Tuesday, April 5, 2016

Indicative of Napolitano 's Unequal treatment of UC Berkeley when compared with UCLA regarding sexual harassment oversight, sanctions, or not?

Recall the Napolitano letter to Dirks regarding Fleming and Choudhry etc. For that see:
http://www.dailycal.org/2016/03/12/graham-fleming-fired-from-role-as-berkeley-global-campus-ambassador/


Now read the article below
Why wouldn't Napolitano also send a letter to Block as well?

Welcoming Back Accused Serial Harasser
Faculty and students protest return of professor accused of harassment and assault to campus after a one-term unpaid leave.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/05/ucla-students-and-faculty-protest-return-professor-accused-sexual-assault-and


And how does an open door requirement deal with these scenarios?


Includes:

"In mid-2013, Takla finally told Piterberg that she could no longer have him as an adviser. He responded by saying that philosophers Hannah Arendt and Martin Heidegger had had a career-long love affair, and that “if done right, professor and student relationships are supposed to [be] intimate,” according to the complaint. He also allegedly said he masturbated while thinking about her, and said that “if anything happened between us, it would be while you are writing your dissertation.”
Takla took that to mean Piterberg might insist on sex in exchange for signing off on her dissertation. Based on the advice of a university ombudsman, she reported the harassment to Pamela Thomason, at the time UCLA’s coordinator for Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which bans sex-based discrimination in education. Takla also tried to secure a new adviser but was allegedly encouraged within the department to stick with Piterberg"

And,


"After walking to their cars, parked in the same lot, Piterberg allegedly forcefully tried to kiss her. Glasgow raised her hands to defend herself and avoided Piterberg for a year, until they came to work in the same building. He started to join her for smoking breaks, steering the conservation toward sexual topics such as his favorite sexual position, and asking her out, according to the suit. He once called her in the evening, saying he was in the neighborhood and “was going to stop by so we could make love.” Glasgow denied his advances but worried about angering Piterberg because he sat on the department’s funding awards committee.
In 2013, Glasgow learned that Takla had filed a complaint against Piterberg and quickly filed her own. Despite asking Thomason to keep her informed of developments in the case, Glasgow said she heard nothing for four weeks. When she followed up with Thomason, according to the suit, the Title IX coordinator said she didn’t remember meeting with her. She also allegedly said that taking Glasgow’s report before the Academic Senate would result in all of Piterberg’s peers siding with him.
Glasgow was eventually informed that Thomason had left UCLA. She is now the Title IX compliance officer for the California State University System."

And this,

""This means that Piterberg applied for the fellowship in September 2013 (after the initiation of the UCLA early resolution process)," Roth wrote. "Essentially, UCLA allowed Piterberg to delay the settlement for nine months, so he could take a fellowship that coincided with the quarter he took off in spring 2015 …. More important than the individual figures, however, is the issue of prestige. Reputation and prestige are everything in academia. By covering up the sexual harassment case and allowing Piterberg to get the Braudel fellowship, UCLA protected Piterberg’s reputation. Piterberg’s 'quarter off' may have cost him financially, but it actually boosted his real academic capital, his research status. And it also enhanced UCLA’s own academic standing.""

No comments:

Post a Comment