Reporting of Sexual Assault by Michele Moody-Adams, The Chronicle of Higher Education, 11 March 2015

Trust me…no never mind by Denice Labertew, California Coalition Against Sexual Assault Blog, 5 February 2015

Student and Survivor Voices Opposing Required Reporting:

Anonymous Open Letter to the UO Senate from a Graduate Student blog post 26 April 2016

Survivor Survey on Mandatory Reporting by End Sexual Violence

Statement regarding UO Responsible Employee Duty to report sexual harassment and sexual assault policy by UO Organization Against Sexual Assault

Some Universities with Policies that Do NOT Require All Faculty to be Required Reporters

  1. University of Michigan
  2. NYU
  3. Cal Tech
  4. CUNY
  5. Hofstra
  6. University of North Carolina Chapel Hill

(More details about specific policies here.)

Scholarly and Scientific Research Relevant to Required Reporting

See this compendium

See Also

Civility breaks down as trash-talking Law School taunts last place Ducks

Thanks to an anonymous reader for the forward:

Date: Friday, May 20, 2016 12:18 PM
To: “” <>
Subject: law-fac-staff: We’re #1!

Thank you for your support and enthusiasm – and for putting up with my incessant updates! I am so very proud to say that the School of Law is #1! Great job to everyone.

Winner! School of Law with 213 donations (20% of our donations for the year!)
1st Loser: CAS – 202
3rd Place: Business – 162
4th Place: Journalism – 131
5th Place: Libraries – 125
6th Place: AAA – 117
7th Place: President’s Office – 114
8th Place: Education – 95
9th Place: Student Life – 85
10th Place: Music & Dance – 84
11th Place: Honors College – 69
12th Place: Athletics – 31

Again, many thanks to you all. Nice work!

UO Giving DayA very well done website and one day giving campaign seems to be going very well:

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 11.22.59 AM

NLRB crushes administrators’ dream of mandatory civility and positive thinking

During the first faculty union contract bargaining sessions The University’s bargaining team of Sharon Rudnick, Tim Gleason, and Doug Blandy spent hours haranguing the faculty union team about a “civility” policy  – by which they meant a prohibition on faculty criticisms of the inept Mike Gottfredson and his Johnson Hall administration.

The AAUP’s Mike Mauer and our own Dave Cecil called out the administration team for attempting to use the civility buzzword to stifle criticism, and the UO Senate passed an Academic Freedom Policy which explicitly protects the right to criticize the administration – not just for faculty, but for all UO employees and students.

And now the National Labor Relations Board has come out against mandatory civility too, in a ruling against T-Mobile:

1. Since at least January 16, 2014, the Respondent promulgated and has maintained a provision in its employee handbook entitled “Workplace Conduct” that provides in pertinent part:

[The Respondent] expects all employees to behave in a professional manner that promotes efficiency, productivity, and cooperation. Employees are expected to maintain a positive work environment by communicating in a manner that is conducive to effective working relationships with internal and external customers, clients, co-workers, and management.

The General Counsel contended that the undefined phrases “positive work environment” and “communicating in a manner that is conducive to effective working relationships” are ambiguous and vague, and would reasonably chill employees in the exercise of Section 7 rights. The judge disagreed and recommended dismissal of the allegation. We reverse.

We find that employees would reasonably construe the rule to restrict potentially controversial or contentious communications and discussions, including those protected by Section 7 of the Act, out of fear that the Respondent would deem them to be inconsistent with a “positive work environment.”

And just in case this ruling is not perfectly fucking clear, the NLRB then went on to require T-Mobile to prominently post this poster, reminding their workers that they do in fact still live in a free country (emphasis added):

Screen Shot 2016-05-19 at 1.15.54 AM

Bob Berdahl joins faculty union in endorsing Measure 28 business tax increase

Let me be the first to congratulate former Interim UO President Bob Berdahl (left) on his courageous support for Better Oregon’s Measure 28 ballot initiative, which is the only proposal on the table that would increase tax revenues by enough to allow the sorts of increases in higher education funding that he calls for in his Oregonian Op-Ed here.

Although, on a closer read, Berdahl doesn’t actually come out in support of Measure 28, which does have some issues. So his op-ed has  a better substantive proposal for raising the money, and a plan to put it on the November ballot? Nope. Instead he starts with a bit of self-congratulation:

As one of the advocates for creating separate governing boards for Oregon’s universities, I was pleased to note the apparent success The Oregonian/OregonLive reported about the initial operation of these boards.

He then cites some well known numbers on how little support Oregon provides higher education, and makes this radical proposal:

Perhaps it is time we started asking candidates for the Legislature about their priorities.

Yes, perhaps it is. What a powerful idea. Perhaps. I do like Berdahl’s conclusion though:

Why do we cheer when one of our university athletic teams is ranked in the top 10 or contending for a national championship, but seem satisfied that “record” funding for higher education leaves us in 41st place?

Senate meeting Wed 5/18 on Mandatory Reporting

Live-blogging will be light.

Watch Live

Senate Meeting Agenda – May 18, 2016

3:30 pm    Introductory Remarks, Senate President Randy Sullivan

3:30 pm    1.   Call to Order

3:30 pm    2.   Approval of Minutes 2.1      May 11, 2016

3:32 pm    4.   New Business

3:32 pm            4.2     US15/16/-25: Scheduling of Examinations Policy; Undergraduate Council and Senate Executive Council. Passes unanimously

3:37 pm            4.3     US15/16-24: Major/Minor/Certificate/Program Course Overlap Policy; Undergraduate Council. Passes unanimously

3:42pm             4.4     US15/16-23: Responsible Employee Policy; Committee on Sexual & Gender-Based Violence

The Senate blog has many statements and comments, here.

3:50: Clarifying amendments pass unanimously. The Senate is now working on the version here.

Koopman (Philosophy): Introduces a sunset clause for 12/15/2016, arguing that the policy is important, affects many campus groups, and many different kinds of interactions, and that the Senate needs to ensure that all stakeholders are involved and all issues considered.

Sunset clause passes 27-10. Discussion of main motion resumes.

Koopman lays out the issues:

Screen Shot 2016-05-18 at 5.19.40 PM

He then proceeds to use this to show that mandatory reporting does not need to be universal, and shows the internal contradictions of the proposed policy.

5:30: The policy fails, 15 to 16.

4:50 pm            4.4     US15/16-26: Approval of Curriculum Report, Spring Term 2016; Frances White (Anthropology), Chair, Committee on Courses. Passes unanimously.

4:55 pm            4.5     US14/15-40: To Promote Representative Attendance at Senate Meetings; Senate Executive Committee. Held over.

5:00 pm    5.   Open Discussion

5:00 pm    6.   Reports 6.1      “Academic Continuity,” Academic Integrity Taskforce. Held over.

5:15 pm    7.   Notice(s) of Motion

5:15 pm    8.   Other Business

5:30 pm    9.   Adjournment

Today at 3:30 in 156 Straub: emergency Senate meeting on Mandatory Reporting

The Senate webpage with the policy proposal and amendments is here. The Senate blog is here – many interesting comments.

Some History of the Responsible Employee policy, from the GCO:

Prior to February 2016, UO Policy, set forth in Oregon Administrative Rule 571.003 governing Grievances, required all UO employees to report instances of unlawful discrimination to the Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity Office or their supervisor.  University-provided sexual harassment training, as well as annual announcements from the University President reiterated that all University employees are required to report to the appropriate office any information received that established a potential sexual harassment or other instance of prohibited discrimination.  Under those long-standing policies, reports of any type of unlawful discrimination, including sexual harassment, were to be made to AAEO or the employee’s supervisor, regardless who the alleged victim of the discrimination was.  That pre-existing policy did not adequately clarify which offices on campus qualified as “confidential resources” where student survivors of sexual harassment could turn to make reports in a manner that promised the reporter confidentiality.

At the same time, the 571.003 grievance policy, in a separate section, purported to give any officer of the university who was called upon to participate in the informal resolution of a complaint of prohibited discrimination the authority to maintain confidentiality of reports of sexual misconduct or prohibited discrimination, unless that university officer independently determined that the report posed a health or safety threat to the individual.  This confusion, combined with new guidance from the White House and the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, and an understanding that reports of sexual misconduct in which students are the victims should be reported to university officials with the ability to respond swiftly and appropriately to the needs of those victims, fueled an understanding by the University Senate’s Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support that the University needed to revisit and clarify policies regarding reporting of information of sexual misconduct.  The Task force determined:

“We understand that the current required (mandatory) reporting policy is based on UO Legal Counsel’s interpretation of OAR 003 0025, Subsection 2A. Reporting of sexual violence is essential to understanding the problems on our campus, making decisions about how to allocate resources, and complying with legal obligations. However, we agree with the White House’s “Not Alone” report that clearly identifying confidential personnel on campus and communicating effectively and straightforwardly with faculty and students about what required (mandatory) reporting means, why it is important, and how reporting works is vital to our efforts.  One first responder at UO suggested that there should be “greater access to confidential resources and a greater latitude to disclose only what a survivor wishes to disclose in a formal report,” a desire that reflects the White House’s recommendation about the need for degrees of confidentiality. As “Not Alone” puts it, individuals who work or volunteer in on-campus sexual assault centers, victim advocacy offices, women’s centers, or health centers, including front desk staff and students who provide assistance to students who experience sexual violence, should provide aggregate data, but should not be required to report, without the student’s consent, incidents of sexual assault to the school in a way that identifies the student. Other universities are taking different approaches to required (mandatory) reporting, approaches more in keeping with White House recommendations.  In order to comply with new federal regulations and White House Recommendations for best practices, the Senate will immediately review the outdated OAR.

In February 2016, anticipating the creation of a policy clarifying employee reporting obligations and specifying the campus’ confidential resources for survivors of sexual misconduct, the University President issued an emergency policy, revising OAR 571.003, making clear that university employees, other than those specifically designated as “confidential,” are expected to report to the AAEO any instance of unlawful discrimination and to report to either the Title IX Coordinator or the Office of Sexual Violence Support Services any information received concerning sexual harassment in which a university student is the alleged victim.  The policy revision attempted to demonstrate clearly which campus resources (victim’s advocates, ombuds, student survivor legal services, health and counseling centers) remained confidential resources available to survivors.

The Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence thereafter took up the task of drafting a permanent policy responsive to the Task Force’s recommendation, seeking to clarify which resources on the UO campus would remain “confidential” and responding to guidance from the Office for Civil Rights and the White House requiring that universities designate which employees were perceived to be in a position to respond to reports of sexual misconduct, such that notice to those employees would be deemed notice to the university of the misconduct.  In drafting the policy, the CSGBV received input from students, faculty members and employees. The CSGBV also considered guidance issued by the Office For Civil Rights in 2014, which states that a: “responsible employee includes any employee: who has the authority to take action to redress sexual violence; who has been given the duty of reporting incidents of sexual violence or any other misconduct by students to the Title IX coordinator or other appropriate school designee; or whom a student could reasonably believe has this authority or duty.”

The result of the CSGBV is the Responsible Employee policy currently under consideration.


John Bonine (Law) makes the case for voting against the mandatory reporting policy:

Dear colleagues,

I am out of the country, so cannot participate in the Senate meeting.  If I were present, I would have to vote to delay any permanent policy until survivors, students, and other stakeholders could be consulted and participate. Lacking a formal delay, I would have to vote “no,” which would send it back for broader discussions.

 I share some thoughts on why. 

1. First, contrary to some statements, the CSGBV committee did not unanimously support the proposed policy in front of us (mandatory disclosure of private sexual assault information to the administration). I and at least one other member strongly objected in various emails. Only 6 out of about 12 or 15 members voted “yes” during the sudden, 6-hour window. I was overseas and did not see the email voting until the period had closed. But my position was clear and I would have preferred that the committee would not have been represented as “unanimous.”

2. There is not just one legal view of whether involuntary  reporting of student trauma to administration authorities is legally required.  I have carefully analyzed the law and federal guidance and come to the opposite conclusion, as have several legal experts at the national level. 

3. Even if Title IX did require involuntary reporting to authorities of student sexual trauma, against a victim’s wishes, that would not make all the other elements of the policy legally required. Indeed, the constantly shifting amendments reveal that this is an area for debate and rational discussion and policy-making.

4. In my view, the Senate has a crucial role to play at UO – to reflect the views of constituencies and to apply our own analytical rigor – not to approve something just because some committee members did.  Indeed, the latest amendments do not have the imprimatur of the committee. If we do not understand each element of this dramatic policy, we should formally delay or vote no.

5. There has been no discussion with the very adult students whose autonomy will be violated. No town halls. No debates in dorms. We are a better university than one that treats these future leaders as children, whose privacy we should invade without discussion.

6. Something that concerns me deeply is that perpetrators, upon being notified by the university that they are suspected, are now hiring lawyers and investigators who then contact parents, grandparents, and friends with both questions and insinuations about a victim’s sexual history, sexual orientation, use of alcohol, attendance at wild parties, and other personal things. Reporting without permission enables that. A survivor of sexual assault should be able to weigh risks and make decisions, rather than having persons s/he doesn’t even know make those choices for her/him. (I respect some who would make those decisions, but who might make them next year or the year after?) I would leave such a decision, fraught with risks, in the hands of the already victimized.

7. Whatever the Senate does, the administration may adopt the policy regardless. But that is not a reason to vote yes. 

If a person votes yes, that constitutes their formal commitment to take away the autonomy of a student who might later come to them. They cannot later say that they were required to do so by policy. They must look a victim of assault, and indeed other students, in the eye and say that they personally voted to take away that autonomy, with whatever additional trauma that action may cause. The Senate simply does not have to do this – and I am unaware of any other university senate in this country that has done so.

Given all these concerns about both process and substance, as an independent-thinking Senator I would have to vote no on the present policy. 

Best regards,


John E. Bonine

B.B. Kliks Professor of Law

5/17/2016: The meeting will first deal with two uncontroversial policies on exam timing and course overlap. Then we will deal with Mandatory Reporting or, if you prefer, Responsible Employees. This post will be updated erratically below.

The Senate webpage with the policy proposal and amendments is here. The Senate blog is here – many interesting comments. The current policy is here. It is admirably transparent:

(8) Reporting Requirements: The Director and Title IX Coordinator, as appropriate, shall: (a) On at least an annual basis, issue a statistical report to the President, the University of Oregon News Bureau, and the Oregon Daily Emerald of the number and kinds of discrimination and sexual harassment complaints received and how they were resolved. No names of individual’s involved or other identifying information may be released in this report. Data relating to allegations of sexual harassment shall be reported separately from other forms of prohibited discrimination. Further break-downs by category may be used if confidentiality can be preserved and if doing so will make the figures more meaningful to the public;

I asked GC Kevin Reed for these reports. He says that he is unaware of any such reports and that it is fully possible that there are none. Another of the many failures of UO’s AAEO office under Director Penny Daugherty. There have been two separate reviews of the AAEO office in the past year, but these are confidential and the GCO will not disclose them.

The policy has been revised many times in the past few years. The 2012 version is here. It requires reporting, but allows for anonymity of sorts for the reporter and apparently also the victim, and it allows for a faculty member to act as an intermediary between the victim and the University Administration:

(2) University Employees’ Responsibilities in Dealing with Allegations of Prohibited Discrimination or Sexual Harassment: The University has the responsibility to prevent prohibited discrimination from occurring in its work-places and its academic, research, public, and student service programs:

(a) University employees with credible evidence that any form of prohibited discrimination is occurring have the responsibility to inform their supervisors or the Office of Affirmative Action. Credible evidence is evidence of the kind that prudent people would rely on in making important personal or business decisions;

(b) Staff in the Office of Affirmative Action shall provide information about available complaint processes, services for complainants, and assistance with resolving complaints to any University employee who makes a report of alleged discriminatory behavior so that these employees may pass on this advice to those involved who may need this information;

(c) In making such reports, University employees may retain their anonymity;

(d) Staff in the Office of Affirmative Action will advise potential complainants of the options available to them, including applicable internal formal and informal complaint and resolution processes, as well as the possibility of filing with an external agency. Potential complainants shall receive the addresses and phone numbers of external governmental agencies with authority to deal with their complaints, as well as information about any time limitations on access to outside agencies’ processes.

(3) Discrimination Grievance Counselor: As required by OAR 580-015-0090, the University has appointed a discrimination grievance counselor who is the Director of the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (hereinafter referred to in this rule as the Director). The Director shall assist students and others in formulating and following up complaints of alleged discrimination.

(4) Formal Complaint Processes:

(a) All members of the University community considering filing a formal complaint alleging prohibited discrimination or sexual harassment are encouraged to contact the Office of Affirmative Action for information and advice. Potential complainants may remain anonymous. Affirmative Action staff will work for resolution through informal processes if that is what the complainant desires, or will assist in making a formal complaint and setting it into the formal complaint process applicable to the complainant; …

FWIW, former UO Pres Mike Gottfredson’s “Independent” Presidential Review Commission came out against the sort of broad-based mandatory reporting in this new proposed policy.