From: "Curry, MJ" Date: January 19, 2018 at 10:49:30 AM EST To: Subject: Motions for discussion at Senate meeting 1/23/18 Reply-To: Dear Senators, Below are two motions the Senate Executive Committee will bring forward to the Senate meeting on January 23, 2018. Before each motion is included the background case for making these motions. We look forward to the opportunity to discuss them with you. I. • ◦ • ◦ Case for Censure of Florian Jaeger, based on the Independent Investigators’ Report (IIR) Professor Jaeger engaged in a variety of inappropriate and unprofessional sexual or sexualized behaviors in his interactions with students. These behaviors had predictable and harmful impact on students. The summary of the report, section I.C.2 (pp. 29-31), states, in part, "during the earlier period of 2007-2013 (and especially during the earlier years in that period), Jaeger engaged in behavior that was inappropriate, unprofessional and offensive. Among other things, he engaged in four consensual sexual relationships with current, former or prospective UR students between 2007 and 2011, he was flirtatious with other students, he blurred appropriate faculty-student boundaries in other ways, including by renting a room in his home to a female graduate student, and he sometimes made comments in social and academic settings that included inappropriate sexual content or innuendo… these behaviors were harmful in a variety of ways; for example, a number of female graduate students from that time period told us that, as a result of Jaeger’s reputation or behavior, they made a conscious decision to avoid him and the educational opportunities he offered.” The fact that this behavior may have taken place with the consent of students in some cases does not excuse the behavior. Voluntary consent in sexual or sexualized behavior by a student with a faculty member is inherently suspect because of the asymmetry in power (see report IV.A, p. 176). Jaeger had sexual relationships with two students over whom he exercised academic authority (see report II.B.2.b, pp. 76- ◦ • ◦ ◦ • • ◦ ◦ 77). Contemporary regulations for faculty (Faculty Handbook, February 2007 and July 2008 revisions, II.A.2.b) “strongly discouraged” sexual relationships between faculty and "students over whom they have a direct, current supervisory or evaluative relationship." Many of the students subjected to sexualized behavior also engaged with Professor Jaeger in an academic setting in which he held authority (see report II.A.1.e-f, pp. 62-63 and 65, III.A.3, pp. 158159). Professor Jaeger ignored the concerns expressed over faculty-student sexual relationships in the contemporary Faculty Handbook, which also noted, "Such relationships, even when consensual, are problematic because they may result in favoritism or the perception of favoritism which imperils the integrity of the educational environment." By doing so, he exposed himself to the risk that these relationships or knowledge of these relationships would introduce an unwelcome sexual element into relationships with students over whom he held academic authority. The result was a deleterious impact on the educational opportunities for many of these students. The report documents many such complaints of students (see report II.A.1.e-f, pp. 60-66, II.B.3, pp. 81-82, and III.A.3, pp. 156, 158-159). Jaeger's actions were not confined to a single incident that could be attributed to one lapse in judgment, but occurred repeatedly over a period of years. The Report of the Independent Investigator establishes facts about Jaeger’s behavior and the complaints, investigations and actions related to his case previous to the EEOC filing. It concludes that the University has already acted appropriately in this case because it treats the governing standard as the minimum protection for students that the University is legally required to uphold and that standard as reflected in University HR and faculty policies. Whether that minimal standard is the standard that the University should hold faculty to is a question for our community to determine. The faculty should help to answer this question. The Faculty Handbook IV.A.10 specifies, in part, that the Board of Trustees can revoke tenure and abrogate contracts of faculty for “moral conduct unbefitting the position” and for “failure to discharge responsibly his or her fundamental obligations as a teacher.” Motion for the censure of Professor Florian Jaeger The report of the Independent Investigation has documented numerous instances of inappropriate and unprofessional sexual or sexualized behavior by Professor Florian Jaeger between 2007 and 2013. These behaviors were harmful to the educational environment of his department and of our university. We condemn Professor Jaeger's behavior in the strongest terms. We believe these behaviors and their effects meet the standards of Faculty Handbook IV.A.10, under which the Board of Trustees can revoke tenure and terminate contracts, of “moral conduct unbefitting the position” and “failure to discharge responsibly his fundamental obligations as a teacher.” II. • • • Case to Protest the Actions of Gail Norris and Susan Wormer, based on the IIR Gail Norris and Susan Wormer of the Office of Counsel (OOC) transmitted faculty emails gained from a search of University servers with the immediate supervisor of the authors, BCS Chair Greg DeAngelis, without the consent of the faculty members whose emails were searched (see report II.C.16, p.134). The Independent Investigation concludes that this action was inconsistent with the emphasis on confidentiality in Policy 106, under which the OOC was investigating a complaint at the time of this transmission of emails (report II.C.16, p. 137) and reflected “questionable judgment” (report I.C.9, p. 37). The transmission of these emails from a faculty member to her or his supervisor(s) should only be done in situations of extraordinary necessity, as it violates reasonable faculty expectations of privacy and may undermine a faculty member's relationship with a supervisor who holds considerable power over her or him. Such action could be considered as a gateway to a serious threat to tenure of a tenured faculty member. Motion to Protest the Actions of Gail Norris and Susan Wormer The report of the Independent Investigation has documented that members of the University's Office of Counsel searched the email messages of members of the faculty and subsequently shared the content of those messages with the faculty members’ department chair. This search and sharing occurred without sufficient justification, reflected “questionable judgment,” and was inconsistent with the guidelines for confidentiality found in HR Policy 106. It has damaged the faculty’s trust in the administration to uphold reasonable expectations of privacy. We strongly protest this action. Mary Jane Curry and Kevin McFarland, Senate Co-chairs, 2017-18