UCLA Academic Senate
Committee on Emeriti Affairs
October 14, 2015
Professor Leo Estrada
Chair, UCLA Academic Senate
Re: Committee on Emeriti Affairs’ Response to Proposed Revisions on Sexual Harassment
and Sexual Violence
Dear Professor Estrada,
On behalf of the 2015-2016 Committee on Emeriti Affairs, I am writing to provide you with the
membership’s feedback concerning the Revised Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and
Sexual Harassment. While the committee finds the current draft an improvement, we highlight
several issues for further clarification.
The committee recognizes that any faculty member, including emeriti faculty, include those
serving in a supervisorial role is subject to the reporting requirements. The current policy states
specifically that any employee who receives information about possible sexual violence or sexual
harassment involving undergraduate students must promptly notify the Title IX officer. However,
the policy fails to clearly mention reporting violations against graduate students, faculty members
and staff. Members were unclear in which situations are recalled faculty mandated to report a
violation of this policy.
There have also been serious concerns raised about the mandatory comprehensive training and
education plans to inform faculty, including emeriti who are largely no longer involved with the
University, about these issues. Most emeriti are unlikely to be affected by these procedures.
However, those emeriti who are recalled to service will be affected by whatever training takes
place.
Some members also expressed concern that under some circumstances, an accused person, who
may have emeritus status, might be unable under the proposed rules to have counsel or an adviser
of some sort present at a hearing. Thus, due process might not be afforded.
Sincerely,
Anna Taylor
Chair, Committee on Emeriti Affairs
cc: Members of the Committee on Emeriti Affairs
Linda Mohr, CAO, Academic Senate
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant, Academic Senate
Annie Speights, Committee Analyst, Committee on Emeriti Affairs
UCLA Academic Senate
Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity
October 14, 2015
Professor Leo Estrada
Chair, UCLA Academic Senate
Re: Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity’s Response to Propose Revised
Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment
Dear Professor Estrada,
On behalf of the 2015-2016 Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity we thank
you for the opportunity to comment on the Revised Presidential Policy on Sexual
Violence and Sexual Harassment. The committee finds the current draft an improvement
and supports the revisions in the redrafted policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual
Harassment.
Sincerely,
Russell Thornton,
Chair, Committee on Diversity and Equality Opportunity
cc: Members of the Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity
Linda Mohr, CAO, Academic Senate
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant, Academic Senate
Annie Speights, Committee Analyst, Committee on Diversity and Equal Opportunity
1
UCLA Academic Senate
Faculty Welfare Committee
October 14, 2015
Professor Leo Estrada
Chair, UCLA Academic Senate
Re: Faculty Welfare’s Committee’s Response to Proposed Revisions to Presidential Policy
on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment
Dear Professor Estrada,
The Faculty Welfare Committee discussed this redrafted version of the Presidential Policy
on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment at our October 13th meeting. The committee
would like to highlight a few issues that require clarification.
Section II.C.6 of the proposed policy states that any university employee who is not a
confidential resource who receives information about possible sexual violence or sexual
harassment involving an undergraduate student must promptly report this matter to the
Title IX Officer or designee. The designation ‘any university employee’ clearly includes UC
faculty. However, the reporting obligation in cases involving classes other than
undergraduates is imposed more narrowly on campus police, human resources staff,
academic personnel office staff, Title IX professionals, and managers and supervisors.
Deans, Department Chairs, and Directors of Organized Research Units are explicitly listed as
being included in the category of “managers and supervisors.” Other UC faculty members
are not explicitly mentioned, yet faculty members are classified as supervisors under other
University policies. Members of the committee were unclear as to whether faculty members
are mandated reporters in cases involving individuals who are not undergraduates.
Clarifying language is needed within this section.
Members identified a similar lack of clarity in section V.A.2b, in the following text: “The
University has jurisdiction over alleged violations of this Policy by students, staff and other
academic appointees….” We presume that “other academic appointees” is intended to
include faculty, but this should be clarified.
Members were also concerned with a lack of clarity regarding the consequences of failure to
report, as discussed in Section IV.F. What are the specific consequences when faculty
members fail to report as described in the policy? The list of possible consequences is
broad, ranging from “informal counseling” to “termination.” The unclear language in this
subsection could be a source of confusion when questions arise concerning an individual’s
failure to report.
Finally, the issue of confidentiality in Section III.C.3 provides that efforts will be made to
redact written reports and to protect the privacy of individuals. The policy should obligate
the University to keep a report confidential as permitted by law. Members would like to see
language that will add more protection to the disclosure of information following an
investigation.
On behalf of the Committee on Faculty Welfare, I thank you for the opportunity to comment
on the Revised Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment. Please do not
hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. I can be reached at 310-206-7290, or
by email to msweeney@soc.ucla.edu. Our Committee Analyst, Annie Speights, is also
available to assist. She can be reached at 310-825-3853 or by email to
aspeights@senate.ucla.edu.
Sincerely,
Megan Sweeney
Chair, Committee on Faculty Welfare
cc: Members of the Committee on Faculty Welfare
Linda Mohr, CAO, Academic Senate
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant, Academic Senate
Annie Speights, Committee Analyst, Committee on Faculty Welfare
UCLA Academic Senate
Council on Planning and Budget
October 19, 2015
Leobardo Estrada
Chair, UCLA Academic Senate
Re: Second Review: Proposed Revisions to Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual
Harassment
Dear Professor Estrada,
The Council on Planning and Budget (CPB) discussed the Second Review to the Proposed Revised Policy
on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment, at its meeting on October 5 and reviewed it once again on
October 19, 2015. The policy is timely and critical and raises issues of great importance that pertain to
employees, faculty, and students in all UC campuses and locations.
The CPB members presented several concerns related to whether or not the document sufficiently
addresses critical issues.
The first consideration is the distinction that must be made between sexual harassment and sexual
violence. By its very title, the document appears to confound both issues, which are in fact distinct and
must be dealt with as such. Sexual harassment, along with other forms of harassment, already are
covered by numerous policies and awareness programs. Sexual violence also is already covered by
existing laws. It is not always clear how the new policy is meant to supersede or modify existing UC
policies. For example, existing training programs already stress the illegality of sexual harassment.
Secondly, with regards to training, members of the CPB also queried how the new policy would be
incorporated into the existing numerous training modules that already exist for UC employees. Federal
and California State legislation already mandate completion of a fixed number of hours of training, and
specifies the content and depth of this training. By contrast, the present document is unclear about
training requirements although training should be a central component of implementing any new
policies. Additionally, there should be a mention of the resources made available to those going
through a traumatic situation.
A third issue that is the relatively narrow scope of the document as a focus on violence against women.
Members noted the importance of recognizing that sexual harassment and sexual violence is not only a
women's issue and that violence and harassment also adversely affect all members of society including
men and the LGBT community. An expansion of the document to explicitly address increasingly diverse
and varied gender identities is recommended.
A fourth issue is that sexual harassment is defined in the document as a circumstance that is
overwhelming and that prevents normal functioning in a work environment (for employees) and
educational environments (for students). The phenomenon of microaggression as continual, small-scale
undermining of authority or competence based on gender is already addressed at the UC level, yet
CPB to EB
re: Presidential Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence
Page 2 of 2
seems to be missing from this document (cf. http://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnelprograms/_files/seminars/Tool_Recognizing_Microaggressions.pdf).
A fifth issue is that the current document appears to focus primarily on students, whereas a more
comprehensive document should also specifically mention staff, postdoctoral researchers, and faculty.
Medical and Dentistry school residents are at particular risk of bullying, including improper sexual
advances and indiscretions, on the part of the senior residents and the clinical group director. And, as
postdocs they are in a limbo situation, status-wise, and thus particularly exposed. Indeed, there are
residents (or equivalent young clinical professionals in training) in the Schools of Nursing and Public
Health as well, in Clinical Psychology, etc. – Residents are not postdocs per se, who are young research
professionals in training - although they face the same problems. The document also should take care
not to exclude any group that engages with UC campuses and resources even if they are not specifically
mentioned in the document.
Finally, the responsibilities of those who are informed of sexual harassment and sexual violence are
unclear. Current sexual harassment policies, as stipulated in the mandated training that UCLA
employees undertake, state very clearly that any employee who is informed of allegations of sexual
harassment must report the allegation to the appropriate campus authorities. Regarding “Notifications”
on pp. 10-11, there is no mention of the outcome, but in p. 14 there is mention that the outcome will be
made known. It is not clear if individuals making reports will not know of the outcome, but
Complainants will be notified as to the disciplinary action, if any, that has taken place. This document
states on p. 14 that individuals who discuss incidents of sexual harassment or sexual violence should not
assume that such discussions will result in any formal actions, and states on p. 22 that “Immediately
reporting a case to the police could be more traumatic for the victim than beneficial. Let them make the
decision to report (or not report).” These statements put the current document at odds with current
training practice and potentially with state law. The language of the current document should be
brought to the same standards of reporting requirements as current policy.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this revised proposal. If you have any questions for us, please
do not hesitate to contact me at fchiappelli@dentistry.ucla.edu or via the Council’s analyst, Elizabeth
Feller, at efeller@senate.ucla.edu or x62470.
Sincerely,
Francesco Chiappelli, Chair
Council on Planning and Budget
cc:
Susan Cochran, Vice Chair, Academic Senate
Joel Aberbach, Immediate Past Chair, Academic Senate
Linda Mohr, Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate Office
Elizabeth Feller, Committee Analyst, Council on Planning and Budget
Members of the Council on Planning and Budget
UCLA Academic Senate
Academic Freedom Committee
October 20, 2015
To:
Academic Senate Executive Board
Professor Leo Estrada, Senate Chair
Professor Susan Cochran, Senate Vice Chair
Professor Joel Aberbach, Immediate Past Chair
From: Prof. Jody Kreiman, Chair
Academic Freedom Committee
Re: Proposed Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment
The Committee on Academic Freedom [“Committee”] has been provided with a copy of “Proposed Revisions to
Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment” in preparation for their October 22, 2015 meeting.
The section on Academic Freedom in this final policy is virtually unchanged from that in the Interim Policy put
into effect on July 1, 2015. Especially in light of recent cases around the country, the Committee will be discussing the
proposition that the current language addressing Academic Freedom is inadequate to fully protect Faculty’s Academic
Freedom rights. The Committee, therefore, will discuss the following proposed revisions which would further clarify
the Academic Freedom rights of Faculty.
Current Language
D. Free Speech and Academic Freedom
The faculty and other academic appointees, staff,
and students of the University of California enjoy
significant free speech protections guaranteed by the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution
and Article I, Section I of the California Constitution.
This Policy is intended to protect members of the
University community from discrimination, not to
regulate protected speech. This Policy shall be
implemented in a manner that recognizes the
importance of rights to freedom of speech and
expression.
The University also has a compelling interest in
free inquiry and the collective search for knowledge
and thus recognizes principles of academic freedom
as a special area of protected speech. Consistent with
these principles, no provision of this Policy shall be
interpreted to prohibit conduct that is legitimately
related to the course content, teaching methods,
scholarship, or public commentary of an individual
faculty member or the educational, political, artistic,
or literary expression of students in classrooms and
public forums. (See APM-010 and 015.) However,
freedom of speech and academic freedom are not
limitless and do not protect speech or expressive
conduct that violates federal or state antidiscrimination laws.
Proposed Language, version one
D. Free Speech and Academic Freedom
The faculty and other academic appointees, staff, and
students of the University of California enjoy significant free
speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section I of the
California Constitution. The University itself has a compelling
interest in furthering free inquiry and the collective and
individual search for and dissemination of knowledge. See, e.g.,
APM-010 & 015.
In addition to the protection of free speech, the
University, and its members, find additional institutional
protection under the principle of academic freedom,
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment,
and protected by its Tenth Amendment and the California
Constitution, Article IX, §9. An important element
constituting academic freedom is the faculty’s
participation in shared governance through the Academic
Senate and its judicial bodies, which safeguard the
independence of the faculty and protect against improper
intrusion on academic inquiry and teaching.
This Policy is intended to protect members of the
University community from discrimination. It does not
regulate protected speech, including speech that is legitimately
related to course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or
public commentary of an individual faculty member or the
educational, political, artistic, or literary expression of students
in classrooms and public fora. (Nor does it interfere with the
right of individuals to criticize this policy or its
Academic Freedom Committee, re: SVSH Policy Page 2 of 2 implementation or to defend themselves against
complaints made in the public forum, subject to
constraints on the manner of public defense imposed by
the right of privacy and the right against retaliation.)
Freedom of speech and academic freedom are not limitless and
do not protect speech or expressive conduct that violate federal
or state anti-discrimination laws properly interpreted in light
of constitutional principles.
Current Language
D. Free Speech and Academic Freedom
The faculty and other academic appointees, staff,
and students of the University of California enjoy
significant free speech protections guaranteed by the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution
and Article I, Section I of the California Constitution.
This Policy is intended to protect members of the
University community from discrimination, not to
regulate protected speech. This Policy shall be
implemented in a manner that recognizes the
importance of rights to freedom of speech and
expression.
The University also has a compelling interest in
free inquiry and the collective search for knowledge
and thus recognizes principles of academic freedom
as a special area of protected speech. Consistent with
these principles, no provision of this Policy shall be
interpreted to prohibit conduct that is legitimately
related to the course content, teaching methods,
scholarship, or public commentary of an individual
faculty member or the educational, political, artistic,
or literary expression of students in classrooms and
public forums. (See APM-010 and 015.) However,
freedom of speech and academic freedom are not
limitless and do not protect speech or expressive
conduct that violates federal or state antidiscrimination laws.
Proposed Language, version two
D. Free Speech and Academic Freedom
The faculty and other academic appointees, staff, and
students of the University of California enjoy significant free
speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section I of the
California Constitution. The University itself has a compelling
interest in furthering free inquiry and the collective and
individual search for and dissemination of knowledge. See, e.g.,
APM-010 & 015.
In addition to the protection of free speech, the
University, and its members, find additional institutional
protection under the principle of academic freedom,
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment,
and protected by its Tenth Amendment and the California
Constitution, Article IX, §9. An important element
constituting academic freedom is the faculty’s
participation in shared governance through the Academic
Senate and its judicial bodies, which safeguard the
independence of the faculty and protect against improper
intrusion on academic inquiry and teaching.
This Policy is intended to protect members of the
University community from discrimination. It does not
regulate protected speech, including speech that is legitimately
related to course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or
public commentary of an individual faculty member or the
educational, political, artistic, or literary expression of students
in classrooms and public fora. (Nor does it interfere with the
right of individuals to criticize this policy or its
implementation or to defend themselves against
complaints made in the public forum, subject to
constraints on the manner of public defense imposed by
the right of privacy and the right against retaliation.)
Freedom of speech and academic freedom are not limitless and
do not protect speech or expressive conduct that violate federal
or state anti-discrimination laws properly interpreted in light
of constitutional principles.
cc:
Academic Freedom Committee members:
Alexander Stremitzer; Jack Feldman; Hilary Godwin; Jill Klessig
Melissa Spencer; Richard Yarborough
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant
Linda Mohr, CAO
UCLA Academic Senate
Academic Freedom Committee
October 22, 2015
To:
Professor Leo Estrada, Senate Chair
Academic Senate Executive Board
From: Prof. Jody Kreiman, Chair
Academic Freedom Committee
Re: Proposed Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment, updated comments
The Committee on Academic Freedom [“Committee”] has completed their review of “Proposed Revisions to
Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment ” at their October 22, 2015 morning meeting. As
indicated in the Committee’s October 20, 2015 letter, the Committee reviewed the language in the policy which
addresses academic freedom. The section on academic freedom in this final policy is virtually unchanged from that in
the Interim Policy put into effect on July 1, 2015. However, in light of recent cases around the country, the
Committee believes that the current language addressing Academic Freedom is still inadequate to fully protect
Faculty’s Academic Freedom and self-governance rights. The Committee, therefore strongly endorses adding language
to the policy that would further clarify the Academic Freedom rights of Faculty.
Current Language
D. Free Speech and Academic Freedom
The faculty and other academic appointees, staff,
and students of the University of California enjoy
significant free speech protections guaranteed by the
First Amendment of the United States Constitution
and Article I, Section I of the California Constitution.
This Policy is intended to protect members of the
University community from discrimination, not to
regulate protected speech. This Policy shall be
implemented in a manner that recognizes the
importance of rights to freedom of speech and
expression.
The University also has a compelling interest in
free inquiry and the collective search for knowledge
and thus recognizes principles of academic freedom
as a special area of protected speech. Consistent with
these principles, no provision of this Policy shall be
interpreted to prohibit conduct that is legitimately
related to the course content, teaching methods,
scholarship, or public commentary of an individual
faculty member or the educational, political, artistic,
or literary expression of students in classrooms and
public forums. (See APM-010 and 015.) However,
freedom of speech and academic freedom are not
limitless and do not protect speech or expressive
conduct that violates federal or state antidiscrimination laws.
Proposed Language
D. Free Speech and Academic Freedom
The faculty and other academic appointees, staff, and
students of the University of California enjoy significant free
speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment of the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section I of the
California Constitution. The University itself has a compelling
interest in furthering free inquiry and the collective and
individual search for and dissemination of knowledge. See, e.g.,
APM-010 & 015.
In addition to the protection of free speech, the
University, and its members, find additional institutional
protection under the principle of academic freedom,
guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment,
and protected by its Tenth Amendment and the California
Constitution, Article IX, §9. An important element
constituting academic freedom is the faculty’s
participation in shared governance through the Academic
Senate and its judicial bodies, which safeguard the
independence of the faculty and protect against improper
intrusion on academic inquiry and teaching.
This Policy is intended to protect members of the
University community from discrimination. It does not
regulate protected speech, including speech that is legitimately
related to course content, teaching methods, scholarship, or
public commentary of an individual faculty member or the
educational, political, artistic, or literary expression of students
in classrooms and public fora. (Nor does it interfere with the
right of individuals to criticize this policy or its
implementation or to defend themselves against
complaints made in the public forum, subject to
Academic Freedom Committee, re: SVSH Policy Page 2 of 2 constraints on the manner of public defense imposed by
the right of privacy and the right against retaliation.)
Freedom of speech and academic freedom are not limitless and
do not protect speech or expressive conduct that violate federal
or state anti-discrimination laws properly interpreted in light
of constitutional principles.
cc:
Alexander Stremitzer
Jack Feldman
Hilary Godwin
Jill Klessig
Melissa Spencer
Richard Yarborough
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant, UCLA Academic Senate
Linda Mohr, CAO, UCLA Academic Senate
UCLA Academic Senate
Charges Committee
October 20, 2015
To:
Professor Leo Estrada, Chair
Academic Senate
Los Angeles Division
Re: Proposed Revisions to Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment dated
September 30, 2015 (“Proposed Policy”)
Dear Chair Estrada,
You have requested that the Charges Committee review on an expedited basis the Proposed Policy.
Given the limited time available we focused exclusively on those aspects of the Proposed Policy that relate to our
work on disciplinary cases arising out of charges of violations of the Faculty Code of Conduct (“FCC”) against
Academic Senate members.
Sexual violence and sexual harassment, of course, are already violations of the FCC. Charges based on
allegations of this misconduct come before us regularly. In our view, it is absolutely essential that the rights of
Senate members to free expression, academic freedom, and due process as embodied in the procedural protections
afforded Senate members under the Campus Procedures for Implementation of the University Policy on Faculty
Conduct and the Administration of Discipline (UCLA Academic Senate Manual, Appendix XII) (“Appendix
XII”), continue to be honored in full in connection with the disciplinary cases that come before us. Fortunately,
Section III.D of the Proposed Policy expressly states that the Proposed Policy remains subject to existing
protections for free expression and academic freedom. Moreover, Section V.A.7.b of the Proposed Policy
expressly states that discipline may only be imposed on a member of the University community consistent with
the applicable University disciplinary procedure, which in the case of Senate members at UCLA means Appendix
XII.
Accordingly, as we understand it, in disciplinary matters involving UCLA Senate members, the Proposed
Policy remains subject to all existing procedural protections as well as existing principles protecting free
expression and academic freedom. We therefore have no substantive objection to the Proposed Policy. As so
interpreted, we expect that we will continue to determine probable cause in sexual violence and sexual harassment
cases in accordance with our established procedures and that more generally discipline will only be imposed on
Senate members for violations of the FCC in matters involving allegations of sexual harassment and sexual
violence in accordance with Appendix XII.
Proposed Revisions to Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment
October 20, 2015
Page 2 of 2
In reviewing the Proposed Policy, and leaving to the side any disagreements with certain policy choices
affecting non-Senate members or involving non-disciplinary actions, we did note a few apparent errors and
ambiguities in the language of the Proposed Policy. Since our role is limited to enforcing the FCC through the
disciplinary process established by Appendix XII, these errors should not adversely affect us in adjudicating cases
filed against Senate members, but we point them out for you to pass on to UCOP in your discretion:
1. II.B.1.b.i: The last word of the clause is missing. Context suggests the missing word is “injury.”
2. II.B.1.b.ii: The last word of the clause is missing. Context suggests the missing word is “injury.”
3. II.B.1.b.ii: “or another” needs to be qualified along the lines of “or another member of Complainant’s
household.” Violence or threats of violence directed against another who is neither an intimate
partner nor a member of the same household is not “domestic violence” in any usual sense.
4. The definition of “Complainant” does not work properly. In some sections of the Proposed Policy it
appears plain that the defined term “Complainant” is intended to refer only to the person victimized
by sexual violence or sexual harassment. But Complainant is defined as anyone who files a
complaint. Frequently in our work we encounter complaints filed by persons who are not the alleged
victim and we expect that the Title IX Office does as well. UCOP should clarify that, where context
so requires, “Complainant” shall mean only the alleged victim of harassment or violence.
Very truly yours,
Daniel J. Bussel, Chair, Charges Committee
On behalf of the members of the Charges Committee:
Roshan Bastani
Cameron Gundersen
Helen Lavetsky
Diana Messadi
Clyde Spillenger
Christopher Anderson
David Blank
UCLA Academic Senate
Council on Research
October 20, 2015
To:
Leobardo F. Estrada, Chair
UCLA Academic Senate
Re:
Systemwide Review of Proposed Revised Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence
and Sexual Harassment
Dear Leo,
At its meeting on October 19, 2015, the Council on Research reviewed and discussed the
Proposed Revisions to the Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual
Harassment. The committee are in support of the changes overall, but chose to restrict
commentary to research-related issues.
1. Because many research activities take place outside of UC property (such as
conferences, field sites, private laboratories, business, etc…) we recommend that
the Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment state explicitly
that it pertains to any circumstances that can be construed reasonably to be
University business regardless of physical location.
2. The committee expressed concern that the policy should include more explicit
definitions and explanations of the free-speech clause as it relates to the research
environment and federal anti-discrimination laws. We were concerned that the
current draft remained vague, and feel that it would benefit from clarification.
3. The Council members suggest that, because the actions of each individual may be
seen as representative of the UC community, our academic faculty, students, staff
and other employees should be encouraged to adhere to the high University
standards regarding matters of sexual violence and sexual harassment outside of
the workplace.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and opine on the issue. Should you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me (310-980-7453; mscohen@g.ucla.edu) or
Academic Senate MSO|EA, Serge Chenkerian (x63802; schenkerian@senate.ucla.edu).
Sincerely,
Mark S. Cohen, Chair
Council on Research
cc:
Serge Chenkerian, MSO|EA, Academic Senate
Linda Mohr, CAO, Academic Senate
UCLA Academic Senate
Graduate Council
October 20, 2015
Leo Estrada, Chair
Academic Senate
Re:
Presidential Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence
Dear Leo,
At its meeting on October 16, 2015, the Graduate Council discussed the proposed revisions to the
Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment.
With the graduate student in mind, council members were concerned that the revised policy did
not provide sufficient clarification on the role of the graduate student as “responsible employees”
and that this general description did not capture the various reporting relationships that a graduate
student may have with an undergraduate student (or, in some cases, with another graduate
student). Members felt that policy could a) define better the role of the graduate student as
“responsible employee” and b) be more prescriptive and provide better instructions for handling
reports of sexual violence and sexual harassment.
The policy fails to acknowledge the position of the graduate student within the university, the
hierarchy of which often disempowers graduate students from filing complaints against faculty
for fear of retribution or retaliation. While on paper the graduate student is bound by policy to
report such egregious instances, there is also an innate bond between the student and his/her
mentor that could make reporting difficult.
There are also several different types of students at the university, some of whom may not be
matriculated UCLA students (i.e., visiting graduate researchers, volunteers, visiting students,
summer students) or official employees (fellows and trainees), to whom this policy does not
explicitly apply. Conversely, members were not clear whether the policy transcended the
University of California and applied to students participating in study abroad programs.
There was also some confusion expressed about what constitutes a report and whether informal
exchanges between a graduate student and an undergraduate student would constitute something
official, versus something more casual. Are graduate students legally obligated to report such
allegations if the relationship is informal but, at one time, may have been formal?
Council members were unanimous in their assessment that such issues – especially those that fall
into a gray area – should be presented in their entirety as part of TA training. Absent from this,
however, are research appointments and the common interactions between graduate students and
undergraduate students in a laboratory/research setting. While this may be an issue that must be
handled at the campus level, council members felt it important enough to register in this response.
Thank you for the opportunity to opine on this important policy. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me via the council’s analyst, Kyle Cunningham, at
kcunningham@senate.ucla.edu.
Best Regards,
Ioanna Kakoulli
Chair, Graduate Council
cc:
Serge Chenkerian, MSO, Academic Senate
Kyle Cunningham, Committee Analyst, Graduate Council
Linda Mohr, CAO, Academic Senate
UCLA Academic Senate
Privilege and Tenure Committee
October 20, 2015
To:
Academic Senate Executive Board
Professor Leo Estrada, Senate Chair
Professor Susan Cochran, Senate Vice Chair
Professor Joel Aberbach, Immediate Past Chair
From: Kristina Bostrom, Chair
Academic Freedom Committee
Re: Updated Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (issued September 30, 2015)
The Privilege and Tenure Committee (P&T) has reviewed the final draft of this policy as issued for comment
on September 30, 2015. The Committee finds their concerns about the Interim Policy (Privilege & Tenure Committee
to Academic Senate Executive Board, April 8, 2015) largely addressed. The revised policy uses the term “responsible
employee” rather than “designated employee” and provides a more full definition. The revised policy also more clearly
describes the reporting process as well as who may receive an investigation report. Most importantly, the policy is
careful to delineate how Title IX processes integrate with other campus grievance and disciplinary processes. P&T has
no additional comments on the final policy.
cc:
Privilege and Tenure Committee members:
Charlene Villaseñor Black
Alistair Cochran
Christopher Erickson
Laura E. Gómez
Anahid Jewett
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant
Linda Mohr, CAO
UCLA Academic Senate
Undergraduate Council
October 20, 2015
Leo Estrada, Chair
Academic Senate, Los Angeles Division
Re:
Proposed Revisions to Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual
Harassment
Dear Leo,
The Undergraduate Council (UgC) has conducted a partial review of the proposed revisions to
Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment. Unfortunately, the short
timeline provided by UC Office of the President did not allow the council to discuss the revisions
in a regular meeting. In general, giving campuses one month for feedback, and thus giving
committees only three weeks, is not a best practice of shared governance. In addition, members
found the presentation of the materials quite confusing, as the tracked changes version of the
document was far too busy and did not present a concise look at the proposed revisions.
Some members felt that this policy encompasses too much, attempting to address sexual violence
against undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, staff, and peer-to-peer as well as
sexual harassment for each of these groups, while also referencing sex discrimination. Sexual
Violence potentially deserves its own separate policy, and the interaction of this proposed policy
with other existing policies is ambiguous at best and absent at worst. An example of this can be
found in the definition of “Consent” on page 2 of the policy. This section glaringly omits that
certain relationships are prohibited despite consent from both parties, such as one between a
faculty member and a student he/she is supervising academically. The other policies on
consensual relationships (such as the University of California Policy on Conflicts of Interest
Created by Consensual Relationships) need to be referenced, or the university risks implying that
all consensual relationships are allowable.
In our response to this proposed revised policy in Spring 2015, the council called attention to the
role and reporting responsibility for faculty members when it comes to student, staff, or
colleague complaints. The policy calls for “designated employees” with mandatory reporting
expectations, and council members wondered who would fall into that category on our campus.
The revised policy does not discuss any consequences for failure to report. There is a great need
for training of faculty and staff in their role as mandatory reporters. We must be made aware of
the timeline for reporting and any other relevant information in order to make us effective
stewards of this policy.
Also in our response in Spring 2015, we acknowledged that the policy requires local campuses to
build up a lot of infrastructure and support. Contact information for the appropriate offices, such
Undergraduate Council re: Revised Presidential Policy on Sexual Harassment and Violence
October 20, 2015
Page 2 of 2
as the Title IX office, must be disseminated widely and continuously. The council volunteers to
aid in this distribution in the realm of undergraduate education and curriculum. Communication
such as standard language for course syllabi or CCLE websites could help alert students and
remind faculty of the various resources at UCLA to deal with allegations of sexual violence or
sexual harassment.
We hope that the Senate continues to be involved in the implementation of this policy. We also
hope to be given a more appropriate response window for any future iteration. If you have any
questions, please contact me (x69449; jwg@chem.ucla.edu) or Undergraduate Council Analyst
Matt Robinson (x51194; mrobinson@senate.ucla.edu).
Sincerely,
Jim Gober, Chair
Undergraduate Council
cc:
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant, Academic Senate
Linda Mohr, CAO, Academic Senate
Matt Robinson, Committee Analyst, Academic Senate
UCLA Academic Senate
Undergraduate Council
October 21, 2015
Leo Estrada, Chair
Academic Senate, Los Angeles Division
Re:
Additional Comments on Proposed Revisions to Presidential Policy on Sexual
Violence and Sexual Harassment
Dear Leo,
I wanted to provide to the Executive Board some additional comments made by UgC members in
response to the proposed revisions to the Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual
Harassment. The comments below came electronically from members in response to a request
for review, and the council hopes that they help the Board in their review and response.
Page 2, II. Definitions. A. Consent:
There is a glaring omission in the definition of consent, and that is that there are certain
relationships where it doesn’t matter if both consent, the relationship is prohibited. Whenever a
faculty member is responsible for academic supervision of a student, a personal relationship
between them of a romantic or sexual nature, even if consensual, is inappropriate. There should
be some reference to the APM policy on Consensual Relations. A faculty member reading this
policy may decide that as long as everyone consents the relationship is OK, but it’s not.
There is a reference to consensual relationships on page 7, but it’s too buried in the policy. It
should be stated within consent.
Page 5, II. Definitions. B. Prohibited Conduct, Note on Sex Discrimination.
The wording “violates law and other University policies” is ambiguous. There should be some
reference to the actual policies on sex discrimination.
Page 6, II. Definitions. C. Other Definitions. Responsible Employees.
This is a really important definition and it is too ambiguous. All faculty are managers and
supervisors though many do not see themselves as one and do not feel any obligation to report
information.
Undergraduate Council re: Additional Comments on Revised Presidential Policy on Sexual Harassment and Violence
October 21, 2015
Page 2 of 4
There are also no consequences for failure to do this. What happens if it is not reported? One of
the reasons reporting doesn’t remedy the problem is that it is still not clear who must report
(everyone should have to) and what happens if they do not.
Unfortunately this revised policy does not make it any clearer so reporting will not likely
improve, but if it makes it clear, it will make a difference.
Page 8, III. Policy Statement D. Free Speech and Academic Freedom
Presumably, this was added at the request of faculty, but it possibly confuses and dilutes the
policy. Faculty should have nothing to fear in the UC system when it comes to free speech.
There are so many policies that protect them there is little chance of them getting punished for
what is true free speech or academic freedom.
It is a genuine fear of faculty though, but unfortunately this addition creates a loophole that one
can drive a truck through. And there will be little to no appetite to discipline faculty who harass
students in their classroom or in any “teaching environment” (i.e. field work/field classes) for
fear of running afoul of academic freedom.
This will only ever change if faculty fight back against the few faculty who use abuse the
concept of academic freedom.
Page 10, V. Required Procedures. 2. Initial Assessment of a Report. b. Jurisdiction of
Reports of Sexual Violence or Sexual Harassment
Faculty should be added to the first sentence: “The University has jurisdiction over alleged
violations of this Policy by students, staff, faculty and other academic appointees…”
Also, the policy should specifically reference field work/field study in either the first and second
sentence.
Page 14, V. Required Procedures. B. Location Responsibilities, c.
c. seems to be missing the word “sexual violence”. It should read “provide training for
University employees who are responsible for reporting or responding to reports of sexual
violence and sexual harassment.
It may have been intentional since California law only requires training on Sexual Harassment
prevention training, but regardless the UC should train people on how to report/respond to
allegations of sexual violence as well.
Undergraduate Council re: Additional Comments on Revised Presidential Policy on Sexual Harassment and Violence
October 21, 2015
Page 3 of 4
General Comments:
Most students/postdocs/researchers/academics who are harassed/assaulted don't know how to
report it. Training faculty/TAs/staff and having mandatory reporting doesn't remedy this issue.
This could be addressed with a statement at bottom of syllabus on webpage with resources
including information on how to report that faculty and TAs have to mention? A particular issue
also is field work/field classes - should be special oversight for this.
This statement could say something like:
The University of California prohibits sexual violence and sexual harassment against
students. If you believe you are, or are concerned about someone who you believe may be a
victim of dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault, sexual violence, sexual
harassment, or stalking, please call xxxx or contact (email for UCLA’s CARE Advisor) or
(email for UCLA’s Title IX officer).
As for fieldwork, this is a major problem. It is really hard to know who will be involved in
fieldwork and when, so it may require some blanket form or information sheet given to all
students that informs them that sexual violence and sexual harassment against students is
prohibited, even when away from the campus and how to report it. Again, this is a great topic for
the Ug and Grad councils to take up.
The timeline for reporting at UCLA should be made explicit. Often victims of sexual harassment
or assault take a long time to gather the resolve to report. They should not be made to feel that
there is no point in reporting if a “statute of limitations” (or something similar) has expired.
Mandatory reporting even for alleged harassment and assault that was a few years ago, or longer,
would help to ensure there is a record so that if someone comes forward, an offense isn't seen as
a first offense. The Title IX office can decide how to weight such things and protect reputations
from allegations that are unsubstantiated by evidence. There will always be the need for a statute
of limitations. But, there is no statute of limitations for reporting that harassment or assault took
place, and this needs to be made clear. Also, consequences for not reporting (on the part of
faculty or staff) need to be made clear.
We need to address how to protect students and other vulnerable people who are worried about
reporting because of retaliation from other faculty, committee members, etc.
There is almost no way to protect students and other vulnerable people. For there to be any real
impactful change in this area, then the faculty peers, who are not vulnerable need to start
standing up to this kind of behavior. There cannot be any “shrugging their shoulders” and just
Undergraduate Council re: Additional Comments on Revised Presidential Policy on Sexual Harassment and Violence
October 21, 2015
Page 4 of 4
rolling their eyes when they hear about this. This happened recently in the UC system with
Professor Geoff Marcy at UC Berkeley.
Again, I hope the comments above add to the discussion of the Board and the eventual response
by the UCLA Division.
Sincerely,
Jim Gober, Chair
Undergraduate Council
cc:
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant, Academic Senate
Linda Mohr, CAO, Academic Senate
Matt Robinson, Committee Analyst, Academic Senate
MEMORANDUM
FACULTY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
College of Letters and Science
To:
A Murphy Hall
Box 
Los Angeles, California 
Leo Estrada, Chair, Academic Senate
Fr:
Date:
Re:
Joseph Bristow, Chair, College Faculty Executive Committee
October 19, 2015
College FEC response to revisions to Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and
Sexual Harassment
The College FEC appreciates the opportunity to review the final revisions to Presidential Policy on Sexual
Violence and Harassment. The committee reviewed the proposed changes at its meeting on October 16,
2015, and our discussion was guided by Kathleen Salvaty and LaNell Shirley from the Title IX Office. The
committee reviewed the document and identified several areas that would benefit from additional clarity,
described below.
1.
The “Note” section of II.B.1. – Prohibited Conduct clearly provides definitions for what is
considered aggravated in both instances of actual sexual assault or attempted sexual assault.
However, the attempted sexual assault does not appear to be prohibited by this policy whereas
attempted relationship violence is prohibited (II.B.1.b.).
2. The committee noted some issues with the term complainant.
a. The portion of the definition for complainant (II.C.2.) “any person who files a report of
sexual harassment or sexual violence” appears to include individuals who may be thirdparties simply reporting an incident as opposed to being a term strictly for alleged victims
of sexual violence or harassment.
b. The term complainant could be used to describe an alleged victim, even if they never make
an actual complaint.
c. The term complainant does not seem to align with the definition in the description of
stalking (II.B.1.c.). If stalking is the “repeated conduct directed at a complainant…” it
implies that the subject of stalking must already have reported it. All uses of “complainant”
should be reviewed for this unintended implication.
3. The committee noted some issues with the term respondent.
a. Similar to the issues noted above, the term respondent (II.C.5) is “a person alleged to have
engaged in a Prohibited Conduct” but the definition requires the allegation to have already
been made.
4. It may be useful to provide hyperlinks or references to the specific laws that articulate the federal
and state anti-discrimination laws referred to in III.D.
5. There are portions of the document that seem to contradict. Section V.A.4.a. indicates “the
Complainant and Respondent have the right to request a Formal Investigation at any time…”
However, in V.A.4.b. it states “when an individual has requested an investigation, that request will
College FEC: Response to revisions to Presidential Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment
Page 2
be considered, but is not determinative.” Furthermore, should V.A.4.b. be edited to indicate that the
request for an investigation is made by a complainant or respondent, not just any individual?
6. The committee requested clarity on the issue of confidentiality.
a. Section V.A.4.b. notes that, “the Title IX Officer shall attempt to maintain the identity of the
Complainant confidential from the Respondent or inform the Complainant that such
confidentiality cannot be maintained.”
i. Are there circumstances under which the Respondent is entitled to know their
accuser and other circumstances where the Respondent is not?
ii. If so, shouldn’t those circumstances be articulated in this policy?
7. Clarifications to V.A.5. would be useful. The last paragraph currently states “Any conclusion in a
Report finding sexual violence, sexual harassment, or retaliation that involves an assessment of
academic merit (either individual or programmatic) or academic freedom may only be made
following a referral of that assessment to and an opportunity within 10 working days for a response
from the Chief Academic Officer or delegee.”
a. Where does the referral of the assessment need to be made?
As always, our membership appreciates the consultative process and welcomes the opportunity to opine on
important matters like this. You are welcome to contact me at jbristow@humnet.ucla.edu with questions.
Mitsue Yokota, Academic Administrator, is also available to assist you and she can be reached at (310) 7945665 or myokota@college.ucla.edu.
cc:
Lucy Blackmar, Assistant Vice Provost, Division of Undergraduate Education
Serge Chenkerian, MSO/Executive Assistant, Academic Senate
Linda Mohr, Chief Administrative Officer, Academic Senate
Henry Samueli School of Engineering and Applied Science
October 19, 2015
TO:
Leo Estrada, Chair, Academic Senate
FROM:
Benjamin Williams,
Chair, HSSEAS Faculty Executive Committee
RE:
Proposed Revision to Presidential Policy on Sexual Harassment and
Sexual Violence
The Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) of the Henry Samueli School of Engineering
and Applied Science (HSSEAS) discussed the proposed changes in our meeting of
October 9. In general, the FEC was very supportive of the proposed revisions,
especially the intent of having a clear policy to protect students, staff, and faculty.
Several concerns were raised during discussion. First, we wish to emphasize the
importance of training on the topics of Sexual Violence and Harassment for both the
students and faculty. This particularly important since it appears that nearly all
faculty will be classified as mandatory reporters, so faculty must be clearly aware of
their responsibilities, and their limitations when advising students. Second, some of
us felt there is some ambiguity about the details of the universities adjudication
process, particularly as it relates to the interaction with law enforcement and the
criminal justice system. It would be helpful for the policy to clarify these issues as
much as possible, and for the results to be clear to faculty, staff, and students in any
future training. Third, it is not very clear how third party reports will be handled.
Specifically, will the reporting third party be informed of the summary of any
findings? Fourth, the rights of the Respondent to contest any findings of “Alternative
Resolution” or “Formal Investigation” are not clear. With anonymous third party
reporting being encouraged, this becomes particularly important.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this memo.