This post is the eighth post in a series of stories that, taken together, might help explain why I decided to take early retirement from UCI. My point in posting these stories is to say "This happened. It shouldn't have. Can you learn something from it, so you can prevent such things from happening where you are (or at least not be complicit)?"
Fallout
One Thursday afternoon, everyone on my campus received an astonishing email, whose subject was "Important Message from Chancellor Gillman". The email stated that four members of the university community, whose names were listed, had "bravely reported incidents of sexual harassment" against an individual who was also named. The email stated that a thorough investigation by the Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) substantiated a number of claims. The Chancellor reminded us that the individual was not only a UCI professor, but also a major donor whose name was prominent on campus, including on a library, a major academic division, fellowships, and endowed chairs. "Given the number and breadth of the substantiated allegations, along with the power differentials at play," the individual's name would be removed throughout campus.
After the initial shock, I (jokingly) wondered how much I could get on eBay for the chapstick I had gotten at some health fair, whose label had an academic division's now-former name.
While many people have tried to judge the case themselves, what I was interested in were the process, how the university behaved, and what I could learn from this.
A month later, as everyone stood around eating fancy desserts at a reception after the groundbreaking ceremony for a new building, the Chancellor and I had a friendly chat. The Chancellor again lauded the four named women as being "brave" to report it, since of course they have a valid concern about retaliation.
When the Chancellor tells you that of course you need to be brave to report wrongdoing since you should expect to be retaliated against, that is by no means reassuring.
Alluding to a furious colleague who (based on the university's handling of this case) lived in fear that women would falsely report him for sexual harassment, I pointed out that if male colleagues refuse to talk to female colleagues because the way the university handled the case makes them angry and afraid, that in itself could lead to a hostile climate for women.
The Chancellor replied that UCI couldn't just do nothing, because of the #metoo movement. The implication was that without the #metoo movement, they would have done nothing. It sounded like an admission that their concern wasn't to do the right thing, it was to do what was in their best interest.
Was UCI really turning away the $10 million that the donor-professor had promised to give? That would indeed be astonishing. No, the university had verified that the money was committed in an irrevocable way.
The Chancellor hoped that the details of the case would be made public via a Freedom of Information Act request. He was confident that everyone who read the report by the UCI Office of Equal Opportunity and Diversity (OEOD) would agree that UCI did the right thing.
The 93-page OEOD "Findings", when posted on the website of the journal Science, did not reassure everyone. If anything, it added to campus polarization about how the case was handled.
At an earlier Q&A for a campus Sexual Harassment Prevention Training session, I had pointed out that I had never heard of people who were glad they had reported something to OEOD, but I had heard of cases where people regretted it. I asked for information that might reassure us that at least some people didn't have regrets. The response did not reassure me.
Did the "Findings" reassure me? According to the Findings, one of the named "complaining witnesses" reported that the matter had "taken up a great deal of her time and energy" and she felt "her life would be easier if she had never complained about Respondent's behavior."
I was horrified by how much detail about who said what was made public. Did the interviewed "witness" who called the Respondent pompous know that OEOD would include it in a report that would be given to the Respondent and could be made public? The identities of witnesses were barely concealed in the public version.
The Vice Provost hosted a panel discussion for the School of Physical Sciences "regarding the campus’ SVSH (sexual violence/sexual harassment) investigation and adjudication process" (without naming the case, but everyone knew what she meant). At the meeting I asked some questions (not all of whose responses did I find informative enough to record):
(1) What means has UCI used to protect a Complainant from retaliation by someone in a position of power, other than firing the person in power or having them resign?
(2) Is it correct that there are no guarantees of confidentiality for anything you say to OEOD, since anything that you say during a UCI OEOD investigation could be released by UCI and posted on the Internet (e.g., due to a Freedom of Information request)?
Their answer was yes, this is correct.
Curiously, one panelist said that he guesses that the vast number of cases don't go to OEOD --- even though Deans and Chairs are mandatory reporters, they don't report it. He thought that it usually stops with the Chair or Dean. I was surprised that he said it so openly. My Dean was there and was essentially asked to confirm it. He obliquely replied that he has very good staff who deal with that.
(3) When UCI makes public an OEOD report, a witness's name might be replaced by a number, but many other identifying features might remain, leaving them open to retaliation by the people they mention (who might be the Respondent or a Complainant). What does UCI do to protect witnesses from retaliation?
They pointed out that they can even make the names public, and might have to.
(4) Concerning faculty rights, can UCI place a professor on an involuntary leave of absence based on an accusation, before any investigation is done? If so, under what circumstances can it do that? My concern was that if so, then any bully can make an unfair accusation and cause real and lasting harm. Bullying was already a big problem at UCI.
(5) If you are accused of sexual harassment, which things that you do to defend yourself will count as retaliation, and which won't? For example, if you say that the allegations are false, can that be considered retaliation? If defenses can be considered retaliation, that seems problematic, and a potential violation of faculty rights.
A panelist's response was that saying that allegations are false would not be considered retaliation. But the "Findings" were not entirely reassuring. The OEOD seemed to have held against the Respondent that he "engaged in a campaign with the highest University officials to influence the outcome of this investigation." Whether one views such letters on high as a misguided though acceptable attempt by a desperate person to defend himself or a "tendency to wield his influence in an intimidating manner" could be in the eye of the beholder.
(6) It appeared as if the university took the recent allegations more seriously after lawyers got involved. It's important that UCI treat complaints by people who don't hire lawyers as seriously as complaints by people who do hire lawyers. Can we have the administration's assurance that complaints will get the same consideration regardless of whether the Complainant hires a lawyer?
They responded that having a lawyer doesn't necessarily help you. They know cases in which having a lawyer hurt the person who had one, so the outcome might be worse for you if you hire a lawyer.
So the outcome can depend on whether you have a lawyer. Shouldn't the outcome be based on the merits of the case, not on whether or not you have a lawyer?