Saturday, March 19, 2016

Cal "Faculty Investigators", Questions about Case Management

See:Cal under fire for arbitrary discipline in sex harassment cases
http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Cal-under-fire-for-arbitrary-discipline-in-sex-6924163.php

Includes:

"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.
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.”"

No comments:

Post a Comment