UO Senate to question Gottfredson on scandal, academic freedom, etc

3PM in 115 Lawrence. Official agenda here, live video here. My understanding is that Senate President Paris has cleared the session for as long as the Q&A takes. The UO M timeline on the rape and cover-up allegations is here. Sorry, the live-blog below has gaps – though none as bad as those in the administration’s timeline on how they responded to the rape allegations.

Short Version:

He’s not ready to sign the Academic Freedom policy – his lawyers still need to review it. Speaking of lawyers, I wonder how much Rudnick and Frohnmayer have billed on this so far.

President Gottfredson reiterated his desire to protect UO students. He was very forceful about that. It was a better delivered speech than his usual, but he didn’t explain the many gaps in the timeline, e.g. the 14 day gap, JH failure to send the EPD report to the UOPD, the Geller resignation, decision to dismantle the IAC, etc. He was asked about Senate participation in hiring the FAR replacement. He punted. I asked him if he had ever planned to report the alleged rape to the campus. He didn’t give an answer to that. (If you’ve got any idea how not giving a police report to your police “protects your students” please let him know, for his next speech.)

After the questions ended, I asked the Senate to suspend the rules to consider a resolution about the allegations and the administration’s response, but explicitly not including a vote of no-confidence. The senate voted 30/9 to suspend the rules. People repeated said that the Senate needed to “own this problem” as it involved our core responsibilities as teachers. Senator Martinez proposed that the resolution include a call for a) an investigation of the response to this situation and b) proposals for how to fix issues uncovered during a).

The Senate agreed that we needed to act but that we could not draft this resolution on the floor. The Senate will draft it over the next two weeks, and vote on it at the 5/28 meeting.

Reports: LMS. New Ombud Bruce McAllister introduces himself. Lots of experience, attorney, 1st floor of Anstett. Serves faculty, employees and students – anyone impacted by UO. Has already worked with a few “visitors”, ready to roll out soon. Has one staff person. Four principles: Confidential and informal, does not report (e.g. not the place for Clery reporting. Neutral and independent, although he’s hired and paid by President. Serious about the confidentiality.

Stahl speaks on behalf of Nathan Tublitz, giving notice of motion for a vote of no-confidence in President Gottfredson.

President Gottfredson’s University Update:

Pres Gottfredson, university update:

well thank you Margie ah and thank you for your service to the Senate this past year. –the skill, diplomacy w/ which you’ve handled any number of issues that have come before the Senate (applause)

I had intended to talk about strengthening of acad freedom policy, transforming OARs into UO policy, academic freedom is one review away from approval;

50-70 academic policies that will be coming your way. These matters are important, but there’s another issue as you know of more immediate urgency sexual assault, harassment, and intimidation on our campus. NO one should ever have to experience them

not one student, not one staff member, facaulty member, a single member of our communicty. Yet too many do. Pres Obama has identified sexual assault as a significant threat to our campuses, our community, our country.

1 in 5 women is sexually assaulted while in college. That’s shocking to many. That’s appalling. But this figure does not shock the good people o n our campus who work in health centers, campus counseling, dean of students’ offices: they are all too familiar with this statistic.

Right now our campus is grappling with this issue.

It’s angered many people and how we react to it will define who we are: we have the opp to take our anger around this issue and direct it to a solution. WE have the responsibility to become leaders in creating a campus safe from sexual harassment and violence. I’ll tell you what we’ve been doing and will be doing.

Because we cannot by law share many details of the current case, many have speculated we are not acting in the best interest of the university,

these allegations are false and these speculations are highly inappropriate.

Highly sensitive material,

protecting the safety, rights of individuals involved was and is our top priority.

I understand the frustration of not being able to say more. We would like to say more. But we will follow federal law in protecting the privacy of our students.

When we receive a report, an established process of federal response occurs immediately. Within minutes. Within a context of various laws and policies designed to provide the highest protection for the rights and safety of our students.

Support srvcs for those who experienced the violence.

application of our code of conduct.

cooperation with law enforcement.

We have obligations in all these areas that we must balance, in real time. Incredibly complex, nuanced, often contradictory. As the national conv. now tells us. The moment we receive a report, parallel processes begin. Many of the U’s actions are not disclosable, to protect privacy. In general, actions we might take include issuing no contact orders; providing requested accommodation;

WE can’t talk about this. To do so risks violating privacy.

We have seen the unfortunate consequences of judgment in the absence of information.

I’m responsible for the integrity of the campus and safety of our students. I take it seriously. I study crime, violence, and prevention. It’s my life’s work. Interfering w due process, indiv rights to privacy, or an ongoing investigation that cd jeopardize a prosecution is s.t. we would not do, I would not do.

For the survivors, for the accused, for our campus, for our society.

It was entirely appropriate that we work closely with EPD while they investigated, and abide by their request to not jeopardize their investigation. Timeline of their investigation on our website.

Interfering w due process, indiv rights to privacy, or an ongoing investigation that cd jeopardize a prosecution is s.t. we would not do, I would not do. For the survivors, for the accused, for our campus, for our society.

We seek to balance our obligations under Title IX, which allows us to defer our investigation for law enforcement—not forever, but for an appropriate time.

We did meet our obligations under the Clery Act.

Now is the time to turn our attn to the future. Come together as a campus, as a community, to make our u stronger, safer. To make sure we are all fostering the culture of safety, dignity, respect for students. We share responsibility for creating a culture safe from sexual harassment, violence, abuse.

Vote of confidence for Holmes and her staff. The steps she took addressed prevention,

stdt sexual misconduct, harassment, and assault policies and protocols, outreach practices. The Grove report found much to commend, and room for improvement. Need to add staff, information, improve student education. Most done, some yet to do, including redefining the parameters of the conduct code.

3+1 new staff members;

now, 2 additional staff positions: sexual assault survivor services position (not mandatory reporter) + EO specialist, to oh Christ who knows.

Campus climate surveys.

independent review, composed by representative experts on sexual violence, higher ed, athletics, and law (I missed one)

efforts to respond to sexual violence and intimidation.

to move us forward

Holmes, Mullens and I are taking recommendations for members of the group.

‘personal respect and privacy, student safety adn academic integrity’;

we will solicit input from our own community;

this is our time to come together to change the culture of harassment and intimidation. It’s our duty and resp. to one another. We have the will, leadership, ability to change the culture and make the campus safer for everyone.

Q: Harbaugh: protection of students a foremost priority? I met yesterday with UOPD spokesperson and was told that the UOPD never received a copy of the EPD’s investigation from your office, but from the R-G. How, if protection is our highest priority, was this information not conveyed to the UOPD?

A: I don’t know what our department’s response to that would be.

Q: The got it 3 wks after the report was complete, and only got it from the R-G.

Margie: does the central admin have a policy of not providing information to the UOPD?

Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to UO Senate to question Gottfredson on scandal, academic freedom, etc

  1. Trying to Watch says:

    Trying to watch from my desk, the system in on overload, I keep getting kicked off.

  2. Trying to Watch says:

    I’m back in Another meeting?

  3. Anonymous says:

    I wonder if UOPD staff members are school officials for the purposes of FERPA. This could have something to do with the choice not to tell them.

    • Anonymous says:

      If they are school officials, wouldn’t FERPA keep them from revealing information but not keep them from being informed? If they aren’t school officials but law enforcement like EPD, they should still be informed, right? Otherwise, why have a campus police force if they can’t be in the know?

      • Anonymous says:

        Informed of what? The UOPD was the first to know.

        • Anonymous says:

          Informed of the EPD investigation results and for which Gottfredson had no answer when questioned how JH informed UOPD. You really need to keep up on the details.

  4. Anonymous says:

    Gottfredson knocked it out of the park. Good luck with your motion.

    • Anon says:

      His voice wasn’t as squeaky, I agree. I’d say he dropped the ball on the whole Q&A though.

  5. Anon says:

    I watched as much as I could online before the tech errors occurred with the feed. The president acted extremely sheepish when the toughest questions were presented about the reported sexual assault and he had no answers. Zero. This guy has a set of brass balls on him to first address the room by saying he has a long background in criminal justice. Did he forget the justice part? As far as I can see, nobody is held responsible or accountable. No justice has been served.

    • non nom says:

      Couldn’t agree more.

      For me the pivot point was this early statement:
      “Because we cannot by law share many details of the current case, many have speculated we are not acting in the best interest of the university, these allegations are false and these speculations are highly inappropriate.”

      Right. So, no person may question the ruling divinity? One must trust they know what they’re doing and when to do it. They are all knowing in their FERPA-tude and listeners must answer to the almighty …. ? No wonder he prevaricates on the Academic Freedom Policy.

    • How long must we suffer says:

      this fool of a President?

  6. Anon says:

    Providence College dealt with the accusactions of gang-rape with Brandon Austin a little differently. I haven’t heard of any FERPA complaints being logded as a result: “The same day, Providence College’s head coach, Ed Cooley, decided to suspend Austin and Bullock from playing in games until the allegations could be investigated.”


    I, personally, want to know why the UO did not take the same course of action, because Providence College is not being indicted under FERPA.

    • non nom says:

      Agreed, and why, indeed.
      The UO Football team has, in the past, suspended players until allegations could be investigated. Standard practice for some, but apparently at UO it depends upon which team.

      • uomatters says:

        Today, at its first ever public meeting, with several reporters, outside faculty, and community members present, the IAC finally voted to get some information on this. Specifically, we voted to request that the UO coaches and Athletics Director Rob Mullens provide the IAC on policies and procedures for suspending athletes from the various UO teams.

        Senate President Margie Paris was charged with getting this information from the athletic department, and I will post her requests, and the responses from the Duck coaches and Mullens.

    • uomatters says:

      Thanks for posting this link. It’s good to know that some colleges, and coaches, do the right thing.

      There’s so much going on now I can’t keep up. Readers, please post relevant links.

  7. Anon says:

    FERPA is being horribly misrepresented by the administration, as is their pattern.

    I started pasting from this, but there were so many I stopped. Please read up on this and speak up when next we find an administrator hiding behind FERPA.


    • Anonymous says:

      I haven’t put all this together with the timeline and Gott;s claims, but there have been questions about the UOPD and Records. Here is what it says in the link above:

      “”Law enforcement unit records” (i.e., records created by the law enforcement unit, created for a law enforcement purpose, and maintained by the law enforcement unit) are not “education records” subject to the privacy protections of FERPA. As such, the law enforcement unit may refuse to provide an eligible student with an opportunity to inspect and review law enforcement unit records, and it may disclose law enforcement unit records to third parties without the eligible student’s prior written consent. However, education records, or personally identifiable information from education records, which the school shares with the law enforcement unit do not lose their protected status as education records because they are shared with the law enforcement unit.”

      • Anonymous says:

        Here is one interpretation of the policy above:

        According to UO timeline:

        “March 9: Survivor tells her father of the incident; father contacts UOPD. UOPD attempts to contact survivor twice; she does not return calls. (Information from EPD investigation report) University immediately implements policies and procedures used whenever anyone reports sexual violence. In every case these processes would include support and services for survivors and a code of conduct investigation.”

        So far, no EPD involvement so no directive from EPD not to act – not to discipline or suspend pending investigation the players because there is no criminal investigation yet (not reported to EPD until March 13-14 and UO did not ask about NCAA tournament until March 17).

        So what were those actions the University implemented immediately? And, what is UOPD’s role in terms of notification, given that reports to UOPD created for a “law enforcement purpose” are not FERPA-regulated educational records.

        There might be perfectly reasonable explanations for all this and certainly less than a week (March 9 to March 14) might not be enough time to conduct a student conduct investigation. But, I am pretty sure we have seen examples before of athletes being suspended pending an investigation. Why not this time, given the severity of the allegations?

        It is faculty’s duty to get clear on the policies driving all these actions so we can all understand what should happen in situations like these. Forgive me if I don’t trust the administration when it says it did everything perfectly.

      • uomatters says:

        Thanks – sad that Gottfredson keeps clinging to this. I wonder what he is hiding with it?

        • Anonymous says:

          his backside

        • Anonymous says:

          Posted this to wrong page. Here it is again:

          Another exception to FERPA:

          Information may be released:

          “To the general public, the final results of a disciplinary proceeding, subject to the requirements of §99.39, if the school determines the student is an alleged perpetrator of a crime of violence or non-forcible sex offense and the student has committed a violation of the school’s rules or policies with respect to the allegation made against him or her. (§99.31(a)(14)).”

          Therefore, we should request Gottfredson to release documents pertaining to the discipline of the 3 basket ball players. They were disciplined so were assumed to have violated the school’s rules or policies.

          I think what we have to collectively do is poke through the FERPA shield they are using so as to reveal what is legitimate under FERPA and what is not.

          I think we also have to get records regarding similar situations for non-athletes so we can see if these students were treated differently because they are athletes. Have there been allegations of sexual assault by non-athlete students against other students in the past? How were those handled?

          In addition, Gott is either lying about the Clery response or does not understand it. Their timeline says that UOPD was contacted on March 9 (EPD was not contacted until March 13-14).

          The Department of Education Handbook on Clery reporting states:

          “Crime log entries include all crimes reported to the campus police or security department for the required geographic locations, not just Clery Act crimes.

          • The crime log discloses specific information about criminal incidents, not crime statistics.

          • The log is designed to disclose crime information on a timelier basis than the annual statistical disclosures. A crime is entered into the log as soon as it is reported to the campus police or security department. This includes crimes that are reported directly to the campus police or security department, as well as crimes that are initially reported to another campus security authority or to a local law enforcement agency who subsequently reports them to the campus police or security department.

          It also says incidents must be entered into the log within two days. So, it should have happened before this ever went to EPD. But even if it didn’t, if EPD was notified right away, the act clearly states UOPD has to post to the crime log even if it is report to another agency.

          I hope this is followed up by the Coalition.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Perhaps the Senate should review Gottfredson’s responses to questions at the meeting and his prepared statements and draft a letter outlining the discrepancies or questions he just dodged. He does that so frequently but gets let off the hook.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Guess we will get a Federal answer to the Clery question:


    I agree with Freyd that it seems the Cleary act with regard to the crime log, requires listing of those crimes “reported” to UOPD without reference to any particular boundaries.