After seven years of deliberation, Syracuse University’s faculty harassment policy has changed.

Corinne Smith, a committee member and department chair in the School of Education, presented ‘Final Report: Policies and Procedures on Inappropriate Faculty Conduct,’ drafted by the Ad Hoc Committee on Inappropriate Faculty Conduct at Wednesday’s University Senate meeting.

The committee, formed by USen in April 2007, has worked on creating a policy document intended to replace several existing sections of the current faculty manual.

After members of the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure and Professional Ethics expressed dissatisfaction in 2005 with procedures relating to sexual harassment, the ad hoc committee was formed to examine policies, research practices and propose changes, Smith said. More than 30 interviews were conducted with individuals who were involved with sexual harassment complaints against faculty and the administration.

The committee found that SU’s policy was outdated, and the concept of creating a new policy for sexual harassment was not in compliance with the majority of universities, Smith said. The SU policy was created to mirror policies at other universities that have one policy for all faculty misconduct.

The major changes from the current policies and procedures include: simultaneous process and procedures for dealing with different types of charges of inappropriate faculty conduct, and an appointment of a coordinator to manage complaint processes from an independent central office. A different body will perform an investigation separate from the hearings to maximize objectivity as well.

According to the report, explicit procedures for informal resolution of complaint and explicit procedures for formal complaints exist. In a formal setting, the procedure includes an intake panel, investigative team, AFTPE panel review of findings, AFTPE panel hearing process, AFTPE panel advisory report to AFTPE, including recommended sanctions and relief, AFTPE advisory report to the vice chancellor, appeals procedure. Smith said all people involved will be extensively trained.

The new policy was passed with only one objection – several senators raised questions on the document’s language. Samuel Gorovitz, a philosophy professor, called for clarity from Smith on which forms of harassment the policies address.

‘As long as they create an environment in which the person feels extremely uncomfortable learning or working, then it is actionable,’ Smith said.

Craig Dudczak, a professor of communication and rhetorical studies, called the wording that describes what constitutes evidence for hearings ambiguous. Another problem, he said, was the policy of no confrontation between parties except for during the hearing.

Smith assured that the investigative reporting conducted on those involved would be accessible to both parties before the hearing.

Another concern, expressed by Cathryn Newton, dean emerita and professor of interdisciplinary sciences in the College of Arts and Sciences, focused on graduate student teaching assistants who are considered faculty, but who are allowed to have legitimate relationships with undergraduate students who are not in the classes they teach.

Though Smith explained that teaching assistants are expected to comply with faculty regulations, Newton said she believes having clear boundaries is important.

Before passing the new policies, senators debated holding the vote until next meeting so the committee would have time to revise the concern. But Smith felt otherwise.

‘This has been on the senate website for seven years in different iterations. We have gotten multiple feedback. I think that it should be open to revision for sure. It should be a working document, but I think that at some point we have to say it is time to make a decision,’ Smith said.

The tabling was then rejected and the motion passed.

USen then moved on and discussed concerns from the last senate meeting in February. Louis Marcoccia, the university’s chief financial officer, presented information addressing concerns that SU has one of the worst changes in endowment values.

Marcoccia explained that the Chronicle of Higher Education’s endowment studies for the fiscal year of June 2010 to June 2011, showed that SU’s endowment changed 7.6 percent, a small change compared to most schools.

The change in endowment for all schools in the studies ranged from minus 22 percent to 120.4 percent. Marcoccia said it is important to realize, however, percentage change does not solely reflect the investment performance of the 823 schools that took part. He said it only shows the change in value between two specific dates based on aspects such as donor gifts, withdraws and the payment of management fees. The numbers are submitted voluntarily by schools, many of which only participate in positive years. SU reports annually, he said.

‘Information that is provided in the table by the Chronicle is not particularly useful for benchmarking or our comparisons, in my opinion and in the opinion of our treasurer,’ Marcoccia said. ‘That is because colleges and universities manage their endowments differently, and they do that in accordance with each institutions own particular vision and mission.’

Jeff Stonecash, a political science professor, said he was baffled that the endowment has not grown at all during the last decade, and he questioned how the endowment does not grow as the university continues to fundraise.

Marcoccia said there are many payouts from the endowment and the growth is not seen because the money is not sitting. He said the university does earn a great amount, but it also heavily distributes funds.

During the report from the Committee on Curricula, Chilukuri Mohan, department chair of electrical engineering and computer science in the L.C. Smith College of Engineering and Computer Science, expressed dissatisfaction with a new program up for approval. The program, a Master of Science in Computational Linguistics, would include coursework from both L.C. Smith and Arts and Sciences. Mohan said he was not included on the formation of the program and would like to supply input.

The program was not approved and both colleges will be working together to revise it.

The report of the Committee on Instruction given by Jenna Mayotte, an associate librarian, touched on reducing the rates for required summer internship credits, ideas on how faculty can be provided with adequate instruction on dealing with disobedience from students and mandating that the religious observance statement be included in class syllabi university-wide.

She also said the committee has been working with Gary Pavela, the director of Academic Integrity, to reform the Academic Integrity Policy.

Said Mayotte: ‘The major portion of the changes, the substantive parts of it, are distinguishing between academic dishonesty and academic negligence, so focusing more on educating students who might fall more into the category of negligence rather than unduly punishing student who may have made an honest mistake.’

rebarill@syr.edu 

Published on March 21, 2012 at 12:00 pm