The Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence has drafted a Responsible Employee policy for senate review at the May 11, 2016 senate meeting. Please take a look at the draft provided below and provide feedback:
*** UPDATE May 17, 2016***
Additional amendments have been proposed and posted as of today. The file is too large to inclued here. Please visit the above linked motion page to read the new proposal and provide feedback.
For reference, below (with link included), my op-ed piece in the Daily Emerald on required reporting. It touches on just a few of the issues.
“Solutions to the complex cultural problems of sexual violence, discrimination and inequality must start with respecting the rights of victims as autonomous adults. If we start there, then our solutions serve to create a better world in which fairness is paramount, differences are respected and discrimination is not re-instantiated.”
—
https://www.dailyemerald.com/2016/05/28/guest-viewpoint-the-hidden-harm-of-required-reporting-at-the-university/
The Hidden Harm of Required Reporting at the University
It seems like a simple matter.
An undergraduate student discloses to a university employee, such as a faculty member, that they were the victim of sexual violence or another form of discrimination (e.g., racism). To protect that student and the university community, that faculty member reports all information to the appropriate official university office. In doing so, this student is also connected with campus resources for help.
Sounds good.
However, through critical interrogation of the ramifications of this scenario, the problems with a required reporting policy like that being reviewed by the University of Oregon appear: removing autonomy and privacy from adults; silencing reports; infringing upon academic freedom and potentially First Amendment rights; disproportionately affecting minorities, who are subject to both sexual violence victimization and discrimination and potentially violating Title IX federal legislation as it may cause ‘unintended discrimination’ against those most likely to be victims.
The image of victimized students needing to be saved by UO through having their privacy and autonomy removed is a paternalistic stance that infantilizes grown adults.
Experiencing victimization through rape, sexual harassment, being called a slur or the many other injustices that this umbrella policy covers does not render one powerless and mindless. Harmed, yes. Weak, no. Students, who are afforded the right to drive, vote and risk their lives in the military should be able to determine where and to whom their experiences are shared.
Furthermore, the proposed policy does not only affect undergraduates who are victims. It also applies to graduate students — who are often both students and employees — staff, and faculty. Imagine a 50-year-old professor receiving the implicit communication that they do not know what is best for them through having their harmful experience shared without their consent.
Requiring reporting is not mandated by the federal government. Nowhere in Title IX or the subsequent Dear Colleague Letters from 2011 and 2015 is required reporting of this nature actually required.
If consent is important in sexual relations, with lack of consent indicating assault, then shouldn’t consent in the reporting process also be primary? Why not have a policy that holds employees accountable by requiring that they follow the wishes of the adult who has disclosed to them?
In privileging adults’ basic rights for autonomy and privacy, an uncomfortable question arises: What if, for all its potential for harm, required reporting does create a safer university environment for all by stopping repeat perpetrators?
Unfortunately, required reporting cannot do that if people make no initial disclosures because they know their information will be shared without consent (and 90 percent of survivors of sexual violence do not disclose to any university source at all).
Secondly, UO has demonstrated its incapability to consistently hold perpetrators accountable.
For instance, I was a witness of discrimination at UO. The target of discrimination voluntarily reported to the official university source. I, as a witness, also reported this same event. Following reporting, I received no follow-up. That person still works at UO and is free to continue to perpetrate, despite the case being reported with a corroborating witness. This one example elicits mistrust by highlighting a systemic flaw in the system that should be corrected.
Further inhibiting disclosure is some minorities’ justified mistrust of the UO as a predominantly white university that currently has two buildings named after white supremacists.
That justified mistrust was strengthened for many by the fact that specific concerns for minorities — related to sexual violence and other forms of discrimination — were entirely excluded from the rationale for the UO’s required reporting policy.
The mistrust that some university members have for the UO should be empathized with, respected and addressed in other ways. Mandating trust is impossible; attempting to do so will not work.
Advocates, experts and survivors have spoken out about requiring reporting in this blanket manner, including an anonymous graduate student; UO Organization Against Sexual Assault; Brenda Tracy (nationally recognized advocate against sexual violence on college campuses); BB Beltran, director of Sexual Assault Support Services and Dr. Jennifer Freyd, UO professor and expert on sexual violence.
The issues with requiring reporting are many and varied. Solutions to the complex cultural problems of sexual violence, discrimination and inequality must start with respecting the rights of victims as autonomous adults. If we start there, then our solutions serve to create a better world in which fairness is paramount, differences are respected and discrimination is not re-instantiated.
From Cheyney Ryan:
I am no longer at the U of O full time, and have not been in the country for this debate. But from what I’ve followed there is an argument for mandatory reporting that I don’t think is being fully addressed. I’ve already remarked on this to some of those involved in this debate.
Most faculty at the U of O are completely ignorant of the laws/policies related to sexual harassment, starting with what constitutes sexual harassment. This is partly because the U of O does nothing to educate them on these issues, but also because most faculty don’t care about it, especially as it impacts students. On the contrary, they are inclined to view student complaints with suspicion. This is my conclusion based on over three decades of dealing with this issue at the U of O.
If a student brings their concerns to the average faculty, they are likely to learn nothing about what to do about it, how to ensure their rights are protected, etc. They will not learn, for example, that there is a statute of limitations on complaints that if missed will mean their complaints will be ignored. (This is true whether they go to the university or the police.) As likely as not, faculty will encourage them to forget about the whole thing.
Now one solution to this is to tell all faculty that if complaints are brought to them they must refer to them to someone more knowledgeable and sympathetic. I was head of my department for six years and instructed all faculty and GTF’s they must refer all complaints to me for this reason. This was a form of ‘mandatory reporting’ and I thought it was in the best interest of students.
I agree on the importance of student autonomy. But it’s also important that people know about their rights and how to defend them. They won’t get this if the discussion stops with the average faculty member.
One solution would be a much more aggressive approach to educating faculty and students on these matters. But reading of the debates at the U of O, and watching one on video, I haven’t heard much discussion of this. I don’t know if the education of students has improved–for example, are they aware of the statute of limitations issue?
With faculty, I assume that the only education they get is still the pathetic short video they are required to watch once every few years. But even if that video were better the apathy of the average faculty member would remain. The question, then, is whether students are well served by the discussion remaining with them.
I have created a compilation of information pertaining to fundamental ethical and practical problems with required reporting:
http://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/disclosure/requiredreporting.html
Your feedback is welcome.
Among the links there, I especially hope you watch the remarkable 6-minute TED talk by Jessica Ladd regarding an approach to encouraging voluntary reporting of sexual violence. So far without success, I have repeatedly urged the UO to partner with the Callisto Project which distributes software based on the ideas described by Jessica Ladd.
If one of our goals is truly to track repeat offenders and prevent violence, then we will find ways to encourage voluntary reporting while respecting survivors as adults with human rights. This respectful approach will allow us to address sexual violence and support our core academic mission. Forcing unbearable choices on those already victimized is counter to our most basic responsibilities.
Posted by request. Laura Hanson graduated from the UO.
Dear University of Oregon Senators,
I apologize for not being able to give my testimony in person. I work in politics in Portland and am very busy at work after yesterday’s election.
I am writing you regarding the Responsible Employee Policy Proposal currently under your consideration.
In January 2013, I was roofied and raped by the President of Chi Psi at the University of Oregon. You should already be familiar with how poorly the UO handled my rape report, given that the decisions you’re making will directly affect my fellow survivors. If you’re not familiar with my story, Camilla Mortensen of Eugene Weekly did an excellent and thorough job telling my story and explaining how the UO failed me. You should read it before you vote today. (Copies are available to hand out.)
That article only tells my story up to the meeting I had with Penny Daugherty and Robin Holmes in 2015. I requested a meeting with them after my legal claims against the university were settled because I wanted to provide my feedback about how they handled my case, and how mandatory reporting, and then a blatant disregard for that report, was more damaging than the rape, itself.
But in that meeting, Ms. Daugherty and Ms. Holmes told me that they couldn’t discuss the particulars of my case because they weren’t familiar with it.
After an article came out in the Huffington Post a few weeks ago, describing the strides Oregon State University has made in their policies around rape and sexual assault on their campus, while the UO has failed. OSU has partnered with their most public survivor, Brenda Tracy, to not only move forward as a community, but to create policies that empower survivors. I was quoted in the article: “Any efforts that I’ve made to connect with U of O have been completely ignored or shut down. It looks small to an outsider, probably, but that kind of connection is important. It shows other survivors that they still have a place at the school.”
UO’s Title IX Coordinator, Darci Heroy, reached out to me after that article because, “It was deeply concerning to me to read about your experience, and to understand that you had been affected negatively by your interaction with the Title IX processes here at U of O.” Because of my extensive legal history with the UO, the fact that Jane Doe and I shared a lawyer and were simultaneously in negotiations, the fact that the UO settled with Jane, due in part to the article about me in Eugene Weekly and the fact that Darci reached out to me, not vice versa, I assumed she wanted to chat about how poorly her university treated me as a very public survivor, who only wanted to help them improve their support of survivors.
Not the case. In our meeting in Portland two weeks ago, Darci had no idea who I was: “I’m sorry, should I know your story? Do you want me to Google you?”
It was disturbing to me that the person the UO has put in charge of their compliance with Title IX has no familiarity with one of the only two survivors with whom the university has settled Title IX lawsuits. Before that meeting, I believed that mandatory reporting policies took away students’ autonomy and only exacerbated survivors’ feelings of uncertainty, isolation and betrayal. Especially because I was a victim of mandatory reporting. Now that I know the UO seems to have no memory of what they did to me, I believe that this proposal is downright dangerous.
From my perspective, the UO shouldn’t be making these huge policy changes/statements without having a system in place to thoughtfully and effectively resolve the rape complaints received.
A friend of mine in Greek Life told me that due to the UO’s new restriction on Greek Life expansion, Greek Life presidents are now telling their members not to tell the university when they are raped, so that the university allows the further expansion of Greek Life.
From the outside looking in, these factors, combined with a mandatory reporting policy, position survivors for an experience just like mine: Greek Life shunning the survivor because of the damage their rape story could do to the reputation of Greek Life, the university taking the complaint, dragging the survivor through an investigation and then, no matter the evidence gathered, letting the rapist stay on campus. My rapist admitted to what he did (in January 2014) and he was allowed to remain on campus.
In my experience, survivors just want to feel protected after their rape. With policies that take away the survivor’s power to make decisions about what happens to them and their stories, it seems clear that they would feel greater protection and security by keeping the experience to themselves.
I am a public survivor because the UO’s mandatory reporting policy made me one. Survivors should be empowered and supported by their university community, not have their agency taken from them by the very community they trust.
If you have any additional questions, there are several professors at the University of Oregon who would gladly forward your questions to me.
All best,
Laura Hanson
To the University of Oregon Senate,
The Survivors of Sexual Violence Support Caucus of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation (GTFF, AFT-3544) would like to reiterate its firm stance against the policy of required reporting. As stated in last week’s meeting, required reporting immediately affronts the agency of adult survivors in choosing to disclose their story on their own terms and in their own time. As has been made clear in recent trauma research, this affront not only impedes a survivor’s healing, but it is also re-traumatizing. Thus, required reporting is an institutional assault on a survivor’s human rights. The policy of required reporting places an undue burden onto employees, trapping them in a dilemma between ethical and institutional obligations: whether to be civilly disobedient in order to support a survivor in their time of healing, or whether to adhere to institutional code and procedure, potentially re-traumatizing a survivor. This particularly affects international graduate employees whose visa status depends on their employment. Moreover, due to the dynamics of trauma and our colonial history, the effects of such policies make them racist, heterosexist, ableist, and classist. Disclosures occur between trusted individuals in private and professional conversations; they often arise in clusters around employees whose work and/or identity mark them as part of a survivor’s potential healing group. The burden of disclosure is already compounded by race, sex, gender, disability, and class identities. Contrary to popular belief, required reporting adds to rather than lessens these burdens.
In the face of these known problems, no evidence has been supplied that required reporting tangibly benefits survivors in their healing or sense of justice, or that it is even effective in reducing the prevalence of sexual violence. This is unconscionable.
We encourage the Senate to reject required reporting as a mechanism for individual and communal healing from trauma. The Senate should take a survivor-centered approach in developing new policies. These policies should privilege survivor healing over concerns of legalistic liabilities, as our current justice system has proven so woefully inadequate in responding to trauma. Thus, the advisement of survivors, advocates, trauma researchers, and social justice scholars should be directly sought out and especially honored in the development of such policies, in addition to union voices. Graduate employees, who are ambiguously classed as both students and workers, have particularly high stakes in these policies and should also be explicitly included in their development. To our knowledge, this has not been the methodology used in developing this policy. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that the email voting procedure of the Committee on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence had the consequence of excluding critical student and faculty voices.
There are many options besides and beyond required reporting available: investment in Callisto software; mandatory, paid, scholarship-based disclosure trainings for all employees; relevant and scholarship-based mandatory ethics classes on consent, gender, and coloniality; survivor-centered and directed institutional procedure at all levels, which may include requiring employees to report upon explicit consent from the survivor. Institutional accountability mechanisms should also be developed for Chairs of Departments, the Counseling Center, the Director of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services, the Dean of Students, the Title IX Coordinator, the Vice President of Student Affairs, the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity, the Provost, and the President.
There is flexibility in the current federal “Dear Colleague” guidance from the Office of Civil Rights, and we encourage the Senate to take on a national leadership role advocating for survivor-centered education policies at this institution and across the United States.
Moreover, collapsing the immense problem of campus sexual violence with the enormous problem of prohibited discrimination into one policy is simply ill advised. While these problems are intensely related, more due care needs to be taken in creating policies addressing rape; sexual harassment; racial discrimination; gender, trans and genderqueer discrimination; and discriminations based on ability, HIV- status, and veteran status, etc.
We look forward to working together to continue to make this campus as safe and accessible for everyone, especially survivors of sexual violence and prohibited discrimination.
In solidarity,
The Survivors of Sexual Violence Support Caucus of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation (GTFF, AFT-3544)
As a somewhat newer member to our campus community, and as a member of the committee who developed this policy I am truly disheartened to see how senate processes work here at the UO. For my colleagues in this field to so categorically discount the work done by this committee, and the thoughtful process that did indeed occur, is unfortunate. The biggest critics of this policy WERE consulted as they are part of the committee. Some of these folks did not attend a single meeting of the committee where we were having these discussions, but rather chose to publicly criticize the policy. I understand that my colleagues have commitments, we call do, but it appears to me to be very disingenuous to not actively participate in the work when you were invited to do so, and then save your critique for the Senate floor. This committee has been working over the last 2 years on these issues, and it is very unfortunate that some have implied that this work was done in a thoughtless manner. The senate voted on the membership of this committee, our meetings were open to the campus community, and I do believe that we carefully considered this policy which meets federal mandates as well as reducing the number of people on campus who are required reporters. Given my experience with this process, I am not inclined to participate in university service such as this in the future.
Your contribution to the work of the CSGBV and your remarks at UO Senate meetings have made a strong and positive contribution to the discussions of this issue. Your experience and professional expertise, moreover, have been — and will continue to be — invaluable to our efforts to find the best solution to the problems at hand.
Speaking as a layperson, I respect the passion as well as the scholarly knowledge, legal expertise and professional insight of all the members of CSGBV who bring a specialized perspective to the table. However, I can very much relate to your comments expressing a sense of frustration of having to respond to committee members whose attendance at committee meetings was rare.
I hope your enthusiasm for serving the university in this way will be recharged once the heat of the current debate subsides.
I do think it is important, however, to note why certain faculty members were not at committee meetings, which is a topic the committee and these committee members have discussed in the past. I do not think it is fair to denigrate these committee members’ opinions and opposition solely because of their inability to attend meetings. Committee members who have opinions are free to voice them via email, and a number have. In this way, for committee members who have legitimate reasons for not attending meetings, they are engaging in the conversation as much as physically possible.
With all due respect, Renae, as I am sure you and the committee is aware, two committee members were on sabbatical. And thus were donating their time throughout this process for the good of the university.
It is fortunate that in this day and age, things like email exist where members who are volunteering their expertise can contribute even if they are physically away.
The biggest critics are many. Some of which were not on the committee. Their perspectives matter as well and are independent from any discussions that were or were not had on the committee.
Opposition of the proposed policy is not inherently an attack on any individuals. And many people, including myself, have voiced respect for the committee and its work. Respect can coincide with disagreement on issues as complex as sexual violence, racial discrimination, homophobia, etc.
I have done my best to communicate the respect I have for the committee and its members, including you, Renae. I initially want to voice respect specifically to those committee members who gave their time while on sabbatical.
Dear UO Senate:
I am writing as a member of the Committee against Sexual and Gender-Based Violence. I am opposed to the required reporting policy for many reasons, most of which have already been voiced by multiple people. So, I would like to make a few more points in this letter that may have not been addressed, especially by a committee member.
1. As a committee, we failed to reach out to groups of people who should have been more involved in this conversation. As a committee, we need to admit that we made this mistake and explicitly correct this mistake by taking the time to have in-depth conversations with these groups of people. In fact, to my understanding this policy should not and has not been housed solely in the CSGBV; yet, this committee is listed as the sole sponsor of the policy. Where are the discussions even amongst the committees and/or UO departments that have been involved in the creation of this policy? For example, racial discrimination and other discrimination is included in this policy. Some people have tried to bring this issue into the conversation, but it does not seem to stay in the conversation. This policy is more complex than we are giving it credit for and I believe the policy, in its current state, is not ready to be voted on by the Senate.
2. In my memory, there was not discussion during committee meetings regarding empirical evidence supporting the type of policy that is being proposed at the moment. Research, in general, was not very welcome in the committee meetings. To me, this is inappropriate and irresponsible of the committee. What type of policy was created if neither research nor outside discussion was involved in the creation of the policy?
3. I believe the policy was prematurely presented to the Senate because of the end of the academic year quickly approaching us. I urge the Senate to postpone a vote on this policy until the 2016-17 academic year so that as a committee we can rectify the mistakes we have made and work diligently to create a policy that serves the UO students and community as best as possible. Fewer students will be on campus over the summer, so it is unclear to me why we cannot “default” to the current policy that is in place and then task the committee at the beginning of the academic year to dedicate the appropriate amount of time and effort into this policy to prepare it for another presentation to the Senate. To be clear, I do think the CSGBV can be a responsible entity in revising the policy and I think the committee can be a beneficial party in a collaborative discussion surrounding the policy. A conversation in which others can speak and the committee actively and attentively listens.
I hope the 1) number of questions surrounding the policy that have not been answered by the committee and 2) the voices opposing the policy for multiple different reasons will be carefully considered by the UO Senate before voting on the proposed policy. I hope to be able to work on improving this policy next academic year.
Sincerely,
Melissa Barnes
Dear colleagues,
I am out of the country, so cannot participate in the Senate meeting. If I were present, I would have to vote to delay any permanent policy until survivors, students, and other stakeholders could be consulted and participate. Lacking a formal delay, I would have to vote “no,” which would send it back for broader discussions.
I share some thoughts on why.
1. First, contrary to some statements, the CSGBV committee did not unanimously support the proposed policy in front of us (mandatory disclosure of private sexual assault information to the administration). I and at least one other member strongly objected in various emails. Only 6 out of about 12 or 15 members voted “yes” during the sudden, 6-hour window. I was overseas and did not see the email voting until the period had closed. But my position was clear and I would have preferred that the committee would not have been represented as “unanimous.”
2. There is not just one legal view of whether involuntary reporting of student trauma to administration authorities is legally required. I have carefully analyzed the law and federal guidance and come to the opposite conclusion, as have several legal experts at the national level.
3. Even if Title IX did require involuntary reporting to authorities of student sexual trauma, against a victim’s wishes, that would not make all the other elements of the policy legally required. Indeed, the constantly shifting amendments reveal that this is an area for debate and rational discussion and policy-making.
4. In my view, the Senate has a crucial role to play at UO – to reflect the views of constituencies and to apply our own analytical rigor – not to approve something just because some committee members did. Indeed, the latest amendments do not have the imprimatur of the committee. If we do not understand each element of this dramatic policy, we should formally delay or vote no.
5. There has been no discussion with the very adult students whose autonomy will be violated. No town halls. No debates in dorms. We are a better university than one that treats these future leaders as children, whose privacy we should invade without discussion.
6. Something that concerns me deeply is that perpetrators, upon being notified by the university that they are suspected, are now hiring lawyers and investigators who then contact parents, grandparents, and friends with both questions and insinuations about a victim’s sexual history, sexual orientation, use of alcohol, attendance at wild parties, and other personal things. Reporting without permission enables that. A survivor of sexual assault should be able to weigh risks and make decisions, rather than having persons s/he doesn’t even know make those choices for her/him. (I respect some who would make those decisions, but who might make them next year or the year after?) I would leave such a decision, fraught with risks, in the hands of the already victimized.
7. Whatever the Senate does, the administration may adopt the policy regardless. But that is not a reason to vote yes.
If a person votes yes, that constitutes their formal commitment to take away the autonomy of a student who might later come to them. They cannot later say that they were required to do so by policy. They must look a victim of assault, and indeed other students, in the eye and say that they personally voted to take away that autonomy, with whatever additional trauma that action may cause. The Senate simply does not have to do this – and I am unaware of any other university senate in this country that has done so.
Given all these concerns about both process and substance, as an independent-thinking Senator I would have to vote no on the present policy.
Best regards,
John
John E. Bonine
B.B. Kliks Professor of Law
Thank you John. I am also a member of the CSGBV and a Senator. I also did not support the proposal forwarded to the Senate. I expressed concerns about the developing policy prior to the day the email vote was taken and I believe it was well-known on the committee that I was opposed to the developing required reporting policy (the final version was not distributed until the voting occurred). The particular day of the email vote — April 18 — I was at Stanford presenting research and interacting with a group of researchers, students, and a Title IX coordinator (drawn from around the nation) in a workshop on the topic of addressing university sexual violence — the 6-hour email voting window was during the Stanford workshop or I would have voted no. It would be nice to clear this up as I continue to be asked by members of the Senate and the community why I did not vote against the proposal given my dissent. I gather this confusion stems from the description of the support as “unanimous.”
I understand the concern that survivors have control over what they share with GTF’s or faculty. But I think the public discussion of this has ignored what I found to be the biggest problem when I was at the U of O with matters ending there. This involved the quality of advice survivors got.
When I was at the U of O, the average GTF/faculty knew almost nothing about the details of policies related to sexual harassment/assault, so were not in a position to give survivors informed advice. The single biggest problem I encountered over the years involved the statute of limitations issue. If a grievance is not reported within the statue limitations, survivors lose many of their rights. If they are not told about this at the start, with details about what this means, they are done a serious disservice.
The last case I dealt with, as a professor in CAS, involved a student who’d been sexually harassed by a professor in his office her first week of freshman year. She had no idea this had to be reported in a timely manner, and no one she talked to knew either. When the case finally got to me it was well past the statute limitations and the administration proceeded to ignore it on those grounds.
I think at least half the cases I dealt with in thirty years at the U of O encountered this problem.
I haven’t said, by the way, but the statute of limitations actually is. I assume everyone reading this knows this, and knows to inform a survivor right away about the importance of this issue. Otherwise, any discussion you have with a survivor that does not reach someone more informed will only compound the injustices done to them.
I agree we desperately need education about resources and rights for those who have been violated and discriminated against. But there is no reason one must take away a survivor’s autonomy in order to educate that person — or the whole campus — about resources or rights. There could even be a policy to require employees provide information about resources and rights to any student or employee who comes to them to discuss a relevant event. There could be a one-page flier or even business card with a URL and related website that gives this information in a useful manner. Really there should be universal education on campus if we truly want people to know their rights and the resources given that research conducted here and elsewhere indicates that 90% of victims do not report to ANY UNIVERSITY SOURCE AT ALL.
Posted on behalf of the UO Organization Against Sexual Assault, an ASUO student run and student led program supporting survivors and raising awareness about sexual assault prevention and education on our campus.
Update after 5/11 meeting:
At the University Senate meeting on May 11, the senators approved an amendment that will allow required reporters to opt out of their required reporting requirement after taking a course led by University administrators. At the completion of the training, participants would then be confidential reporters with no obligation to report cases of sexual violence that have been disclosed to them by students, staff, or faculty. As a student organization opposed to required reporting, we applaud this measure and are pleased that efforts are being made to allow for individuals to opt out of this role. However, we stand with our initial statement that required reporting should be abolished completely at the University of Oregon, and that this amendment is ultimately not enough.
——
The following statement represents the UO Organization Against Sexual Assault’s (UO OASA) stance on the UO Responsible Employee Duty to Report Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault policy. This policy came to our organization’s attention from members of OASA and concerned campus community members; we are responding to UO Responsible Employee Duty to Report Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault policy because of the expressed concerns.
Firstly, we would like to note that we are not explicitly opposed to the moving of this policy. This policy successfully clarifies rules and regulations regarding the UO’s required reporting process, which has been ambiguous since its inception.
What we do take issue with, however, is the UO’s implementation of required reporting policies in general. Required reporting discourages survivors of harassment, abuse, and violence from seeking help from on-campus resources and from their fellow students, staff, and faculty. The reasons why survivors of sexual violence would not want to disclose their experiences to university administrators and officials are expansive and valid: institutional betrayal, fear of retaliation, or disinterest in working within university resources are all possibilities.
Many argue that current required reporting policies hold perpetrators accountable and increase reports of sexual violence on campus. However, while these goals are noble, we feel the University should prioritize survivor safety, wellness, and resource access above all else. We believe access to resources and support for the current individuals reporting should be prioritized over an increased number of reports. If our institution is invested in being survivor-centered, then survivors should be allowed to seek help on their own terms–including seeking individualized support and assistance from colleagues, friends, instructors, professors, mentors, and peers–without intervention from university administrators or officials. If we are truly invested in connecting survivors to resources, then required reporting is counterproductive.
Required reporting also puts student and classified employees, graduate teaching fellows, and faculty in stressful situations. If a survivor discloses their experience to someone in any these positions, the required reporter risks losing the survivor’s trust, compromising their relationship with the survivor, or going against the survivor’s will by being forced to report. Should the required reporter not report in an effort to do right by the survivor, the required reporter risks severe punishment. Instead of forcing employees, GTFs, and faculty into these tumultuous situations, more effort should be directed to educating individuals how to support survivors in any capacity. It should also be noted that many of these parties can interact on an informal level (such as a student employee or GTF with non-University employed student), and this can place additional pressure on required reporters who receive disclosures in informal settings.
Although we appreciate that effort has been made to clarify the required reporting rules and processes on this campus, we are still fundamentally opposed to required reporting policies. Required reporting is a policy intended to increase the number of reports received by the University. However, OASA members have told by survivors of sexual violence that required reporting has discouraged them from sharing their experiences and getting the help that they need. We hope you will consider our opposition to required reporting before this policy is passed.
Sincerely,
UO OASA
Could somebody direct me to the file containing the amendments to the draft policy? When I click on the link, “Responsible Employee Policy,” all I see is the original draft policy that does not contain the amendments presented by Senator Ahlen and Senator McIntyre at the May 18 meeting.
I meant to say “….. the amendments presented by Senator Ahlen and Senator McIntyre at the May 11 meeting.”
I am unable to vote for this policy, even with the suggested amendments.
I understand the importance of collecting information so that perpetrators can be stopped, but this should not be at the expense of the right to privacy and autonomy of victims/survivors. It is not altogether clear that mandatory reporting will increase the flow of information. Many victims/ survivors may feel unable to talk to anyone if the conversation is not confidential, isolating them at the very time they most need support.
I expect many of us (maybe all) have found ourselves in the position of “responsible” employee with “credible evidence”. I do not want to be in the position of choosing between what is right (which to me would require respecting confidentiality), and reporting as required by the policy.
Lastly, the way to increase reporting is to build trust in the system. That will not be easy, but reporters have to feel that they will be take seriously and treated with respect, that appropriate action will be taken. The University has squandered that trust in the past, but the only way forward is to aggressively work on building trust. This policy does not do that.
I have a question regarding the discussion/debate on responsible reporting. Were these issues discussed in the CSGBV as part of its deliberations? Were the opinions from the larger community – both on- and off-campus – known or provided to the CSGBV?
The Register Guard story(an earlier story involving a former faculty member now suing UO) cut and paste below shows the benefits of reporting, as well as the risks of failing to report. Note where a faculty member is quoted that she had “been advised . . . never to be alone in a room” with a faculty member. Clearly, there was information received in the unit that the faculty member was engaged in inappropriate conduct toward women, but rather than filing a report that could have dealt with a serial perpetrator, women were “advised” it was their responsibility not to be victims.
Critical question, resolved in the Committee-drafted policy: would the undergraduate here have been groped by a faculty member in 2014 had a report been made to the Title IX or victim’s advocacy office at any time prior?
The Register – Guard – Eugene, Or.
Author: Dietz, Diane
Date: Mar 8, 2015
Start Page: B.11
Document Text
Note: A police report details a freshman’s allegations of inappropriate contact with the tenured
teacher
A high-profile educator, scholar and public speaker in the University of Oregon’s College of
Education left the university Jan. 20 without explanation.
Donald Michael Pavel, 55, was a fully tenured professor at the university for more than five years,
according to a UO spokesman.
Pavel made a “full departure” from the university, College of Education Dean Randy Kamphaus
confirmed. But Kamphaus declined to say why the professor left. “That’s a sensitive personnel
issue that – unfortunately – I can’t comment on. I regret that,” he said.
Pavel declined multiple requests for comment on the reasons for his departure.
Two months before Pavel’s departure, a UO freshman reported to the UO Police Department that
Pavel repeatedly touched her inappropriately during a Nov. 14 event in Portland.
Pavel, who goes by his Native American name, CHiXapkaid, and the freshman – in her first quarter
at the UO – were separately attending the annual gala of the Native American Youth And Family
Center at the Portland Art Museum, according to the police report, which The Register-Guard
obtained under a public records request.
In early December, the freshman told her story to UO Police Department Detective Sgt. Kathy
Flynn at the office of Renae DeSautel, UO director of sexual violence support services, according
to the police report.
The student did not wish to press charges, however, Flynn wrote, and none has been filed.
The freshman told the investigator that she knew Pavel was a professor and that she saw him the
night of the gala seated at a table representing the UO.
The UO recruits students of color at community events. In 2013, 147 Native American students
were enrolled, according to the UO.
Pavel was one of four “featured faculty” on an Office of Admissions Web page.
Five – now four – of the UO’s 700 tenured or tenure-eligible faculty members are Native American,
according to a 2014 institutional research report.
Before the gala, the freshman said she had planned to enter a UO education program that Pavel
directed. During the gala, she said, Pavel asked her to step outside the ballroom and into a hallway.
There, the freshman said, Pavel made her “uncomfortable” by directing her to look into a mirror,
told her she was beautiful and said, “I’m drooling over you,” the detective’s report said.
“Her face felt hot, and she felt trapped like she couldn’t get out of the conversation, didn’t know
how to get away from Pavel,” according to the police report.
The freshman said Pavel kissed her hand, kissed her cheek, and took her shoulders and turned her
toward the mirror.
“Pavel put his arm around her, initially at her shoulder, but then moved his hand down until it was
on her buttocks,” according to the report.
The freshman said that later Pavel pulled at her underwear through her dress, according to the
police report. The freshman said she eventually got away from the professor, rejoined her friends,
and left the gala.
In making her report to the detective, the freshman was accompanied by Janne Underriner, director
of the Northwest Indian Language Institute, who provided moral support, the police report said.
During the interview, Underriner stated that she, herself, has “been advised” when she first started
to work at the UO to “never be alone in a room with Pavel,” according to the police report.
Professor named in incident leaves UO – The Register-Guard, Eugene, O… http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/registerguard/doc/1663770131.html?FMT…
1 of 2 2/24/2016 4:10 PM
The freshman, in a recent interview with The Register-Guard, said UO officials took her report
seriously and “acted upon it as fast as they could.”
Saying UO personnel policy and state public records law allows confidentiality of university
personnel records, spokesman Tobin Klinger declined to say whether Pavel was on administrative
leave between the alleged incident and his departure from the UO.
The freshman said UO officials told her Pavel had been placed on leave and forbidden contact with
students while the UO conducted an investigation. She also said UO officials helped her move
because she was worried Pavel knew where she lived.
“That provided an extra sense of being safe,” she said. “Through the process, (UO officials)
checked in quite often.”
UO officials notified her when Pavel left the UO, she said.
The freshman said reporting her experience to police “was a stressful thing to do, but I think it was
the right thing to do.”
The freshman said she has continued with her studies at the UO and is looking forward to her
sophomore year. “I have good friends and a good support system. It will be a good year,” she said.
Pavel is a national expert in training teachers to teach Native American students, a curriculum
consultant on Native American studies, and a sought-after speaker at national and regional
conferences. He is the co-author of “The American Indian and Alaskan Native Student’s Guide to
College Success.” He is a Skokomish tribe “tradition bearer,” wood c
Thank you for opening up this perspective.
The first question that comes to my mind is if this faculty member was previously reported on?
The assumption is he wasn’t, and then when he was, it was taken care of. However, from my read of the excerpt from RG, I don’t believe we have that information.
I bring this up because I was a witness of discrimination at UO. The target of discrimination voluntarily reported. I as a witness also reported this same event.
All I know is that person still works at UO.
I couldn’t tell you if there were any penalties or sanctions because no one *ever* followed up with me about it.
So, in that case, that person is free to continue to perpetrate. And in that case, a report was made, with a corroborating witness.
That may or may not be what happened with the aforementioned faculty member.
However, I do believe that the UO at this point has proven that the assumption that reporting will stop offenses, including serial offenses, is unfortunately false.
I realize that my post may not have been entirely clear.
When I refer to ‘reporting’, I mean that the incident I mentioned was reported to one of the official sources that is currently designated in the proposed required reporting policy.
Therefore, it was not the case that the report didn’t make it to the right office. It did. It just ostensibly was dead-ended at that point without follow up communication to me as the witness who reported.
Jen: You wrote:
“However, I do believe that the UO at this point has proven that the assumption that reporting will stop offenses, including serial offenses, is unfortunately false.”
Setting aside for the moment what I believe is the principled issue in the current debate regarding whether or not “responsible reporting” is inherently flawed, your statement above has given me pause for thought.
In reflecting on this statement it seems self-evident that the belief/perception that the UO has done a poor job responding to reports has contributed to the conviction that reporting, at least at the UO, is potentially harmful, if not futile. In trying to understand the issues I am wondering if there would ever be a “reporting” scenario that would satisfy both sides of this debate? I understand that among the critics of the proposed policy, upholding and maintaining survivor autonomy is essential. Supporters of the policy feel it is in fact responsible and is intended to ensure that survivors get connected to the resources that can support and aid them. In the last couple of years I have been present in conversations where an approach to these moments has been modeled, which at least in the hypothetical seems to strike the balance between the two sides of this debate. In summary, the responsible reporter when sensing that a student/employee might be on the verge of disclosing, pauses the conversation and explains the reporting obligation, advises of the implications of their reporting, and offers to assist the student/employee in connecting with the services and support of those on campus who have privilege and can maintain confidentiality. At this point, it is the student/employee who decides which direction to go.
Other than the fact that it is a hypothetical and may or may not accurately reflect the subtleties and nuance of a highly personal and emotional conversation, do you see any problems with this modeled conversation?
Thank you for bringing this up.
I notice two issues (many more, I’m sure. I am holding two in my head at the moment).
1. UO is a university that responds appropriately to reporting 100% of the time, and consequently, reporting will inhibit serial perpetrators.
2. Autonomy–the right to choose to report.
In my above comment, I was referencing specifically point #1 only.
Regarding, point #2, I see no reason why adults should not be able to choose what is done with their information.
I see a problem with stopping a conversation to give a “reporting warning” to a person who potentially has experienced sexual violence or other forms of discrimination: the silencing. The communication that this is not a place where we discuss such things, and if you do, I must tell someone you don’t know.
I can further imagine in a classroom discussion or in office hours–when discussing class content that includes inequality, sexism, sexual assault, racial discrimination, etc.–that a student would be put in a position not to fully engage with the material because “that part” of themselves or their experiences would need to be excluded. If it weren’t, they would hold that they are engaging in classroom material while knowing that a likely unknown third party will be told everything.
That issue becomes a matter of academic freedom. And perhaps even First Amendment rights.
The potential for silencing and infringement on academic freedom and a constitutional right seems too high a cost.
Letting an adult have control at every step of the process, including the step to have one’s information shared to confidential or non-confidential others, seems to me to be basic human rights.
I am not against adults’ rights to choose to report. I am not against making it so that every university member is aware of university resources.
I am against removing control from an adult because of decisions made by more powerful individuals–more powerful by virtue of high status both in the university setting and in society.
I hope that makes sense.
Dear UO Senate,
Having read the relevant documents and having spoken at the May 11 Senate meeting, I can understand the frustration around having to postpone a vote on the proposed required reporting policy.
While unfortunate, I think it is unavoidable. In my humble opinion as a graduate student, I worry that it would be irresponsible for the Senate to pass the policy at this point when so many of the key issues have yet to be addressed. It appears to me that the proposal at the table is simply not ready.
Painting dissenters and their viewpoints as isolated opinions that come from faculty trying to get out of doing their job is not only inaccurate and insulting, but perhaps more importantly, is a red herring that does not actually address the very important issues that have been raised.
I first will provide an incomplete list of dissenters to demonstrate the diverse individuals who have thoughtfully opposed the policy.
I then will provide an incomplete list of the issues that to my knowledge have yet to be addressed.
I invite proponents of the proposed policy from the committee to please respond to the remaining issues listed below.
—
INCOMPLETE LIST OF DISSENTERS
1. Anonymous graduate student (http://survivorautonomy.blogspot.com)
2. UO OASA (Organization Against Sexual Assault), undergraduate student organization (on this blog)
3. Brenda Tracy, nationally recognized advocate against sexual violence on college campuses (on this blog)
4. BB Beltran, Director of SASS (Sexual Assault Support Services), which works with many UO college students who are survivors of sexual violence (on this blog)
5. Individual graduate students (on this blog)
6. Jennifer Freyd, expert on sexual violence (Huffington Post; http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-j-freyd/the-problem-with-required_b_9766016.html)
—
REMAINING ISSUES*
*Taken directly from the anonymous graduate student open letter (http://survivorautonomy.blogspot.com)
A. Why not require that responsible employees must abide by the wishes of the survivors of sexual violence and victims of other forms of discrimination?
I myself do not have doubt that there is a great likelihood for harm when any employee–perhaps faculty in particular–does not report a case when that is what the university member–perhaps particularly students–wants.
There also seems to be little doubt at this point that powering-over adults and deciding for them where their private information goes is also likely harmful.
If consent is important in sexual relations, with lack of consent indicating assault, then shouldn’t consent in the reporting process also be primary?
Why not have a policy that does hold employees accountable and responsible by requiring that they follow the wishes of the adult who has disclosed to them?
—
B. What about civil disobedience?
There are multiple precedents for the problems that arise when governing bodies make rules that force its members to go against their moral compass in order to serve the governing body (e.g., the Nuremberg defense).
It is a reasonable position–and one that is held by many–that it would be a harmful betrayal to disclose an adult’s experience(s) of victimization (sexual violence and other forms of discrimination) without their consent.
Therefore, if the proposed policy passes, there likely will be individuals who simply do not abide by it because they feel in their heart of hearts that it is wrong (and/or they themselves do not trust the UO, would not report themselves, and are against having to then report on others).
What this would create then is an inconsistent system in which it would remain unclear as to what would happen when a disclosure is made. That reality is rife with potential for betrayal and harm.
—
C* Silencing reports
“If “any information received”, as the proposed policy states, is required to be disclosed to an official who is likely a stranger to the student (regardless of whether that person is a confidential reporter), then many students will likely choose not to disclose at all.” Survivor Autonomy
?
—
D* Rupturing Academic Relationships between Students and Faculty/Staff
“If I knew that my advisor would be required to share details I disclosed about something so personal and harmful as sexual violence and discrimination, I would not disclose that information to my close mentor.
That means that I would suffer in silence—potentially suffering from one of the many mental health outcomes that are linked with sexual violence and discrimination.” Survivor Autonomy
?
—
E* Diminishing Academic Freedom
“Though the proposed policy states the opposite (with no supporting evidence), the content of the policy itself is an attack on academic freedom. As it stands, the proposed policy places limits on what faculty and staff can teach and discuss, while simultaneously imposing a norm of silence with their students.” Survivor Autonomy
?
—
F* Oppressing Minority Students
“Through its cultural insensitivity, this policy disproportionately harms minorities, who are, by definition, the individuals who can be discriminated against based on being a member of a protected class. Furthermore, due to societal inequality, required reporting of sexual violence will not only stomp on the liberties of an individual as a survivor, but is also an oppressive move from a predominantly White university to force minority students to have their private information disclosed.” Survivor Autonomy
?
—
G. Where is the evidence?
Evidence has already been offered regarding the decades of research indicating that disclosing a survivor’s sexual violence experiences without their consent is harmful.
At the May 11 Senate meeting, when asked to provide evidence for required reporting, the response was that there was a dissertation (from the College of Education) that provides evidence.
There are a a few problems with this response.
The first: such vague statements cannot be appropriately examined. The evidence itself–not just stating the existence of evidence–should be provided to the Senate.
The second problem relates back to the proposed policy:
Multiple undergraduate and graduate students have stated they felt violated that after receiving confidential services (from Crisis Intervention) for sexual violence, they were then contacted to participate in this research.
The consistent message is that the UO should be trusted. And yet, even the confidential services–from the high profile breach in confidentiality at the UO Counseling Center in the Jane Doe case to students being contacted as ‘survivors’ for reasons other than their own well-being–elicit mistrust.
The third problem through omission is that this response completely ignores the other half of the proposed policy, which has to do with discrimination by being a member of a protected class.
What about minorities’ justified mistrust of UO as a predominantly White university?
What about how that justified mistrust was strengthened for many by the fact that specific concerns for minorities–related to sexual violence and other forms of discrimination–were entirely excluded from the rationale for the proposed policy?
The mistrust that some students have for the UO should be empathized with, respected, and addressed in other ways. Mandating trust is impossible; attempting to do so will not work.
—
CONCLUSION
As someone who was not involved in the committee’s process of putting together this proposal, I have still been able to learn invaluable things that likely would benefit many of us.
Proposals that affect such a wide range of university members should go through preparation that includes:
1. Embracing, respecting, and thoughtfully addressing dissenting viewpoints
2. Actively consulting and collaborating with diverse constituents
3. Soliciting and incorporating feedback from the very people who are affected the most by the proposed policy
Perhaps we can all learn from this and do better in the future.
In the meantime, passing a flawed policy in order to replace a flawed policy with the promise of returning to the former flawed policy to improve it amidst a myriad of other university issues tasked to the Senate is inefficient and unrealistic.
Why not do this as close to right as possible?
We can always improve upon policies, of course. However, beginning with a policy that is knowingly incomplete and flawed is not beneficial.
The summer is coming. Most students and faculty will not be on campus.
Why not take the time to craft a policy that would address these issues?
In doing so, the resultant policy would likely have buy-in from diverse university members, thus actually making the policy effective.
Thank you for your time.
Below is the letter shared by a guest on the floor of the senate yesterday. The author is Bethany Howe, a GTF with SOJC.
Good afternoon,
My name is Bethany Grace Howe, a GTF with the UO’s SOJC and up until June of last year, a high school teacher in state of Oregon. If I may, I’d like to move past discussion of what it MIGHT be like if I had to be a first reporter as a teacher. Because until June 2015 I was one – and let me tell you what it meant for me to have to be a mandatory reporter.
Somewhere about 2007, or maybe 08, I think it was fall, a student in my class wanted to tell me something, something she made very clear I wasn’t to tell anyone else. She seemed on the verge of tears. And although I didn’t know for sure, I suspected she hadn’t slept in days. I told her as a mandatory reporter that if I had any thought that she or another person might be in danger that I was obligated to tell someone. She asked me if I was sure, I said I was, and she started to cry…
And then she told me anyway. Though she would not been able to articulate her needs as such – teenagers often can’t – she WANTED to tell me, she WANTED me to get her help – and had I not been obligated to do so I still wonder if I ever would have made that call. When I was done listening to her story I probably could have justified not doing so. She would have come to me for help, and because it would have been easier for me not to, I might not have. As it turns out my initial judgement was wrong. She was in trouble and because I did what the law required I do she got help.
My encounter with that young woman was the first of its nature in my teaching career. I remember keenly the fear that this young woman that trusted me after just a few weeks as her teacher, was going to walk out of my room because she couldn’t trust me to keep it to myself.
And that is the point: I shouldn’t be able to keep it to myself – and that’s what she should trust. A student’s choice to come to me is their choice, and as long as I disclose what I have to do, my conscience was and remains clear. They know what I have to do – and they knew the could trust me to do it.
That young lady in 2007 was unfortunately the first of many similar conversations I had in my years teaching. I say sadly that my name is on more reports within the files of DHS than most of the names on the signs in this room hopefully ever will be. Indeed, I still go back to my old high school nearly every week and my students still occasionally tell me things – even when I tell them I will still tell someone else.
I don’t have to do this now; I sure as hell don’t want to do it – but I do it. When a student comes to me to tell me something they are issuing a cry for help. They want me, they expect me – they NEED me – to say something, do something, to get them help. Every time I tell them I will report what I hear – and every time I worry they will walk away. As I said, not one ever has. I haven’t had this conversation here at the UO yet, but I figure it’s only a matter of time.
I suppose you could argue that it actually might not happen here, that the demographics of my students at UO are very different than my old school – and they are. You could also suggest that high school students are very different than college students – and they are that, too. But I would suggest to you that it makes it even more critical that everyone that works with students at this school be required to self-report.
Wherever our students have come from, they had friends, family and a network of support. Here, they may have none of that. More, there are the complicating effects of unfamiliar stress, the dynamics of group living, to say nothing of the relatively easy abundance of drugs and alcohol and the terrifying things that can result. All of these things make our students more vulnerable than may have ever been – right when they are the most alone. They need to know that when we reach out we WILL help them.
Do I allow that some students will walk away when you tell them you have to self-report? Certainly; I know other teachers to whom that’s happened. Yes, most of the time they came back, but not always. But I know far more educators that would have talked themselves out of their moral responsibilities, rationalizing to themselves why they shouldn’t do it: It would be hard, it might ruin a relationship, etc. and these would probably seem like good reasons to them; the excuses we give ourselves always seem that way. But they would not have been, and if you look at what happened in the Lincoln County School District at the beginning of this decade, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.
You are being asked today whether or not educators should have a choice about how to help their students. On this matter they should not have a choice. We’ve been doing it this way for decades and universities remain a dangerous place for many of our students. Making us mandatory self-reporters is the right thing to do. This is not a hypothetical discussion for me and it hasn’t been for a decade. My conscience is clear about what I’ve done and continue to do. Because while it is never easy to make people do the right thing, it is far worse to let them choose to do the wrong one when our students lives hang in the balance.
Dear UO Community,
I appreciate Bethany Howe’s perspective about mandatory reporting of child abuse. Such mandatory reporting laws (typically enacted at the state level) are valuable – I totally agree with that. Importantly those laws apply only to information pertaining to the abuse of minors. The logic of such laws takes into account a fundamental fact about children that is also enshrined in law in many ways: children are not free to give or refuse consent. Indeed, this fundamental fact also underlies statutory rape laws. In almost all jurisdictions sexual contact between a child and an adult is considered a crime no matter what the child says or does. Similarly minors cannot vote in our elections. Minors cannot give legal permission for all sorts of things from medical procedures and the release of educational information about themselves.
In contrast, the vast majority of students at the UO are adults. If we believe our adult students cannot give or refuse consent about the fate of their personal information in conversations with employees, we presumably also believe they cannot give or refuse consent about their own sexual choices, or their positions on political candidates, or their own decisions about who has access to their educational records.
Survivors of sexual violence and/or discrimination are not incompetent due to their experience. They are people who have had their rights and boundaries violated and may be experiencing the harm of that injury. That does not make them children. When we treat adults as if they are children we risk harming them in numerous ways. We risk infantilizing and pathologizing adults when we treat them as if they don’t know what they want or what is in their best interests. We are likely to violate their boundaries if we tell them we know better than they do what is their special duty as victims to society.
If we believe our adult students cannot give or refuse consent about the fate of their personal information we presumably also believe they cannot give or refuse consent about their own sexual choices, or their positions on political candidates.
Mandatory reporting of child abuse has been necessary — but it does not generalize to adult students. The issues we are facing in the Senate are about the rights of adults. We are grappling with whether our adult students (and employee colleagues) should have the right to speak or write (in academic essays, in class discussions, when talking to trusted mentors) truthfully, honestly, and even vulnerably about their own lives – if that truth pertains to experiences of discrimination and/or sexual violence — while also retaining the right to control their own privacy and autonomy.
Thank you to Bethany Howe for a thoughtful contribution to this vital debate. While I disagree with the conclusion that mandatory reporting of minors is an argument in favor of require reporting in the university context, I very much appreciate the free exchange of experiences and ideas.
With respect,
Jennifer Freyd
This is a second letter I have been asked to post here, this one from BB Beltran, Executive Director, Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS)
Dear University of Oregon Senate Members:
My name is BB Beltran and I am the Executive Director of Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS); SASS is a non-profit organization providing outreach, advocacy and support to survivors of sexual violence and their partners, families and friends throughout Eugene-Springfield and the rest of Lane County. SASS advocates listen, believe, support, accompany, offer information and referrals, and provide peer counseling to survivors of sexual violence, past and present. We maintain a 24-hour crisis and support line and provide 24-hour emergency advocacy for survivors of sexual assault and sexual abuse. Although we serve all of Lane County, due to our proximity to the University of Oregon, Lane Community College and Northwest Christian University, many of the survivors we work with are students.
Although it may seem like required reporting would aid in the University’s efforts to create a safe environment, research and over a decade of experience working in the anti-violence field would suggest otherwise. In fact, required reporting often has the exact opposite impact than originally intended; that is, it has a chilling effect on survivors and creates an atmosphere of distrust and silence. While I can appreciate the position of higher education institutions and their competing mandates, I cannot overstate the importance of fostering an environment where survivors are the ones in the driver’s seat.
Autonomy, privacy and confidentiality are vital to survivors of sexual violence, especially in tight knit communities like college campuses such as the University of Oregon. Violations to one’s autonomy, privacy and confidentiality have a ripple effect that not only impact the individual survivor by potentially compromising their safety, but also the community at large by creating distrust. If there are no assurances of autonomy, privacy and confidentiality survivors may not access services to receive the support they deserve. In essence, required reporting robs the survivor of their autonomy and sidelines their needs in favor of protecting the institution.
Sexual assault is never the survivor’s fault, however, we live in a society which oftentimes stigmatizes and blames the victim and this message is internalized by survivors. Private and confidential advocacy services are important in disrupting the cycle of self-blame and putting the onus back on perpetrators where it rightly belongs. SASS advocates work from an empowerment based approach and provide information and options rather than advice. We believe survivors are in the best position to determine what is right for their situation. Autonomy, privacy and confidentially are necessary to provide survivors a safe space to explore their options in their own time.
If the University of Oregon Senate is serious about creating safer campus communities, being responsive to the needs of survivors and reducing sexual violence then required reporting is not the right step to achieve those goals.
Sincerely,
BB Beltran
Executive Director
Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS)
I am posting this letter at the request of Brenda Tracy of OSU. Many UO students and staff met her when she spoke at the UO last year. Others know her through her work on state-wide and national initiatives. Recently she received a National Crime Victims’ Service Award for her work to address sexual violence:
http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2016/apr/us-attorney-general-honors-oregon-advocate-victims-sexual-assault
Dear members of the University of Oregon Senate,
My name is Brenda Tracy and I am writing to you on behalf of myself and all current and future students of the University of Oregon. Since coming forward with my own story of campus gang-rape at Oregon State University, I have connected with many survivors of sexual violence and the thing that I hear the most is “The way I was treated by my school was worse than the rape.”
Over and over I hear those words when I try to sleep at night, “The way I was treated by my school was worse than the rape.” And the reason that this statement tortures me so much is because I feel the exact same way.
When I tell my story of being drugged, raped, and sodomized for 6 long hours by four football players, the lump in my throat doesn’t begin to form and the tears don’t begin to fall until I get to the part where Oregon State University failed me.
As hard as it is to believe, the betrayal by OSU, the DA’s office, and the police was in fact far worse than the rape. Today, after much painful reflection and hard work to make peace with what happened to me I know that my pain is rooted in trust – the trust that was broken by the systems and institutions that were supposed to protect me.
Today’s vote is not just about mandatory reporting. It’s about trust. Survivors of violence and discrimination need and want to trust their University. I wish we were at a place in our society where mandatory reporting by all staff yielded good results. I hope that someday we can get there, but today is not the day. We must be realistic about where we are right now and right now passing this policy will only serve to further fracture the trust between students and the University of Oregon. Among many other things, it will deter students from reporting and it will further entrench a culture of shame and silence.
I have dedicated my life to making sure that the Brenda Tracy story doesn’t happen to anyone else, but I cannot take on this daunting task alone. I need your help.
I am asking you to please vote “no” on this policy and I would ask that you do it unanimously. You have the opportunity to send a very clear message today that the University of Oregon cares about survivors and wants to foster trust between staff and students. You have the power today to make sure that not one more survivor says ” The way my school treated me was worse than the rape.”
Thank you for your time,
Brenda Tracy
Several members from the Sexual Violence Support Caucus of the GTFF will be in attendance at today’s meeting. Please see our following letter regarding policies for responsible employees to be voted on this afternoon:
To the members of the UO Faculty Senate,
The Sexual Violence Support Caucus of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation (GTFF; AFT-3544) would like to address the proposed policy regarding responsible employee obligations that will be put to a vote on May 11th, 2016.
We deeply appreciate the commitment by the UO Faculty Senate to provide needed resources and support to students who have experienced prohibited discrimination and harassment. We also appreciate the clear and concise language describing the obligations of graduate employees with regards to reporting prohibited discrimination in the proposed policy. We have confidence the proposed policy will greatly alleviate confusion about required reporting obligations, which has been expressed in the past by members of the GTFF and campus community regarding past practice and policy procedure. For example, the clarification that events such as Take Back the Night will be exempt from reporting obligations will relieve survivors from the fear that their story may be reported without their permission. Similarly, it will free responsible university employees to attend and support such events wholeheartedly, without feeling that civil disobedience is necessary to support survivors. This is a foundational shift in creating trust, which is the key to creating safe, empowering, and healing spaces for survivors. The ability for survivors to disclose their experiences to their peers and community both safely and on their own terms is a significant step in their healing process. We commend the proposed policy and believe it is part of the necessary process of creating spaces that empower those who were harmed.
In fact, such spaces are a model for our institutional policies: we think that survivors of trauma or prohibited discrimination should always have the agency to talk about their experiences without fear of retaliation or breach of confidentiality. This survivor-centered position is supported by leading research in the field of psychology, notably Dr. Jennifer Freyd’s institutional betrayal trauma theory and Dr. Judith Herman’s complex trauma theory. It is also supported by contemporary critical observation and experience. Displacing agency from survivors, as mandated by required reporting, often greatly exacerbates the original trauma; it can be traumatizing in-and-of-itself. Required reporting inflicts harm on students.
In light of this evidence, we are disappointed that the proposed policy implies that the institution will continue to demand university workers (graduate employees, faculty, and staff) to participate in the retraumatization of students by requiring the disclosure of a survivor’s experience to a third person without the survivor’s consent. We understand such reports remain confidential and are part of an attempt to bring visibility to this issue, combating past sweep-it-under-the-rug practices by introducing the potential for disciplinary workplace penalty upon failure to report. However, involuntary disclosure undermines confidentiality and trust in educators and the university as a whole. This is especially damaging to students of color and genderqueer students whose trust in historically white, heteronormative U.S. institutions is very low. Required reporting squanders rather than builds this trust. Rather than relying on required reporting, we advise the UO Faculty Senate to consider ways in which we might establish and build trust in our institution. This means enabling survivors to navigate their healing and justice process on their own terms. This is not a call to abandon survivors; it is a call to take this opportunity to structure our university in a way that will best support them.
Many graduate employees, faculty, and staff recognize the harm that is done by reporting someone’s experience of prohibited discrimination without consent. However, many also fear that not reporting will have negative consequences on their employment. This is especially problematic for international graduate employees whose future in this country depends on being engaged as a graduate employee. Forcing a graduate employee, faculty, or staff member to choose between retraumatizing a student and violating the terms of their employment places an undue burden upon the worker and the disclosing survivor. This burden is exacerbated by the regular friendships formed by graduate employees between undergraduates, other graduate employees, advisors and committee members, other faculty, and staff. We know of instances where the looming burden of required reporting produced hesitation in survivors reaching out and disclosing to friends; such barriers within relationships produces major impediments to a survivor’s healing process. Unfortunately, the policies currently proposed by the Faculty Senate do not address such intersections. If these policies are confirmed, we predict confusion, misinformation, and underground civil disobedience will continue to be widespread.
We acknowledge that maintaining a safe campus also means that perpetrators need to be brought to justice. Research demonstrates, however, that the current legal and university structures are inadequate to produce justice for survivors and the community. While more conversations and future actions will be required to achieve such goals, there is no sufficient evidence that required reporting is needed, let alone conducive, in this process. There is, however, substantial evidence demonstrating that required reporting harms the very people it is supposed to protect.
One pragmatic option would be to pass the “Exempt Employee Amendment,” which offers an exemption from required reporting obligations for employees certified in sexual violence advocacy and university procedure. Current required reporting mandates are predicated upon broad interpretations of a reasonability standard in federal policy: anyone whom a student might reasonably believe has authority within their institution must report. Current practice interprets this as any university employee with any kind of authority in a student’s life, but in many cases it is much more reasonable for a student to assume their university confidant will not report, especially not without consent (e.g., an instructor trained in sexual violence advocacy, a faculty teaching course content critical of contemporary legal practices regarding rape, a friend at work, etc.). In this climate, student disclosures are nothing short of a leap of faith with a Catch-22 awaiting them and their confidant on the other side: if a student trusts a university employee enough to disclose, the employee must either breach that trust (and the latest research) to file an involuntary report or the student and employee must agree to a pact of secret civil disobedience. This dynamic can be utterly burdensome, particularly for instructors teaching the latest critical research on trauma and sexual violence, which is where many student disclosures cluster. Relieving trained workers from required reporting will allow for a more healing pedagogical relationship; many workers already have such training and regularly employ it when students disclose, though under the above described duress. The exemption will also increase the diversity of confidential staff at the University of Oregon, benefiting our students of color and genderqueer students. Indeed, the Exempt Employee Amendment will ensure further accessibility to resources and support for vulnerable and traumatized students in our campus community.
For the reasons outlined above, the GTFF Sexual Violence Support Caucus urges the UO Faculty Senate to:
• Clarify that information received in private conversations is not “credible evidence” as defined in II.H of these policies;
• Pass the Exempt Employee Amendment, but with clarification that survivors may be de-identified in required confidential consultations so this amendment does not reproduce our above stated concerns;
• Ensure the availability of trainings for exempt employee certification at the University of Oregon;
• Hold the administration of the University of Oregon accountable for establishing a survivor-centered system based on trust rather than mandates or monied interests.
We recognize that university policies must comply with federal and state laws. However, these laws allow universities to interpret the ‘reasonability’ standard of students and the responsibilities of workers on their own. Rather than solidify the status quo, we should all use this opportunity to create a campus that is truly safe and empowering to everyone. We believe that anyone who has experienced discrimination, harassment, or violence should always have full agency over their experiences. We urge you to help us build a university reflective of this.
In solidarity,
The Sexual Violence Support Caucus of the Graduate Teaching Fellows Federation (AFT-3544)
The UO Organization Against Sexual Assault (OASA), a student organization, posted this statement regarding UO Responsible Employee Duty to report sexual harassment and sexual assault policy on their website, dated May 10, 2016 (http://uooasa.weebly.com/news-and-events/statement-regarding-uo-responsible-employee-duty-to-report-sexual-harassment-and-sexual-assault-policy)
I am not a member of OASA. I am simply posting the statement here in an effort to ensure that the Senate has access to it.
Website and full text below.
http://uooasa.weebly.com/news-and-events/statement-regarding-uo-responsible-employee-duty-to-report-sexual-harassment-and-sexual-assault-policy
—
The following statement represents the UO Organization Against Sexual Assault’s (UO OASA) stance on the UO Responsible Employee Duty to Report Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault policy. This policy came to our organization’s attention from members of OASA and concerned campus community members; we are responding to UO Responsible Employee Duty to Report Sexual Harassment and Sexual Assault policy because of the expressed concerns.
Firstly, we would like to note that we are not explicitly opposed to the moving of this policy. This policy successfully clarifies rules and regulations regarding the UO’s required reporting process, which has been ambiguous since its inception.
What we do take issue with, however, is the UO’s implementation of required reporting policies in general. Required reporting discourages survivors of harassment, abuse, and violence from seeking help from on-campus resources and from their fellow students, staff, and faculty. The reasons why survivors of sexual violence would not want to disclose their experiences to university administrators and officials are expansive and valid: institutional betrayal, fear of retaliation, or disinterest in working within university resources are all possibilities.
Many argue that current required reporting policies hold perpetrators accountable and increase reports of sexual violence on campus. However, while these goals are noble, we feel the University should prioritize survivor safety, wellness, and resource access above all else. We believe access to resources and support for the current individuals reporting should be prioritized over an increased number of reports. If our institution is invested in being survivor-centered, then survivors should be allowed to seek help on their own terms–including seeking individualized support and assistance from colleagues, friends, instructors, professors, mentors, and peers–without intervention from university administrators or officials. If we are truly invested in connecting survivors to resources, then required reporting is counterproductive.
Required reporting also puts student and classified employees, graduate teaching fellows, and faculty in stressful situations. If a survivor discloses their experience to someone in any these positions, the required reporter risks losing the survivor’s trust, compromising their relationship with the survivor, or going against the survivor’s will by being forced to report. Should the required reporter not report in an effort to do right by the survivor, the required reporter risks severe punishment. Instead of forcing employees, GTFs, and faculty into these tumultuous situations, more effort should be directed to educating individuals how to support survivors in any capacity. It should also be noted that many of these parties can interact on an informal level (such as a student employee or GTF with non-University employed student), and this can place additional pressure on required reporters who receive disclosures in informal settings.
Although we appreciate that effort has been made to clarify the required reporting rules and processes on this campus, we are still fundamentally opposed to required reporting policies. Required reporting is a policy intended to increase the number of reports received by the University. However, OASA members have told by survivors of sexual violence that required reporting has discouraged them from sharing their experiences and getting the help that they need. We hope you will consider our opposition to required reporting before this policy is passed.
Sincerely,
UO OASA
—
I’m posting the comment below at the request of “survivoranonymity@gmail.com”. This is not to be taken as an endorsement.
Text from email:
Current Section III:
III. Responsible Employees Reporting Obligations
Responsible Employees who receive Credible Evidence of Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment or Sexual Harassment are required to promptly report that information as follows:
1. If the Credible Evidence relates to Sex Discrimination of a Student, Responsible Employees should report any information received to the Title IX Coordinator or to the Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services.
2. In all other instances, Responsible Employees should report any information received to the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (AAEO).
Proposed Section III:
III. Responsible Employees Reporting Obligations
Responsible Employees who receive Credible Evidence of Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment or Sexual Harassment are required to receive consent from students on if they would like their information disclosed to university sources.
For students who wish information to be disclosed:
1. If the Credible Evidence relates to Sex Discrimination of a Student, Responsible Employees should report the information to the Title IX Coordinator or to the Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services.
2. In all other instances, Responsible Employees should report any information received to the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (AAEO).
For students who do not wish for the information to be disclosed, the information should be kept confidential.
For further explanation of the reasons for providing survivors with autonomy, see my open letter (http://survivorautonomy.blogspot.com) and additional reasoning below.
[Harbaugh: I’ve deleted the additional reasoning referenced above, and suggested to survivoranonymity that they post it on their blog.]
I thank Carol and the GSBV for their work on this policy. I think the balance between allowing faculty to confidentially advise their students, while making sure that perpetrators are reported and appropriately dealt with is difficult and uncertain. Given that, and my confidence in the committee’s judgement, I think the proposed requirement that all faculty should be mandatory reporters should be taken seriously
With that in mind I discussed the proposal with other faculty, and out of those discussions I started wondering about how it would apply to faculty who might give advice to colleagues who were being subject to sexual harassment by other faculty. I asked GC Kevin Reed about a generic example, and I’ve put that and his response below.
The gist is that this proposed policy treats faculty victims very differently than students. While students have a variety of confidential reporting options, the policy would require faculty to report the details of such harassment of faculty to Penny Daugherty’s AAEO office, regardless of whether or not the Ombuds office or other confidential resources had been consulted. I think this would prevent many helpful conversations between faculty colleagues. On the other hand it might inhibit serial perpetrators.
I’m not sure yet how this changes my opinion on the policy as a whole. I hope people will read the exchange below and use it to inform their own views.
Question to GC Kevin Reed:
Hi Kevin –
I’ve got a question about the mandatory reporting policy. Here’s the sort of situation I’m wondering about. The example involves faculty but it could apply to any non-students. (I sent Carol a more confused version of this Q yesterday, but haven’t got a response.)
Recently divorced senior professor A keeps stopping by junior professor B’s office, to talk about work topics including potential joint research, B’s tenure case, etc. Sometimes A complains about a lack of a sex life, asks about B’s relationships, if B is going to the next conference, etc.
B is not interested in a relationship with A and thinks they’ve made that clear, but A’s visits and their tone continues.
B starts avoiding interactions with A by working from home rather than in their office, avoiding seminars and conferences where A will appear, dropping research that overlap’s with A’s area, etc.
B’s colleagues, who will vote on the tenure case, start to notice B’s disengagement with the department and the profession.
Eventually senior professor C, who has mentored B professionally and is also a personal friend, asks B what’s going on. Or maybe B seeks out C’s advice.
By the policy’s definition, and I think by any reasonable definition, this is “sexual and gender based harassment and bullying” by A that substantially interferes with B’s work, creates a hostile work environment, etc.
From what I see, the relevant mandatory reporting language in the proposed policy is this:
III. Responsible Employees Reporting Obligations
Responsible Employees who receive Credible Evidence of Prohibited Discrimination, Harassment or Sexual Harassment are required to promptly report that information as follows:
A. If the Credible Evidence relates to Sex Discrimination of a Student, Responsible Employees should report any information received to the Title IX Coordinator or to the Office of Crisis Intervention and Sexual Violence Support Services.
B. In all other instances, Responsible Employees should report any information received to the Office of Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity (AAEO).
My read of the proposed policy is that if B talked to C about it the situation, C could offer advice and try to help, e.g. by offering to tell A that this has to stop, or sending them to the Ombud. But regardless, C would be required to report everything they learned from B or from A to Penny Daugherty’s AAEO office. For that matter B would be required to report it to AAEO themselves.
For contrast, if I understand right, if A’s harassment was directed at a student, there would be a variety of confidential reporting options that could be used by the student and their confidants.
Am I correct about this asymmetry, and if so is it intentional or an oversight?
Response from the GC:
Well, there is a purposeful distinction of sorts, based on the status of the complainant (and which statutory scheme is thereby invoked). But the bottom line for the “responsible employee,” Professor C in your example, is the same. Prof. C would need to report what she/he learned – in this example you create it would be to the AAEO office since that office deals with all instances of discrimination except those involving sexual misconduct in which a student is the alleged victim.
Prof. B, on the other hand, has a range of confidential resources available to her including Ombuds, staff counseling resources, legal counsel, etc.
Yes, there is a difference in treatment of reports depending on whether the person who is the alleged recipient of sexual harassment is a student or a faculty member (or staff, volunteer, etc.) The difference derives from the somewhat different obligations UO has to students under Title IX, as opposed to employees under Title VII. Title IX, as interpreted by OCR, gives substantial agency to complainants regarding whether they wish to pursue any formal proceeding to address the abuse. Title VII, on the other hand, creates an affirmative obligation on the part of the University, qua employer, to investigate and remedy workplace sexual harassment and does not provide a complainant with the sort of deference found in the Title IX context. Of course, this distinction does not differentiate with respect to the reporting, but it does limit the ability of UO as employer to withhold taking action at the request of a complainant.
And, since the AAEO office is tasked with responding to allegations of discrimination, investigations of allegations of sexual harassment brought forward by employee complainants would go to that office.
And, anticipating your next question: where a student is also an employee (i.e., a GTF, RA, etc.), we default to the Title IX rules and process and direct reports to the victims advocates or TIX Coordinator.
As someone with absolutely no expertise to offer, my only motivation is wanting to do the right thing. I am not sure that the floor of the Senate is the best place to do the work that is needed to work this out. Respecting the work of the CSGBV is important. Given my experience with Carol Stabile’s leadership of the Senate Task Force on Sexual Violence I am inclined to defer to her judgment and leadership. However, there must be a way to continue discussion and negotiations around the policy that would be more productive and efficient than to throw it out on the Senate floor, especially when there appears to be some serious and substantive disagreements. I would encourage the Senate Executive Committee to work with Carol, the CSGBV, and presumably General Council, to develop a means to further discussion among the principals in this debate.
Thanks for this post, David. We know that whatever policy gets rolled out, communicating it clearly to our community has to be a priority. There’s a lot of misinformation out there, I think mainly because we haven’t had a campus-wide conversation about what it means to be a responsible reporter and how the reporting process differs from the process of filing a complaint. You’re absolutely right that we need to further discussion about this.
With respect, David and Carol, I’m curious why this isn’t the venue for discussion. It seems like the best idea is to engage in a discussion that genuinely tries to establish the best policy beforehand, rather than try to explain an enacted policy after the fact, especially if there are substantive disagreements. What is the misinformation? What does it mean to be a responsible reporter, and why is that preferable to the current system? What further discussion is needed? I think we’re all on the same side on both the aim of the policy and the desire for more transparency in the process, so why not have both right here by explaining the benefits of the proposed policy and answering the objections raised previously? Because tone is difficult to communicate textually, I reiterate my respect and wish to ask this question genuinely without the usual snarkiness of online comment sections.
While I fundamentally oppose the proposed policy on required reporting, I want to begin by saying that I respect what the CESGBV is attempting to do with this policy.
**The CESGBV Committee**
The assumptions I hold about the creation of the proposed policy is that the CESGBV committee is wanting people who have been victimized to be connected with the university’s resources, while the university simultaneously gathers information about trends, perpetrators, and types of violence and discrimination.
Additionally, I surmise that the CESGBV committee may feel a sense of urgency to have a policy enacted expediently that helps students. I certainly can empathize with that stance.
**The Problem**
Adults have rights related to autonomy and privacy. A university policy that violates those rights has great potential to harm and additionally may have unintended consequences (e.g., instead of promoting reporting, a stringent required reporting policy may actually reduce initial disclosures).
Once a student has been violated (either through actions like being raped or being called a racial slur), the next step cannot be for a university to further take ownership of the individual and their experience by mandating a response, even if the university believes such a response is in the best interest of the student. A policy like this infantilizes survivors, presuming they could not possibly know what is best for themselves.
Furthermore, a policy, like the one proposed, puts students who do not want their experiences shared in a terrible bind: either disclose to a trusted university member, such as a professor, and have that information passed onto another; or stay silent in the university context.
This cannot be what is best for students.
Instead, a revised policy could dictate that faculty/staff must abide by a student’s wishes upon disclosure. If a student wants faculty to relay information of their experience to official university source(s), the faculty/staff are required to aid in that process. If the student does not want to report, the faculty/staff must respect that.
The Open Letter by an anonymous graduate student makes several additional valid points on the flaws in the proposed policy (http://survivorautonomy.blogspot.com).
**The Bottom Line**
Policies must respect the rights of individuals to decide when, how, and to whom their personal information is disclosed.
While I respect the work put in by the CSGBV in writing this proposal, I firmly oppose its passage. I echo the arguments in the survivor autonomy blog post linked above. Policy must be written such that it responds to the reality of the problems it intends to fix. No matter how well-intentioned this policy is, it would most likely have detrimental effects on survivors who seek emotional assistance from trusted professors, GTFs or RAs but do not want to go through the potentially traumatic reporting process. More fundamentally, autonomy is a basic ethical principle and human right, and requiring mandatory reporting either negates this autonomy or deprives a survivor the ability to reach out to someone they trust. In addition to addressing the reality of the situation, policy should also be made by taking into account the opinions and beliefs of the affected population. In two of the few empirical studies on the matter, 60 out of 61 interviewed women who were survivors of sexual assault believed that medical professionals should not be mandatory reporters until there were systemic changes to the reporting procedure (1). Because most women were sexually assaulted by someone that was an intimate partner or they knew rather than a stranger, they feared repercussions from them as well as from the public at large. It is true that medical professionals are different than trusted educators, but that does not change the reason why they opposed mandatory reporting. Another study repeated similar findings, but highlighted the discrepancy of opinion between those who were and were not survivors of sexual assault. Those that were survivors of sexual assault were 1.4 times more likely than those that were not survivors to support woman-controlled reporting rather than mandatory reporting (2).
It is admirable that the senate seeks to address the horrors of sexual violence, but in the effort to do so, they should not adopt well-intentioned, but ultimately misguided and detrimental policy.
1: Sullivan, C. M. “Survivors’ Opinions About Mandatory Reporting Of Domestic Violence And Sexual Assault By Medical Professionals”. Affilia 20.3 (2005): 346-361. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
2: Gielen, Andrea Carlson et al. “Women’S Opinions About Domestic Violence Screening And Mandatory Reporting”. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 19.4 (2000): 279-285. Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
I received an email which referred me to a letter on the following blog: http://survivorautonomy.blogspot.com/
The letter is entitled ,”Anonymous Open Letter to the UO Senate from a Graduate Student.”
Please take a moment to read it.
Randy Sullivan
I also appreciate the hard work of the CSGBV. I am the program director for the Couples and Family Therapy master’s program and we run a fairly large counseling/therapy center (Center for Healthy Relationships) within the Hedco clinic. While we also serve the larger community, outside of the university, we do still have clients that are university personnel and students. I think that the Center for Healthy Relationships needs to be recognized in the policy alongside of the other university counseling and healthcare centers.
I appreciate the hard work members of the CSGBV have put into the crafting of this policy proposal. I’m confident the work was diligent and well-discussed.
I have concern that the definition of Student Employee in the policy as written should include more responsible reporters than RAs and GTFs. There are many student employee positions, like RAs, which have a high degree of interaction and potential for vulnerability. I tend to believe more student employees should be trained and therefore responsible to report disclosures of harassment and/or assault, not less. I have concern that eliminating the responsibility to report risks student employees becoming pseudo-counselors without comprehensive training to see a survivor/victim through all of their options.
Would the senate, and specifically the members of the CSGBV, be willing to add the responsibility of reporting to more student employees than are currently listed in the policy?