12/9/2014 update:
In case you’re confused, there are two reports out now. The first is from the UO Senate Task Force, led by Carol Stabile and Randy Sullivan, and including Jennifer Freyd, Cheyney Ryan, and the US Attorney for Oregon Amanda Marshall. Their recommendations were presented to the Senate in October, here. The Senate is doing its best to implement them.
Today the UO administration posted the report of the “Presidential Review Panel” that former UO President Mike Gottfredson, his athletic director Rob Mullens, and his VP for Student Life Robin Holmes personally selected to review their handling of the March basketball rape allegations, and give advice on reforms. They refused to do the former, but their report on the later is now posted here.
I’ll be honest, I bailed at the point where Berdahl and the other panelists couldn’t even bring themselves to say Jennifer Freyd’s name, when talking about their euphemistic “campus climate” surveys. OK, I’m being unfair to the people who put in hard work on this panel, including Michigan’s Ted Spencer, who probably didn’t even get to collect his $10K honorarium, after the UM ethics office found out he’d tried to hide it.
Seriously though, it looks like there’s some good stuff in here about UO’s athletic and fraternity problems, and some sanitized but troubling history on the UO administration’s previous desultory efforts to address sexual assaults. I’ll give a redacted University of Nike coffee cup to anyone who can make it all the way through and provide a succinct annotated analysis, with a comparison to the Senate report’s recommendations.
Josephine Woolington is giving it a first crack in the RG, here:
Some professors questioned whether three current UO administrators could select members who would truly be independent of the university. Some also criticized the UO for paying each member $10,000, plus covering travel and lodging costs. UO spokeswoman Jennifer Winters said Wilcox and Shuman did not accept the money. The UO could not immediately say how much the panel has cost the university.
And she’s got a classic weasel word quote from the Gottfredson panel’s chair:
“I think what we found is that there’s a lot of pieces of good work being done throughout the university on both prevention and response, but (employees) are not always talking to each other, and there’s not a coordinated effort that makes the best use of resources,” said the group’s chairwoman, Mary Deits, a former Oregon Court of Appeals judge.
9/16/2014: KATU interview with the Honorable David Schuman confirms that the Gottfredson/Berdahl rape review panel won’t look into how Gottfredson handled the rape allegations.
And Carol Stabile, co-chair of the Senate Task force, says they can’t do much investigating, because the administration won’t share information on how they dealt with the allegations. The faculty is doing what if can to move forward though:
To: Scott Coltrane, Interim University President
From: Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support
RE: Initial Recommendations for Immediate Action
Dear Interim President Coltrane,
As you know, the Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support has been meeting since July 2014. While we are still working with various administrators to acquire data and information that is vital to our charge, we have already identified some items for immediate. In accordance with Senate legislation, we will submit our final report at the October 22nd University Senate meeting.
Below, please find our initial recommendations for immediate action. We are submitting these recommendations to you now because they are urgent and we believe that they must be implemented before September 29th, the first day of classes of the new academic year.
Using “Not Alone: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault” as a guide, we have identified six items (please see below) as best practices that have been or are being adopted throughout the nation.
After serious discussion, the Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Assault and Survivor Support voted unanimously in support of the recommendations below at our September 8th meeting. We urgently request that all of these recommendations be implemented no later than September 29th, 2014, except for 4a and 4b, both of which need to be received by all teaching faculty, including GTFs, no later than September 22nd, 2014:
1. Emergency Fund for Survivor Support and Prevention: UO should establish a discretionary fund for survivor support and prevention ($10,000) to be administered by the Sexual Violence Response & Support Services Coordinator. This amount would be reviewed at the end of FY 2014 by the University Senate, which will then make a recommendation for funding for FY 2015. Implementation: no later than September 29th, 2014.
2. Good Samaritan Policy: Recognizing that the threat of punitive policies can cause hesitation during stressful and confused situations, universities and communities around the country have adopted Good Samaritan policies. We recommend that the UO immediately adopt a Good Samaritan Policy, which we are forwarding to you as a link (draft included). Implementation: no later than September 29th, 2014.
3. Title IX Messaging: In order to comply with Title IX, the President’s Office should compose and send a message to all UO employees, which provides clear information about Title IX resources, identifies officers and deputy officers, and specifies all our Title IX responsibilities. Implementation: no later than September 29th, 2014.
4. Educational Messaging:
a. Syllabus Statement Regarding Sexual Violence: The President’s Office should send the attached message to all teaching faculty for inclusion on their syllabi. This message has been reviewed by the Teaching Effectiveness Program (draft included). Implementation: no later than September 22nd, 2014.
b. Guidelines for Classroom Discussions of Violence: The President’s Office should send the attached message to all teaching faculty concerning discussions of sexual violence in classrooms (draft included). This message has been reviewed by CoDaC, the Teaching Effectiveness Program, the Office of Equity and Inclusion, and faculty members from the Department of Women’s and Gender Studies. Implementation: no later than September 22nd, 2014.
5. Anonymous Reporting: The UOPD “anonymous” reporting form currently is tracking IP addresses. UOPD should immediately stop tracking IP addresses. Our final report will include additional recommendations addressing concerns about reporting. Implementation: no later than September 29th, 2014.
For your convenience, we offer the following links to further important resources:
• Not Alone
• Title IX
• Clery Act
• University of Oregon resources
• The website of the Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support
Respectfully submitted,
Carol Stabile, Professor (Journalism; Women’s and Gender Studies);
Randy Sullivan, Senior Instructor (Chemistry; Biochemistry);
Co-Chairs, Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support
9/16/2014 Coltrane’s Sex Assault Review Panel grants new 3 minute public input slots: Turnout is predictably low, and 2 of Gottfredson’s hand-picked panelists are missing, including Chair Mary Diets.
I don’t think I’ve seen Bob Berdahl in this room since he anointed Mike Gottfredson as our new president:
12:32: Judge David Schuman chairs. Only 3 people have signed up to speak at this sham, so he’s extending the 3-minute limit.
John Davies (Former UO counseling center psychologist): Ran programs to involve men in sexual assault prevention. Could never get support from male UO presidents or coaches. Speaks in support of SWAT and other ASUO programs. Schuman: What could be done to encourage coaches to get involved? Davies: I don’t know, I bet you do.
Lynn Stephen (Anthropology prof): Courageously gives her personal history with rape, and sexual harassment by professors as a graduate student. Relates the sexual assault problem to student culture. Talks about UO’s research expertise with sexual violence. We need to change the culture, and we need to do that as professors by requiring courses for our students that deal with it.
Bonnie Mann (Philosophy prof): If you want upper level administrators to participate in sexual assault prevention, write it into their job description. (Is it in Rob Mullens’s?) Supports mandatory courses and self defense. Wants to speak about the mandatory reporting policy that Gottfredson imposed on all UO employees. Worried that mandatory reporting will lead to unexpected secondary effects, by discouraging victims from getting help. Many at UO are not happy about UO’s heavy-handed interpretation of the law. She’s heard of two sexual assaults in the last week. Victims and their supporters are afraid of triggering the policy, can’t talk honestly. In terms of victim outcomes, it’s important that they can speak to others, and not be blamed. UO is too concerned about liability.
Schuman: Mandatory reporting has come up repeatedly with our committee. Any other speakers? Questions from panel?
Weiberg asks about practicalities of mandatory courses. When, how many, who teaches. Stephen responds. Schuman asks about other universities with mandatory courses. Not many. Stephen says many professors could teach this, from different approaches, importantly an ethical one. “What sort of person do you want to be?” This is what our students are searching for.
Q: Important to involve heterosexual male teachers in this.
12:57: Meeting adjourned, 27 minutes into the scheduled hour.
9/15/2014 update: This will be Tuesday, 12:30, 182 Lillis, after a day and a half of secret meetings at an undisclosed location. So don’t try asking them any questions. No word if the Duck’s Tom Hart will talk about how to handle the Russian prostitutes preying on football players, or if panelist Ted Spencer will show up to collect the $10K payment he tried to hide from his U Michigan employers. So far 2 of the original 8 panelists have resigned. They’ll have one more meeting after this. Meanwhile the all volunteer Senate Task Force is going strong, in public, and has already issued recommendations to President Coltrane for immediate action before the new freshman arrive.
8/19/2014 update:
Coltrane could have ended this sham and turned their substantial budget and resources over to the Senate Task Force. Instead he’s doubling down on Gottfredson and Mullen’s panel:
Sent on behalf of Mary Deits, Chair of the President’s Review Panel
Dear Campus Community,
The President’s Review Panel remains committed to reviewing the University of Oregon’s practices to prevent and respond to sexual assault. Interim President Scott Coltrane has assured us that he remains dedicated to this effort and is eager for the panel to continue its review and offer recommendations to improve the university’s practices and the campus climate.
The review panel’s next visit to campus is on August 26 and 27 to continue to gather information, conduct interviews, and seek input on sexual assault prevention and response.
We invite the members of the campus and community to participate the panel’s first public input session on Wednesday, August 27 at 10 a.m. in the Guistina Ballroom of the Ford Alumni Center. The focus of this first session will be prevention. The panel would like to hear the community’s thoughts about the UO’s efforts to prevent incidents of sexual misconduct. Specifically, we would like to hear perspectives about what is working and what is not working to prevent sexual misconduct, as well as suggestions for change and improvement. Future public sessions will be dedicated to the process for reporting sexual assault, and the university’s response to reports.
If you cannot or do not want to participate in a public forum, you may also offer input in writing by clicking here. In addition to conducting individual interviews, holding public forums, and taking written input, the panel is creating additional ways to gather information and perspectives to gain a full and accurate view of the universities practices.
Additionally, the university has created a web page to share information about the panel’s review process, resource documents, and announcements about the panel’s work and public sessions.
The panel looks forward to engaging with the campus community and gathering a broad range of perspectives. We need everyone’s participation to help us assist the university in improving its practices to prevent and respond to sexual assault.
We thank you in advance for your participation.
Sincerely,
Mary Deits
Chair, President’s Review Panel
8/14/2014: Ohio State gives away unredacted emails that Dave Hubin tried to sell for $508
Will Scott Coltrane fix the train wreck in UO’s Public Records office? The latest is that the office, run by Dave Hubin, refused to release public records about Gottfredson’s “External Review Panel” unless I paid $508.48. See below.
So I made the same request to the public records office at Ohio State University, where one of the panelists works. Here’s the full doc dump (link fixed) they provided. No charge, no redactions. That’s right, it’s easier to get documents about Oregon from Ohio than it is to try and go through Dave Hubin. Presumably that was worth a raise for Hubin, under Berdahl and Gottfredson. It will be interesting to see what Coltrane does.
The panel’s next meeting is for August 26-27 in “Portland or Eugene”. Portland? Why? And it looks like UO’s president’s office may be paying the panelists honoraria? That would be quite interesting. I’ve got a PR request in for more:
Contact Greg Rikhoff for more information about the “financial elements of this work” and Jane Gordon for more information about whether or not Coltrane will end this expensive sham and turns things over to the Senate Task Force.
7/31/2014 update: Gottfredson’s “External Review Panel” to continue secret meetings today
While the UO Senate’s Task Force is holding open meetings in accordance with Oregon Public Meetings Law (see report here) Gottfredson’s self-appointed external review panel has barred the press and public. Their secret meetings continue today in Room 301 of the Ford Alumni Center.
The Review Panel is meeting on campus today and tomorrow. The panel will be establishing its organizational structure and gathering background, and this first meeting is not open to the public or media. The panelists are expected to hold a public forum and take input in a variety of ways, and will be making decisions about how to do that going forward.
So, maybe a scripted public meeting at some point. That’s the word from UO Strategic Communicator Julie Brown. No doubt “Around the O” will put out more PR fluff soon, however. Meanwhile Dave Hubin is still trying to charge $508.48 for public records. Not the way to build trust or credibility.
Camilla Mortensen has more on US Attorney and UO Alum Amanda Marshall’s decision to join the Senate Task Force, here.
7/27/2014 update: Gottfredson rejects US Attorney for Oregon, so she joins Senate Task Force
Steve Duin has the report in the Oregonian here. There’s an interesting bio piece on Ms Marshall here. Gottfredson’s decision is yet another blow to his credibility and that of his hand-picked “Administrative ERP”, which already has issues with cronyism, inexperience, and secrecy.
After being rejected by Gottfredson, Marshall agreed to serve on the faculty Senate Task Force to Address Sexual Violence and Survivor Support. As you can see from their website, the Senate committee includes many knowledgeable experts and practitioners, and is holding open meetings in accordance with state law. I will have a report on their 7/24 meeting later today.
7/23/2014 update: Gottfredson thinks his research shows the best way to deal with sexual violence
Yes, that’s really what our President’s anonymous PR flacks at “Around the 0” have him saying:
President Gottfredson says his own work in criminology and social behavior makes it clear that prevention is far and away the best place to invest much of our energy for ending sexual violence.
And VP for Student Life Robin Holmes thinks this is all “an incredible opportunity”, and that the president has encouraged everyone on campus to share information readily.
Excuse me while I laugh at the ground. By all accounts Gottfredson had no intention of ever reporting the incident to the public, and he is still battling requests from the New York Times, the Oregonian, and the Register Guard for documents showing how he responded to the allegations. Where is Gottfredson’s committee meeting? Is it open to the public? Write Gottfredson’s Chief of Staff Greg Rikhoff a $508.48 check and he might tell you. Or maybe he’ll redact it all.
While Gottfredson is trying to hide, the UO faculty Senate Task Force is going for transparency. They meet tomorrow, 3-5PM, Lewis Lounge 4th floor of the Law School, Their webpage is here, and their meetings are open.
7/17/2014: Gottfredson wants $413.87 + $94.61 for docs on secret “external review panel”
I’m not yet abandoning all hope, but Gottfredson’s “External Review Panel” is going to have to get out ahead of the transparency problem to avoid looking like they aren’t just another part of Gottfredson’s cover-up of how he handled the rape allegations. Letting Gottfredson hide information on how they were picked and what they are doing is not going to cut it.
President Gottfredson learned of the basketball rape allegations on March 9th. He then waited three months to appoint his “External Review Panel”. He had himself, Athletic Director Rob Mullens, and VP Robin Holmes pick the members. The chair is former Interim UO President Bob Berdahl, one of Gottfredson’s mentors. Not exactly an independent review. But at least it will be transparent, right? The first announcement made it seem so:
- Evaluation of current practices and protocols for the prevention of sexual misconduct and support for those who have experienced it
- Benchmarking of the UO’s practices and protocols in relation to those of our peer institutions
- Review of the athletic department’s processes for evaluating prospective student-athletes
- Review of life-skill education and support for students, including the communication of conduct expectations
- One or more campus climate surveys with a focus on the UO’s prevention, response, and education culture regarding sexual misconduct
- A follow-up review of the recent report commissioned by the Division of Student Affairs to assess the university’s sexual misconduct policies and procedures to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of those recommendations
- Further refinement of the charge will be informed by the expertise of the panelists themselves
Process and Timing
Work is to begin immediately, with care taken to collect initial input from the campus community prior to the end of the spring term.
It’s now July 17 – almost 4 and a half months since Gottfredson learned of the allegations. What’s going on with his committee? He’s named the members (below) but he wants $413.87 to show the emails explaining how he and Mullens and Holmes picked them. Not exactly trust building. How about just showing the charge, meeting agendas, that sort of thing? Let’s ask:
Subject: public records request for “external review panel” communications
Date: July 1, 2014 at 3:23:18 AM EDT
To: Lisa Thornton <[email protected]>, Gregory Rikhoff <[email protected]>
Cc: Bob Berdahl <[email protected] [etc.]
Dear Ms Thornton and Mr. Rikhoff:
This is a public records request for any communications from the UO President’s Office to the members of the “External Review Panel” listed at http://president.uoregon.edu/content/panelists-named-review-uo-sexual-misconduct-prevention-and-response, dated from 6/6/2014 to the present, and dealing with the charge, meeting schedule, agenda, or expense reimbursement of the panel
I ask for a fee waiver on the basis of public interest.
Two weeks later, after a reminder:
07/16/2014
The University of Oregon has received your public records request for “any communications from the UO President’s Office to the members of the “External Review Panel”… dated from 6/6/2014 to the present, and dealing with the charge, meeting schedule, agenda, or expense reimbursement of the panel” on 07/02/2014, attached. The office has at least some documents responsive to your request. By this email, the office is providing you with an estimate to respond to your requests.
The office estimates the actual cost of responding to your request to be $94.61. Upon receipt of a check made payable to the University of Oregon for that amount, the office will proceed to locate, copy, and provide the records you have requested that are not exempt from disclosure. Your check may be sent to the attention of Office of Public Records, 6207 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-6207.
You requested a waiver based on an assertion that release of these documents is in the public interest. The office has performed the three-part analysis of your request, has determined that your request does not meet the public interest test, and has exercised its discretion to deny your request for a fee waiver. Upon receipt of payment outlined above, the office will begin to prepare your requested documents.
Please note that if the cost of preparing the documents for you is less than the estimate, we will refund the difference. If the cost of preparing the records for you exceeds the estimate, however, you may be charged for the difference. Following is an outline of how costs are determined. …
Thank you for contacting us with your request.
Sincerely,
Lisa Thornton
Office of Public Records
University of Oregon
Office of the President
Gottfredson’s Panelists:
Javaune Adams-Gaston
Javaune Adams-Gaston is the vice president for student life at The Ohio State University, where she oversees university operations including the student judicial process and student advocacy and crisis intervention. Prior to her arrival at Ohio State in 2009, she served in a variety of positions, including associate dean of academic affairs, assistant athletic director, and equity administrator at the University of Maryland. She earned her Ph.D. in psychology from Iowa State University.
Bob Berdahl
Bob Berdahl is a higher education expert who retired as president of the Association of American Universities in 2011, He served as interim president of University of Oregon in 2012 and was the dean of the UO College of Arts and Sciences from 1981-1986. He also previously served as the chancellor at the University of California, Berkeley, from 1997-2004 and the president of the University of Texas at Austin from 1993-1997.
Mary Deits
Mary Deits retired as a judge on the Oregon Court of Appeals in 2004 after serving for 18 years, including seven years as chief judge. From 1974-1986, she served as an assistant attorney general in the trial, appellate and general counsel divisions of the Oregon Attorney General’s office. Since Deits’ retirement, she has worked extensively as a mediator and arbitrator.
Laura Hinman
Laura Hinman was the 2012 president of the Associated Students of the University of Oregon, where she created the Sexual Violence Prevention Task Force, now known as the University of Oregon Organization Against Sexual Assault. She is currently a Masters of Education graduate student at the University of Southern California.
David Schuman
David Schuman is a retired judge on the Oregon Court of Appeals, where he served from 2001-2014. Earning his Ph. D. from the University of Chicago and his J.D. from the University of Oregon School of Law in 1984, he was the deputy attorney general for the Oregon Department of Justice from 1997-2001. Schuman also was on the Oregon School of Law faculty from 1987-1996 and served associate dean for academic affairs from 1994-1996.
Theodore Spencer
Theodore Spencer is the outgoing associate vice provost and executive director of the Office of Undergraduate Admission at the University of Michigan, having worked at Michigan since 1989. Prior to his arrival at the University of Michigan, he was the associate director of admissions at the United States Air Force Academy after previously serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.
Kevin Weiberg
Kevin Weiberg recently retired as the Pac-12 Conference’s deputy commissioner and chief operation officer, where he served from 2010-2014. Prior to joining the Pac-12, he was the chief executive officer of iHoops from 2007-2010, the Big Ten Network’s vice president for planning and development from 2007-2009, the commissioner of the Big 12 Conference from 1998-2007 and the deputy commissioner of the Big Ten from 1989-1998. He also worked in the athletics departments of Wichita State University and University of Maryland.
Mary Wilcox
Mary Wilcox is currently a member of the Board of Trustees of the University of Oregon and vice president and director for Capital Realty Corp., a family-owned real estate and financial investment company. She received her Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Oregon in 1976 and her J.D. in 1980 from the University of Oregon School of Law.
“Around the O” (just a terrible name) of July 23rd and nobody will man up to authoring it. Lame. It reads like an unveiling of some new instructional program rather than an investigation. And, who starts a serious investigations in late July and August unless an infraction was quite recent?
Cut to the chase: Gottfredson is a continuing embarrassment. Holmes and Mullens need to go as well. Where are the adults?
Gottfredson writes that, to focus on prevention, we must “work to educate and engage students.”
The main way the U of O does this: a theater skit, performed by volunteer students (“SWAT”), performed for other students–when they request it. Does this sound like a serious educational program to you–education a la Saturday Night Live?
Imagine if they educated new faculty about tenure requirements with a theater skit, performed by volunteer faculty. What would that say about the seriousness of the issue?
Curtain opens
Dean-type person: Thank you for meeting with us, Assistant Professor. We have evaluated your tenure file and want to discuss it with you.
Asst. Prof: I am excited to review my exceptional academic achievements with you all today.
Dean-type: As you know, we look at research, teaching and service and all of these are important in the evaluation of your file.
(laughtrack-Ha hahaha hahahahah)
AP: Yes, I hope you noticed my outstanding evaluations in my teaching file, with pictures of the many tearful letters of thanks from students saying how I have opened up a world of academic inquiry to them and changed their lives.
D-t: —
(laughtrack-Ha hahaha hahahahah)
D-t: We were a little concerned about some of your outside review letters . Some letters said that their programs did not grant tenure until the 8th or 10th year and so could not really compare your research with the tenure files from their own department. And while they were otherwise glowing, and said you would certainly get tenure there if you continued on your path, we wish they would have more explicitly said that yes, you would get tenure right now at Harvard and Hopkins, several years before faculty there go up.
AP: But, but, is that really a fair concern? It sounds like they went as far as they could given their system. Do you really think that as a negative?
(laughtrack-Ha hahaha hahahahah)
While I cannot comment on the particular implementation here, I object to the notion that theater is not a legitimate educational medium.
I agree. I’m no director, but I think understanding and questioning people’s motives and emotions is what theater is all about. It’s got a 3000 year history of doing that. In any case, it’s hard to imagine that acting out some sexual violence episodes would be less effective than, say, a 45 minute online course with a few videos you can tune out. I still remember the interactive theater on race relations my church did, when I was 9. I couldn’t tell you what UO’s online sexual harassment course taught me to save my life, and that was 6 months ago.
On-line trainings on issues like sexual harassment do not work, except to remind people of what they’ve already learned in more effective contexts. This is the consensus of people who work in this area; they exist mainly because insurance companies require them, as they did with the U of O.
The SWAT theatrical performances only happen when groups request them. If they were effective, the U of O should require all students to see them; they do not. Also, SWAT does not address any issues of faculty-student sexual harassment, or in-class harassment.
Once again, they are done by student volunteers, only for those that request them. The university should have meaningful trainings for all students, as the Office of Civil Rights now insists.
“On-line trainings on issues like sexual harassment do not work, except to remind people of what they’ve already learned in more effective contexts.”
AKA: parenting — the content of which is increasingly questionable.
Actually every incoming student sees the SWAT performance at IntroDUCKtion. SWAT has been doing that for 7 or 8 years. This year, it is at 4pm on the first day of IntroDUCKtion in the EMU Ballroom. Next performance is July 31st., and another one is August 3rd. Before you comment on it or criticize perhaps you should check it out….
I have had SWAT come to my classes, which is how I know it does not address any issues of faculty-student harassment, etc. The U of O does not require all students to see it; plus, any training needs to be updated every year, since the rules change. Seeing it once, before you even start college, is insufficient.
Do members of SWAT seriously think their performances are all that is needed in this area? Being serious people, I can’t believe they do.
To be fair, you can skip any part of the of the IntroDUCKtion to go get high. I think quite a few students see the performance, and I think it’s good they do, but there’s no way every incoming student goes.
Also, I would think that follow up is integral. One performance might put the issue on incoming students’ radar for awhile, but if that’s their only exposure then I doubt it’ll stick.
I’m not sure the “every student” bit is true. I know grad students don’t, I wouldn’t even know what IntroDUCKtion is but for context.
Is Gottfredson’s panel going to go to Irvine to interview Gottfredson? What a sad joke on us all. I can’t wait until you get the honorarium and expense account docs.
This is ridiculous. At this rate the UO will start stamping “Top Secret” on its letterhead.
Time for the Senate Transparency Committee to rise from the dead.
It says 3 minutes per person, not 3 minutes total.
So your headline is completely and utterly wrong.
You say ‘completely and utterly wrong” but the headline says “3 minutes,” which is actually partially correct.
I’m forced to conclude, I’m afraid, that you are partially and not utterly wrong.
If exactly one person bothers to show up, I’ll be completely and utterly right. But the admin has probably already recruited more than one ringer.
It hardly matters how long each comment is. What matters is how these comments will spur honest and effective efforts by the administration to value safety and respect over the profits of our athletics program.
There is no better predictor of future behavior than past behavior.
What this panel really needs is some credibility. They were hand-picked by Gottfredson, Mullens, and Holmes, so they started in a hole on that.
They don’t have much expertise in sexual assault prevention, so that’s another hit. They’ve refused to release the documents showing how they were selected, also not good.
They don’t talk to the press – just to the “Around the 0” PR flacks – and they keep their meetings secret.
And now their “public comment session” doesn’t even include a chance for faculty, students and reporters to question them about the problems with their panel. Instead they expect speakers to stick to the committee’s own script. We wouldn’t want any honest, awkward public discussion, would we!
Berdahl et al are just there to rubber-stamp whatever Jane Gordon writes up. Any idea much this is all costing?
Someone should have mentioned that to the athletics staff when they were looking over potential transfers into the basketball team.
How clever of Berdahl and Diets to schedule this particular public session when the students are off campus.
Wrong, but predictable, Admin response: Low turnout at the public comment session implies that the community is not interested. We can do whatever we please.
Right Admin response: Low turnout at the public comment session… hmmm… for such an important issue, too… maybe we should approach this a bit more thoughtfully, and actually engage in meaningful ways with faculty and community constituents.
Lyndsey is sitting to Bob Berdahl’s left.
So why are we paying them $80,000?
The decision of the president’s panel to avoid the basketball case is inconsistent with its own practice. That panel is hearing–indeed, it has solicited–testimony about other U of O cases that have been mishandled. After all, you can’t fix something if you don’t know how it’s broken. Apparently the only case we will NOT learn anything from is the one that prompted the whole inquiry.
I’m arriving late to this discussion. Were the Task Force “initial recommendations” approved by the Senate? The Task Force as a group? I appreciated the care and thoughtfulness of most of the items, but I found myself in extremely strong disagreement with the “educational messaging” recommendations.
The task force was appointed by the senate, I believe.
I appreciate their work but also share your concern about that recommendation. The syllabus should not be the default for messaging not directly related to the course. I believe this messaging should happen in other ways.
Friendly Dissenter and Anonymous raise valid concerns. I am a member of the senate task force, and these are what they say they are: recommendations, which will then be discussed, debated, and adopted–or not. I am sure that other things the task force proposes will be controversial. These are important issues, hence complex ones–needing full discussion. That is why the task force holds its meetings in public, posts our minutes, and says what we will be recommending as we go along.
I am concerned about two issues here. First, what is the force of an official “recommendation” by the Senate Task Force? Since the statement warns explicitly that faculty can do “harm” by holding discussions about sexual violence, and recommends that such discussions be conducted only by the kinds of people and organizations endorsed by the Task Force, does this create increased liability for those who do conduct class discussions about this issue and are not on the approved list?
Second, there is something deeply disturbing about the Senate’s going down the road of recommending that faculty not hold discussions with their classes about some specific controversial issue or some list of specified controversial issues. There are many kinds of survivors, many triggering issues, many kinds of discussions that can cause people serious distress. There are also many ways and degrees to which an issue may be “related to course material.” It is not hard to imagine students appropriately raising questions about such issues in many different kinds of classes. Judging the appropriateness of questions and of discussions is a matter of academic freedom–the freedom to teach. Such judgments are properly made by the professors who teach the courses.
The concerns of the Task Force are appropriate–and very important–but they are best addressed through educating faculty about the concerns and the reasons for the concerns, not by issuing recommendations against holding discussions of difficult issues in our classrooms.
I don’t think you need to worry that mere proposals from the task force will impact liability. The larger issue these responses raise is, now that they have been made public, whether the task force should start dialogue now about them or wait until all have been passed on to the senate. This is a decision for the task force as a whole, so I shall pass it along. Thanks for your input.
Cheyney: Dialogue that gets Senators and others up to speed before the issues come formally to the Senate sounds like a fine idea.
I agree. I assume that Rob Kyr will not bring anything before the senate until he is convinced there has been sufficient discussion.
My first-pass skimming of this is leaving me with the impression that the panel is treating the university with kid gloves.
“The University seems to understand the importance of timeliness in sexual misconduct investigations and it appears initial investigations are done in a very timely manner. We recognize that in some instances, delays occur because of factors beyond the control of the University.” (pg. 38)
I personally spoke with Judge Schuman and Bob Behrdal (and I was invited to do so regarding my experience with reporting an issue of sexual misconduct that went without an initial response for over 6 months, none of which was due to factors beyond the control of the university. And I imagine I was not the only one to relay such a story.
I see a whole lot of “should” statements with few direct calls to action. For example, pg. 55- “In developing policies regarding faculty-student relationships, the University should pay particular attention to the vulnerability of graduate and professional students.” Seriously, what the hell does that mean? Just come out and say that we should have a no fraternization policy because what we have now is ambiguous at best, but actually pretty contradictory as written.
we SHOULD have a no-fraternization policy. What we have now is laughable and ridiculous. I’ve sat through so many GTF orientations now where someone comes in and says, “We would prefer if you didn’t have relationships with students. But if you do, please come and tell us so we can work around it. We’d really rather you didn’t. but if you do, come and tell us. It’s just best if you didn’t. But we want to know if you do. Remember, we’d rather you didn’t. Also, it’s probably best if you don’t have relationships with faculty, either. But remember, with your students, it’s just better not to get involved with them. If you do, though, come talk to us!” Like, how hard is it to say, DO NOT HAVE SEXUAL OR ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIPS WITH YOUR STUDENTS. PERIOD.