The University of California
It Must Take Additional Steps to Address Long-Standing Issues With Its Response to Sexual Harassment Complaints
WaPo has AP quick take short blurb on it:
"Audit faults University of California sex misconduct process"
And LA Times - BTW the report is analysis of UC systemwide with three campuses as sample pool - but here's their headline: "Three UC campuses did not consistently discipline faculty accused of sexual misconduct, state auditor finds"
.."In 2013, UCLA found that Gans had violated university policies by creating a sexually hostile workplace and attempting to establish a romantic relationship with a student he supervised. In a settlement with UC, he agreed to resign from his position and was barred from future employment at the university.
In Sarah’s settlement, UC agreed to an undisclosed payment — but also barred her from studying or working at any university campus or affiliate. That provision outraged Nazarian, who told members of the joint legislative audit committee that it was “imperative to audit and see if this is a common practice among any state agency to revictimize those they have allowed to be a victim to begin with.”
The audit found that UC did not include that ban in the other settlements reviewed and did so in Sarah’s case to close the dispute and minimize the risk of further legal action."...
SF Chronicle: "State audit finds lengthy, inconsistent handling of harassment claims by UC"
"State audit finds lengthy, inconsistent handling of harassment claims by UC"
"A state audit found ongoing problems in the University of California’s response to sexual harassment complaints, including lengthy investigations and inconsistent discipline of faculty and staff.
The auditor’s report reviewed sexual harassment cases at three campuses, UC Berkeley, UC Davis and UCLA, and found that despite efforts in recent years to address delays and inconsistencies in how the university system responds to sexual violence and harassment, “it must do more to stop, prevent, and remedy sexual harassment at its campuses.”
The auditors reviewed cases involving student victims and faculty or staff harassers. The investigation reviewed 23 cases at the three campuses and found that it took an average of 43 days to discipline staff following an investigation, compared to 220 days for faculty. In one case, it took 600 days to discipline a faculty member after the investigation was completed.
“Delays of this nature contribute to a perception that the university is not responding promptly to complaints, and they also force complainants and respondents to endure a lengthy and stressful process,” according to the report.
"The time difference between staff and faculty decisions is largely because the Academic Senate determines what consequences are warranted in faculty cases, university officials said. Despite a directive by UC president Janet Napolitano in 2016 to limit faculty discipline proceedings to two months, no changes were made within the faculty Senate to address the issue, auditors said.
“The lengthy time the campuses take to resolve Senate faculty cases stands in clear contrast to the (federal) Title IX requirement that the university adopt procedures for the prompt and equitable resolution of complaints,” according to the report.
Auditors also cited inconsistent discipline of faculty. Of the cases studied, punishment for physical contact of a nonsexual nature ranged from dismissal, the most severe option available, to a relatively mild warning to abide by policies in the future."...
Audit: UC didn't quickly discipline staff in sexual misconduct cases