6/12/2014 update: Coleen Flaherty of Insidehighered.com has a write up on this too, here. UO is getting quite a reputation in the national higher ed press, a story last year on Gottfredson’s efforts to subvert academic freedom is here.
6/10/2014 update: UO administration rejects Professor Freyd’s survey of campus sexual violence
Josephine Woolington has the story in the RG, here. VPSA Robin Holmes, who made the decision, is the person who sat on the 2011 recommendations for student conduct code revisions for three years. The UO Senate finally took charge, and wrote and passed the revisions on May 28. Gottfredson has not yet signed them, and the administration’s web site for the current policy still lists former student conduct director Carl Yeh as their point person. (Archived here.) Yeh left UO in August 2013, and Holmes didn’t replace him until this March.
Freyd is asking for $30-$40K to cover the survey costs. (You can donate via the UO Foundation’s website here. Make sure you put “Research on Trauma and Oppression, Jennifer Freyd” in the “additional gift instructions” box, or your money will probably go to Duck Athletics.) The UC system recently hired consultants to conduct a more general campus climate survey, at a reported cost of $661K, albeit for a larger sample.
The strange “external review committee” that Gottfredson, Holmes, and Mullens just appointed to review their own dilatory response to the conduct code and basketball rape allegations – three months after Gottfredson first learned of them – will now decide how to conduct their own survey. Talk about a conflict of interest! The story also quotes Holmes’s $83K “strategic communicator” Rita Radostitz, but don’t expect much in the way of frank talk from her:
The UO Senate does not trust the administration on this issue, and the Senate Task Force membership will be announced shortly. Presumably they will take charge of this matter as well.
6/6/2014 update: Gottfredson’s self-appointed “external review panel” includes old insider
Gottfredson, Mullens, and Holmes have now announced the names of the people they are appointing to the “External Review Panel” to investigate their own actions or lack of actions regarding the March 8-9 rape allegations and sexual violence prevention. Full list here.
The panel will include Bob Berdahl. As the San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2005, in his previous job as UC-Berkeley President, Berdahl got into some trouble over his lucrative sinecure payments, but managed to avoid prosecution:
Berdahl and Gottfredson go way back, in fact as interim UO President, Berdahl was instrumental in hiring Gottfredson. Does this look like an independent review?
The Onion has the best, and saddest, commentary on this:
5/20/2014 update: Now the RG is also raising questions about Gottfredson’s review panel.
5/19/14 update: UO Alum nails Gottfredson’s failed leadership, in the LA Times:
That failed leadership just failed again. Gottfredson’s website just posted this about his review panel. He thinks he is going to appoint the panel that is going to review his own failures, with help from the failed Rob Mullens and the failed Robin Holmes. And he’s calling that an “external review”. Words fail me:
5/19/2014: After rape investigation, University of Oregon needs to show courage, not crisis management
It’s been more than a week since University of Oregon officials announced that three basketball players at the center of a rape investigation this spring had been dismissed from the team. If you want the details of what allegedly happened in the early hours of March 9, read the police report, a graphic, disturbing account made all the more infuriating by the university’s disjointed response to the allegations.Although no criminal charges were ultimately filed against the players, that night and its aftermath have rattled faith in the team’s basketball head coach Dana Altman, Athletic Director Rob Mullens and UO President Michael Gottfredson.The university has stated and revised its timeline, trying to justify how two of the athletes continued to play in Pac-12 tournament and March Madness games while the alleged victim was working with law enforcement to build her case. We don’t know for certain whether the players should have been dismissed sooner, in part because student privacy laws prevent the university from being more transparent about its investigation — although at times that privacy seems to border on secrecy.
What we do know is that one of the accused was a transfer who had been suspended from Providence College in Rhode Island in November after another sexual assault allegation, unbeknown to Altman. Asked about his vetting processof the transfer, Altman offered this understatement: “He did not give specifics, so my line of questioning probably didn’t go deep enough there in retrospect.”
Probably? Give me a break. Although Providence officials were unable to give Altman the details surrounding the player’s indefinite suspension — again because of student privacy laws — Oregon’s head coach knew that the punishment was for “failing to meet the standards expected of student-athletes.” He should have asked Austin as many questions as legally permissible to assess the severity of the incident rather than relying on the judgment of the Providence coaching staff.
Worse yet, this debacle unfolded as a federal task force announced an inquiry into mishandling of sexual assault cases at 55 universities. University of Oregon professor Jennifer Freyd, a national authority on sexual abuse, even visited the White House on April 29 to take part in the announcement of new efforts to address sexual assaults on campuses.
Now she has filed a federal complaint alleging that the university violated the Clery Actwhen it failed to notify the campus community that an incident had been reported or to include any report of the alleged assaults in the university police department’s crime log.
As an Oregon alum, I’m hoping for officials to be held accountable for the bungled response, which fuels concerns about the outsized power of the university’s athletic programs and, more critically, exposes serious weaknesses in the institution’s response to reports of rape. Right now, the uninspired leadership on display in Eugene is enough to make even the proudest alum want to mothball his Ducks gear.
Gottfredson, the school president, seems to believe that he can put these concerns to rest by dismissing the athletes and delivering ambitious rhetoric about this case being an opportunity “to become leaders in the nation in creating a campus that is safe from sexual violence.”
But that’s going to take courage, not crisis management.
Chris Feliciano Arnold is a recipient of a 2014 Literature Fellowship from the National Endowment of the Arts. He has written essays and journalism for the Atlantic, Salon, the Millions, the Rumpus and Los Angeles Review of Books. Follow him on Twitter@chrisarnold
As I’ve said many times, UO could never buy the sort of publicity that the Duck athletic program provides. And the subsidy our Ducks take from the faculty and students is millions less than at some other schools.
Just in case you aren’t being sarcastic, what purpose does that publicity provide? It seems like the most direct metric would be enrollment, particularly enrollment of out-of-state students that perhaps would not have heard of Oregon without the publicity.
But Oregon and Colorado have virtually identical levels of out-of-state enrollment, and Colorado has had a horrible athletic program during this surge of out-of-state students. So what other benefits does all this recent great ‘publicity’ get us?
Sorry, I thought I was oozing sarcasm. I’ll ramp it up next time.
As for this review panel, how could it possibly start off with less credibility? I know, he could appoint Dave Frohnmayer to lead it.
The down vote you got was confusing me… seems like others weren’t certain! And it provided a convenient segue into my favorite argument against the “publicity” anyway, so I went for it.
What is the point of the pot shot?
Colorado also has had a very successful program until the last 5 years…
Frohnmayer. Of course. The man who got UO into this whole big-time athletics disaster in the first place.
“Prior to the end of spring term”… I nominate Dave Frohnmayer, Bob Berdahl, Melinda Grier, Mike Bellotti, George Pernsteiner, and Randy Geller (“the next chapter of my professional career”). The current ASUO president probably already self-nominated her/himself (law semester ends early).
You can’t find more JH-experience for this UO matter.
Unbelievable. I hope the Senate ramps up the heat with its resolution. Of course, this move makes perfect sense if he is holding the line that he did nothing wrong.
Lawdy. Just when you thought it couldn’t get any more absurd. The Athletic Director will help appoint the committee? Under the current circumstances? You know, I think Gott ought to just turn to the Magic 8-Ball for the next decision. Couldn’t do any worse!
Apparently he did. And the 8-Ball replied: “Double down!”
Not my job, man.
Read the putz’s list, and match the predetermined names:
The overall composition of the panel shall represent the following areas of professional expertise and life experience among its members:
Legal or judicial,
executive-level student affairs and student conduct administration, sexual violence prevention and response advocacy,
university enrollment management expertise,
community leadership,
Division I athletic experience,
and representation from the University of Oregon Board of Trustees.
I like games: Randy Yvette Roger Dave Rob Anne
Good move President Gott. The panel should convene once before July 1 when all the OAs will get their next raises. Then you all can retire. Meet me at the shoe counter after all this is over.
IM
A BIG thumbs up on deleting the thumbs up/thumbs down options!
I like the Thumbs button. It is fun to see when there are a lot of trolls on the site trying to skew things.
I took it down cause I was trying to debug something. I’m happy to add it back, in return for the usual emolument.
I think you have earned your fringe benefits this year and If I recall the CBA you are allowed this external compensation without the approval of the GC, President and Provost. Where is the dead drop? The faculty hot tub, professors only Italian Leather clad theater, or faculty Leno Garage… although I do not know where any of these are.
Here’s why I think you shouldn’t add it back: since this site has “a view”, let the trolls speak for themselves rather than you providing them an easy negative option. It IS entertaining but it’s time for them to take their thumbs out of their mouths.
While I’m no economist, the real question is who is willing to pay more. So far I’ve got a bottle of Lagavulin on the table for dropping the thumbs.
Trolls, what do you have? And remember, this is an all pay auction.
Only reason I’d want the thumbs up/down back is that otherwise you get more spammy “I agree/I disagree” posts with no content.
^^ I agree ^^
You should bring the thumbs back. Think about how many unpaid interns at HLGR no longer have anything to do during the day without them.
with any integrity is going to serve on a non-independent review panel appointed by the people under investigation.
It’s an absurdity, doomed to controversy, embarrassment in the papers and among your peers, and then failure.
So it’s going to be interesting to see what sort of people your president can line up to volunteer.
It is volunteer, right? Aside from a generous per-diem, of course.
Agreed, and yet people do non-integrous acts all the time with elaborate justification — which mostly means they hope for a good job reference, promotion or some other favor later as payment.
Now that’s the tricky part. Gott was very clear to Senate that it is time to “look forward”, meaning, let’s not waste any time with a messy review of his actions. He claimed they did everything they were supposed to – there were no mistakes so there does not need to be an investigation of their response.
And yet, we need a review panel to conduct an evaluation “focusing on both immediate and long-term changes to improve the university’s processes for prevention, response, and education on sexual misconduct, with the goal of creating a safer campus and a culture of dignity and respect for all students.”
If they did nothing wrong, their response was exactly what it was supposed to be, why would we need this panel?
He’s a slimy politician with a forked tongue covering his ass on all sides.
Couldn’t agree more. He doesn’t show much confidence in his original actions, does he?
Ditto. They did everything right and anyone who suggests otherwise isn’t acting appropriately:
(From Senate remarks) “Because we cannot, by law, share many details of this case, some have speculated that we are not acting in the best interest of the university and that student safety has been compromised. Or that we turn a blind eye toward misconduct, or that we would tolerate, for one moment, sexual violence and intimidation on our campus.
These assumptions are patently false, and such speculations are very, very inappropriate. ”
He also said they were right to “cooperate” with the EPD the way they did, they followed the Clery act, the told us everything they could, they met their Title IX obligations….they were perfect and we were all wrong for questioning them.
So, why do we need an External Review? In fact, they already commissioned an Independent Review that told us how well we were doing with some “room for improvement”. But now we need another one?
Don’t worry your little heads about it faculty and staff as this Orwellian tale is spun. Get back to work and mind your own business – our “leaders’ have it all under control.
“Now it is time to turn our attention to the future. This is a time when it is important for us to come together as a campus, as a community, to make our university stronger. Safer.”
Because, in the future, there is no wrongdoing by Gott, Altman, Mullens, Holmes – in the future we are all safe.
Also, what’s going on with Public Records requests? None have been filled and according to the website, not a single request has been filed since May 16 (see the log http://publicrecords.uoregon.edu/requests)
‘Gott Gone’, you get a big thumbs up from me!!
Gottfredson knows his career is over once the facts come out.
His contract gives him a year of severance pay – ~600K. He wants 3x that. His threat point is that he can drag UO through the mud, in the middle of the quiet phase of our fundraising campaign, while his panel dithers around, with every move discussed in the press. A dithering review panel is crucial – very costly to UO.
So this “external review” memo is just a shot across the bow to the trustees, saying Gottfredson will inflict any pain on the UO that he needs to, unless they pay him to resign.
So, should Chuck Lillis write the check?
On what ground could he extort 3x?
On the grounds of “How much do you want sticking to your brand before I go?”
Write the check now, end athletic tutoring subsidies, and push the de facto costs to the AD – their initial scandal, their costs. The AD will then think twice in the future about “JH-protection”.
Lariviere did the right thing with Bellotti – pay, clean up, and stick the costs to the athletics boosters. Hopefully the board with Chuck Lillis is thinking the same way. We can’t afford having Gottfredson for two more years if(!) the UO community doesn’t want him anymore.
Just what is your source for this? You’ve mentioned these numbers yet but other than your imagination there’s no support for this allegation whatsoever.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/971644/uomatters/Gottfredson/2012%20Gottfredson%20contract.pdf
you’ve pulled out Berdahl (against whom you are a little unnecessarily rabid), but say nothing about the fact that this is a distinguished group. I’m quite surprised, I must say, but impressed nonetheless that they seem to have done it right. shows confidence in their actions on JH’s part, frankly. we’ll se how it plays out.
I started at the top: Javaune Adams-Gaston.
She likes doing reviews, she just doesn’t like getting reviewed:
Vice President for Student Life Javaune Adams-Gaston
There was no 2013 performance review available for Adams-Gaston, although she earned a bonus of $19,099 for the year on top of her $317,946 annual salary.
From http://thelantern.com/2014/04/inconsistent-review-process-ohio-state-administrators/
Rob Mullens named Kevin Weiberg for his choice.
Why not? It’s good to have a friend on the inside, to make sure there are no more surprises. But the real news will be about who UO provides as staff for this committee, whether or not their meetings are open, etc.
Agree with cat. This is overall a balanced and distinguished crew. Let them do their work.
Cat and Hedgehog:
Not to be too much of a Bayesian, but my prior is that most people’s priors are that a self-appointed review panel is not going to write a report that criticizes the people who appointed it. (This is what all the reporters I’ve read so far have noted.)
So this committee will have a high hurdle to overcome in the public mind.
Do you have any specific info that specific people on this panel are distinguished, unbiased, experienced, and interested in getting at the truth and making it public, even when it embarrasses other important people?
I’m guessing that at least a few of them are, but I’d like to have some evidence from their past behavior.
Nope. No info. I don’t deny the high hurdle, etc. Appointed committees are only as good or bad as the people chosen and the charge they are given. I guess my impression was simply more positive seeing who they wound up appointing than I had when I heard about the plan. The proof will still be in the pudding.
Too bad their work won’t include a serious investigation of Gott’s response to this latest incident.
Theodore Spencer was an admin at michigan all through the Brendan Gibbons case (football player who was arrested for rape in 2009 and the university only got around to investigating this year). I don’t know what to make of that. None of the people selected have any notable experience investigating sexual assualt or cover ups except for Adams-Gaston who is another university administrator. Lets hope they can rise to the challenge, because although these people are “respectable” they are hardly confidence inducing.
Gottfredson has been here less than two years. So how does he fill a committee like this? He asks Dave Frohnmayer.
Mary Diets is a friend of Dave: http://www.adrsupportservices.com/page32.html
And she’s in the mediation and arbitration business, which is all about bland consensus – not finding the truth.
One of the issues is how well the U of O has responded to these problems in the past, specifically, has the central administration ignored those that have asked for more attention to sexual harassment/violence, and, has it retaliated against those voicing these concerns.
Both issues were raised by several people in the university senate.
Is Bob Berdahl competent to investigate these questions, given he was acting president when these concerns were raised–and did nothing about them? Is he really going to indict his own administration for its negligence here? (Gottfredson said that when he took over after Berdahl he was surprised how little was being done.)
It is inappropriate to have a person with such a clear conflict of interest on this committee.
Agree. This is like putting the last athletic director on the committee, to investigate the practices of the athletic department.
We can write the task force’s report right now:
“Some mistakes were made. The UO remains committed to ensuring the safety of all of our students, as well as protecting their privacy. While some problems were noted, we found nothing egregious or in violation of the law or good policy. We recommend tweaking of some policies and better training but mostly agree the UO has a good handle on this. This concludes our thorough and independent investigation of these issues and we are confident in UO’s ability to keep its students safe in the future, including protecting their privacy.”
Don’t anyone dare question the veracity or integrity of the task force – that would be dangerously inappropriate and patently false.
Watch carefully – the charge will find ways to sidestep investigating the recent incident….at least in any public way.
It’s a joke to have Berdahl at the center of this.
More from the (future) report:
“The U of O remains a world leader in dealing with sexual violence–and it is irresponsible to suggest otherwise. We value all voices on this matter–and anyone who doubts this should go f___ themselves. We especially value input from our own campus, except from those professors who expertise in these matters has been acknowledged by the White House.
“We have full confidence in our athletic staff, though we are careful to tell them nothing when problems arise. Next, we are appointing a committee to advise on the U of O’s academic mission. Members will include Rudy Chapa, Colt Lyerla, Pee Wee Herman, Vida Blue, Justin Bieber, and Mr. Ed. To question the qualifications of this committee will be irresponsible.
“Please direct all future correspondence to Oregon Atty General’s Office, Special Prosecutor for U of O Athletic Programs.
“Go Ducks!
More bulletins from Johnson Hall:
“In response to a U of O senate resolution, President Gottfredson today announced that he will be appointing a committee to review how Robin Holmes got her job, and whether she should be kept on.”
“The committee will be chaired by Robin Holmes, he announced.
“‘I have complete faith in Robin’s impartiality’ he stated, ‘and to suggest otherwise would be irresponsible. I have asked her to submit her findings one year from now, by which time her PERS account will have passed the three million dollar mark, putting her in the same league with Russ Tomlin and half of the athletic department.’
“Bob Berdahl has already agreed to chair the committee to find her replacement.”
“Gottfredson committee releases final report – before their first meeting”
I love it. Keep these paragraphs coming. I’ll compile them, make any redactions needed to protect UO’s lawyers and administrators at the expense of our students, and add to the timeline at http://gottgate.universityofnike.com
I’m picturing a scenario like unto the Hannibal fresh brain repast with Gottfredson as Kendler, and Mullens as Clarice Starling.
I know Prof Freyd and admire her work and her national stature on this issue. However, I absolutely concur that she should not do this survey work. While Freyd’s professionalism would assuage me that there would be no bias, I think the results would be disregarded because others will assume that there is bias. What I would suggest JH do is to ask her for the names of 4-5 other professionals in her field that she would recommend. Then solicit them to do the work. We get credible results, from outsiders who don’t have an ax to grind against our idiotic administration, and then they have to answer to it. Finally, I think this should report back to the external review committee, not JH.
PS – As an aside, I know all about survey size etc, but it just strikes me that a proposed sample size of 1,000 is too small on a campus like this with as many diverse living situations, backgrounds, etc.
It’s sad, but oh so predictable that our administration’s response to the outrage at their handling of the rape allegations is to try and smear the person who is asking the hard questions.
Yes Freyd has a point of view, but the administration has so much to hide they don’t even care how obvious they are about it. Far more bias from their side than hers!
Freyd should send her survey out for peer review – not review by a bunch of people with their jobs at stake – to remove any concerns, real or contrived.
Then the Senate should go to the mat on this.
I tend to agree. Also, by reputation, Freyd’s area is “institutional betrayal”, not survey methodology.
If one wanted real answers to these questions, then you would hire survey researchers to find these things out for you.
That said, I am skeptical that the UO Admin does want real answers to these questions. And, I would be even more cautious of the questions that were asked by a UO administrative team.
In terms of 1,000 people being too small of a sample. Again, it depends on the questions that you are asking and for what sub-populations you are trying to make estimates for. A 1,000 person sample would certainly be too small to make reliable estimates of the prevalence of sexual assault survivors among the Hmong on the UO campus. But, for most purposes, it should be more than adequate.
I wholly agree with Confidence Interval (and won’t reiterate what s/he said so well already). I would caution uomatters against personalizing things too much. This isn’t about Prof Freyd; it’s about sexual assault and campus climate–and making that about Prof Freyd doesn’t help address the larger issue. I think we help keep the pressure on JH and continue to underscore their continued failure to respond appropriate to the core problem by NOT falling into the petty personalizing that makes it easy to distinguish good guys and bad, and satisfying to rant, but solves little for our students.
The importance of campus climate surveys as part of Title IX compliance has been stressed at least since 2011. Holmes has been asked repeatedly to do one, and refused. She told one faculty member it would be a “waste of money”. If anyone is unqualified to be part of this process it is her. Freyd has been recognized by the White House as a leader in this area. The first act of the new review committee can be to fund her survey.
“and then they have to answer it.”
Right.
Am I the only one who found the campus climate survey already sent around, co-authored by Freyd, to be irresponsibly biased, with leading questions and inadequate space to express disagreement with its own wording? [Ed: link deleted to prevent multiple answers]
I agree with UO Matters on one point: that it should be a peer-reviewed survey, and I bet Freyd’s peers would have a lot to say about the design of this survey.
While the survey that Robin Holmes’ did was excellent. Oh, right, Holmes has never done a survey, just that EMU vote fraud effort. Too busy going on bowl game junkets.
Cheap shot, I know, but true.
I agree with “Anon OA”. I completed the first survey earlier this spring. I started the new one yesterday. Partway through I abandoned ship because I thought the questions about the individual steps in the rape-accusation timeline were leading. Perhaps I should have finished the survey and shared my opinion there, but I lost enthusiasm. I am no fan of JH or athletics and am a strong supporter of efforts to reduce sexual violence. I’m no expert on survey design but this one did not seem dispassionate.
I took a look at the survey as well. I’m not sure how the results are ‘generalizable’ when so many of the questions are UO specific. And many are specific to the alleged rape. That doesn’t mean the survey is a bad survey, it just makes me question the purpose relative to the need.
I’m also not sure how a study on ‘campus climate’ is a complete picture without asking questions about drugs, alcohol, peer pressure, etcetera, that all come in to play when assessing whether the climate is ‘good’ or ‘bad’.