Disparity in UC discipline
Punishment for sex harassment varies — and often changes when details become public
UC Berkeley has a clear system in place for investigating employees accused of sexually harassing students or colleagues— but a gaping hole exists when it comes to dis- ciplining the rule-breakers.
Punishment is often arbitrary.
The issue of capricious discipline has emerged as a big problem at the premier public university as cases have mounted.
Four highly paid employees whose violations of the University of California’s sexual misconduct policy came to light in the last year all received different punishments: an astronomy professor got a warning, the dean of the law school had his pay temporarily reduced and was told to apologize, a vice chancellor had to resign that position but was given another high-profile job two months later, and an assistant coach — the lowest-paid and the only one without tenure — was immediately fired.
Those with tenure continued on the payroll but were not referred to a review committee of the Academic Senate, which could have recommended revoking tenure, the only
way to fire a professor. Yet when their cases became public — because of news reports or, in one case, a lawsuit — none of the employees was allowed to stay on the job. Law School Dean Sujit Choudhry and Graham Fleming, the former vice chancellor for research, each remain as paid faculty but do no official work. Choudhry has been barred from campus for the rest of the term and has been referred to the tenure review committee.
“When claims (of sexual misconduct) are substantiated, we must hold people accountable and impose sanctions that appropriately reflect the seriousness of these cases,” UC President Janet Napolitano said Friday in a letter to colleagues responding to the spate of cases. It was Napolitano who required additional sanctions after the Choudhry and Fleming cases came to light. She reiterated her decision this month to establish a panel to oversee discipline decisions for chancellors, deans, coaches and other “senior university leaders” at all UC campuses who violate the harassment policy.
At Berkeley, the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination investigates all reports of sexual misconduct brought to its attention, said Claire Holmes, a campus spokeswoman. After the office concludes its investigation, the next steps depend on whether an employee has tenure, is an administrator or belongs to a labor union.
Astronomer’s case
The erratic nature of the multiheaded disciplinary system is evident in the case of former astronomy Professor Geoffrey Marcy, who was investigated for harassment last year.
After six months, the harassment prevention office concluded in June that Marcy — a famous planet hunter earning $217,600 a year and considered a contender for the Nobel Prize — had violated the harassment policy after evidence suggested he had groped female students from 2001 to 2010.
Under campus procedure for tenured professors, the report on Marcy went to the vice provost for faculty, Holmes said.
Typically, that office appoints one or two faculty investigators to determine whether a professor has violated the Faculty Code of Conduct, Holmes said. Campus lawyers also get involved to guide the investigators, who do the work on top of their daily obligations. Different faculty investigators are chosen for each case. The process is often delayed when investigators quit or are simply too busy to give the matter their full attention, said Holmes.
The nature of the faculty investigation of Marcy — even whether it occurred — is unclear. If an investigation finds “probable cause” to believe that a professor has violated the code of conduct, officials said, the case must be referred to the Academic Senate’s tenure committee.
Only a warning
Yet his case was not sent to the tenure committee. Instead, campus officials merely warned Marcy that he could be fired if he harassed anyone again.
The tenure committee’s evaluation “is a long and lengthy process, and it is uncertain what the outcome will be,” Holmes said. So campus officials “made this decision to (warn Marcy) and not send it to Privilege and Tenure, thinking it would be more expeditious.”
Asked why Marcy wasn’t referred to the committee as well as warned, Holmes sighed. “I don’t know,” she said. “The campus can and wants to do better. But change takes time. These are deep, cultural issues.”
Few cases
In fact, it’s rare for professors to be referred to the tenure committee, said Robert Powell, a UC Berkeley political science professor who chairs the Academic Senate. In a typical year, it oversees just one hearing or none at all, he said.
About 1,620 full-time faculty work at Berkeley.
It was only after a science reporter broke the story in October that Marcy resigned, amid rising public criticism over how the campus handled the situation.
On Friday, Berkeley Chancellor Nicholas Dirks had to deal with another piece of fallout from the perception that punishment of highprofile employees who harass others is based not on the severity of the sexual misconduct but on subjective criteria. He tried to tamp down reports that Provost Claude Steele had only lightly disciplined Choudhry, the Berkeley Law School dean, in exchange for a faculty appointment at the prestigious law school.
“This is absolutely untrue,” Dirks announced, adding that it was he, not Choudhry, who suggested that Steele join the Law School faculty. He said Steele has already withdrawn “to minimize distraction.”
It was nearly two years ago that Dirks put his campus on notice that sexual misconduct would not be tolerated and that perpetrators would be held accountable.
“I am unequivocal in my commitment to do what is necessary to create and sustain a caring culture of prevention and reporting, and hold members of our community accountable for violating campus policies,” Dirks assured the campus in an open letter on May 19, 2014. “We cannot and will not turn our backs on an issue that … touches the lives of all of our community members: students, staff and faculty.”
Hot issue
Sexual harassment and assault had became a boiling hot issue on campuses across the country.
Dirks’ vow came just weeks before a state audit found that Berkeley failed to train employees in how to respond to incidents of sexual misconduct brought to their attention, and how to report them as required. Dozens of students had just filed the first of two federal complaints under the Title IX gender discrimination act claiming Berkeley acted with “deliberate indifference” in handling their reports of sexual harassment and assault. The U.S. Department of Education had announced that Berkeley was among 55 colleges under investigation for lack of compliance with Title IX — today there are 265 — and a lawsuit was in the works by three women who would claim that Berkeley mishandled their reports of sexual assault.
Although many praise improvements in how Berkeley addresses sexual misconduct reports about students, they say less has been done when the accused is an employee.
‘Focus on .perpetrator’
Powerful incentives exist that encourage campus officials to “protect their own,” said Sofie Karasek, a recent Berkeley graduate and co-founder of the nonprofit End Rape on Campus.
“It’s much easier for them to sweep (harassment) under the rug than to address it or take action against the employee — particularly if it’s a high-profile employee who brings in a lot of funding or is well known and respected in the field,” said Karasek, who is among three women suing the campus. “They focus on how allegations affect the perpetrator. Well, what about the person this was done to? They’re not seeing that this has devastating consequences on someone’s life.”
Some students created a pamphlet to let newcomers learn something about campus that they might not hear from officials, Karasek said:
“Here at UC Berkeley, the university has sent clear messages to professors and supervisors that sexual harassment is acceptable behavior as long as the harasser is not exposed by the victim. In the rare case in which the woman blows the whistle on her harasser, the administration will attempt to keep the issue quiet, and may slap the harasser’s hand lightly if the public is watching.”
That pamphlet was created more than 30 years ago, in 1983.