“What am I supposed to do again when someone tells me they’ve been sexually assaulted?” …
The 21-year-old UO junior didn’t know she was a mandatory reporter until summer 2011. No written policy, no explanation, she said. “No one knew what they were doing,” she said. “It was so unclear.”
Drobnick, like her fellow RAs, didn’t know about decades-old laws that require UO employees to report to the administration any case of sexual assault they are aware of. She didn’t know because no one told her. …
UO law professor Cheyney Ryan first expressed his concern about UO’s compliance with Title IX in 2009 to administrators in dozens of emails. The law requires universities to adequately train students and employees to know how and where to report a sexual violence case. …
Not until 2011 did the UO hire a Title IX coordinator — a position required for all universities under Title IX.
“As we were looking more critically at our compliance in 2011, there were queries, ‘Well, who is the Title IX officer?’” said Penny Daugherty, director of UO’s Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity. “Given that this is the office that deals most clearly with discrimination, it was logical that I would be the Title IX officer. It’s become part of my role.”
AAEO has been a disaster under Ms Daugherty, who has regularly failed to prepare UO’s federally required Affirmative Action plans. More here. Frohnmayer used to backdate them for her, to make it look like UO was in compliance. 2/25/13.
Assign tenured faculty oversight to avoid compliance-duty dumping.
heeheehee Chandler Did you just say, “duty”? “Duty dumping”?
The U of O as an institution fails to comply with Title IX, in substantive ways. As the Emerald article notes, the university has been required to have a Title IX coordinator since 1972; it says it only became aware of this in 2011! This is indicative of the problems. It is obliged by Title IX to provide ongoing education to all faculty about the law of sexual harassment and discrimination, which changes all the time. I would ask faculty reading this if they receive such regular updates, or have received any training at all. Most distressingly, in my experience, our administrators are not adequately educated/trained. It is often faculty that bear the costs of this.
What does this say about the importance of these issues:
Two years ago, the administration moved the Affirmative Action Office to 12th and Hilyard, on the other side of Sacred Heart. The office charged with dealing with all forms of discrimination is not even on campus! (It used to be in Oregon Hall.) I received an email from a disabled student pointing out that it was almost inaccessible to someone in a wheelchair. It took him 40 minutes to get there, and he had to cross two busy streets. His complaints to the adm about this never received a reply.
I am encouraged that we have a new president and new vice-provosts. Addressing these issues is not rocket science. If you want to see how it is done well, check out the practices of UC Irvine, where President Gottfredson was previously provost:
http://www.oeod.uci.edu/sho/
Of course, this should all be done at no cost.
Faculty oversight might help ensure adequate resourcing of this function.
I wonder whether the sarcasm reflects anger that is adaptive or not.
In the resolution to the federal complaint against Yale, mentioned in the article, it was stressed that there be a single office for students/faculty to bring their concerns about all forms of discrimination, centrally located. There are some things that Affirmative Action does that could be done at its current office–a student of mine clocked it as a 25 minute walk from the dorms. But surely space can be found at the center of campus for meeting with U of O members about their concerns, complaints, etc.
While I agree that it should be found, it seems naive to say “surely space can be found at the center of campus.” From what I understand, we have a massive space crunch right now.
As I recall, when the Jock Box was opened, to skepticism, the adm argued that it needed to be located where it was to be easily available to students (athletes). The last I looked, the space in Oregon Hall where Affirmative Action used to be was empty. Put it back there.
In fairness, the entire HR unit moved to that building, as well as a number of administrative units such as Enterprise Risk and Enrollment Management. Whether or not that office is “on campus” or not is sort of beyond the point considering who moved there with them.
What central administrator’s A are you kissing? Or better yet, what central administrator are you?
Save us, Phil. We can’t find our A with both hands!
Really? that read as “a” kissing?
Compliance??? that office and their bogus administrator hasn’t been in compliance from the day after her meeting with DF to discuss his plan of enrichment for every one that complied to his demand. compliance I laugh……not on this watch.
Anyone that has gone to that office for help is fired or expelled at some point after they complain. EVERYONE knows you don’t go there to get help!!! Dig a little deeper people. The entire office needs to be flushed and start over with people inclined to be in compliance.
University of Oregon. Disaster. Yup.
In related news, the SCOTUS is now considering whether to take on the Emeldi v. UO discrimination/retaliation case. What role did Penny Daugherty have in that? Grier? Geller? Park?
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-871.htm
The U of O will lose the Emeldi case, if it does not settle before that, because it was mishandled by the graduate school. The court judgment allowing the case to proceed made it clear that it did not find the grad school’s account of its actions credible. There have been several cases like this in the last decade or so, reflecting the fact that administrators are not trained in the relevant law. Daugherty may be responsible for some of this, but she is not a lawyer either (the U of O is the only Oregon university whose AA director has no legal training).
I notice the remark above griping about the cost of bringing the U of O into compliance with federal regulations. I wonder where this person thinks the money comes from to pay for defending the university in federal court, and for the judgments that follow, due to the ignorance of faculty/administrators of those policies.
The point of that remark is that the cost of doing so is reflected in the cost of administration, which is constantly criticized.
I understand this concern, but most education on these matters is now done on-line, as the U of O currently does education about its financial procedures. Since Title IX policies are federal policies, existing on-line programs can be easily adapted to the U of O, and they do not involve much cost to oversee. I have worked with three universities in the past year that have implemented such approaches, with minimal cost.
I would anticipate great administrative interest in your help.
Actually, my offers of help have been completely ignored up to now. As the Emerald article notes, I started raising these issues about for or five years ago. My concern increased when I realized the situation at the U of O was no better, perhaps worse, than that at Yale, the subject of federal complaint. I wrote a lengthy letter to Berdahl at the time, detailing the Title IX problems. He did not bother to respond to it. In fact, VP Tomlin issued a statement accusing me of “causing turmoil” by raising concerns about sexual harassment, and his office’s handling of it. Pardon my annoyance.
President Gottfredson has an excellent track record on these issues, as does Yvette Alex-Assensohdo and our new vice-provosts. I am sure these issues will be addressed.