On January 1st, 2016, a new Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy went into effect at UCLA. The new policy has a number of highly problematic shortcomings:
First, the policy was formulated without the involvement of the UC Student-Workers Union, UAW 2865, the legally designated representative of graduate students in our capacity as academic workers. Graduate student employees, including teaching assistants, readers, and tutors are required to be mandatory reporters to the Title IX office when sexual assault or harassment is disclosed to us in our capacity as employees. This is a violation of our union contract, because the union was not given the opportunity to bargain over an issue that patently affects the terms of our employment, and which is a mandatory subject of our collective bargaining agreement with the UC (see Section II.D.6 of the UC SHSA policy and Article 30 of UAW 2865’s contract). In addition, the designation of student-employees mandatory reporters under this new policy is unclear and raises issues of privacy and trust. Even the Title IX office is unsure of how this should be applied. The policy risks further silencing and isolating survivors, as they will be unsure about whether they can confide in their colleagues without triggering a mandatory report.
The mandatory reporting requirement may have been intended to overcome a culture of passive complicity on the part of graduate students, faculty, and staff toward the persecution of their peers. Unfortunately, this new policy may further isolate and disempower survivors.
Second, reports may trigger a formal Title IX investigation even without the consent of the survivor. Furthermore, confidentiality is not guaranteed in Title IX investigations—a shortcoming of the law and policy that risks exposing survivors and their allies to career-ending retaliation. Distressingly, some of our members report threats of such consequences from department faculty. Even absent explicit threats, faculty retaliation remains a debilitating concern among graduate student survivors. Without the guarantee of confidentiality, students are less likely to report incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment. The policy leaves the decision to maintain confidentiality and other important matters at the discretion of individual campus Title IX coordinators and their case management teams.
Third, remedies and disciplinary action as a result of a Title IX investigation are at the Chancellor’s discretion in cases involving faculty. It is unclear what steps will be taken to stop violations and eliminate a hostile work environment. Becoming involved in an investigation can be emotionally exhausting, and a policy that encourages reporting needs to be clear about specific outcomes for specific violations. Thus far, the university prefers to be resolutely opaque on this matter (see sections V.A.5.6, V.A.5.7, and Appendix II and III of the UC SHSA policy).
Lastly, the university’s new policy remains resolutely focused on perpetrators and negative sanctions. We also need a positive survivor-oriented policy, one that clearly spells out what the university will do to redress the harm suffered by survivors. Currently, the resources dedicated to survivors of sexual violence and sexual harassment are woefully inadequate. The campus CARE office is a crucial resource for survivors on campus. Yet it is substantially under-resourced. At present there is one CARE officer for tens of thousands of students, when one of five female students and one of twenty male students will be sexually assaulted during their time at university. At present, there are no CARE officers assigned to postdocs or junior faculty. The University is also failing to provide adequate counseling services. Over the past year, the number of free visits to Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) has been significantly reduced, and the quality of these services must be improved. Similarly, the Title IX office is understaffed, with only five full-time employees. Even without a wholesale revision of the UC policy, there are concrete steps that UCLA can take to address the crisis of sexual assault utilizing its considerable resources. To this end, we call on the administration of Gene Block to prioritize this issue and continue its reform initiative.
BASH 