UT employees face tougher rules on crime
More stringent policy comes after Statesman investigation.
University of Texas President Gregory L. Fenves announced Thursday that school employees who commit crimes off campus could be subject to discipline even if officials find no threat to campus safety, security or other university operations.
The new, more stringent policy comes after an American-Statesman investigation found that the university did not discipline Richard A. Morrisett, a tenured pharmacy professor who pleaded guilty to a felony count of assaulting his girlfriend.
“We will now consider UT’s Mission, Values and Code of Conduct when reviewing criminal violations by employees and when developing the university’s response,” Fenves said in a letter to the university community.
The mission, values and code speak to the importa n ce of upholding such sweeping standards as responsibility, respect, trust, honesty, fairness and a caring community, as well as excellence in education, research and public service. Effective immediately, such matters will be considered when UT employees commit crimes on or off campus.
Fenves also announce d a strengthening of a policy requir-
ing employees to report crim- inal arrests, indictments and convictions to their supervi- sor. Once a formal tweaking of that policy is completed, employees also will have to report the final disposition of a criminal case.
The Statesman reported in January that Morrisett
pleaded guilty last year to a third-degree felony charge of strangling his girlfriend in May 2016. The victim said she saw “stars” but did not lose consciousness, according to an affidavit filed by a Travis County sheriff ’s deputy.
Morrisett was sentenced to four years of community supervision, a kind of probation, with conditions that included counseling and no contact with the victim. He was not disciplined by the university, even though offi- cials concluded that he had failed to notify a supervisor of the criminal charges as required. Officials said he was allowed to continue teaching and operating a research lab- oratory because an internal review found “no relation between how the professor acted in this situation and how he acted on campus.”
University rules that were already in place at the time officials reviewed Morrisett’s case include domestic violence, physical assault
and dating violence on a list of “prohibited conduct” that it “will not tolerate.” Those rules also say UT may take disciplinary action in response to “incidents that have a substantial connection to the interests of the University regardless of the location” where they occur.
Fenves ordered a policy review less than 48 hours after the Statesman article was published. He said at
that time that the university would henceforth enforce the existing requirement that
employees report arrests to their supervisors.
On Thursday, the UT pres- ident noted that he heard “from many UT community members — including many students — who had signifi- cant concerns” about school policies regarding criminal conduct. In February, people sprayed graffiti outside the College of Pharmacy building and posted flyers with Morrisett’s mug shot across campus. About 35 protesters marched from the phar- macy college to the UT Tower with signs, including some
that read, “Stop harboring abusers.”
The more stringent rules come at a time of national reckoning — in higher education, entertainment, the news media and other sectors of society — regarding sexual misconduct and interpersonal violence. UT is considered something of a national leader in studying campus sexual misconduct.
Asked whether a requirement to consider the university’s mission, values and code of conduct would have led to discipline for Morrisett, UT spokesman J.B. Bird replied: “Because the uni- versity applies these rules in real situations involving employees, we do not spec-
ulate on hypothetical situations. However, any situa
tion involving criminal misconduct moving forward would be subject to the new approach.”
A six-member university committee that reviewed UT’s policies recommended in its report, and Fenves agreed, that it is important to consider, in a case when the criminal justice system addresses the conduct, whether additional disciplinary action by the school would be appropriate and serve a university purpose. If discipline is warranted, it could range from a reprimand to termination.
“When pertinent, current scientific study on recidivism or increased violence should be included in the factual review of a relevant case and determination as to whether hiring of an applicant or continued employment of an employee would be a safety factor to the campus,” the committee wrote.
Also as a result of the panel’s recommendations, self-disclosure requirements
will be communicated to employees at orientation and on a periodic basis so that failure to comply when
charged with a crime will result in disciplinary action. In addition, UT will conduct an annual review to ensure consistent handling of crim
inal case reviews. In contrast with UT’s handling of Morrisett’s case, Texas A&M University sanctioned Yong Chen, an associate professor of finance who was convicted in March 2016 of assaulting his wife, a misdemeanor. He was stripped of an honorary professorship, deemed ineligible for any university awards for four years and told that a planned promotion to full professor was on hold. A&M officials said
Chen was permitted to keep his job because their review
found no behavior issues on campus.