1
DOCUMENTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY
Following are the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of January 26, 2015.
Dean P. Neikirk, Secretary
General Faculty and Faculty Council
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR FACULTY COUNCIL MEETING OF
JANUIARY 26, 2015
The fourth regular meeting of the Faculty Council for the academic year 2014-15 was held in the Main
Building, Room 212 on Monday, January 26, 2015, at 3:15, immediately following the annual meeting of the
General Faculty.
ATTENDANCE.
Present: Gayle J. Acton, William Beckner, Lance Bertelsen, Simone A. Browne, Noel B. Busch-Armendariz,
Rebecca M. Callahan, John R. Clarke, Angeline Close Scheinbaum, Patricia L. Clubb, Lydia Maria Contreras,
James H. Cox, Stephanie W. Crouch, Arturo De Lozanne, Catharine H. Echols, Tarek El-Ariss, Brian L. Evans,
Melanie Diane Feinberg, Gregory L. Fenves, Philip M. Gavenda, Sophia Gilmson, Andrea C. Gore, Michelle
Habeck, Barbara J. Harlow, Louis Harrison, Hillary Hart, Jay C. Hartzell, Kevin P. Hegarty, Susan S.
Heinzelman, Coleman Hutchison, Brent L. Iverson, Jody Jensen, Geetika Jerath, Christine L. Julien, Harrison
Keller, Can Kilic, Daniel F. Knopf, Donna Marie Kornhaber, Desiderio Kovar, Judith Langlois, John C.
Lassiter, Naomi E. Lindstrom, Bradford R. Love, Timothy J. Loving, Edward A. MacDuffie, Julia Mickenberg,
Jennifer Moon, Douglas J Morrice, Dean P. Neikirk, Donald P. Newman, Gordon S. Novak, Sheila M.
Olmstead, Gage E. Paine, Keryn E. Pasch, Dennis S. Passovoy, Domino R. Perez, William C. Powers, Jorge A.
Prozzi, Soncia Reagins-Lilly, Cesar A. Salgado, Paul R. Shapiro, Snehal A. Shingavi, Rajashri Srinivasan,
Vincent S. (Shelby) Stanfield, Taylor Strickland, Debra J. Umberson, David A. Vanden Bout, Kirk L Von
Sternberg, Maria D. Wade, Brian Wilkey, Karin G. Wilkins, Hannah C. Wojciehowski, Edward T. Yu.
Absent: Dean J. Almy (excused), Dana L. Cloud (excused), M. Lynn Crismon (excused), Douglas J. Dempster,
Randy L. Diehl, Andrew P. Dillon, Bradley G. Englert, Ward Farnsworth, Thomas W. Gilligan, Vernita Gordon
(excused), Roderick P. Hart, Linda A. Hicke, Steven D. Hoelscher (excused), Hans Hofmann (excused), Robert
L. Hutchings, S. Claiborne Johnston, Manuel Justiz, Susan L. Kearns (excused), Susan R. Klein (excused),
David L. Leal, Alice Chang Liu (excused), Sharon Mosher, Patricia C. Ohlendorf (excused), Glenn A. Peers
(excused), Kornel G. Rady, Kenneth M. Ralls, Wayne A. Rebhorn, Vance A. Roper (excused), Stanley J. Roux,
Yaneli Rubio, Cinthia S. Salinas (excused), Juan M. Sanchez, James C. Spindler (excused), Frederick R.
Steiner, Alexa Stuifbergen, Gregory J. Vincent, Sharon L. Wood, Luis H. Zayas.
Voting Members:
Non-Voting Members:
Total Members:
60 present,
12 present,
72 present,
17 absent,
21 absent,
38 absent,
77
33
110
total.
total.
total.
2
I.
REPORT OF THE SECRETARY.
Secretary Dean Neikirk (professor, electrical and computer engineering) gave a brief summary of his
report (D 12033-12038), and as it has become his tradition, he reported on the memorial resolution
committees appointed and the status of those still pending. Six committees had been appointed since
the last meeting honoring Professors Emeritae Robert Palter (history and philosophy), V. R. Cardozier
(educational administration), Fred Ling (mechanical engineering), Joseph Lagowski (chemistry and
biochemistry), and Eugene A. Ripperger (aerospace engineering), and for Associate Professor Alberta
Castaneda (curriculum and instruction). Five resolutions would soon be forwarded to the president for
signature and would then be posted on the Faculty Council’s website. Seventeen resolutions were still
pending completion by their respective committee.
The secretary reported that effective January 13, 2015, Vice Provost and Director Harrison Keller had
replaced Dr. Jeffrey Treichel as an ex officio member of the Council.
The secretary reported that President Powers had approved the proposal from the Academic Calendar
Committee to extend the Thanksgiving break and that UT System and/or the Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board had granted final approval of eight Undergraduate Catalog proposals. Secretary
Neikirk said that the core curriculum course list, which had been approved by the Faculty Council at its
meeting on December 8, was still pending approval from the president, and the Faculty Education
Benefit proposal, which had been referred to the provost for review and recommendation, was still
outstanding. The secretary announced that at the meeting held just prior to this one, the members of the
General Faculty had approved legislation to change the criteria for calling a special meeting, and they
had endorsed a resolution honoring President Powers.
II.
III.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.
Hearing no changes to the minutes of the regular Faculty Council meeting of December 8, 2014 (D
12039-12069), they were approved as distributed.
COMMUNICATION WITH THE PRESIDENT.
A. Comments by the President—None.
B. Questions to the President.
President Powers addressed three questions that had been submitted by Chair William Beckner
(mathematics) that impact our campus and our community.
1) The Association of American Universities intends to conduct a “sexual assault climate “
survey in late spring. What do you expect that we might learn at UT from this survey?
President Powers said this was “a very serious and important issue on campuses on
sexual assault and safety of our students, and I think we’ll learn a lot as to what is going
on; what the attitudes of students are about their safety.” From information gathered
from the survey, he said the University would be able to craft policies and programs that
would be more effective in addressing the issue.
2) News media have recently emphasized the increasing role of “big money” in college
athletics: the ESPN $7.3 billion contract for 12 years for rights to the College Football
Playoff; the increasing list of college football coaches with annual salaries above $4.5
million; the switch for select coaches from professional teams to college teams as
happened at the University of Michigan. Has money fundamentally changed the nature
of college athletics?
President Powers responded saying “I think the nature of college athletics ought to be on
the model that these are student athletes. It adds to the campus, it adds to our alumni
connections, and it needs to be done with integrity and following the rules and with the
best interests of the student athletes in mind.” He opined that increased revenues per se
shouldn’t alter that. However, he said UT Austin and other universities would be
challenged by the NCAA changes, in particular, by the cost of attendance. He stressed
that compliance would need to be done in a way that bolsters integrity of student athlete
welfare.
3) This fall, Harvard University put in place increases in the cost of employee health
benefits, which were attributed to requirements of the Affordable Care Act. Do you see
3
the possibility that UT System might take similar actions that would impact our health
care costs?
President Powers said that over the last ten years, healthcare costs have had a lot of
drivers leading to increased insurance costs, which was something that the Budget
Council had been discussing—the challenge of keeping the cost of insurance as low as
possible, while also keeping the quality of insurance as high as possible. The president
said the Affordable Care Act (ACA) had changed “the landscape.” He mentioned one
issue that would have a cost and reporting impact for UT Austin; it had to do with how
ACA defines full and part-time employees. He said the ACA requires employers to give
insurance to people that do not currently fit in UT Austin’s definitions, and therefore
would add to the rolls. The president added, “The reporting and the Affordable
Healthcare Act do change the landscape, but, healthcare costs themselves are probably a
bigger driver.”
IV.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR.
Chair Beckner opened his report by giving a few remarks about the recent meeting of the UT System
Faculty Advisory Council (SysFac). At that meeting, it was reported that three finalist had been
selected for consideration for president of UT Austin and that off-campus interviews by faculty,
students, and staff would be conducted prior to March 4, which is the date the single finalist was
expected to be announced. He added that remarks had been made at the meeting about “the strength
and vigor with which our three faculty representatives served on the advisory committee.” He said,
“They were not shy in expressing their thoughts.” Chair Beckner reported the Faculty Council
Executive Committee would have an opportunity to meet with Chancellor McRaven, who was
scheduled to visit UT Austin on March 23 to meet with various groups of faculty, staff, students, and
administrators. Chair Beckner said that at the SysFac meeting, the vice chancellor for medical affairs
had suggested that the development of the two new UT System medical schools and possibly and effort
to provide more resources or support for UT Austin was among Chancellor McRaven’s priorities. It
was also said that the chancellor was interested in how UT System could engage in providing a wider
healthcare service to non-urban areas of Texas.
Finally, as a prelude to his next announcement concerning the SysFac meeting, Chair Beckner
mentioned that under the leadership of Dr. Hillary Hart (distinguished senior lecturer, civil,
architectural, and environmental engineering), the Faculty Rules and Governance Committee had been
working toward making recommendations for changing the criteria used to determine the voting
members of the General Faculty. Related to that, Chair Beckner reported that SysFac had passed a
resolution recommending that
“Each UT System campus establish guidelines and policies that clearly define the
categories of non-tenure track faculty who have instructional responsibilities comparable
to those of tenure track faculty and provide for including them in the faculty governance
system. The ability to vote, serve on representative bodies and be appointed to
appropriate committees. Policies should be adopted to ensure fair representation to
maintain the integrity of the academic community.”
The chair closed his remarks on the matter saying “And as we all know, we are moving from a
community in which nearly all the instructional faculty were tenure or tenure track to incorporating
lecturers, clinical faculty, research faculty in instructional responsibility.”
Chair Beckner asked Executive Vice President and Provost Gregory Fenves a question that stemmed
from policy changes in the College of Natural Sciences, “How does the provost office see the summer
instructional program as related to graduation rates?” Provost Fenves first commented on graduation
rates saying that under President Powers’ leadership, the campus had made “tremendous progress in
improving graduation rates, retention and graduation rates.” In 2014, UT Austin had the highest fouryear graduation rate in the University’s history, 55%. He added that we have also had historical highs
in freshmen and sophomore retention rates. He said this was a result of “the schools and colleges and
the departments working very hard, very diligently to improve graduation rates.” Another statistic
mentioned was that for the first time in the history of the University, “the average semester credit hours
taken by a student is over fourteen hours, a significant change in a fairly short period of time.”
4
Provost Fenves said improving graduation rates was a very complex problem that required an
integrated approach and that the ultimate goal would be to achieve a 70% four-year graduation rate. He
added “And, this is taking place, this goal, achieving this goal is taking place in the context of very
difficult financial times.” With tight funding and an essentially flat budget since 2008, the provost said
it had been a challenge to maintain quality faculty, strong research programs, and to continue
innovations in undergraduate education that helped students matriculate through high quality programs
in a short period of time.
The provost went on to explain that the instructional budget, which is used to fund large parts of the
instructional program, teaching assistants, lecturers, etc., had been very tight, and that he and the deans
had worked hard to find ways to fund enrollment management, semester credit hour generation, and
instructional needs. He said they had looked at the entire academic year—the two long semesters and
the summer—and recognized that typically in the summer there was classroom capacity, students
interested in staying in Austin, and faculty members interested in teaching—largely non-tenure track
faculty members. As a result, several years ago, the provost introduced the Summer Enhancement
Program with the goal of increasing the number of semester credit hours taken over the summer.
However, the program was discontinued after it had been determined that the number of semester
credit hours had actually gone down. Now, they were in the early stages of looking at the allocation
mechanism for the instructional budget integrated over the entire year. And, they were developing a
new and fairly comprehensive instruction resource allocation process that would incentivize semester
credit hour generation. The provost said, “We’re agnostic about what semester it takes place, whether
it’s a long semester or a summer semester.” He clarified that increasing semester credit hour generation
was not the ultimate goal—instead “The ultimate goal is having students retained and graduating on
time. And, to that extent, we are making very good progress.”
V.
REPORT OF THE CHAIR ELECT.
Chair Elect Andrea Gore (pharmacy) also reported on the recent SysFac meeting where it was
announced that Governor Abbott had appointed Sara Martinez Tucker and David Beck to be the new
regents, and that R. Steven Hicks had been reappointed. She said all three appointees are UT Austin
alumni and have strong ties to the University; the chair elect thought this was good news. In addition,
Chair Elect Gore pointed out several issues that were of concern to the advisory council and to UT
System administrators: 1) tuition re-regulation, 2) community colleges offering baccalaureate degrees,
and 3) competency-based education. The chair elect said that she would keep the Faculty Council
informed, but members would probably also read about these topics in the newspaper over the course
of the next year.
Finally, Chair Elect Gore announced that Representative Donna Howard had accepted the invitation to
attend the March 2 joint UT Austin-Texas A&M meeting and that she was still waiting to get
confirmations from a couple of the other legislators that had been invited. Again, she said she would
continue to keep the Council posted as developments for the meeting progressed.
VI.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS—None.
VII.
REPORTS OF THE GENERAL FACULTY, COLLEGES, SCHOOLS, AND COMMITTEES—
None.
VIII.
NEW BUSINESS.
A. Faculty Investment Initiative.
In his opening remarks concerning the Faculty Investment Initiative, Executive Vice President and
Provost Gregory Fenves reiterated that UT Austin had been under a constrained budget since
2008, largely due to the national recession, and for the first time since then, our campus would
have $30 million in new revenue from the Available University Fund (AUF), which had been
allocated by the Board of Regents. To help put this dollar amount into perspective, the provost
explained that the University needed $40 million each year in the academic core budget just to
keep up with cost escalation and inflation.
5
Provost Fenves reminded members of President Powers’ state of the University address in
September when he introduced the concept of the Faculty Investment Initiative, which he said
would address one of the biggest threats to the University—faculty competitiveness. The provost
pointed out that faculty competitiveness involves not just faculty salaries, which are important, but
also other factors such as quality of life and research support. Given that retention had become an
issue in almost every department across the University over the past several years, it was decided
that focus had to be placed on the highest priority, and that was maintaining the competitiveness of
our faculty.
The provost explained that the Faculty Investment Initiative has four components. One component
was to provide central funding for the merit increase pool for faculty and staff. He said this would
be the first central funding for a merit increase since 2008. Up to now, the University either had
not had merit increases or the merit increases had been funded through cuts in the schools and
colleges. At least for the next year, central funding would be used to match half of the 2% merit
pool.
The second component dealt with faculty salaries. The provost said that prior to 2008-09, UT
Austin faculty salaries had been pretty good when tracked against our peers, but since then, we
had fallen dramatically because those peer flagship institutions had focused on faculty
competitiveness causing our campus to really loose ground. He stressed that the salary issues
could not be addressed in one year, so he would be working with the deans and their department
chairs to identify the areas in which faculty competitiveness is of most concern. Provost Fenves
said, “We don’t have enough funding to solve it all at once, but at least we can get a start on it.”
The provost said the third and fourth components were much more focused. Again, he stressed
that the University could not bring every department into preeminence at once, but instead we
would have to start with a small number, and as funding develops in the future, continue with the
process. He said that fifteen or sixteen departments in five colleges had been identified for a very
targeted faculty recruitment process where outstanding mid-career faculty would be hired. The
provost said that in some cases where it would be absolutely essential to move a department
forward or to continue developing preeminence and rankings, i.e. student interest, faculty interest,
research, additional scholarship, there would be cluster hires. He added that he would be working
closely with the deans and department chairs to make sure these recruitments were wisely
invested.
The fourth component was coupled with the faculty recruitment component. Provost Fenves said
the second biggest threat to the University after faculty competitiveness was our low funding for
doctoral students. He said Dean Judy Langlois (Graduate Studies) had been working with the
deans on graduate program reviews as mandated by the Coordinating Board. In every single
review across all departments and in every graduate program, low stipends had been the number
one issue identified by the external reviewers. Therefore, the fourth component of the Faculty
Investment Initiative focused on funding competitive graduate fellowships, which would also
assist in recruiting great faculty. The provost said, “Bringing in great faculty, bringing in great
graduate students, they go together.”
Provost Fenves emphasized that the faculty recruitment in the departments identified for the
investment initiative would not eliminate junior faculty recruitments, and added, “We need a good
mix of junior level recruitments and very targeted senior recruitments as we build departments.”
The goal, he said was to incentivize that type of recruitment and advance departments where we
can. The provost said his hope was that “We can continue this process and spread it broadly across
campus as funding becomes available.”
B. Update on Faculty Gender Equity Council.1
1
For reference see Appendix A for PowerPoint presentation.
6
Professor Janet Dukerich (senior vice provost for faculty affairs) reported on the activities of the
newly reformulated Faculty Gender Equity Council, which was comprised of three standing
committees: Committee on Employment Issues, Committee on Family and Health, and Committee
on Climate. Vice Provost Dukerich explained that the gender council advised the provost on
matters related to gender issues and makes recommendations for changes to ensure and equitable
and inclusive environment for all faculty. She reported that the Committee on Employment Issues
was a currently analyzing ten years worth of salary and endowment data for tenure track male and
female faculty across all ranks by college and department. The committee was also reviewing data,
by gender, on associate professors related to the number of years it took to get tenure, the length of
time at that rank. The Family and Health Issues Committee had been focusing on three tasks: 1)
identifying existing University faculty family and health policies/procedures, 2) conducting
comparative analysis of these policies with major peer schools, and 3) conducting comprehensive
survey of faculty’s attitude towards and use of these family policies and procedures. The Climate
Committee had been working to replicate parts of the 2008 Gender Equity survey focusing on
faculty mentoring, navigating service demands, and using family-friendly policies. They were also
developing a compilation of best practices around campus and would be soliciting input from
faculty at one of the upcoming Campus Conversations.
In terms of next steps for the Gender Equity Council, Vice Provost Dukerich said that she would
be hiring a graduate research assistant to help the committees with the analyses and that she would
be meeting with the chairs of the three standing committees to discuss what she could do to ensure
that she was providing them with what they needed to facilitate their work. Chair Beckner
applauded the vice provost’s efforts in this direction and leadership in assembling the council and
putting it to work.
C. Report from Ad Hoc Committee on Athletics.
By way of introducing the next speaker, Chair Beckner recalled the “interesting exchange with
Athletic Director Steve Patterson when he came to talk to us about the athletic program” and his
offer to meet with a committee to discuss some of the issues that had come up during that
conversation. The Faculty Council Executive Committee formed an ad hoc Committee on
Athletics chaired by Professor Jay Hartzell (finance). The committee members include Professors
Martha Hilley (music), Angeline Close Scheinbaum (advertising), Michael Clement (accounting),
and Louis Harrison (curriculum and instruction). Professor Hartzell said he was appreciative that
the athletic director provided an opportunity for the faculty ad hoc committee to weigh in on the
issues, particularly with regard to the faculty/staff tickets to sporting events. He added that the
committee also thought it would be a great opening to improve communication between faculty
and athletics. Prior to meeting with the athletic directors, Professor Hartzell said the committee did
some market research to find out what kind of deals our peer institutions—in the athletics sense—
were offering. After having met several times with Athletic Directors Steve Patterson and Chris
Plonsky and their senior staff, the committee came away with a better understanding of what
athletics’ concerns are, what their plan is, and together they were able to identify an outstanding
issue. Three broad sets of concerns related 1) to revenues and the impact of recent changes in the
NCAA on the athletic budget, 2) to IRS regulations associated with discounted ticket sales and tax
implications and potential liability for the University, and 3) to the issue of faculty and staff
reselling discounted tickets for a profit. During the course of these meetings, athletics explained
their rules and why they needed to be enforced. For example, one rule is only current employees
are eligible to purchase discounted season tickets. It turns out that there are quite a few faculty
members who have left the University but are still purchasing season tickets; athletics wants to
clean that up. Another rule athletics would like to enforce is limiting the number of tickets per
individual to two; data shows there are some who had purchased as many as fourteen or more
tickets. And last but not least, for obvious reasons, athletics will begin enforcing the rule against
the resale of tickets for profit. Professor Hartzell said his committee and the Faculty Council
Executive Committee were completely supportive of the idea of athletics enforcing their own
rules.
7
Professor Hartzell went on to explain the current ticket structure compared to the proposed ticket
structure. Currently, he said, there are two ways to purchase season tickets. The first pertains to
faculty and staff members who have been season ticket holders for four or more years and have
been grandfathered in making them eligible to purchase season tickets through the Longhorn All
Sports Pass (LASP). “In rough dollar terms, two season football tickets plus this all sports pass is
about $350 for the year.” Then there are those not grandfathered in, who are new to the University
or have held season tickets for three years or less; they purchase their tickets in the 20/20 plan,
which means they get a 20% discount off the face value of the ticket and a 20% discount off the
commensurate donation to the Longhorn Foundation.
Moving forward, Professor Hartzell said athletics is proposing three separate ticket systems. In the
proposed plan for faculty and staff currently under LASP, the discount would go from an 80%
discount to a 20% discount but with no required Longhorn Foundation contribution, which would
increase the bill from $350 to approximately $1000 for a pair of tickets in the prime area of the
football stadium. He further explained that the market value for these tickets including the
foundation contribution is between $5000 and $6000. He remarked that even though the cost
would go up, it would be in compliance with the tax code and therefore, would not pose a liability
to the University. For those who are currently in the 20/20 plan, they would remain in that plan
and there would be no changes. They would be able to buy the tickets at 80% of face plus 80% of
the Foundation contribution. Professor Hartzell said it was worth noting that the Foundation
contribution is dependent upon where your seats are in the stadium. For example, if you purchase
seats in the upper deck of the Frank Erwin Center or the end zone in the football stadium, the
contribution would be zero. The third system proposed would allow faculty and staff members to
purchase an “on-demand” season ticket for $200, which would guarantee them the best remaining
seats for any sporting event; the tickets would be available for pick up one or two days before the
game. He said this option would allow faculty and staff who don’t have the capacity to pay regular
season ticket prices the opportunity to attend sporting events. “So, for as little as $400 per year,
they would get two seats to essentially every event, probably absent the Notre Dame football game
and perhaps the Kansas basketball game.”
Professor Hartzell said there was one piece that was outstanding and related to extending benefits
to emeritus faculty making them eligible for season tickets. The committee was optimistic that
this would be worked out. He then opened the floor to questions.
Professor Close Scheinbaum spoke passionately on the issue of scalping and stressed that this was
a “very big deal.” Aside from it being an issue of ethics and breaking the law, she said reselling
seats also becomes a public relations issue. She encouraged those that might scalp their tickets to
“think about how you are robbing us as the University and the morale.”
D. Campus Sexual Assault: Complexities, Culture & Collective Action.
In the interest of time, Professor Noel Busch-Armendariz (social work and director, Institute on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault) invited Dr. Jennifer Hammat (institutional Title IX
coordinator and assistant vice president for student affairs) to join her to introduce their colleagues
with whom they worked closely. Professor Busch-Armendariz said they would keep their reports
brief and provided handouts, which can be found in appendices B, C, D, E, and F. Dr. Hammat
introduced Caitlin Sulley (social science and humanities research associate), Dr. Soncia ReaginsLilly (senior associate vice president and dean of students), Dr. Latoya Hill (associate dean of
students for student conduct and emergency services), Captain Don Verett (University Police
Department), and Mr. Brett Lohoefener (associate director, Office of Institutional Equity).
Professor Busch-Armendariz said the Institute for Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
(IDVSA) worked in collaboration with the Schools of Social Work, Nursing and Law, and the
Bureau for Business Research looking at interpersonal violence, domestic violence, sexual assault,
and human trafficking, specifically. Dr. Busch-Armendariz asked “Why are we talking about
campus sexual assault now?” She said there had been a lot of energy around the topic, that it was
appearing in every issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education, in the New York Times, and that
8
there had been a renewed action at the federal level, at the state level, and a call to action among
the voices of students. But, she said this was not a new topic, since she had been working on this
issue her whole career. She said that in 2000, IDVSA had conducted studies for the state of Texas
and another one was currently underway and that they would also be involved in the AAU climate
survey in the spring that President Powers had mentioned. She said that for the first time, “these
climate studies will look at not just prevalence, but also response, safety, sort of those broad
brushes.” Dr. Busch-Armendariz talked about the complexities of campus sexual assault—the
myths and realities. Next, she discussed what makes it complicated for campuses. She said that
alcohol is one of the highest risks for college campuses, particularly when it comes to sexual
assault; “It’s one of the things that we should be courageous about when we take on the issue.”
Slide eight of her presentation lists the group of players who are working collaboratively to
address, not just compliance, but also safety, issues of liberty that are being addressed publicly in
the media, issues of due process that happen the criminal justice system, not in the dean of
students disciplinary issue. Slide nine is the campaign that also rolled out across the nation. Dr.
Busch-Armendariz said that in the report, Not Alone, The University of Texas at Austin was one
of the four campuses in the nation named to help solve the problem of sexual assault on campus,
specifically to look at the issues of law enforcement. The director said UT Austin had been
looking at the issues and struggling with
“How we can make our campus safe; how we can work from a trauma informed
perspective; how we can put systems in place; how we can use evidence to inform
those systems about what’s not going right; what resources we need to make those
happen; and how we can hold people accountable?”
Dr. Busch-Armendariz commended the administration for it’s support to those working on the
issue. She then invited Dr. Hammat to report on Title IX: prevention, reporting and response. Dr.
Busch-Armendariz’s full report can be found in appendix C.
E. Title IX: Prevention, Reporting and Response.
Dr. Hammat began by saying that she wanted to give the Council a sense of what was reported this
past fall. From the Student Emergency Services area, fifteen students came in for relationship
violence, thirteen for stalking and harassment, fourteen for sexual harassment, eleven for sexual
misconduct, and there were twenty-four sexual assaults. Of those, she said they extrapolated out
and not all made it to Student Judicial Services (SJS); possible reasons for this would be if they
didn’t know their assailant, or if they simply didn’t have enough information about who assaulted
them. From the Behavior Concerns Advice Line (BCAL), SJS received the following number of
referrals: ten for relationship violence, seven for sexual or stalking harassment, ten for sexual
harassment, nineteen for sexual misconduct, ten for sexual assaults, and four for harassments. Dr.
Hammat said there had been an 80% increase in reporting since the previous fall and that she was
very excited about that because it indicated that students were learning they could go in and
express that something had happened to them. Dr. Hammat told the Council that if a student were
to share that they had been assaulted or were being harassed, the student would need to first
receive a compassionate, empathetic response, and then ideally, they would be given information
about the opportunities and resources available to them so that they can make some informed
decisions.
Dr. Hammat said 97% of the incidents reported by students were relationship violence and
stalking, in comparison, she said that 97% of the incidents reported by staff members related to
sexual harassment—i.e. sexually offensive jokes or comments, hiring practices, or a culture or
climate that is dismissive of men or women. She said there is a smaller percentage of relationship
violence reported by staff as compared to the student population, and conversely, there is a smaller
percentage of sexual harassment being reported by the students.
Dr. Hammat said that in terms of prevention efforts, beginning in the fall, there would be new and
improved training for all new students and employees with ongoing programming and training
initiatives for returning faculty, employees and students, to include different modules for
undergraduate students, graduate students, professional students, student athletes, and international
students. She said the prevention efforts were moving forward to get everybody on the same page.
9
For example, she said three years ago, UT Austin didn’t have a definition of consent in our
policies, but we to now. She said having that would help our students understand that common
language of, “Well do we talk about that?” To put it into perspective, Dr. Hammat cited an
example one of her colleagues liked to use, “Pull out a piece of paper and write down every detail
about your last intimate experience, and then be prepared to read that aloud.” She said that
generally would be a very difficult thing to do. So, she said, when students come forward to report
that something bad happened, in essence, they are telling you about a very intimate thing that
happened to them and that it is impacting them academically; it is impacting their ability to sleep,
to eat, to function, to matriculate. She emphasized that UT Austin wants to make sure that we get
to those students and give them what they need. Dr. Hammat stressed that if someone shares and
confides in you, please let her office know so that they can provide the individual with the
outreach packet. Alternatively, she said they could call the BCAL or Student Emergency Services,
or contact her directly. She said that if a faculty member didn’t want to become involved directly,
an anonymous call could be made through the Compliance Office. She said help victimized
students was a two-step process: 1) When someone shares something, react compassionately; 2)
then make sure they get the resources and help they need. And, she said, if the shared information
is overwhelming to you, “make sure that you take care of yourself as well.”
Dr. Hammat also mentioned that on occasion, students on our campus become pregnant and that
they cannot be discriminated against based on that fact. She said that pregnancies are basically
treated the same as a disability, so she encouraged faculty members to review the handout in
appendix F, and if a pregnancy matter comes up that is unclear, she encouraged faculty members
to call the Compliance Office for clarification.
Dr. Hammat briefly talked about confidential reporting options saying that faculty members would
not have confidential guarantee in their capacity as instructors unless they were licensed mental
health practitioners.
F.
IX.
X.
Proposal to Restructure the Student Life and Activities Committee into Two Separate Committees
with Two Separate Functions (D 11935-11938).
Martha Hilley (committee chair and professor, music) briefly described the rationale for the
proposed split of the Student Life and Activities Committee and then opened the floor for
discussion. Dr. Hart commented that she had received a message from Janet Staiger (professor
emeritus, radio-television-film, and former committee member) saying that the last time the
committee had been reorganized, they had decided not to have a separate student athletics
committee “because they were afraid that it would get axed at some point, because there’s already
athletics committees.” Professor Hilley said that she had seen the message and said that she would
be fine with not splitting the committee, but that representation by the student athletes would have
to be added to the current committee structure. Professor Beckner spoke strongly in favor of the
proposal. Professor Michael Clement (accounting and ex officio committee member) asked that
the proposal be table since he had been made aware that the chairs of the Intercollegiate Athletics
Councils and the athletic directors had concerns with the proposal and wished to discuss them with
the committee. Dr. Hart asked if athletics would be able to meet relatively quickly so that the
proposal could be considered at the March 9 Faculty Council meeting. Professor Clement said that
was possible. Chair Beckner tabled the proposal asking the committee and athletics to take it up
“as expeditiously as possible.”
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND COMMENTS.
A. The next Faculty Council meeting will be February 16 at 2:15 in Main 212.
B. Nominations for General Faculty Standing Committees can be submitted online now through
February 13 <https://utdirect.utexas.edu/afgf/sc_list.WBX>.
C. The nomination phase for at-large representatives to the Faculty Council will open on February
16; the final voting phase will open on March 23.
D. The joint meeting with Texas A&M will be held March 2 in the Texas Union Ballroom.
QUESTIONS TO THE CHAIR—None.
10
XI.
ADJOURNMENT.
The meeting adjourned at 4:43 PM.
Distributed through the Faculty Council website (http://www.utexas.edu/faculty/council/) on February xx, 2015.
11
Appendix A
12
13
14
Appendix B
15
16
Slide 5
Slide 6
17
Slide Seven
Slide Eight
18
Slide Nine
19
Appendix C
Campus Sexual Violence: Complexities, Culture & Collective Action
Presentation to Faculty Council
January 26, 2015
Noël Busch-Armendariz, PhD, LMSW, MPA
School of Social Work
Professor and Associate Dean for Research
Director, Institute on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault (IDVSA)
Sexual assault is a complex and serious issue. Victims/survivors who experience sexual assault on college
campuses face many of the same issues and obstacles facing other victims of sexual assault. However, collegeaged victims have a unique set of concerns that should to be considered to provide a response that is effective
and helpful. I have outlined some of the overlapping and specific issues below. This outline’s brevity is not
meant to cut short a thorough conversation about sexual assault on college campuses; exemplary services are
built on a framework that encourages an axiom of trust building, dialog, evidence, competence, and thoughtful
action.
Guiding Queries
What is the extent of the problem? What does it cost?
What are the contributing factors to low reporting? Why are convictions low?
What are the problems facing sexual assault survivors on college campuses and universities addressing this
issue?
What are possible next steps?
1.
Myths about this crime prevail Research indicates that myths and misconceptions frame many social
problems, including sexual assault (O’Neil & Morgan, 2010). There is a general lack of understanding
about the crime of sexual assault among the public, and research indicates that myths about this crime
continue to prevail despite our work over the last three decades to dispel such myths.
2.
Prevalence & Rates Generally three national studies inform our knowledge about prevalence and rates
about sexual assault of college students: The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the National
Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), and the Campus Sexual Assault Study (CSA).
These surveys differ on important methodological structures and therefore yield different findings. IDVSA
conducts the adult victimization prevalence study for the State of Texas (2000; forthcoming summer 2015)
although it does not target the college student experience specifically.
Study
NCVS, 2014
Findings
7.6 per 1,000
6.1 per 1,000
NISVS, 2010
37.4%
2%
CSA, 2007
14%
IDVSA, 2000;
summer 2015
20%
5%
Details
nonstudents
college students
18 – 24 years old
lifetime (age of first completed)
unwanted sexual contact, annual
18 – 24 years old females
since entering college
female students 18 – 25 years old
adult women lifetime
adult men lifetime
Campus climate studies are in the planning process (e.g. AAU) or being piloted (e.g. Rutgers University
surveys); several universities have already conducted their own. The methods will be specific to college
students and campus community and questions will go beyond prevalence questions.
3.
Costs Sexual assaults cost approximately $27 million per year for adult victims in Texas ($15,000 $50,000 per victim (Busch, Camp, & Kellison, 2006) in medical services, lost work productivity, and
20
mental healthcare. Another study in 2006 estimated the cost of each sexual assault in Michigan to be
$108,447 (Post, Mezey, Maxwell, Wilber, 2002). A national study found that costs of victimization
including criminal justice costs, lost productivity, and victim costs are around $151,000 per sexual assault
victim per year, leaving aside significant additional costs like “willingness to pay” cost estimates to prevent
sexual assault, which could push the total for sexual assault up to $448,000 per incidence (DeLisi, 2010).
 A conservative estimate of $100,000 per incidence of adult sexual assaults in Texas ($80,000
annually) yields a cost to victims and society of $8 billion each year, which would result in a “rape
tax” of about $319 a year for each Texas resident (Busch-Armendariz, et al., 2011). Still, these
costs are insignificant compared to a victim’s pain and suffering and the losses she or he
experiences.
4.
Understanding Underreporting The vast majority of sexual assault cases go unreported (Busch, et al.,
2003; Straight, 2007; The National Center on Women and Policing, 2001). In Texas, for example, it is
estimated that only 18% of sexual assaults are reported to law enforcement agencies (Busch-Armendariz, et
al., 2011; Busch, et al., 2003). Other national estimates range from 16 – 36% (Patterson & Campbell,
2010).
 College Students A 2014 Bureau of Justice Statistics study analyzed crime data from 1995 - 2013
and concludes that college student as compared to nonstudents (80% versus 67% respectively)
were more less likely to report to law enforcement (US Department of Justice, 2014).
 General Factors about Reporting & Increasing Reporting. Research indicates that it is very
difficult for victims to report this crime because they often encounter insensitivity, doubt about the
veracity of their story, and blame on the part of professionals (Aherns, 2006; Patterson &
Campbell, 2010; Campbell, 2008).
 Other factors, such as not wanting other people to know about the rape, believing that evidence
about the crime is insufficient, feeling uncertain about how to report the crime or even if a crime
has occurred, and fear of retribution by the offender (Kilpatrick, et al., 2007), all contribute to
delayed reporting and/ or failing to report the crime at all.
 Research also indicates that victims who initially delay but later report the crime typically seek
informal advice from social support (Patterson & Campbell, 2010) and that reporting often is
initiated or motivated once a victim considers other factors (e.g., that the offender may rape others,
has identified the incident as a rape, has a medical concern, and/or after consultation with a friend
who encourages the victim to report) (Patterson & Campbell, 2010).
5.
Relationship of the Offender to the Victim Most victims of sexual assault are assaulted by someone that is
related or known to them (Busch-Armendariz, et al., 2011; Busch, et al., 2003; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000;
Kilpatrick, et al., 2007).
 For women victims, 58% report the perpetrator was known to them, 37% was a relative and 14%
were spouses or ex-spouses [this accounts for multiple victimizations] (Busch, et al., 2003). Most
sexual assaults occur in locations that are familiar to the victim or perpetrator. (For women
victims, 35% in their home/yard; 17% in perpetrator’s home/yard) (Busch, DiNitto, Bell, &
Bohman, 2010; Busch, DiNitto, Bell, Vohra-Gupta, & Rhodes, 2011; Busch, et al., 2003; Busch,
et al., 2003).
 College Students 80% of rape and sexual assault victimizations college students and nonstudents
knew their offenders (BJS, 2014).
 Martin and Bachman (1998) have suggested that rapes are most affected by the closeness of the
relationship between the victim and the perpetrator and less affected by physical resistance by the
victim. Victims may face increased difficulties formally reporting when the offender is someone
known or related to them.
6.
Trauma It is widely concluded by social scientists that many sexual assault victims suffer a specific array
of effects resulting from the assault, including sexually transmitted infections and clinically diagnosable
illnesses such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, substance abuse, major depression, and other mental
health issues (Chen, 2010; Kilpatrick, et al., 2007; Center for Disease Control, 2009; Tjaden & Thoennes,
2006). It is puzzling because despite the demonstrated serious potential impact on survivors’ short-term
and long-term physical and mental well-being, victims of sexual assault are less likely to report incidents
(Patterson & Campbell, 2010) to law enforcement than other victims of violent crimes (Chen, 2010). This
21
information is in no way meant to victim-blame; on the contrary, it is meant to assist professionals in
designing reporting programs that are victim behavior-informed.
7.
Understanding Connection to Alcohol Sexual violence, including rape and assault, more than many other
crimes, is connected with alcohol consumption for both victims and perpetrators (Abbey, et al., 2007;
Abbey, et al., 2001; Abbey, et al., 2003; Benson, Gohm, & Gross, 2007; Bernat, Calhoun, & Stolp, 1998;
Carr & VanDeusen, 2004; Clum, Nishith, & Calhoun, 2002; Felson & Burchfield, 2004; Galvani, 2004;
Gross, Winslett, Roberts, & Gohm, 2006; Norris, Davis, George, Martell, & Heiman, 2002; Parks & Miller,
1997; Testa, 2004; Ullman, Karabatsos, & Koss, 1999; & Zawacki, Abbey, Buck, McAuslan, & ClintonSherrod, 2003). Kilpatrick, et al. (2007) concluded that the highest sexual assault risk situation for college
women is after they have become voluntarily intoxicated. Brecklin & Ullman (2002) found that 64% of
male offenders used alcohol and or drugs prior offending and in 72-81% of cases in which a male rapes a
female college student, the female victim is intoxicated (Lisak & Miller, 2002; Mohler-Kuo, et al., 2004).
8.
Prosecution Rates Sexual assault is a complex crime and a number of factors compound its full
adjudication in the criminal justice system. A BJS (2013) report found that 12% of sexual assault crimes
led to arrest. At the National SART conference (2012) in Austin, Texas, it was reported that nationally
fewer than 40% of sexual assault cases investigated by law enforcement agencies are presented to
prosecutors.
 Consequently, most perpetrators of sexual assault are not held legally accountable for their crimes.
Moreover, the social hurdles that police investigators, grand juries, prosecutors, and juries face in
bringing perpetrators to justice are numerous and well documented, from “blame the victim”
attitudes among the public and law enforcement, to the difficulty among victims to bring
themselves to prosecute a family member, friend, or acquaintance for sexual assault.
Specific Issues and Unique Challenges to Addressing Sexual Assault on College Campuses
1.
Complexity of Dual Reporting, Liberties, Due Process, and Evolving Policies The rate of sexual assault on
campuses is a great concern and yet at the same time, we know that most college students will never use
their school’s sexual assault victim services and/or report the sexual assault. Therefore, providing student
victims with accurate information regarding the reporting system is challenging. Students may use their
university or college’s student disciplinary system and or a criminal justice system to report. As with other
offenses there is a balance between pursuit of justice for victims and the principle of Due Process for
alleged offenders and offender accountability. Sexual assault crimes are thorny and complex and this seems
particularly true in a university setting with dual (or multiple) reporting systems where university actors
may be under or untrained in all these proceedings in the context of evolving policy compliance.
2.
Fear about Autonomy & Confidentiality College-aged victims may be worried about their parents and
others finding out about the sexual assault. Specifically, college students may be particularly worried that
parents will react to the disclosure in ways that will result in the students’ losing their relatively newly
gained independence and autonomy.
3.
Alcohol Consumption and Underage Alcohol Consumption College students who consumed alcohol before
(or during) the sexual assault may minimize the sexual assault committed against them because of their
alcohol consumption (either because they may have consumed a lot of alcohol or engaged in underage
drinking). It is difficult to help victims understand that regardless of age and/or alcohol consumption,
sexual assault is a serious crime and needs to be reported.
4.
Perception of Lack of Accountability for Offenders There are perceptions among some students that
universities may cover up allegations of sexual assault to protect the institution’s reputation and/or may not
hold offenders fully accountable.
5.
Shared Community and Living Space Victims may face their offenders on a regular basis in classes, dorms,
organizational meetings, etc. after the assaults or the adjudication process.
22
6.
Student retention and graduation. After being victimized students may face challenges in pursuit of their
degree programs.
Suggestions for Solutions & Collective Action at UT Austin
1.
Sexual assault is a complex social problem that requires further exploration from multiple perspectives,
particularly of victims and the professionals who assist them. On college campuses it is important that
university administrators, staff, faculty, and students are all involved.
2.
University actors need support and resources dedicated to the implementation of disciplinary processes,
police investigations, and an advanced understanding of Title IX as it relates to sexual violence. There are
many unintended consequences that will result for alleged offenders (those guilty and not guilty),
universities and the process and outcomes have very real possibilities to re-traumatize victims.
3.
Conviction Rates and Campuses Based on the foregoing, it is doubtful that that colleges and universities are
likely to move the needle on the issue of conviction rates. Where appropriate, university actors can and
should participate in a community Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) and, in that way, become
connected with the district attorney and local law enforcement. At the same time, university police can
engage with a community SART to establish and maintain lines of communication between professionals
responding to sexual assault crimes moving through the criminal justice system. Universities may also help
district attorneys understand the role alcohol, and complex consent issues often play in college sexual
assault crimes.
4.
Law enforcement Campus police, like all police, need more training regarding how to respond to reports of
sexual assault crimes (e.g., the crime itself, how to collect forensic evidence, victim-centered, prosecutorial
case preparation, etc.). IDVSA is working in partnership with key stakeholders on a Blueprint for Texas for
College Police in Responding to Sexual Assault Crimes to be produced in August 2015. This product is our
contribution to the White House’s Not Alone campaign.
5.
Alcohol Develop a think tank to address the intersectionality of alcohol and sexual assault among collegeage students. University codes of conduct often address alcohol consumption and underage drinking. Still,
these policies are not enough mostly because we know that sexual assaults are occurring off campus and at
events sponsored by student organizations where university jurisdiction is problematic. Our conversations
should take on these bold realities and work toward real solutions.
6.
Collective Action Given the persistent prevalence and rates of sexual violence this country as a whole, is
failing to address the root causes of sexual violence. We are concluding a four-year National Institute of
Justice funded research project in Houston on untested sexual assault kits (often referred to as
‘backlogged’) and the findings lead me to conclude that no single entity can prevent sexual violence.
Because in fact, we do not yet know how to prevent it. However, if we are serious about reducing it and
eventually ending it, we must develop a comprehensive plan, and colleges and universities have a role.
Personal and professional connections make a difference in achieving (and maintaining) success. Faculty
support and involvement will contribute to our continued work and success to address this issue at UTAustin.
7.
Be Courageous and Revolutionary to broaden the understanding of this crime and decrease its stigma. This
may include prevention strategies that address the root causes of sexual assault, the role of alcohol in sexual
assaults, organizational structures that contribute to its facilitation, programs to reduce it, and policies that
will help to minimize its occurrence. We should strive for a No Rape campus while recognizing that
achieving this goal will take our most creative and dedicated minds willing to be courageous and bold.
Compliance, safety, rights and liberties must coexist at the 40 Acres as a model for the nation.
23
References
Abbey, A., McAuslan, P., Zawacki, T., Clinton, A.M., & Buck, P.O. (2001). Attitudinal, experiential &
situational predictors of sexual assault perpetration. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 16, 784-807.
Abbey, A., Clinton-Sherrod, A.M., McAuslan, P., Zawacki, T., & Buck, P.O. (2003). The relationship between
the quantity of alcohol consumed and the severity of sexual assaults committed by college men.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(7), 813-833.
Abbey, A. Parkhill, M.R., Clinton-Sherrod, A.M., & Zawacki, T. (2007). A comparison of men who committed
different types of sexual assault in a community sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(12),
1567-1580.
Aherns, C. E. (2006). Being silenced: The impact of negative social reaction on the disclosure of rape.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 38:3-4.
Benson, B.J., Gohm, C.L., & Gross, A.M. (2007). College women and sexual assault: The role of sex-related
alcohol expectancies. Journal of Family Violence, 22, 341-351.
Bernat, J.A., Calhoun, K.S., & Stolp, S. (1998) Sexually aggressive men's responses to a date rape analogue:
Alcohol as a disinhibiting cue. The Journal of Sex Research , 35(4), 341-348.
Busch-Armendariz, N., Bell, H., DiNitto, D., and Neff, (2003). A health survey of Texans: A focus on sexual
assault. Institute on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, The University of Texas at Austin: Austin,
Texas.
Busch, N., Camp, T., and Kellison, B. (2006). “The Texas rape tax: Annual and lifetime costs of sexual
assault.” Texas Association of Sexual Assault.
Busch-Armendariz, N. B., DiNitto, D.M., Bell, H., Bohman, T. (September 2010). Sexual assault perpetrators’
alcohol and drug use: The likelihood of concurrent violence and post-sexual assault outcomes for
women victims. Psychoactive Drugs, 42(3), 393-399.
Busch-Armendariz, N.B., DiNitto, D., Bell, H., Vohra-Gupta, S., & Rhodes, D. (2011). The prevalence of
sexual assault: evidence for social work education and practice, Social Work Review, 1, 59-75.
Carr, J.L., & VanDeusen, K.M. (2004). Risk factors for male sexual aggression on college campuses. Journal of
Family Violence, 19(5), 279-289.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention (2009). Sexual violence consequences.
Retrieved from: www/cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/sexualviolence/consequences.html.
Chen, Y. (2010). Women’s reporting of sexual and physical assaults to police in the National Violence Against
Women Survey. Violence Against Women, 16:3.
Campbell, R. (2008). The psychological impact of rape victims’ experience with the legal, medical, and mental
health systems. American Psychologist, 702-717.
Clum, G.A., Nishith, P., & Calhoun, K.S. (2002). A preliminary investigation of alcohol use during trauma and
peritraumatic reactions in female sexual assault victims. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15(4), 321-328.
DeLisi, M. (2010). Murder by numbers: Monetary costs imposed by a sample of homicide offenders. Journal of
Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 21(4), 506.
Felson, R.B., & Burchfield, K.B. (2004). Alcohol and the risk of physical and sexual assault victimization.
Criminology, 42(4), 837-859.
Galvani, S. (2004). Responsible disinhibition: Alcohol, men and violence to women. Addiction Research and
Theory, 12(4), 357-371.
Gross, A.M., Winslett, A., Roberts, M., & Gohm, C.L. (2006). An examination of sexual violence against
collage women. Violence Against Women, 12(3), 288-300.
Kilpatrick, D. G., Resnick, H., Ruggiero, K., Conoscenti, L. M., and McCauley, J. (2007). Drug-facilitated,
incapacitated and forcible rape: A national study. Final Report. National Institute of Justice: 2007.
Marchell, T., & Cummings, N. (2001). Alcohol and sexual violence among college students. In A Ottens &
Hotelling (Eds.). Sexual violence on campus. Springer: New York, NY.
Martin, S. E., & Bachman, R. (1998). The contribution of alcohol to the likelihood of completion and severity
of injury in rape incidents. Violence Against Women, 4(6), 694-712.
24
Norris, J., Davis, K.C., George, W.H., Martell, J., & Heiman, J.R.(2002). Alcohol's direct and indirect effects
on men's self-reported sexual aggression likelihood. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 688-695.
O’Neil, M., & Morgan, P. (2010). American perceptions of sexual violence. FrameWorks Institute:
Washington, DC.
Parks, K.A., & Miller, B.A. (1997). Bar victimization of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 509-525.
Patterson, D., & Campbell, R. (2010). Why rape survivors participate in the criminal justice system. Journal of
Community Psychology, 38 (2), 191-205.
Post, L., Mezey, C., Maxwell, C., & Wilber, W. (2002). The rape tax: Tangible and intangible costs of sexual
assault. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 773.
Potter, S. (2008). Incorporating evaluation into media campaigns design. Retrieved from www.vawnet.org
Straight, J. D., and Heaton, P. C. (2007). Emergency department care for victims of sexual offense. American
Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 64:17.
Testa, M. (2004). The role of substance use in male-to-female physical and sexual violence. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1494-1505.
The National Center for Women and Policing (2001). Successfully investigating acquaintance sexual assault: A
national training manual for law enforcement. National Center for Women and Policing: Arlington,
VA.
Tjaden, P. and Thoennes, N. (2000). Full report of the prevalence, incidence, and consequences of violence
against women. Retrieved June 21, 2011 at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf.
Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (2006). Extent, nature and consequences of rape victimization: Findings from the
national violence against women survey. National Institute of Justice.
Ullman, S.E., Karabatsos, G., & Koss, M.P.(1999). Alcohol and sexual assault in a national sample of college
women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(6), 603-625.
Zawacki, T., Abbey, A., Buck, P.O., McAuslan, P., & Clinton-Sherrod, A.M. (2003). Perpetrators of alcoholinvolved sexual assaults: How do they differ from other sexual assault perpetrators and non
perpetrators? Aggressive Behavior, 29, 366-380.
25
Appendix D
Faculty Quick Reference Guide
Sexual Harassment/Misconduct (Title IX)
Ways to Report Sexual Misconduct and Sexual Harassment:
Internal contacts (internal to The University of Texas at Austin)
–
Institutional Title IX Coordinator, Dr. Jennifer Hammat, UTA 2.206, 1616 Guadalupe Street
– Phone: 512-232-3992/ 512-232-7055
Email: j.hammat@austin.utexas.edu
– Website: http://www.utexas.edu/student-affairs/policies/title-ix
–
Office of Institutional Equity (for faculty/staff and visitors), Travis Gill, NOA 4.302, 101 East 27th Street
– Phone: 512-471-1849
Email: equity@utexas.edu
– Website: www.utexas.edu/equity
–
Student Emergency Services (for students), Krista Anderson, SSB 4.104, 100 West Dean Keaton
– Phone: 512-471-5017
Email: studentemergency@austin.utexas.edu
– Website: deanofstudents.utexas.edu/emergency
–
The Compliance and Ethics Hotline (reporting party wishes to remain anonymous)
– Phone: 877-507-7321
Website: https://www.reportlineweb.com/utaustin
External contacts (outside of The University of Texas at Austin)
–
U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights
– Phone: 800-421-3481
Email: ocr@ed.gov
– Website: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/tix_dis.html
Resources:
University Police Department (UTPD): 512-471-4441, to report an incident, with or without filing charges
Behavior Concerns Advice Line (BCAL): 512-232-5050 for concerns about any member of our community
UT Austin Title IX Resource Guide: http://www.utexas.edu/student-affairs/policies/title-ix a comprehensive list of
university and community resources for those who have experienced these issues
Employees & Visitors
Office of Institutional Equity (OIE): 512-471-1849 to report employee issues for discipline
*Employees Assistance Program (EAP): 512-471-3366 counseling support services for employees
Students
Student Emergency Services (SES): 512-471-5017 emergency funds, classroom accommodations, etc.
Student Judicial Services (SJS): 512-471-2841 to report student-on-student issues for discipline
Voices Against Violence (VAV): 512-471-3515 part of CMHC, operates the Survivors Emergency Fund
*Counseling and Mental Health Center (CMHC): 512-471-3515 counseling support services for students
*CMHC Crisis Line: 512-471-2255 counseling support services for students available 24/7
*University Health Services (UHS): 512-471-4955 for STI and pregnancy testing, x-rays, medical exams
*CONFIDENTIAL REPORTING OPTION
University of Texas at Austin
University Compliance Services 01/2015
Page | 1
26
Definitions:
Sex Discrimination Sex discrimination including sexual harassment, is conduct directed at a specific individual or
group of identifiable individuals that subjects the individual or group to treatment that adversely affects the individual or
group’s employment or education on account of sex or gender (Appendix D, 2014-15 General Information Catalog).
Sexual Harassment Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, sexual violence, and physical conduct
(touching), verbal conduct (what someone says), or non-verbal conduct (what someone does), of a sexual nature. It can
also include bullying or intimidation of a sexual nature or offensive remarks about a person’s sex. Anyone can be the
target of sexual harassment (Complete definition in Appendix D of the 2014-15 General Information Catalog).
Sexual Misconduct Behavior or conduct of a sexual nature that is unprofessional and/or inappropriate for the
workplace (Complete definition in Appendix E of the 2014-15 General Information Catalog).
Stalking Stalking is defined as repeated conduct directed specifically at another person that reasonably causes that
person, or a member of that person’s family or household, to fear for his or her safety or that person’s property; such
conduct may include but it not limited to repeated, close physical or visual contact, watching, following, and making
direct or implied threats by phone calls, e-mail messages, letters or messages. (Chapter 11, Appendix C, 2014-15 General
Information Catalog).
Dating Violence Dating violence is defined as violence committed by a person who is or has been in a social
relationship of a romantic or intimate nature with the victim. The existence of such a relationship would be determined
based on: (A) the reporting party’s statement; and (B) with consideration of (i) the length of the relationship; (ii) the type
of relationship, and; (iii) the frequency of interaction between the persons involved in the relationship.
Note: dating violence does not include acts covered under the definition of domestic violence (Clery Definition).
Domestic Violence Is felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse of the
victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has
cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, by a person similarly situated to a spouse of the victim under the domestic or
family violence laws of the jurisdiction receiving grant monies, or by any other person against an adult or youth victim
who is protected from that person's acts under the domestic or family violence laws of the jurisdiction (Clery Definition).
Reasonable Person Standard A “reasonable person” is not the same thing as an “average person” or a “typical
person.” It is a general idea of how a community member would or should behave in a certain situation. The standard
takes into consideration context and other circumstances that are specific to the case.
Mandatory Reporter As a faculty member, you are required to report all instances of sexual harassment or sex
discrimination to the University, when 1) traveling with students (domestically or abroad) 2) if you supervise any
students, 3) are an academic advisor, 4) advise any student organization, 5) manage a student lab, or 6) if you have an
administrative role that students might reasonably perceive they have reported to a university official.
Retaliation Prohibited A student, faculty member, or staff member who retaliates in any way against an individual
who has brought a complaint pursuant to university policy or participated in good faith in an investigation of such a
complaint, is subject to disciplinary action, up to and including dismissal from the University. (Appendix D, 2014-15
General Information Catalog).
Evidence Preservation In instances of sexual violence, the preservation of evidence may be critical to an investigation
should you wish to proceed with a criminal, civil or university investigation, now or in the future. (Examples of evidence
include but are not limited to: not showering, not washing related clothes or linens, pictures, text messages, and social
media communications between you and the alleged or related to the incident.)
Questions or Concerns? Contact Dr. Jennifer Hammat, Institutional Title IX and Clery Coordinator
512-232-3992, j.hammat@austin.utexas.edu, UTA suite 2.206, 1616 Guadalupe Street
University of Texas at Austin
University Compliance Services 01/2015
Page | 2
27
Appendix E
28
Appendix F
29