Ok. >> We'll go ahead and get started. >> Thanks for coming to this open hearing by the Faculty Senate to discuss the nondiscrimination policy changes that have come before us in the last couple months. I want to just set up. So my name is Chris Williams. >> I'm the President, left with faculty sad. >> I'm department entomology monolithic College. And my job today is just to be a moderator and help, help lead this discussion, but otherwise turnover to many other people who can give more background. But I wanted to set up a series of rules for today since this can be certainly a controversial subject. >> So one is, is that we're going to begin, I'm going to give you a little bit of a background so we understand why we're here today without going into too much detail. >> But, but secondarily to that, we have a series of invited speakers that can give a bit more of a formal thought process in response to, to where we are today and provide a bit of a history. So so we've got Matt conserve it. I'm going to speak from the provost's office. We've we've got John Madsen from, from the Faculty Welfare privileges committee, Emily Davis from diversity and inclusion Faculty Senate geriatric health from the API, and David Mason from the present of the grad student so Shia government. >> And so, so they're going to both, they're all going to come up and talk for about five-ish minutes and provide some insight from their all their separate we'll houses and their thoughts on this issue. >> After that, we're going to open up to the floor and give you a chance to talk. And so the rule that I'm going to setup for this is that I'm going to give everybody two minutes to speak and ask questions or provide, provide your thoughts. It may seem short given a controversial subject, but I want to make sure I have enough time for everybody to speak, so we'll be keeping track on time. >> The one little thing I'll say is if you have a simple question and and it was answered quickly and you feel you have a very quick follow-up question that just needs to be clarified that we'll move forward with that. >> But otherwise, I want to try to keep that two minutes. >> And then also when you do speak, I ask that you give us your name and where you're department is. >> So this is being recorded on UD capture, so it's going into the public record. >> So that way everyone knows who was, who was speaking. So so that's the basic gist of today's meetings. >> So just as a little bit of background for why we are here today. We in August of this, of this last year, the administration had, had brought forth a new nondiscrimination policy that was there to replace the current for 29 policy. That is I've been updated many times over the years. Last updated about 2.5 years ago, the unlawful harassment policy for faculty. >> And so this this came forward, but importantly in the collective bargaining agreement that was brought forth, the 17.3, it does mandate that that any university wide programs proposals that are that are brought forth by the university should be by the administration, should be reviewed by faculty senate, and then the body that is affected by. And so it was then in the fall that, that this was brought forth as new business to the Faculty Senate. >> And and so it was presented and then brought forth. >> Committee and specifically the faculty privileges committee, to evaluate the language that was brought forth to see if any further review needed to be made. And there was a whole series of was 12 different small revisions that were throughout it. >> But there was two really big ones that are related to each other. >> And I thought I'd bring those up because these, these were really sort of a monumental point of discussion that came up in, in, last December. >> And so, so without going into any great detail that I brought these two points up, and it really deals with the evidence of proof. And so, so the way the FDA, BP had had red line the documents at the standard of proof and all matters under the policy will be, instead of saying a preponderance of evidence, a clear and convincing evidence. And so this is certainly a controversial subject, which I'll let our speakers talk a little bit more about. And there was a second to this about findings of the investigation notification. >> And it just related this idea about a parliaments of evidence versus clear and convincing evidence, so forth and so on. >> And so this, this did come forth and faculty welfare privilege had these this red line document brought forth in the December faculty meeting as as a proposal. It was a lengthy discussion on this topic, especially revolving around this question of evidence. And so it was ultimately voted on to postpone voting for the resolution as it stood, bring it forth to an open policy, which is what we're doing today, why we're here. >> So that the idea would be that we can use this information from today's meeting to better understand or better think about what policies or resolution is coming forward in the March or the next meeting. So so that is the context for why we're here. >> And so without any further ado, I want to turn it over to our, our five different speakers to give their take and thoughts about these proposed changes. >> So we're going to start with matt matters because they're so he's got a few slides. >> So I'm not going to take five minutes. I'm going to take just a couple of minutes to show you a few slides that I think will illustrate some of the differences between the old policy and the new one that's under consideration. >> First one, as Chris alluded to, standard of proof, this new policy uses preponderance standard, which means more likely than not. I think it's important to note that the current when 429. >> And when I say current, That's the current one for faculty because it has not yet been replaced by the new when it's no longer a policy for staff and students because the new policy on August one is in place for staff and students. >> I'm not sure that that's clear to everybody. >> So I thought we ought to point that out. >> So anyway, the point in terms of faculty in the standard of proof is this new policy declares the standard of proof. >> The old one declares no standard at all. >> I think that's worth knowing a lot of questions about. >> You know, what are your rights if somebody accuses you of violation under this new policy. >> And here's a list of things to explicitly set out for people, for complainants and respondents under the new policy. >> And these are things that are not either not clear or not at all present in the old policy. So there's a lot more process was a clearer and I think better process in many ways laid out in the new policy. And we can go back to the slide of a point I don't want to read to you. >> We'll leave it up there for just a second. >> We can go back to it. And it just the old policy I think it's worth mentioning is, is quite vague and it doesn't afford these opportunities. And I think we're in a better position having those laid out. Appeal process is the same in both its through the Faculty Welfare and privileges committee. So I thought it'd be useful to see just some of the key points of difference between the current policy for 29 per faculty and the new one. >> And certainly we're going to have the chance to ask any of our speakers questions if you want once we turn it over and open session. Second, I'd like to bring up John Madsen and talk about the Faculty Welfare privileges perspective on writing these revisions. >> Ok. >> Thanks, Chris. >> Thanks a lot. You try to be shorter than charging. That is so your Faculty Welfare approach. Skinny on Jeff Jordan to chair that committee. Jeff has a class that he has to teach during this time period, so he's asked me to step in on the associate chair of that particular committee. So we've had started in the spring when we met with Jerry Turk, **** of a UPS Gibbs either spring, early menthol people that blur that we add mu they be we then proceeded to have a series of four additional committee meetings. >> Meeting with Mac conserve x sqrt of meeting with diversity. >> I started with the general counsel's office medium with Director of the Office of Equity inclusions. We had a series of meetings and discussions by our by our particular committee. We recommended eyes chris, sort of summarize a series of rather minor changes to the document. You can see in the red line documents, you look through those. The one that wound up with our most discussion was this idea around the type of evidence to be accepted, whether it was the preponderance of information, preponderance of evidence or clear and convincing evidence in the sexual misconduct policy. It's preponderance of information. As we began to look at the nondiscrimination policy, we began to struggle with that information a little bit and began to look at our documents are existing documents that we had around termination and complaints that are filed with faculty. And so in looking at that our current document in the in the faculty handbook handling faculty terminations, the line for evidence is clear and convincing evidence. So we felt the need to align ourselves with the clear and convincing evidence that it is in that existing faculty handbook following terminations and complaints. And so that's why you see that. Difference between our recommendations and one's actually in the current sexual misconduct policy and where we have suggested revision. That brought up a lot of discussion. And in the last Faculty Senate meeting, in addition to that, we also worked with Matt in terms of revising a little bit around that reported the draft reports outward do as during the hearings going long. And so it's good that we could work that out so that the parties involved have the ability to be able to view the draft report from the investigator before it goes into a final report version. That's another bit of a change that we had though that garnered a fair amount of discussion. >> Thank you. >> Very good questions. >> Alright, Emily, high. >> So there are some legal arguments I think that others will be able to make and I don't want to use all my time making them. I can summarize quickly about those. Oneness is changed, would make us inconsistent with how civil law operates in the United States. I would say the second is this makes us inconsistent with how civil rights law operates in the United States. And then the third is that it would make us inconsistent in how our nondiscrimination policy aligns with our Title Nine policy on campus. And then another two occurs to me. Now as this may also create a situation in which the faculty are being held to a different standard of evidence than a policy that's now in place for students and staff and other members of the UT community. So changing the standard of proof creates all kinds of issues that way. But the part that I don't want to get lost in the discussion and just want to talk about quickly is what does this mean for the experiences of people on campus right now? And I can say that I've had multiple people approach me because of my affiliation with this committee to ask if the discussion about raising the standard of proof was an in fact meant to intimidate people who might want to make complaints. I think the conversation itself is making people pretty nervous. And so it's communicating a certain kind of message about how we think about questions of discrimination on campus. And I would say as if it is already easy to, to bring complaints for where the idea of making it more, the process more difficult, the standard of proof higher, I think is something to think about. So what I wanted to offer you quickly, and I was sort of task with at the December meeting is to try to summarize a bit what are some of the kinds of scenarios that we're talking about? >> So what I have given you are scenarios that have happened at UT. >> They're real scenarios. I've tried to remove as much information as I could from them that would identify particular people. But these are sort of snapshots of people's experience of campus climate around discrimination at UD. So the first scenario, you are an immigrant faculty member at UD. While you are one of the most productive researchers in your department and a leader in your field, a senior colleague in your department continually finds ways to undermine and insult you in front of your peers, both in-person and in emails that go out to the whole department. What do you do? The second scenario, you're an African-American undergraduate English major who wears her hair natural professor sends you an email out of the blue one day telling you you're no longer allowed to sit next to the only other African-American students in the class because your hair is distracting, and it's the distracting the other students and disrupting the class. When you meet with a professor about a writing assignment, you work hard on. The professor says the assignment shows you must not pay attention or take notes. In fact, you do all the reading and write down everything the professor says in class. You went to a crappy inner city high school that didn't prepare you for college level writing. What you know, you had gone to office hours hoping to get some help improving your writing in this class. But your professor treat you like you're stupid. >> What do you do? >> Scenario three year graduate student at UD, who's always warn her job. But you've been increasingly worried about your safety over the course of the last several months, as there had been more incidents nationwide, your car with smeared with feces last month while parked outside your house. And the woman in the checkout line at the grocery store the other day refused to touch your hand when you got your change. When you try to talk to your fellow all white graduate students about how this political climate is making it hard to concentrate on your schoolwork. They tell you you're just taking everything to personally and need to buckle down and be a real student, what do you do? So I just wanted to throw these out as a way to sort of bring sort of real people's experiences back into the conversation. Our conversation in December in the Senate meeting tended to be very much focused around sort of legal division, Zen, and hypotheticals. But this conversation is happening in the context of a larger campus climate around race on campus. And I don't want us to lose sight of that in the conversation. So as is probably clear, our committee was completely against raising the standard of proof in this policy. I already talked about some of the other reasons why and I'd be happy to go into more detail in any of them and the conversation later. >> Thank you. >> Emily Jerry, University of Delaware Chapter of the American Association of University professors, has long been and continues to be wholeheartedly against all forms of discrimination in academic life. In particular, we support policies that recognize and an aim to end the harms caused by discrimination to individual members of the University of Delaware Community And the distortions that past and ongoing discrimination creates for our community, for our research, and for our educational missions, we aim for an inclusive community of faculty, staff, and students working with one another on the basis of dignity and mutual respect. Based on these values and goals, on September first, 2017 hours Chapter of the AAUP has executive council discussed the university nondiscrimination policy issued by the office of the president that was scheduled to go into effect on August first, 2017. The executive council recognize the need to revise the current policy on unlawful harassment that dates back to 1998 and was last revised in 2015. However, since that policy was issued on August first, 2017, had not been submitted to the Senate for review. The AAUP communicated to the administration that the policy needed to be reviewed and acted on by the Senate and that it should be considered a proposal under specific articles of the collective bargaining agreement. We were very pleased that the administration agreed with our view. Because of these provisions and the collective bargaining agreement, there is an opportunity for senate action and Indy and an opportunity for this open hearing. We have an unusual governance structure at the University of Delaware in which the AAUP represents the full-time faculty has the authority to grieved policies included in the faculty handbook which have not been properly approved in accordance with the CBA with the collective bargaining agreement. For this reason, the AAUP is pleased to join this discussion of the proposal and the resolutions developed by the Faculty Welfare privileges Committee and the diversity and inclusion committee. With this in mind, the AAUP has the following comments, site specific features of the proposed nondiscrimination policy for faculty. We believe that any complain alleging discrimination against the member at University of Delaware community that is supported by credible evidence should be taken seriously by university authorities and should be addressed as promptly as possible. It should be possible to address most cases of alleged discrimination through some combination of mediation, counseling, and education. However, in situations where a suspension or expulsion of a student or the suspension or a termination of a faculty or staff member is proposed. We are profoundly uncomfortable. With the possibility that such negative life-altering decisions could be made on the relatively weak standard of barely more than 50% probability, that is the preponderance of information standard. And such situations of potentially severe punishment, we believe that it is more appropriate to employ the clear and convincing evidence standard, which national AAUP has argued for in a number of policies and statements, including its recommendations for academic due process and it's 2015 documents and reports. Also, there are serious deficiencies of due process and the investigator model and the proposed policy. These deficiency include these deficiency include but are not limited to the following. The two support persons who are to accompany the complainant and the respondent are not allowed to say anything in their meetings with the director and end or the investigator, even to the parties whom they are supposed to be supporting. Second, neither the complaint and no other respondent is allowed to have a copy of either the draft report, the final report written by the investigator. Instead, these two parties are allowed only to read these reports and take notes on them in the presence of the investigator or a director who will inevitably hear any comments they might make to their support persons. The responses of the complainant and the respondent to the investigators draft report are limited to five double-spaced pages. While the the draft report and the flow report, there's no limit, no page limit. This arbitrarily short limitation of the responses aloud to the parties could make it very difficult for either party to respond adequately to the statements and findings of the draft report. An addition, neither party has an opportunity to see, let alone respond to any of the comments and suggestions made by the other party in their written responses to the investigators report, and thus they have no opportunity to read, but any additional findings made on the basis of additional information provided to the investigator and investigate an investigative report that includes the possibility of a formal hearing such as that provided to our students and the Delaware public school system, where facing the possibility of expulsion would provide an appropriate degree of due process. And transparency for all parties. This would help to avoid serious miscarriages of justice. Another issue, the proposed policy gives the director ownership of the complain reported to the Office of Equity and Inclusion. Under the informal resolution section of the proposal, it is up to the director to decide whether or not to proceed with a formal complaint regardless of the wishes of the complaint. This takes ownership of the complaint away from the person or persons making the allegation. Moreover, this can reasonably be expected to lead to fewer complaints being made if you lose ownership of the complaint, that might deter people from actually making a complaint. The policy in our view should include more effective use of conflict resolution approaches based on mediation and direct communication between the person or persons making the complaint and respond and the responded when appropriate and when agreed to by both parties. And again, I'll be happy to answer any questions as well. Thank you. >> Hi, I'm David Mason. >> I'm the president of the graduate student government. But first and foremost, I want to thank the faculty Senate and leaders of the faculty community and the, and the University of Delaware for inviting a representative of the graduates, of the graduate student body to weigh in on this question. So we really appreciate that for recognition of what we have to say. I also want to say that the general feeling in the graduate student government and this pause, these policy changes have been discussed within both the executive committees as well as in our own diversity and inclusion committees. And there are some reactions that are coming out of there. But first and foremost, reaction is that we acknowledge the importance of reviewing policies. And that's clearly a critical necessity that we can't just leave old things in place without consideration, without regular considerations. So that is the first step that I think is being accomplished here, and we're all in favor of that. However, that being said, we have some concerns about some of the revisions that have been made. I think the general feeling is that it's some of the revisions are chained to mountain in some way to losing the forest for the trees, so to speak. And by that I mean to point out some troubles that we have with when when a procedure is reviewed and revised to be more strictly regulated and very highly stipulated. You increase the procedural efficacy, but you also increase the error. Probability in terms of finding situations and procedural steps that ought to be taken that are not being taken because you've only listed one through ten. And what if there's number 11 that comes up, but it's not on the list of one through ten. So now you run into problems of whether or not it can follow the procedure. And therefore, if it can't, ought to be automatically dismiss when really the case should be reviewed. So that's what I mean by losing the forest for the trees. What, what I guess I think that the feeling is in short is that the stipulation about clear evidence is troublesome only because when it comes to acts of discrimination and harassment, there isn't always clear evidence, Harrison, and feelings of discrimination can happen without there being very clear signs or overt signs of discrimination. A lot of discrimination, especially in this day and age, is much more subvert, I'm sorry, is much more covert than over. And and so we were concerned about the stipulations regarding clear evidence in that it may generate a tone of a disregard for the subjective experience of the individuals who are in this situation, favor of clear physical evidence that such a thing may happen, may have happened. One thing I wanted to focus on, especially since it was brought up on the slides as being one of the major changes is this issue of the perspective of a reasonable person. So that I will say is troubling for us because we feel as though the same sort of argument was made. I don't know. I'm sure there are people in the room who know much better than I do. But the same argument was made however, many years ago regarding police violence. Where the situation, as I understood it was that the cases of police violence against minority groups, for example, had to be reviewed and consider the perspective of a reasonable person. But in years since that Paul's since that law became precedent, the reinterpretation by policing officials has been a shift toward well, a reasonable person could be either a reasonable a reasonable person looking at the situation in hindsight, or a reasonable person in the instant and without a clear distinction of which one is reasonable, you run the risk of being of wanting to have the reasonable person would be defined as someone objectively looking at the situation from the outside in hindsight. Whereas another interpretation could be that the reasonable person who is in that moment might have felt as though the situation where discrimination, and therefore they feel, they feel Harrison, they feel like the environment is hostile to them. Where an objective person three weeks later might look at all of the facts and say, no, that wasn't discrimination, but it doesn't change the subjective experience of the individual. So those are our primary concerns. And for those reasons that I think that some of the proposed revisions are understandable, but we have some grave concerns about the general proposal as it stands right now. And of course, I'll be happy to respond. >> Okay, so those are our speakers to try to give you some background and diversity of viewpoints from, from the different parties campus that particularly have concerns or support for the changes. >> So what we want to do is we want to open this up to you. We're going to have we're going to put an end time of 530 younger is but we can let it go if it needs to. >> But just to reiterate a rule for open discussion. So UD capture is recording this for the public record. >> So I will call on you. I ask you, you say your name, where you're from, what department you're from, and you have two minutes to make a comment or you can ask a question to one of the speakers for before pass that, you just hold yourself to one comment and we'll go around the room and if there's no one else, anything you say will go back around again for second terms. >> Right. >> So with that, I will open it up to the floor high. >> Harry Lewis, I'm a senior, and a bunch of cells, they go on to that. I want to thank everyone for all their thoughtful comments and commentary. Unless I know this is a complicated issue for everyone. I know it's raising a lot of emotion fun on all sides. I met with Mark that I have met with Matt, and we sort of talked about this proposed tied to both inefficient and faculty. >> And I think I have a pretty good sense of where everyone's coming from on this. >> One thing I want to point out, I'm going to hopefully be professor at some point in the future, hopefully get my PhD and actually become part of a collective bargaining process like all of you. And I think as much as I'm sympathetic to that argument, I also understand that discrimination is never okay any circumstance. And you paraphrase and here's your LIM profoundly uncomfortable determination accountable as he is, with some changes made in standard of evidence. And I think, you know, when it comes down to it, if you don't want to be punished for discrimination, don't discriminate. It seems like a pretty easy thing to do. And I think there is so much happening, our national conversation right now around discrimination, around inequality. And I think it's just really not updates for the Faculty Senate to be talking about this in a way that is so removed from the context competition we're having as a country around what it needs to be equal, what it needs to be represented, and what it means to get justice. And I think that it does a disservice to universe PAT into university students talk about this in the way they are, is dot product volume. Jeremy, by ourselves for marine science policy protects faculty claimants on this so that we are going to be discriminated or harass other ways. Do you also have to recognize it as two different policies? One is dealing with discrimination, unwanted sexual conditionally standard uniformly on discrimination in honor, of course, neither one's fine in the courts. There was a higher burden on employers to show is the same. So if anything, it was more of a burden on the discriminator, then preponderance on sexual misconduct. The Office of Civil Rights at one end and course inconsistently affirm that bupropion standard vibrancy to the evidence. >> There are lower standards. >> Substantial evidence probably pause in 2001 when this came. Or the Office of Civil Rights simply formalize this long-standing position for partners. And the d, a 2002 study by the National Institute of Justice that or 80% of institutions and identify civic standard identified it as a preponderance of the evidence that we're not going against the majority. And we also have to react to clear and convincing or primarily benefit, will not benefit women on this. That declaring convincing standard is really not use area off is primarily use license suspension, things dealing with fraud, punitive damages, or we could have a higher standard for ultimate dismissal. >> So this is just to mine and someone has discriminated or engaged and harassment. >> There's a whole other and we play our hires. >> And yeah, I agree. The five pages is very limited, but five pages is not any, it's not arbitrary. Any age. Now everything is arbitrary in one sense. We could pick ten pages, but it would be no best arbitrary. I would agree that LEI has too much authority to 20 decline formalization and to say that things are outside of its jurisdiction is so that you don't get a right to appeal. I don't think more conflict resolution is the answer to a lot of times when someone's been discriminated and harassed, all that's going to do is cause additional here a picture of me, joe Proust from philosophy, but I share your concerns about the due process protections. In fact, I think it should be or the Google proposing to institute some of them are pretty thin and we've been told it's a due process protection to propose questions for the investigator asked some ways. >> Of course not. >> We'd like to have a path here with the answer. >> So I think they're pretends they stands above VIP. >> The bare minimum of them probably weren't foods, as amendments would know that the American Bar Association only last summer addressed the issue. >> If you cross this in some of these proceedings with a taskforce contain representatives from all sorts of groups. >> And these civic league said that you bought because they're just the standard of proof independent from the mechanisms of utrification. >> Fact-finding, they recommend you using a single investigator model seems to propose policy that you have a higher standard proof. >> And they allow the preponderance might be acceptable, but only if you separate into various functions that are now agglomerated. >> Investigator so as to provide due process. So we're going to use single investigator. And that seems not changing, that doesn't seem to be contemplated. I would think they would want to report it, but at least the American Bar Association bracket HTML. But let me add one other thing, that the, the examples of discrimination that data's listed The first is not obviously clear that India those rise to the level it was described as discrimination. >> So it was alive. >> Doesn't mean you can feel the people who've been treated are just numerous ways snark bureau being treated terribly outside universities and university your regard you as being discriminated against if someone tells you much walk just sparkled. >> Yeah. >> I just wanted to say that what I'm trying to communicate is the difficulty of climate, which is also something that's coming up in the graduate students represented as remarks to that. Often things that become chronic issues, discrimination for students, staff, or faculty are difficult to, are more persuasive to them than to wait. If people were in deciding cases that often things look like discrimination to some people and not to others, which makes trying to claim discrimination even harder. If they seem vague, they seem you're taking things too hard. Certainly someone didn't mean something that way. It's, it's that kind of pattern that creates climate, which is what a nondiscrimination policy, part of the design of anti-discrimination policy is to try to communicate what UTS values are in terms of discrimination. Not all of them will rise to four mol, harassment claims of discrimination claims. But these are the kinds of percolating issues underneath a lot of these Discrimination. >> So one thing to think about is I think that it's one thing to think about the caves, the scenarios that Professor David brought up. How many of us were aware there of those happening around campus. As we said that these are actually the building. But I have some very thoughtful and if we don't know or not know about though, what does that mean about our aware? >> And if that is the case, then what does it say about the inclusivity professor? >> Gradually up about a pendulum. >> If B, if we were to talk about diversity as if there's no yet, we don't provide that comfort level to the underrepresented groups. And that comes from the comfort level, comes from the sense of inclusion. And that comes from being able to be heard. If there's any restriction that is being blade to reduce that voice. I think very crudely going against anything that we're talking about. It >> And I think having said that, I do think that I think a little bit of confusion here. >> One is the the actual definition of preponderance of evidence or convincing evidence. >> And then the procedure then follows that way. >> Right now, at least for me, the point is, where do we start if we can give them whether it is ourself to find out that it could be a case against the vacuity are estab if began providing opportunity to be heard, then we can talk about the procedure maybe in a little bit more effectively. >> And as Professor milestone, author pointed out, when it goes to the dismissal, yes, one can talk about those procedure in a little bit more restrictive. But the first part to bring them to the point where they feel comfortable that they can voice those things. Another scenario, a professor telling a birthday cake suddenly move data. >> Does anybody know by Thanks has been come back. >> Thank you. Yep. >> Another question, Dr. Morgan from physics and astronomy. >> And I've been thinking a lot about these issues for the last three years. >> Ever since January 2015, we realized and said field has gone under coercion, verbally, warfarin, privileges issues. >> And my thinking has evolved over the years. >> And I think I would say that I, I'm certainly inclined to agree with Professor Firestone, some other speakers, that we should not have such a high standard that it makes it very difficult for someone who is suffering discrimination to bring forward a complaint is indeed as it is in the statement the geriatric care Red, I think if there's any credible evidence that some member of this community is suffering from discrimination. >> That university with memories should do their best to address it as promptly as possible, which I think can often be done through some combination of mediation and counseling. >> I think if one's going to be dismissing a member of the campus community and, and, And especially I think students as well as faculty members, it is important to have adequate due process. And I have placed before you very brief extract from the DOM where school discipline laws and regulations switches on website maintained by the Federal Department of Education on it for the the policy for expulsion of students from the public schools in Delaware. >> And there has to be a student has a right to a hearing. >> And we turn the page, you can see what has to happen. >> Namely the student in the pit out gets a list of witnesses and copies of any written information that may be submitted. >> The hearing has to be recorded and the students will have the following writes to me, represented by legal counsel at the student's expanse to cross-examine witnesses, to testify and produce witnesses on his or her back and to obtain the students express a copy of the transcript at the hearing. And I just don't understand is why our university is unable to provide the rights to an 18 year old student. >> He's either paying his own Jewish enrich parents or which are awarded to an 18-year-old student, your highschool, I have yet to hear a good reason why our university. >> Thank Sharon. Hi, my name's Cal ag major studies. >> And over my past three years, and I've definitely noticed that there's a race problem as I seen it through. Students asked me to speak up for their entire race galleries. And so I've seen it students casually, very Edward, I saw that there was a scandal that he uses, is in love with these pieces. Are entire suit advised was that consider knowing that we have a race. >> I don't see any logic in having a higher standard of proof. >> For some numbers of others, they don't understand why that's the all-zero. >> Thank you, Kelly. >> Hello. >> My name is Evan Bush. >> I made junior at the university with a major in political science. >> And I have the following question. Or any cultural organizations such as nationally like NAACP were on campus, such as the Center for Black culture, ask to be consulted on this issue at hand for changing the discrimination policy. >> Thanks. >> Haven't developed guard groups like to respond to that. >> I don't know why. I know that. >> I can confirm that when the proposed changes were not run by the Center for Culture I Bipolar communists, they should be involved in this process. >> David Ross, I just wanted to make If I could a personal comment. And I'd like to make that distinction because I'm at at this exact moment, I'm not speaking on behalf the grants and I'm speaking personally. Visual visual 2-bits, GSD President, I wanted to make comment in response to something that Professor Davis, professor said about climate. And just the comments struck on every for me where I'm a I'm a grad student on campus, so I'm not privy to all of the events that are planned for all the undergrads on campus and all the things that go on. But I was shocked to learn that last Semester, and perhaps this is a regular thing, that last semester there was a event for freshman to, to, to bring them in, I guess, into the university culture and host a big event related to the football game and teach them how to do the chairs that UD does and all that sort of stuff. I was really surprised to learn personally as a Jew, that that event was planned on Rosh Hashanah, Which is the highest holiday for Jews and for anyone who Google is observant enough to take that under consideration, would not have been inadvertently excluded for participating you then now, the reason I bring that up is because that is not discrimination overtly, but it is, I think a just them in to the establishment of a culture that perhaps is not sensitive enough to the nuances because they're getting lost on the particularities of evidence as a personal thank you to her. >> I said I'm the undergraduate student body, right? And so what I want you to kind of, based off of what you brought up, was the issue that a lot of students had. Students weren't really consulted at all when this came up. Student government. Every year, undergrads are asked to provide students to sit on a committee for audit committees, including Faculty Welfare and diversity inclusion, none of which are hooked into this conversation or ask their opinions or thoughts, which is a huge concern for undergraduates do have those representatives that were not consulted in any manner whatsoever. And I just think that it's something to quote Mr. Churchill is like altering decision should be where 80 thousand students on this, a 125 thousand that you consider the graduate students. And to have this not conversation until 530 today is a really huge problem for us moving forward that should not be taken out during hetero restrooms colony in meeting that will provide you with a chunk of text and feel for them. And given that you are so infringements on both left and right where we're professors had been commanded the thing, college funds are part of offenses. Are we talking about international outcome between protecting free speech? And there won't be anybody for guidance. >> Tim was more panel want to respond. We'll leave it out there. >> You CodeRed, which we saw Evergreen College, where they will demand better job than we thought we handle. Jefferson's, apparently we're not really working out. He's on his way to rekey university professor coming from the left, what, how would they even guy? So he CDS on bond. When you are coming from all political director, and I feel that I have then is what is the next those kinds of exercises and what is considered covered within the policy we're talking about. >> Do you have thoughts meant? >> Well, the we we talked about this with the welfare villages committee and made sure that there were statements in Australia, isn't there. >> But I don't think we I don't think anybody that this policy has given me what's a casual in people's hands to silence unorthodox or obscenity opinions. >> And that's, I think, a real responsibility to them that I'm cannabis in classrooms on the green. >> I think that's really important. >> So that's I think that was important to all parties. >> I think one of the one of the things that you mentioned was people losing their jobs. And I feel like if these conversations, a lot of times when we start talking about possibilities, whereas Edward terminates and we we had policies that try, but I terminate that. And it basically says it better be the most compelling, very egregious. >> And there's no way, nothing in this policy and does what's in welfare privileges or in the faculty handbook about termination of a backlog. >> So I think we need to be better as a university at looking at policies that can inculcate certain values and behavior that we all you, and that can allow us to address things short. >> Termination is We're not that we don't have policies about rather than low poly, about subtle races. >> And we don't have, we don't have any good declarations of progressive discipline. It kind of goes from politely fired. And there, there's, there's little in between is an important conversation because we need to get these policies and we need to develop these practices. The ultimate goal is to make the campus inclusive and welcoming and to make it clear that we don't tolerate these, these behaviors that are becoming more prevalent. There was an incident last week that was pretty shocking right there though I never hear about happening when African Americans finger was giving a Black History Month speech and somebody up turned the reception tables outside you that that happened here as Laura, Thanks James. >> Math person sweatshirt. >> Do not respond in terms of I can't walk or approach. >> Is lucky to have the first amendment academic freedom protections. We felt that as spelled out in the document, it's referring to the definitions of the battery Handbook and then their collective bargaining agreement that we hadn't dressed as diverse as applied to document. >> Thanks Jiang. So I think this she will introduce herself. Thread may be friendly twice brothers can introduce herself for, oh, I'm sorry, I'm Fred Hofstetter, faculty centered around school of education. And I've been here for so I think the answer to this dilemma maybe of what the vice provost conserving I just said. If it's true that there could be a two stages to this instead of a single stage in terms of the level of groove. >> So that bringing that complaint and hearing the complaint would be at that level. >> That's in the policy as proposed by the administration. >> But to termination, fw p would be using the clear and convincing level which is in the fw p policy. >> Why, why understanding? And we can ask John, Professor Massimo, to respond. My understanding is that the F WFP committee was assuming that it could not have a different standard for termination if the complaint was coming up through the discrimination. >> That was that was our concern. As we looked at and follow this document, we felt the need to try to align it with our existing policy that we've had in the faculty handbook as well as why did with a UP and their and their sting. >> So that's how long it wasn't unanimous discussion. >> Kevin Peter saying >> Undergraduate representative at Executive Vice President of the undergraduate student government. >> I actually, I'll shortly say that are quickly say that most, if not all, undergraduate student government opposes to the clear and convincing argument. >> But I do want to take it to another subject I want to focus is towards vice provost is the fact that neither complex nor respondents are allowed to be provided with a written report of the investigation. >> And I raise this because it concerns me as a victim of sexual assault on this campus. >> And on this same language is used in this sexual misconduct policy. Is that in the case as we saw at the University of Michigan, Michigan, where administrators WHO took clear action against victims of discrimination of sexual assault for complained to not have legal evidence, a legal written report of that. >> I'm concerned that they wouldn't be able to bring legal charges against the university. >> Form is doing matt, I don't know. >> The Michigan example. >> I'm sorry. >> Efficiency. >> Oh, yes. Sorry. Okay. >> I can tell you the thinking that went into this PIT about the reports that I've read reports and respond to that. >> And this is another thing that we talked about with welfare and privileges community, when you're talking about sexual misconduct in discrimination cases, the details in them can be so personally damaging and humiliating for the parties and that you'll either length or it can be from above. >> Right? >> And these are reports investigating planes. And as other people have said, David's way versus most specifically, the nature of these claims, don't always lead themselves to really clear and convincing evidential support. So you end up with a lot of material and maybe not always the outcome that the complainant is happy with or that the respondent is happy with or that either is happy with. >> And if they have a report, very draft report. >> You've talked about seeking the lecture. I think it was more about kind of vigilante publishing for putting it up online. >> I didn't get my remedy. So I'm Anna, I'm going to seek it myself and I'm gonna publish this thing. >> And then it looks for all the world like an official university documents supporting two planes of the Persian person. >> He disseminates >> So it was really about the concern to not have this material which can be damaging for all parties if it's not dealt with discretely, just out there to be shared or public, because they're kind of sharing of poverty is so easy nowadays. >> I'm not a lawyer, but I would think if you wanted a legal blame, your lawyer could see that document. The uterus. >> I don't know Rachel's undergraduate student here for this information. Why would you really want to keep that private industry? And it's an issue and it needs to be addressed. It's something that we talked about the taut and I brought it to you. It's not something that needs to be just kind of shut down. And that gives us more humiliating, especially for the victims when they are just kind of shoved aside. Is that okay? Well, that's why because it's harmful to them. And then that discourages other people who've been victims of that to not speak up. Israel needs to be addressed. >> Charity Armstrong? >> Yeah. >> I think that on these issues, it's difficult issues and it's not, you know, when we listen to one another, I think we recognize that there's a lot of validity and why religion? >> We define this two sides. >> You know, the cultural climate issues on campus to mindful. And, and I'm speaking for myself, one of the most crucial, because it's within the interpersonal relationships within classrooms that, that, that the horrific experiences that, that you've alluded to the car with regard to the issue of people being able to have access to take these draft reports. There was a case on campus that I as a faculty member, Sorry, I won't say what who was faced. I was I was with this faculty member who was in a room. >> There's a 40 page draft document that you're confronting. >> The faculty member wanted to have an attorney book and we were not allowed to communicate this to faculty members. Attorney, the attorney had to come to campus billable hours travel. So, you know, there are a lot of facets to this. I by, you know, the point that you're making that I completely agree with. There are there may be reasons for not divulging draft report, especially one on one final point that we want to make. Talking about specific policies, right, that I would distinguish from the cultural issues. The issues of campus climate policies can be used in all kinds of ways. You know, one of the good intentions that we may have that inform policy do not necessarily tell us who is going to use them and toward what ends have authentically are in authentically, they're going to be used. And that's really something also that, you know, to kind of keep in mind when we're talking about the standards of of of proof and other aspects of the proposed oh, I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> Yes, yes. >> I just want to quickly address sort of two questions that came up in discussions with Matt. Our committee had problems with the fact that there would not you would not have actually, you don't have access to the record just to look at and not to go to take it with you. So if you know the policy, what we recommended or what's an all signals recommendation that the directors would provide a written summary of the report that the complainant and responding to take with them that written somewhere. It will be redacted so as to protect the privacy interests of data. Completely responded since I wanted Plattner, but we didn't have this issue in the way that we felt we could handle way by not actually allowing that release of that entire report, but instead you would see that direct summary of that already written summary of that. >> Thanks cushion powers, Department of Philosophy and seven for science and public policy. >> In several of the comments I notice here is this lingering question, subject to some huge tanks of answers, something in the sand and the person who sat on it. >> And in those subset of cases where it's really agree on what was said. >> There's not a question of whether an email is actually separates it strikes it strikes me that the conversation of evidence, what we're really talking about is on the one hand, whether somebody events at something that was discriminatory, and on the other hand, whether somebody screaming and of course the person who raised the planes is going to feel discriminated or else they wouldn't have raised if somebody responds Well, yes, I said that, but I think they're not they're not somehow doubting what was said. Yes, there's a disagreement. What really counts is discrimination. >> So one way of getting past those kinds of cases, and that doesn't describe every case. >> But one way of getting asked those kinds to talk about a community standards, much like in case law talks about free speech when you refer to a standard. And there we, we neither rely on one side or another way to say these are the kinds of things we try to use. >> Outweigh what way. >> Yeah. >> Ought not be said in a classroom context. >> So that doesn't solve all the cases. >> I think that in a certain with you about the Edelman who's like, we don't want to somehow try to pass off, suddenly you discriminate work. That's exactly the one thing I might want to take seriously or at least hear from the person whose speech or conduct is something like one thing you do in one context and then you just got it solid. So again, that's just my observation about what's kinda Thanks, Tom, can you introduce yourself, sir? Just passed around your partner or your organization. >> Next? Chess. >> Josh resides in aerospace engineering. >> The way I see it, change issues at play here. >> One is the culture and procedure and how the procedure is once the cultural homogeneity, which Professor Dave is a really nice job of describing and others have. >> Also, Ramadan is made somewhat worse. Administration tends to be less transparent than pieces like this. >> How many people in the room knew? >> That's what he says is how many people in the room that the fault or investigating posters up those deadlines than this. This I was told was spread the encouragers familiar deafness. >> But as a Jew I didn't earn on it. >> So I'm not sure that that was French philosophy. >> I think the procedures feel need to be reconsidered. Someone in, in light of sunshine being the best visit. I think the cultural problems aren't better result if we talk about them. But the problem is the second way, the way of addressing this, that Faculty Welfare privileges that come up with is the change in evidential standards. >> And there's two points. >> I'm, I'm an economist. 1 bees in any order, law, the evidential editor. And for civil days and losing your job, well, need feel like people love to be in prison is not in fact, a criminal penalty, is a civil remedy. Be hundreds of evidence rather than clear and convincing evidence is not generally used in civil courts. The second than the one I think is even more basic, is this is a fairness issue. If the standards for students interspersed a preponderance of evidence having a higher standard, providing more action to the faculty where I would argue are less vulnerable strikes me as a gross injustice. >> And I don't think it's something. >> Thanks, Josh. >> I'm going to hold off John. >> Make sure you around over here. >> Okay. >> There we go backwards. Sooner. To ask Josh, in Emily, you talk about a different standard for or for faculty versus students. I don't know what you're referring to. Are you referring to the fact that with faculty, any recommendation of dismissal has to go through Faculty Welfare and Privileges where Professor Smith are for termination standard has to be cleared. Convincing is over. You're talking about there's all these revisions are for everybody policy, including students and staff, as well as faculty. So if you're certainly talking about the difference being for faculty versus students, that's this, this and no other policy is going to change. Having determined far as always, you can touch that. So bringing that up as appear issue is not is not an issue because his policy can dress that it's bound by Watson for return mutations. >> If that's what you were talking about, was not what we're talking about. >> Well, what I'm talking about is this policy went into effect August first. She's did not well, many people think it did work, but why students, staff into well, I do not I don't know if faculty are allowed to determine how they submitted videos, a faculty meeting in September. So do we then have the authority to say what the standard will be for every contingent group on campus that says the Faculty Senate. I'm sorry, I'm wondering then do we are we are in charge of determining how students, staff, and visitor and thunder cases will go. >> As the Senate about one brief answers that the CPA dictates that the Senate reviews the poems. Do you makes recommendations, valence, Germany, anything about this ball? She simply DO their farms out reforms, Darrell reform sideways to this policy of the administration goes wherever it wants. >> I was just Arthur can actually simply yourself for the record, for human development train. This entire exercise in transparency and governance is, is based on the fact that the Faculty Senate did as opposed to come forward with a policy to be compliant with the CPA s. So what is happening now is it's an overused term, and I hate to say it, but this is unprecedented. >> I make one phone, communist CVA, CBA teams. This policy could not be implemented period, until it goes backwards. >> Centered review it does. >> So it is not an effect and we think aren't performance of discussion before it goes to the administration. >> I'm stuck. We're going to hold off John. Yeah, I speak to kids. Can introduce yourself. Click Refresh. >> We find that this particular policies focused on discrimination on race and ethnicity is not the title nine policy around sexual misconduct How does use the preponderance standard? And so changing this would lead to a between-ness. My other question is around how we handle things like plagiarism, it saying, know, copying your paper straight. But Wikipedia, Somebody here relates old paper and those standards are there as well. Change creates different. >> Thanks for your degree above. >> Can you could introduce yourself? >> Archival material science discussions, Dana and I hope you can use is directing has to be addressed. >> And I think Wayne's investment group grouping level is good spirits. >> Beauty is not in this case. >> We've heard about it over and over again. Powders Evans, Yeah, probably schemes like Einstein, but unfortunately I really appreciated, especially regarding your question, secure. So, so right now the policy says hundreds of information. We've been we've been talking a lot about the clear and convincing versus preponderance. But the other word in this theater is the term used, infinite nation, not evidence. And that. So when you said what was dinner to B, you actually didn't say the standard that's in the current standard. >> Why would I use this a bunch like nice sort of standard level of burden of proof is legally and burden of equations outward in Rome and have it for the other person and be happy for me. >> Preponderance of information record pointers into Title. >> I document this preponderance of information technology. >> We're talking with her. >> If I could just make a quick comment back as the GSE Representative now. So just because of the enlightened conversation that's been going on in the recordings, I wanted to be on the record as saying something that that I neglected to say during my five minutes or whatever it took that the GSG in general, I want to make this very clear, is not in support of a of any policy that advocates for the unmitigated an unbridled witch hunt of a faculty Professor purely based on a implication and not based on evidence. That's not what I was trying to say. What I think was important was what was brought out about that Middleground and that the issue of how to word things for the revision should deal with that middle ground because when there isn't that clear evidence and they're already in case of dismissal for sure. It shouldn't be the case that just bringing up a suggestion of misconduct for discrimination is enough to warrant the dismissal of a faculty progress, and we are not in support of that either. What I am suggesting on the Africa, on behalf undergrad students is that, is that middle space that concerns us. And that the focus on the procedural details that liens or the extreme cases neglects the middle. Thanks to. >> So we have about five minutes and what we are scheduled to last when we can always go a bit long. >> So just for the sake of getting arguments either all alternate rock open to the, to the audience and channels play back. >> You'd like to comment briefly on the use a preponderance of evidence in civil cases is indeed very large. The reason that that lead to a large number of horrible injustices is that there is a there are lots of due process provisions if there's a civil case heard in the judicial system in which each party can participate in discovery of documentary evidence. Each party can present witnesses and have them cross examined by an attorney. And those are the kinds of due process provisions which are provided to any student facing and expulsion aware of a school system, and indeed in the post build systems of almost every other state in the United Sates. And I really think that if we aren't going to use a preponderance of the evidence standard in dismissal cases of students, undergrads, grad students, or faculty. We need to have lots of due process revisions. They should know weaker than what is provided to the students at the high school. >> And I should note, so this is our only open hearing. >> All this information will then go forward for mirth. >> Anyone help me out? >> Well, so so as stated before, this is the first time in this EDA, there's actually, so between the time that the House, the Senate and when it came up with the Center for recommendations and we were there was a lot of discussion or more consideration was with sediment that was voted the only thing that was voted on, nato. And it was that we needed to have an open hearing as possible. So our next Monday, March, we will not I cannot imagine that the faculty welfare will be able to digest this information and bring forward a proposal. I would've hydrogen. So this is o and give him the conversation. I'm not sure that I might be realistic for them, for mothers. So I I I And right now we have the provost's office supporting extension as much time as necessary before we bring this forward for a vote that very easily here. >> Thank you, sir. Yeah. >> What you know, first of all, I think that through I personally one of the most important films that this policy change has led to this discussion, and I would hope that that would continue. Secondly, I often ask Vice Provost cancer for extensions are slow and I'm confident that the registration where you come today and ask for an extension on the on the time for this discussion go forward. I would certainly recommend to the Executive Council times you'd expect they extend. But again, I'm not yeah, the climate issue to me is what is so crucial. And having people participate in disguise and fear one another is, is, is an extremely important part of this whole result process profile across every association policy I would just like to suggest as well, just goes through and past history. >> Again, another one of these forums that's more open. >> We advertise to students. >> As said before, I sort of have worried I was really not be aware of this. >> I wouldn't have been aware that I wasn't. >> So I really think that either, and it's email or some sort of increased advertising to bring more students into this organization. >> That's extremely important. >> And so one thing we didn't talk about, Martha, remind me I have a so what we wanna do is make sure that we are going to have a week-long open comments period after this so we can try to do a better job of advertising that at least welcome written comments so we can get that on the record as well. >> I'd welcome if I could just add very quickly. >> Also, I personally, I probably got about two hours of sleep each night this week, trying to expand the Student Government's capability and reaching out to all organizations on Canvas. >> And we're going to be working extremely hard coming months to really reach out to every student that I'm trying to think will will provide. >> And I think we can provide an e-mail for an outlet where those can be sent. >> So we'll get back to you very soon. >> Now that's not the right way. A general policy is really the journal itself and how that's times strings. >> Thank you, Stacy Tongji gilded droplets really quickly. >> Immediately, my concerns about procedural safeguards, because from a discipline where he talks about stuff that's probably maybe wouldn't surprise me. >> Arguments that's wrong. >> You have same-sex marriage or read argument's going to be perfectly acceptable or maybe even obligatory to euthanize. >> Singer would say influence. >> That's offensive. I think some people close to the thing about neural stats, philosophy, religion class and consider argues that religion is deeply irrational as offensive religiously. >> Alright, you can think of philosophy are world-class. You could argue that it's immoral to serving on horses. >> That's offensive. >> So one reason that person's mind don't worry about this is because if you have this kind of subjective standard harassment and I feel that it where I feel like I've been singled out. It's easy to imagine people lodging complaints about that in the context of perfectly acceptable classroom discussions. 1 second. I know there's, it's officially stated in your that nothing either shouldn't be bad so as to contravene academic freedom, faculty or their rights. >> As far as just one worries that it will ultimately do sell it. >> So if it's a conjoined with any kind of subjective standard. >> Hi, I just wanted that. Emily Davis, Mersey inclusion, the part we have not really been talking about here. And that's so central that information is power, the feeling discriminated against versus sort of question that feeling or subjectivity. I mean, I've been tracking to cases where people had been suspended for freedom of speech issues. They're all faculty of color, often queer faculty. So I mean, I hear the fear and there's been a lot of sort of faculty fear around this policy, but the people were being punished or the same people who are often meetings and make this completion complaints, right? So I just wanted to put that board. I know that this is a room full of mostly white people. And our experiences of discrimination are going to be different than the people who are most vulnerable and could be most protected by this policy, which would include free speech situations. Just to sort of go by the numbers. I'm a humanities person. Numbers crunching isn't normally my game, but I've been tracking case after case after case and the people who were suspended and targeted by their universities right now, our faculty of color. So I'll try to bring those bodies back and room. >> Your final comments, John, is just a question of Emily Davis. And you're talking about that blue colors being suspended, issues of what they said. >> What are you talking about? Other universities or this universe, another universe to be right below there had been a gospel people hopeless. >> But I think on the whole are university in the last three decades since I've been here, has tried to do the utmost it not to do horrible things like that, which we read about it inside I read or occupation. >> But we've also tended to people of color and lower, not because we have a separate their research. We've left people out to dry when they're talking about race. Simon, I think it's the middle ground. It doesn't have to be termination or nothing. That that's the work, the real work. >> Okay. >> Signal under any hands. >> So we'll go ahead and conclude this. >> We will get an e-mail out for a site which you can provide public comments for the next week. >> I will continue this discussion. >> Thank you, Peter.
2017-2018/videos/09Faculty Senate Open Hearing February 26th 2018.mp4
From Joseph Dombroski May 06, 2020
7 plays
7
0 comments
0
You unliked the media.