2014 Anti-Bullying Task Force Report
ANTI-BULLYING TASK FORCE REPORT
Executive Summary
Summary
Between November 21, 2013 and May 19, 2014, the Anti-Bullying Task Force (ABTF) met
eight times to discuss its charge to generate a draft policy for consideration by the Chancellor’s
cabinet. The specific charge given was:
a. to review anti-bullying policies at other UW Schools and our competitors, searching out
best practice examples
b. to attempt to define bullying and a range of sanctions for such behavior that is consistent
with other policies and is relevant to UW-L
c. to draft a potential policy for review by Chancellor's cabinet, and governance groups that
would assist supervisors in addressing such behavior
Over this period, we researched bullying policies from across the U.S. and drafted a bullying
policy. This report documents the ABTF’s execution of our charge and presents
recommendations for creating a campus culture responsive to bullying behaviors for UW-L
employees.
Action Items
Based on our charge, the ABTF created a bullying policy (see Appendix A). The policy defines
bullying, establishes processes for reporting and resolving complaints, and outlines
responsibilities of supervisors (including department chairs) and other university offices. In
addition to the adoption of this policy, we recommend the following action items:
1. Create training modules related to conduct that provide education about topics such as
bully-proofing the workplace, creating inclusive work environments, dealing with
conflict constructively, conflict resolution skills, racial harassment, sexual harassment,
ableism, heterosexism and homophobia, and religious discrimination.
2. Create a website that serves as a repository of the university’s expectations for
professional behavior, including training programs and the bullying policy.
3. Create a flow chart detailing how the complaint process works and how it relates to
processes for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and other workplace conduct issues.
4. Consider creating a university-wide code of conduct.
1
2014 Anti-Bullying Task Force Report
Anti-Bullying Task Force Report
Spring 2014
This report is organized topically according to the charge given to the Anti-Bullying Task Force
(ABTF) by Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, Dr. Heidi Macpherson.
Task Force Charge, Membership, and Framework
The committee consisted of representatives from Affirmative Action (Nizam Arain), Human
Resources (Madeline Holzem), the College of Business Administration (David Annino), the
College of Liberal Studies (Ronda Leahy), the College of Science and Health (David Riley),
Student Affairs (Sara Burton and Barbara Stewart), the College of Liberal Studies Dean’s Office
(Julia Johnson, Chair), and the School of Education (Marcie Wycoff-Horn).
The ABTF was given the following charge in September 2013:
a. to review anti-bullying policies at other UW Schools and our competitors, searching out
best practice examples
b. to attempt to define bullying and a range of sanctions for such behavior that is consistent
with other policies and is relevant to UW-L
c. to draft a potential policy for review by Chancellor's cabinet, and governance groups that
would assist supervisors in addressing such behavior
It took approximately two months to ensure that the task force had representation from across the
university. Once the task force was complete, the ABTF met 8 times during the latter half of fall
2013 and spring 2014. Meetings were an hour to an hour and 15 minutes in length and took
place with the full committee on the following dates: 11/21, 12/20, 1/24, 1/29, 2/12, 3/12, 3/26
and 4/9. Once the policy was drafted, smaller groups met to ensure that the policy aligned with
committee research and goals, university policies, and legal protocols. Holzem, Arain, and
Johnson met on 5/12 to review a preliminary draft of the policy to ensure it did not conflict with
other UW-L policies and procedures. On 5/14, Stewart, Riley, Johnson, Arain, and Burton
reviewed and made revisions to the policy. On 5/19 the remaining committee members reviewed
and made revisions to the policy (Annino, Holzem, Leahy, and Johnson).
The composition of the ABTF provided diverse institutional perspectives for considering how to
best address bullying behaviors on campus. To contextualize our work, we drew on the
institutional data available to us about bullying, which took the form of information sharing from
persons with institutional knowledge of bullying trends. Stewart and Laurie Cooper Stoll,
Assistant Professor of Sociology, shared data from the 2013 Campus Climate Survey. Through
this survey, employees and students were asked how often they had been bullied or intimidated,
where they had been bullied or intimidated, who had engaged in bullying/intimidating behaviors,
and why respondents thought they had been bullied (tying bullying/intimidation to social
identity). That data indicated that employees and students most likely to be bullied are non-
2
2014 Anti-Bullying Task Force Report
white1, those with a disability, non-heterosexuals, caregivers of adults or children under 19, those
43-51 years of age (employees), and those who work over 20 hours per week (students).
In addition to the survey data, Holzem and Arain shared general patters of bullying behavior that
they had been dealing with in Human Resources and Affirmative Action respectively.
Representative patterns discussed included:
● Perception from employees that their supervisors bullied them by
o invading the supervisee’s personal space during work tasks
o inappropriate behavior during retention, tenure, and promotion processes
● Complaints of abusive language of those with less power from those with more power
● Partisanship in academic departments – fear of punishment from one faction against
others
● Comments to junior faculty about how they voted related to department policy or hiring
discussions
● Demeaning comments made via social media or face-to-face
● Hostile department/office climate (demeaning attitudes, efforts to undermine perception
of scholarship/creative work, gender-based factions)
With the above mentioned data in mind, committee members began their research of bullying
definitions, including the elements and phrases we believed should be in a definition, terms
related to (but distinct from) bullying such as harassment, and the sample behaviors to be listed
to illustrate bullying behavior.
Searching Out Best Practice Examples
The Wisconsin state legislature mandates that K-12 school boards must adopt policies that
prevent bulling in schools (see http://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/118/46). Within
the UW System, UW Milwaukee is pursuing a bullying initiative and has developed a general
code of conduct detailing expectations for “professional conduct by those acting on behalf of the
University including executive officers, faculty, staff, and other individuals employed by the
University” (http://www4.uwm.edu/secu/docs/faculty/2901_Code_of_Co_ct_04_25_13.pdf).
UW Madison’s Office of Equity and Diversity has an “under construction” message for their
Bullying Policy link.
The ABTF researched a variety of sources to inform the development of our draft bullying
policy, including University documents such as the UW-L Workplace Violence Policy
(http://www.uwlax.edu/HR/newemp/workplace-violence.htm). The majority of our individual
and collective energies were dedicated to identifying policies from universities across the U.S.
that offered compelling examples of bullying definitions, processes, and sanctions. Individuals
within the ABTF researched a variety of sources to generate a definition of bullying, including
The Workplace Bullying Institute, NOBullying.Com, and published sources (listed in a
1
The labels for social identity categories were the terms used in the survey.
3
2014 Anti-Bullying Task Force Report
bibliography at the end of this document). Of course, task force members focused on the
bullying definitions and/or policies utilized by other universities. The universities that provided
us a foundation for defining bullying included the following:
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
Eastern Washington University
Michigan State Board of Education
Monroe County Community College
Oregon State University
Regent College
Rowan University
Stony Brook University
SUNY Suffolk
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
University of Oxford
University of Southern Mississippi
University of Texas
Westfield State University
Worcester State University
We also reviewed the webpages of our performance peer institutions as presented by the UW-L
Office of Institutional Research. Although web research does not necessarily provide access to
all institutional policies, we identified a representative list of the kinds of policies used by these
peers to address employee conduct. In these policies, issues we covered in our draft bullying
policy are often addressed.
Institution
Type of Policy (Bullying or Other)
Appalachian State University
Montclair State University
Rowan University
SUNY Brockport
SUNY Cortland
SUNY New Paltz
University of Mary Washington
Harassment, Discrimination and Retaliation
Discrimination Complaint Procedures
Workplace Violence; Harassment & Discrimination
Harassment and Discrimination
Workplace Violence
Affirmative Action Non-Discrimination/Anti-Harassment
Workplace Bullying; Workplace Harassment; Workplace
Violence
Workplace Violence; Toxic Behavior; Difficult
University of Minnesota Duluth
Behavior
University of North Carolina,
Wilmington
University of Northern Iowa
UW-Eau Claire
West Chester University
Western Washington University
Winona State University
Equal Opportunity, Diversity, & Unlawful Harassment
Harassment Resolution Procedures
Discrimination & Harassment Policy (in process)
Discrimination/Harassment
Managers Code of Professional Responsibilities Policy
Defeat Workplace Bullying Statement & Process
Equal Opportunity and Prohibiting Discrimination
Discrimination within Collective Bargaining Agreement
Workplace Violence
4
2014 Anti-Bullying Task Force Report
Define Bullying and a Range of Sanctions
The ABTF created a bullying policy in three general phases:
Phase 1: As committee members researched definitions of bullying, we reviewed definitions
from other institutions (listed above) and selected elements from various definitions that we
believed were well-suited for the culture at UW-L. Once individuals had completed their review
of definitions, we directed this research into a brainstorming process during which we generated
a list of concepts we believed should be included in our definition of bullying. We then broke
into pairs and starting forming new, complete definitions from the deconstructed brainstorm list.
Once pairs had completed their work, we collectively reviewed the sample definitions and
generated a single definition of bullying for UW-L. Thereafter, we also developed a list of
behaviors that bullying might include.
Phase 2: After generating the definition of bullying, we returned to researching bullying policies
to determine how we might connect our definition to formal and informal complaint procedures
and possible sanctions. Based on our individual research, the group generated a list of elements
to include in UW-L’s bullying policy and then compiled a list of consequences should one be
found responsible for bullying. With the assistance of Arain and Holzem, we compared our lists
against existing UW-L policies again (Workplace Violence and the new Sexual
Harassment/Discrimination Policy Arain is drafting).
Phase 3: Johnson constructed an initial draft of a bullying policy modeled after Eastern
Washington University (EWU). EWU served as a model because the policy is clearly structured
and labeled, provided a strong example of reporting lines and consequences, and provided
guidelines for informal and formal procedures. We thought it useful to include informal and
formal procedures because a) bringing a concern to an immediate supervisor/university official
offers the opportunity for more immediate redress and b) should a resolution be unattainable
informally, complainants have an opportunity to have their concerns addressed through a more
formal process. The complainant should have the right to decide whether to pursue an informal
process or move directly to a formal grievance.
Arain and Holzem completed a preliminary review of the draft to ensure that the document
complied with the law and other university policies and procedures. Arain provided a list of
terms related to bullying and a sample complaint form. After revisions were made, committee
members were divided into two groups and offered additional suggestions for revision.
The committee approved the draft included as Appendix A in this report.
Recommendations
Based on our research and information sharing, the ABTF believes that a policy such as the one
presented herein would be useful for our campus community. Based on our work, we also
request that the university administration consider the following recommendations:
5
2014 Anti-Bullying Task Force Report
1. Create training modules that provide education about appropriate workplace behavior.
Possible topics for these trainings might include the following: Bully-proofing the
workplace, creating inclusive work environments, dealing with conflict constructively,
conflict resolution skills, racial harassment, sexual harassment, ableism, heterosexism
and homophobia, and religious discrimination. Providing guidelines for constructive
behavior and educating employees about behaviors to avoid are integral parts of building
supportive, respectful, and safe work environments. Education and training are
preventative measures that should mitigate the need to use complaint procedures.
2. Create a website that serves as a repository of the university’s expectations for
professional behavior and the education we provide (see #1 above). This website should
also include links to the bullying policy as well as other related policies (i.e. Workplace
Violence Policy, etc.).
3. Create a flow chart detailing how the complaint process works. This flowchart should
include informal and formal grievance processes, officials responsible for receiving
complaints, responsibilities of particular offices in the complaint process, and so forth.
4. Consider creating a university-wide code of conduct. As noted in our research, bullying
is often addressed as part of broader university policies, including general codes of
conduct. As noted on page 1 of this report, Milwaukee offers a useful example of a code
of conduct that “ . . . communicates the University's expectations of proper conduct and
the professional conduct the University values. It consists of two sections; a code of
conduct with behavioral standards and expectations, and the UWM Respectful Campus
Standards which prohibits all forms of bullying”
(http://www4.uwm.edu/secu/docs/faculty/2901_Code_of_Co_ct_04_25_13.pdf, p. 1).
Furthermore, conflict experts such as Tina Gunsalus believe that codes of conduct that
assert values and standards for civility offer a positive rhetorical framework for
establishing ground rules for interaction in the workplace. Sample links for civility and
codes of conduct are provided with the bibliography.
6
2014 Anti-Bullying Task Force Report
Bibliography
Bazelon, Emily, Sticks and Stones: Defeating the Culture of Bullying and Rediscovering the
Power of Empathy, 2013.
Gunsalus, C. K., The College Administrator’s Survival Guide, 2006.
Hollis, Leah P., The Bully in the Ivory Tower, 2012.
Namie, Gary and Ruth F. Namie, The Bully-Free Workplace: Stop Jerks, Weasels, and Snakes
from Killing Your Organization, 2011.
Twale, Darla J. and Barbara M. De Luca, Faculty Incivility: The Rise of the Academic Bully
Culture and What to Do About It, 2008.
“Stop workplace bullying: It’s not normal—it’s unreasonable” SHARP: Safety & Health
assessment & Research for Prevention, Washington State Department of Labor & Industries.
Sutton, Robert I., The No Asshole Rule, 2007
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Faculty/Staff Code of Conduct. Faculty Document No.
2901, May 9, 2013.
Workplace Bullying Institute: http://www.workplacebullying.org/individuals/problem/definition/
Sample Documents for Civility and Codes of Conduct
http://civility.missouri.edu/toolbox.php
http://www.oehc.uchc.edu/EAP/FactSheets/Respect%20and%20Civility%20at%20Work.pdf
http://webapps.jhu.edu/jhuniverse/administration/minutes_policies_reports/policies/equity/
http://www.gvsu.edu/cms3/assets/47D8E532-C7FA-EB476B72A09DA450195D/civility_in_the_workplace.pdf
http://www.northwestern.edu/hr/policies-forms/policies-procedures/civility-and-mutual-respect/
http://www.va.gov/ncod/crew.asp
http://www.nursing.ualberta.ca/en/About/Healthy/~/media/nursing/About/HWC/Civility_in_the_
Workplace.pdf
7