UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AT URBAN A - CHAMPAIGN

Department of Anthropology
109 Davenport Hall
607 S. lv!athews, MC - 148
Urbana, IL 61801

CONFIDENTIAL
November 14, 2016
CONFIDENTIAL & HAND DELIVERED
Professor Mabir Saul
109 Davenport Hall
607 South Matthews
M/C-148
DearMahir,
I ,\!Ti.te to memorialize our conversation of November 14, 2016 ,vhere we met to discuss the
report issued by the Office of Diversity, Equity and Access (ODEA), which summarizes a formal
investigation by that office of complaints levied against you for misconduct. More specifically, you were
the subject ofan investigation initiated by an undergraduate student who claims you subjected her to
sexual harassment. Though the report concluded, based on the available information, that your
conduct did not rise to the level of being unlawful, the investigator found that your judgments and
interactions raise concerns about your maintenance of appropriate professional boundaries with students.
In particular, there are several incidents in the report where your engagement with students outside of the
classroom appears to be outside the e:,..'Pected boundaries of the student-teacher relationship and work
against our institutional values.
The University of Illinois is committed to fostering an educational environment that is free of
even the perception of intimidation and harassment. As department head, it is my expectation that faculty
will conform to conduct that upholds these values and standards. It is unacceptable for a faculty member
to use his or her institutional position to seek intimate relations with a student and it will not be tolerated.
To that end, I ,,vant to be clear in communicating my expectations of you going forward:
•

You will adhere to your proper role as an intellectual guide and you will take no action that
jeopardizes the student-teacher relationship or learning environment by exploiting this role.

•

You will adhere to the code of professional conduct outlined in the University Code ofConduct
(Enclosed) which outlines the obligations of all University employees to act in a manner that
strengthens the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the University. The Code
specifically obligates employees to practice trust\vorthiness, respect and civility.

•

You will adhere to the University's commitment to a workplace free of discrimination and
harassment. So that you have the necessary resources to meet this expectation, you are required
to contact Senior Associate Director Kaarnilyah Abdullah-Span in the Office of Diversity, Equity
and Access to complete Title IX and workplace harassment prevention training. Ms. AbdullahSpan can be reached at 333-0885. The training must be completed by Januarv 20, 2017.

 Mahir, it is important you understand this is considered a serious employment matter that requires
immediate redress. You are now placed on notice that if you again engage in behavior that violates
University standards for conduct, including conduct that can be construed as sexually explicit,
provocative or harassing, :further employment actions may be taken to vacate your duties and to dismiss
you from the university.
Again, you are expected to comply with the above-stated expectations and to act in a manner that
is consistent with the standards and mission of the University of Illinois. I remain available to help you
should you require additional support or resources to meet these obligations.

Sincerelv,
Lyle W. Konigsber
Head, Department of Anthropology
cc:

Personnel File

Martin Camargo, hlterim Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Jennie Marie Duran, Office of Diversity, Equity and Access
Kaamilyah Abdullah-Span, Office of Diversity, Equity and Access
Sharon Re}'nolds, Academic Human Resources

 l.JNI\/ERSl'F'r' Eillf--llCS AND GOMRI...IANCE OFFICE

University Code of Conduct
This Code of Conduct establishes guidelines for professional conduct by those acting on behalf of
the University including executive officers, faculty, staff, and other individuals employed by the
University using University resources or facilities, and volunteers and representatives acting as
agents of the University.
This is not an attempt to define specifically what one should and should not do, but to communicate
the University's expectations of proper conduct and what professional conduct the University
values. It is an expectation that the Code of Conduct serves as the basis, on which, employees
should make decisions related to the best interests of themselves, their co-workers and the
University. University policies, procedures, and state law se1Ye to reinforce the concepts presented
in the Code of Conduct.

The Code
Those acting on behalf of the University have a general duty to conduct themselves in a manner that
will maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity of the University and
take no actions incompatible with their obligations to the University.
With regard to professional conduct, those acting on behalf of the University should practice:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Integrity by maintaining an ongoing dedication to honesty and responsibility;
Trustworthiness by acting in a reliable and dependable manner;
Evenhandedness by treating others with impartiality;
Respect by treating others with civility and decency;
Stewardship by exercising custodial responsibility for University property and resources;
Compliance by following State and Federal laws and regulations and University policies
related to their duties and responsibilities;
Confidentiality by protecting the integrity and security of university information such as
student records, employee files, patient records, and contract negotiation documents.

Those acting on behalf of the University shall seek appropriate guidance when faced with ethical
dilemmas. For additional information related to ethical dilemmas, please contact the University
Ethics and Compliance Office on the Toll-free Ethics Help Line at: 866-758-2146 or via e-mail
at: ethicsofficer(aiuillinois.edu.

 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

Office of Diversity, Equity and Access
1004 S. Fourth Street
Champaign, Illinois 61820

I.

CONFIDENTIAL

September 21, 2016
INVESTIGATION INTO THE CLAIMS RAISED BY
Introduction

On behalf of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Access (ODEA), I conducted an investigation
into allegations raised by
, an international undergraduate student at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (University). Through her allegations, which were first raised as an
infmmal complaint and later converted to a formal complaint,
alleges that she was
sexually harassed by Dr. Mahir Saul, a Professor within the University's Depatiment of
Anthropology.
alleges that Dr. Saul made inappropriate sexual comments to her,
attempted to place her into situations where he could be alone with her, and sought to use his power
and authority to encourage a romantic relationship with her.
Summary of the Investigation

My investigation into
claims consisted of interviews with both
and Dr. Saul,
as well as with an identified witness and with others who raised similar concerns about Dr. Saul's
behavior. In addition, I reviewed various emails, text messages and other documents, including
those that were produced by
and Dr. Saul. The statements and the documents obtained
during the investigation revealed little disparity between
and Dr. Paul in terms of the
number of encounters that occun-ed between them and the lack of any physical contact during
those encounters.
All of the encounters underlying
claim of sexual harassment appear to have occmTed
when she was alone with Dr. Saul and, as such, were not witnessed by others. The one exception
to this is a dinner that
attended with a friend at Dr. Saul's home. Despite
contention that Dr. Saul did not allow her and her friend to freely leave the dinner, the friend when
interviewed acknowledged that, even though Dr. Saul was upset that
wanted to end the
dinner early, he returned both of them back to their home within a half hour of their request to
leave and neither
nor she felt physically restrained or blocked from leaving the dinner on
their own accord.

 According to
, during the other encounters in which they were alone, Dr. Saul invited her
to dinner or coffee, conversed with her about lesbian love poems, refe1Ted to her as "sweetheart,"
and made other comments and inquires that she found to be intrusive and made her feel
uncomf01iable. On one such encounter, Dr. Saul purp01iedly discussed with her the possibility of
going on a day trip with him to Springfield, Illinois. While
contends that Dr. Saul offered
her the option of staying overnight and asked her if she knew what "friends with benefits" meant,
thereby insinuating that he was seeking sex with her, Dr. Saul denies any discussion of an overnight
stay and maintains that he discussed the te1m "friends with benefits" within the context of advising
her that he could not be her friend because he was her professor.
During the course of the investigation, two other individuals were identified as having concerns
regarding Dr. Saul's behavior, but did not want to file a complaint against him. One of those
individuals stated that Dr. Saul made her feel uncomfo1iable by refen'ing to her skin as being "pink
and pale" when she once met with him during office hours, while the other individual recounted
that Dr. Saul four years ago consistently asked her to join him for coffee and on one occasion
kissed her on the top of her head and touched the middle side of her body when walking by her in
a coITidor. When questioned about these contentions, Dr. Saul admitted that he once commented
to a student about how white her skin was after she self-disclosed she was of European descent,
but denied the other contentions that were raised.
Analysis of the Claims

In accordance with the University's Policies and Procedures for Addressing Discrimination and
Harassment at the University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign, I reviewed
claims using
a "preponderance of the evidence" standard. To uphold a claim under this standard, the evidence
offered in supp01i of the claim must be found to be more convincing than the evidence that is
offered to the contrary. Based upon my analysis of
claims utilizing this standard, I have
reached the following determination:
Sexual Harassment

University policy defines sexual harassment as unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature when: (1)
submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a te1m or condition of an
individual's employment or education status in an academic course or program or a term or
condition of an individual's participation in a University activity; (2) submission to or rejection of
such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions or a decision affecting
an individual's education status in an academic course or program or an individual's participation
in a University activity; or (3) SU(,h conduct has the purpose 0r effect of umeasonably interfering
with an individual's work or academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive
working or educational environment.
In order to establish a violation of this policy, the evidence gathered during the investigation
therefore would need to establish that Dr. Saul engaged in unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature
with
and that (
submission or opposition to the conduct was made an express
or implied condition of her academic advancement (quid pro quo harassment), or (b) Dr. Saul's
behavior was sufficiently severe or pervasive as to create what a reasonable person would deem to
be a hostile, intimidating, or repugnant environment (hostile environment).
2

 Although
expressed in her complaint that she felt obligated to accept Dr. Saul's repeated
requests to meet him for coffee or dinner and engage him in conversation because he was her
professor and she was concerned that he may lower her grade if she refused, she acknowledged
during the investigation that Dr. Saul never implicitly or explicitly conveyed to her that she would
be provided a benefit or would suffer a detriment to her academic advancement at the University
if she consented to or rejected a sexual relationship with him. As such, the evidence presented
falls short of establishing a claim of quid pro quo harassment.
To establish a hostile environment claim, the evidence must establish that
was subjected
to unwelcome harassment based upon her sex and that the harassment was so severe or pervasive
that it altered the conditions of her education and created an abusive educational environment.
asse1is that Dr. Saul's conduct made her feel uncomfo1iable, she acknowledged
While
during the investigation that she continued to accept his repeated invitations and continued to
engage him and made no attempt to advise him that she found his conduct to be unwelcomed. As
such, there is no evidence to suggest that Dr. Saul was put on notice that his attempts to meet or
converse with her outside of the classroom were unwelcomed. Moreover, even if
accounts of the discussions between Dr. Saul and herself were found to be more credible, that
evidence by itself would be insufficient to establish a hostile environment claim because the
encounters between them were not sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of .
education. The requisite elements for establishing a hostile environment claim, therefore,
have not been established in this case.
Conclusion

The evidence obtained during the investigation does not suppmi, by a preponderance of the
evidence,
claims of sexual harassment. While her claims iv.ay not have met the legal
standard for harassment, those claims in conjunction with the concerns raised by the other two
individuals identified during the investigation call into question Dr. Saul's judgment and the
perceptions that he is creating through his interactions with students outside of the classroom. In
light of those concerns, the depaiiment may want to consider advising Dr. Saul and establishing
parameters for him on what constitutes appropriate interactions with students outside of the
classroom. Dr. Saul, in my opinion, also would benefit from receiving fmiher training on sexual
harassment and Title IX of the Education Amendments.
This report is private and confidential. It should not be shared or circulated to others except
as necessary for implementing recommendations.

3

 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

I
Office of Diversity, Equity, and Access
1004 South Fourth Street, Suite 310
Champaign, IL 61820
August 2, 2018
CONFIDENTIAL
I.

Summary

This matter involves allegations levied by
, against Anthropology Professor, Dr.
Mahir Saul.
is a
by Dr.
Saul during a yearlong research project he is currently conducting in Turkey.
alleged
that Dr. Saul violated the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Sexual Misconduct
Policy by sexually propositioning her and touching her waist and thigh.
filed her complaint with the Office of Diversity, Equity and Access (“ODEA”) on
March 1, 2018. ODEA staff met with
via a Skype call on March 5, 2018. After the
initial meeting with
she was not responsive to requests for a written complaint. ODEA
staff summarized
complaint and notified Dr. Saul of the complaint. ODEA staff met
with Dr. Saul via a Skype call on May 15 and May 16, 2018. After receiving the preliminary
report in this matter,
reinitiated contact with ODEA and provided additional
information and a witness.
Based on the statement of facts set forth below and my analysis of the Sexual Misconduct Policy,
there is not a preponderance of evidence to support a finding that the Sexual Misconduct Policy
was violated. However, the evidence does support that Dr. Saul engaged in conduct that violates
the University’s Code of Conduct. The factual admissions and findings made herein may be
relied upon by the Anthropology Department Head, Dr. Brenda Farnell, in her evaluation of
whether Dr. Saul’s conduct violated other campus or College policies.
II.

Allegations and Response
a. Complainant’s Allegations
shared that she is a dismissed academic1 and as such it is currently hard for her to find

1

1

 reported that on
January 29, 2018 as she and Dr. Saul returned from a day in the field, he invited her into his
apartment for dinner and wine. She accepted and relayed that they talked for approximately three
hours. When
said that she needed to go home, Dr. Saul reportedly insisted that she
stay. At this juncture,
stated that they were sitting opposite one another and he leant
forward, placing one hand on her waist and the other on her thigh. She reportedly told him that it
was not a good idea for her to stay. He allegedly responded by saying several times that she was
making him feel rejected and that it would be good for her if she stayed with him that night. He
clarified that they did not have to sleep together, but that his bed was comfortable.
stated that it was obvious to her that Dr. Saul was trying to initiate a sexual encounter with her.
reported that she moved toward the door and put on her coat. She relayed that as she
did this, Dr. Saul insisted on walking her home despite her declining his offer. She stated that he
walked her to the street that her apartment was on and suggested that he come up for coffee. She
declined his suggestion that he come up for coffee, and then they parted ways. Upon arriving
home,
reported that she contacted a close friend,
and relayed to her what she had just experienced.
reported that after the evening of January 29, 2018 she continued to work for Dr. Saul
for three more weeks before deciding to resign. She stated that the relationship felt strained and
she was uncomfortable around Dr. Saul after January 29, 2018.
shared that she
resigned on February 20, and shared her frustrations on Facebook in the form of a post on her
wall. In this Facebook post,
, her hours and pay under Dr. Saul’s employ, the harassment she experienced from
research subjects and Dr. Saul, and the arrangements surrounding the possibility of authoring an
article with Dr. Saul and the possibility of receiving research credit from Dr. Saul if he published
his findings. (See Exhibit A for the original post written in Turkish and the parties’ English
translations.)
noted that she felt Dr. Saul’s position on authoring a paper with her changed after
January 29, 2018. At the beginning of their relationship, she indicated that he was open to the
idea of authoring a paper with her, but closed to the idea by the end of their professional
relationship. Similarly, she stated that he was open to giving her credit in the forward
acknowledgement of his book at the beginning of their professional relationship, but closed to
the idea at the end of their relationship.
shared that throughout their professional relationship, when she and Dr. Saul met, he
greeted her with a kiss on either cheek and put his hand around her waist.
reported that
his kisses landed uncomfortably close to her lips. She also shared a time that Dr. Saul told her
about a female acquaintance of his who had been catcalled by a man in public. Dr. Saul allegedly
told her that the man on the street called out, “I want to fuck you in the mouth” and that the
woman felt aroused.
After leaving her employment with Dr. Saul,

met one of Dr. Saul’s former students.

2

 reported that this former female student shared with her that Dr. Saul had used his
influence as a senior academic to pressure her into spending the night with him after inviting her
to dinner at his home. The student shared with
that they did not engage in sexual
intercourse, just laid in his bed together. I requested this student’s name and contact information
but
relayed that the student wishes to remain anonymous so I did not interview her.
b. Respondent’s Response to Allegations
Dr. Saul stated that in hiring a
, he asked a Turkish colleague to recommend
candidates. After informal interviews, Dr. Saul had two finalist, one man and one woman, who
were both dismissed academics. The male applicant withdrew due to other obligations, and Dr.
Saul hired
. Dr. Saul stated he did not seek out a dismissed academic, but
acknowledged that he knew
was one before meeting her. Dr. Saul stated that
began working for him in mid-December 2017 with the bulk of her research being done
from mid-January to mid-February, 2018 (approximately five weeks). Dr. Saul stated that
was new to the subject matter of his research and to the discipline.
Dr. Saul stated that on January 29, 2018 he and
spent a long day in the field. He stated
that they had not eaten that day and he suggested they get some food from a deli and eat in his
apartment. Dr. Saul stated that
agreed. Once in his apartment he stated that they had
an alcoholic beverage with their food. Dr. Saul denied that he asked her to spend the night or that
he said it would be good for her if she stayed. He similarly denied that he touched her. Dr. Saul
reported that he offered to walk her home as a courtesy. He stated that she may have told him not
to bother, but stated he did not have a bad motive in providing this courtesy. Dr. Saul reported
that he did not go as far as her house, and only walked her half way to her home, to a place called
. Dr. Saul does not feel that he walked
home against her will and he
denied asking to go into her apartment for coffee. Dr. Saul also noted that
lived with a
roommate during this time.
Dr. Saul stated that
told him that after the dinner at his house she felt uncomfortable
because they were becoming too intimate in the conversation. He apologized for any discomfort
she had experienced. Dr. Saul could not identify any conversation that he felt was intimate,
stating that nothing was flirtatious. Dr. Saul ventured that it may have been due to the length of
time they spent talking in his apartment. He stated he felt the comment was made as an excuse
not to work.
Dr. Saul stated that it is a common custom in Turkey to greet others with a hug and a kiss on
either cheek. Dr. Saul went on to explain that in this custom, he does not actually kiss the other
person; he just touches cheeks with them. Dr. Saul stated that
initiated this custom
when they met and denied that he ever initiated the contact.
Dr. Saul confirmed that the cat-calling event occurred to someone he knew, but he could not
recall telling
about it. Dr. Saul clarified that the comment was not called aloud, but
rather whispered in his friend’s ear in a busy public place. After the stranger whispered this, she
told Dr. Saul about it shortly afterwards. Dr. Saul shared that this is a traumatic memory for him.
3

 Although he could not recall telling
about this, he stated he did not share this
information in an intimate setting as they were never in an intimate setting together. Dr. Saul felt
it could have come up during one of their research interviews. Dr. Saul did not think that .
could have discovered this information from anyone else.
Dr. Saul agreed that he and
spoke about co-authoring a journal article in the future and
he agreed that they could do that and that it would be interesting. They had not discussed
specifics of this proposed project, such as a topic, forms of evidence, or division of labor. Dr.
Saul reported that co-authoring papers is not very common in Anthropology, but thought of it as
a way to help a junior academic. Dr. Saul denies saying that he affirmatively was not going to
publish with her, but they did not broach the topic again after their relationship deteriorated, as
their short employment relationship did not afford them the time to formulate the details of a
collaboration.
Dr. Saul stated that at the end of their employment relationship,
requested that Dr.
Saul put her name on the main publication that would potentially result from the research Dr.
Saul was conducting in Turkey. Dr. Saul interpreted this as a request to be a co-author on the
resulting publication. The colleague that referred
to Dr. Saul reportedly explained to
Dr. Saul that
merely wanted her name in the preliminary acknowledgements. Dr. Saul
stated that this is a minimal courtesy that everyone extends to those who helped with research.
He stated that this is so standard that he did not understand
request to mean she
wished to appear in the preliminary acknowledgements.
Dr. Saul believes that
resigned because she found the job overwhelming. He went on
to say that she did not contribute as much as Dr. Saul expected her to. Dr. Saul explained that his
research consisted of interviewing immigrants whenever they were available and willing to talk
to him. He had hoped that
would work independently to double his productivity, but
he stated that she was reluctant to go out on her own.2 Dr. Saul reported that two days after he
asked her to work on her own, via email, she called him, not having responded to the email. He
stated that she said her pay was too low and the work was hard. 3 He went on to say that he did
not fire her, she quit during this phone call, which was long and emotional. Dr. Saul stated that
did not mention the January dinner in this call, but talked about the work conditions,
having her name in the publication, and that she felt exploited.
Dr. Saul stated that the allegations at hand imply he had control over her
, or the ability
to punish or sanction her. Dr. Saul stated that he was in no position to advance or hinder Dr.
2

stated that Dr. Saul’s’ ideal research design was that the
be in the field alone in order
to increase productivity. However, she stated that he also told her that he preferred not to be alone and to have
her company in the field.
noted that she did go to the field by herself several times, but demanded they
go together when conducting fieldwork in certain dangerous neighborhoods out of concern for her personal
safety.
3
denied that she complained of the harassment due to any element of the work. She stated that she did
not find the job difficult, but did think his expectations were unfair in relation to the salary. She reported that she
was expected to do field work 5-6 days per week for 3000TL (approximately $660) per month. Dr. Saul disagrees,
stating she was expected to work full-time, with a combination of fieldwork and deskwork. Dr. Saul noted that the
exchange rate at the time
was hired made her salary equivalent to $909.

4

 s career. Dr. Saul reported that he was the vulnerable person in this situation, not .
He stated that he was alone in the country, working independently, with no network. He
noted that
was very bossy, with a dominating personality. Dr. Saul stated that she
failed to provide him with the key to the interviews she conducted and her field reports for her
last week’s work, which hurt his research progress. Dr. Saul sent
an email on February
20, 2018 after she resigned in order to create a written record of her resignation and ask her to let
him know promptly if she wanted to reconsider her decision. Dr. Saul also requested
field notes and the code numbers for their interviewees in this email. Dr. Saul closed the email
by explaining to
that the grant he was awarded went to cover his research expenses
and did not increase his personal income. (See Exhibit B for the original email written in
and the parties’ English translations.)
Dr. Saul shared that he learned of
Facebook post from a postdoctoral fellow who had
seen the post. Dr. Saul reported that out of concern for Dr. Saul, the postdoctoral fellow came to
Dr. Saul’s apartment to discuss what
had shared on Facebook. Dr. Saul shared that in
conversation with this person he showed them a text message that
had sent him. Dr.
Saul reported that the postdoctoral fellow was very surprised by
impolite tone.
c. Witness Statement
I spoke with an Anthropology graduate student who had been put in touch with
by a
mutual acquaintance after
posted about her experience working for Dr. Saul on
Facebook.
posted on Facebook on February 20, 2018. The graduate student does not
know
and never met with her in person. The graduate student shared
concerns with the University, which ultimately prompted this investigation.
I spoke with
who has been friends with
since they met at University in
2010.
shared that she lives in
but speaks with
once or twice a
week.
shared that she had discussed
accepting this job with Dr. Saul and
the problems with the hours and the salary before the evening on January 29, 2018.
reported that
contacted her on Facebook messenger upon returning to her
apartment on January 29, 2018.
originally thought that this conversation occurred
around 10pm or later, but after consulting her Facebook messenger found the conversation
occurred at 2:53 AM on January 30, 2018. During this conversation,
told
that Dr. Saul had harassed her that evening, inviting her into his home and then asking her to stay
and sleep in his bed.
relayed to
that this occurred after they had had some
drinks.
told
during this conversation that Dr. Saul told her many times that
she was making him feel rejected. The conversation then progressed to
expressing
concern about her losing her job because she rejected his advances and how it will be difficult
for her to find another job. (See Exhibit C for the original Facebook messenger screen shots in
Turkish and the English translation provided by
III.

Analysis

5

 The University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy defines sexual harassment as unwelcome sexual, sexbased, or gender-based conduct, whether verbal, written, electronic and/or physical in nature that
is either:
A. (1) sufficiently severe or pervasive; and (2) objectively offensive; and (3)
unreasonably interferes with, denies, or limits a person’s ability to participate or
benefit from educational and/or employment opportunities, assessments, or status at
the University; or
B. By a person having power or authority over another in which submission to such
conduct is made explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of educational and/or
employment opportunities, participation, assessments, or status at the University.
In accordance with the University's Procedural Guidelines for Handling Discrimination and
Harassment Complaints under the Nondiscrimination Policy of the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, I reviewed
claims using a preponderance of the evidence
standard. To uphold a claim under this standard, the evidence offered in support of the claim
must be found to be more convincing than the evidence offered to the contrary.
There are both undisputed and disputed facts in this matter. It is undisputed by the parties
that Dr. Saul hired
to act as a
at the end of 2017, and that the
employment relationship ended by way of
voluntary resignation. It is not
contested that
is a dismissed academic, nor that her status made it difficult for her
to find work in her field. Both parties agree that Dr. Saul was aware of her status as a
dismissed academic when he hired her. It is undisputed that
felt that the pay was
low for the hours she worked. However, with the exception of the first month, when she took
10 days off to finish her dissertation, she was expected to work the hours and receive the pay
that they had first agreed upon when she was hired.
Both parties relayed that Dr. Saul and
ate dinner and had a drink together in his
apartment after a long day of fieldwork. They agree that they ate, drank, and spoke for
several hours before
announced that she was going to go home. At this point, the
narratives diverge. Dr. Saul denies that he requested that
spend the night with him,
that he touched her waist and/or thigh, that he told her that it would be good for her to stay,
or that he told her she was making him feel rejected by declining his advances.
It is Dr. Saul’s position that
resigned because she was overwhelmed with the work
and dissatisfied with the pay, yet she was aware of the terms of the employment at the time
she took the job. It seems unlikely that she would terminate her employment with Dr. Saul,
given her vulnerable economic position, because of the terms of the job that she agreed to.
However, it could be argued that
disgruntled with the work conditions, resigned
because it was more than she could cope with, and then, out of a sense of retaliation filed a
fraudulent claim against Dr. Saul as a way of getting even with him for making her feel
exploited. Dr. Saul stated that
was the one with the power in their relationship as
he was working alone without a network or support in her country of origin.
I find Dr. Saul’s argument that he was the vulnerable party in this scenario unconvincing. He
is a tenured professor at an R1 institution in the United States of America. It is hard to
imagine a more stable or secure employment arrangement. While he was in another country,
6

 he still had the resources of his income, benefits, and resources of the University of Illinois at
his disposal. In addition, he had the financial backing of his grant. He also had all the
protections associated with living and working in the United States for the last several
decades. In contrast,
was at odds with the controlling political regime in her
country, putting her in a vulnerable position. Her decision to take what she considered a poor
paying job highlights this point. Her conversation with
in the early hours of
January 30 also emphasizes her vulnerability. She wrote that she had suffered “heavy
harassment” and was asked to spend the night with
, but she did not feel at liberty to
leave the job, worrying that it would be difficult to find another job. She goes on to tell
she recently had a job interview but did not receive a job offer.
The evidence does not support the argument that
fabricated this claim after
resigning her position. While
did not immediately resign from this position, she
did reach out to a friend for support within hours after it occurred. The Facebook messenger
screen shots show that
reached out to
the same night the incident
occurred and shared that Dr. Saul said, “‘don’t leave, stay with me, sleep in my bed.’” .
shared with
that
had told her many times, “’you made me feel
rejected.’” The situation made
feel that she had escaped from his apartment.
Another piece of evidence that undermines the theory that
fabricated this
complaint after resigning is that the same day she resigned, she posted on Facebook all of the
ways she felt she had been mistreated. In this post, she describes how much she had to work,
the difficult work conditions, and the low pay. However, she also included that she had to
handle sexual advances from Dr. Saul. She notes again in this Facebook post that he told her
that he felt rejected by her reaction to his advances. She also shares in this post that Dr. Saul
told her that it would be good for her if she stayed with him that night.
Dr. Saul shared that the cat-calling incident had an emotional impact on him, stating that it
was a traumatic memory. Even though this was a significant event, he could not recall
sharing it with
Dr. Saul did not believe
could have learned of the
incident other than from him, but yet she knew the details of the event. This casts doubt on
his ability as an accurate historian about what occurred between himself and
.
In evaluating the parties’ credibility I did not consider
allegations that another
student had been pressured into spending the night with Dr. Saul. This was due to the fact
that I was not able to speak to the witness to obtain sufficient details for Dr. Saul to respond
to the allegation or asses the witness’ credibility.
The Facebook messenger conversation with
and the Facebook post show that
has remained consistent in her allegation that Dr. Saul requested and pressured .
to spend the night with him. However, she does not mention touching her leg and
waist in either communication, she just refers to “heavy harassment” in the conversation with
. This leaves the evidence of the touching to be
word against Dr.
Saul’s word.
Based on all the evidence, I conclude that
is a credible witness in her testimony
that Dr. Saul asked her to spend the night on January 29, 2018. However, to the extent that
is asserting a hostile environment claim, her allegations, even if all taken as true,
are not sufficiently severe or pervasive to establish a viable claim. The behavior alleged by
7

 touching her thigh and waist while asking her to spend the night, is not considered
severe under the Sexual Misconduct Policy, nor by definition can this single incident be
considered pervasive. Therefore, Dr. Saul’s behavior on January 29, 2018 is not sufficient to
establish a violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy.
In evaluating
claim of sexual harassment, I also consider her complaint about the
greeting custom that Dr. Saul participated in, kissing on either cheek and putting his arms
around her waist. While this behavior was pervasive, occurring every time they met, the
custom of hugging and kissing both cheeks is a rather common one. It is not considered
sexual conduct and is generally not objectively offensive. As such, there is no basis for
finding a violation of the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy based on this behavior.
Similarly, I analyzed whether sharing the anecdote about the cat-calling incident represents a
violation of the Sexual Misconduct Policy. I found
credible that Dr. Saul told her
about this incident as there was no other way she could have learned about it. This was the
only sexual comment
alleged that Dr. Saul made during her time working for him.
Comments are generally not considered severe conduct, nor was this one-time comment
pervasive conduct. Therefore sharing this statement does not represent a violation of the
University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy.
did not provide information that would support a quid pro quo claim. Quid pro quo
harassment occurs when enduring the offensive conduct becomes a condition of continued
employment or participation.
stated that she resigned her position voluntarily a
few weeks after the evening in his apartment. I would further note that Dr. Saul, in his email
documenting her resignation appears open to her continued employment. He asks her to let
him know as soon as possible if she would like to reconsider resigning. I would also note that
he offers to pay her for the final few days she had worked if she provides him with her notes.
In assessing whether Dr. Saul’s alleged change of position regarding co-authoring a paper
would support a quid pro quo claim, I look to the level of formality surrounding the prospect
of co-authorship. Both parties gave the impression that the conversation surrounding coauthoring a paper was a casual one. Neither one shared an agreed topic or timeline for such a
paper. While they did discuss co-authoring initially, once their relationship soured, Dr. Saul
was less open to the idea. The change in his position, and the agreement itself, are too
nebulas to consider it a formal arrangement, or a condition of her employment, it was more a
possibility. This sequence of events does not constitute quid pro quo harassment.
Although the evidence does not support that Dr. Saul violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy, it is
my determination that his actions were unprofessional and have violated the University’s Code of
Conduct. The Code of Conduct states that:
Those acting on behalf of the University have a general duty to conduct themselves in a
manner that will maintain and strengthen the public's trust and confidence in the integrity
of the University and take no actions incompatible with their obligations to the University.
With regard to professional conduct, those acting on behalf of the University should
practice:


Integrity by maintaining an ongoing dedication to honesty and responsibility;
8

 






Trustworthiness by acting in a reliable and dependable manner;
Evenhandedness by treating others with impartiality;
Respect by treating others with civility and decency;
Stewardship by exercising custodial responsibility for University property and
resources;
Compliance by following State and Federal laws and regulations and University
policies related to their duties and responsibilities;
Confidentiality by protecting the integrity and security of university information
such as student records, employee files, patient records, and contract negotiation
documents.

Dr. Saul’s conduct compromised not only the integrity of his role as a Professor but also that of
the department. As the Code of Conduct articulates, honesty, fairness, and treating others with
civility and respect reflect fundamental principles of conduct expected of all University
employees. As evidenced herein, Dr. Saul has failed to adhere to these bedrock principles by
pressuring his employee, a vulnerable junior academic, to spend the night with him. Such
conduct was disrespectful to
would weaken the public’s trust and confidence in
the integrity of the University. Accordingly, I find that his conduct violated the spirit and letter of
the University’s Code of Conduct.

IV.

Conclusion

Based on the interviews with the complainant, respondent, and witness, there is not a
preponderance of evidence to support a finding that Dr. Saul sexually harassed
.
However, said evidence does support a finding that Dr. Saul violated the Code of Conduct.
ODEA recommends that Dr. Saul not be allowed to meet one-on-one with female students or
junior female employees in University spaces.
This concludes ODEA’s investigation. Dr. Farnell will have 28 days to submit the
department’s written response to ODEA. Anyone who wishes to appeal this determination
must submit the appeal with supporting documentation to Michael DeLorenzo, Senior
Associate Chancellor for Administration and Operations within fourteen (14) calendar days
from the receipt of the department’s written response.
This report is private and confidential. It is not be shared or circulated to others.

Sincerely,

Claire Sharples Brooks
Equal Employment Opportunity Investigator

9

 Office of Diversity, Equity, and Access
1004 South Fourth St. Ste 310
Champaign, IL 61820
August 30, 2018
Department of Anthropology Response to ODEA Report of August 2, 2018
I agree with the findings of the ODEA investigation that there is not a preponderance of evidence
to support a finding that the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policy was violated. However, the
evidence does support the finding that Dr. Saul engaged in unprofessional conduct that has
violated the University’s Code of Conduct. He has compromised the integrity of his role as
professor and also that of the anthropology department.
I cannot, however, agree with the recommendations of the IDEA report. I find them
insufficient given an earlier Code of Conduct violation. A previous ODEA investigation of Dr.
Saul’s conduct in 2016 presented identical findings (plus credible written evidence from two
additional incidents). At that time, Dr. Saul received a letter from the department head, Lyle
Konigsberg, which laid out clear expectations for changes in his conduct going forward. Dr.
Saul was also required to undergo workplace harassment prevention training at that time. That
letter also stated:
“…it is important that you understand this is considered a serious employment
matter that requires immediate redress. You are now placed on notice that if you
again engage in behavior that violates University standards for conduct, including
conduct that can be construed as sexually explicit, provocative or harassing,
further employment actions may be taken to vacate your duties and to dismiss you
from the university.” (Konigsberg 11/14/16).
I regret to conclude that it is the department’s position that such employment actions are
now warranted.
Sincerely,
Brenda Farnell
Professor and Head
Department of Anthropology

 COLLEGE OF LIBERAL ARTS & SCIENCES
Department of Anthropology
109 Davenport Hall, MC-148
607 S. Matthews Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801-3636

November 21, 2018
STRICTLY PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
Professor Mahir Saul
Department of Anthropology
109 Davenport Hall, MC-148
607 S. Matthews Avenue
Urbana, Illinois 61801
Re: Responsibilities
Dear Professor Saul:
As we discussed in our meeting last month, I share in my role as Department Head the concerns raised by
the Office for Access and Equity (OAE) regarding your ability to interact appropriately with women.
Although OAE determined, as part of its investigation into a complaint brought by a
that your conduct did not cross the high legal threshold needed to establish sexual harassment or
sexual misconduct, the OAE nevertheless found the
allegations that you had
inappropriately propositioned and touched her to be credible. Based on that finding, OAE recommended
that you not be allowed to meet individually with female students or junior female colleagues.
As you are aware, this is not the first complaint that has surfaced regarding your interaction with women.
Following another incident that occurred just two years ago, you were explicitly warned about engaging in
sexually related behavior and informed that, because that behavior violates the University’s expected
standards of conduct, further displays of such behavior could result in employment action being taken
against you, including the potential removal of duties and your possible dismissal from the faculty.
Given that the University continues to receive complaints about your behavior despite this prior counseling,
and consistent with OAE’s recommendation, I have decided to preclude you from meeting individually
with any female students, junior faculty or staff. If it should be necessary for you to meet with any female
students, junior faculty or staff, you will need to make necessary arrangements in advance to have another
faculty or staff member present during that meeting. In addition, I also have decided to eliminate all of

 your teaching and mentoring responsibilities. As such, you will no longer be providing any classroom
instruction or serving as a mentor to any undergraduate or graduate students. Instead, your entire time
going forward will be devoted to performing administrative duties that are assigned to you from time to
time by either the Dean’s office or by me. If no appropriate administrative duties can be identified for you
to perform, your faculty appointment may need to be modified to reflect your reduced contribution to the
University’s mission. Further modifications to your faculty appointment, including potential dismissal,
also could occur based on any recommendations that may stem from the ongoing campus-wide review of
University policy on this subject.
Both the University as a whole and this department in particular are committed to providing a safe and
welcoming academic and work environment that is free of all forms of discrimination and harassment. All
members of this department, therefore, are expected to conduct themselves at all times in a manner that is
consistent with and promotes this commitment. In addition, all members of this department are expected
to strictly adhere to the University’s Code of Conduct, which requires all University employees to act in a
manner that strengthens the public’s trust and confidence in the integrity of this institution by demonstrating
trustworthiness, respect and civility. Neither the University nor this department will tolerate any further
deviations from these expectations by you.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding our expectations or your
responsibilities going forward.
Sincerely,

Brenda M. Farnell
Professor and Head of Department

cc:

Dr. David Tewksbury, Executive Associate Dean, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences
Dr. Leslie Arvan, Senior Director of Labor and Employee Relations, Illinois Human Resources
Personnel file