[Vision2020] Lewiston Tribune: It's back to the shadows for the UI

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Mar 10 14:24:26 PDT 2013


Just a few more comments besides the ones I noted to Art.

18 months to fire a tenured professor based on a sexual harassment
complaint does not strike me as a long time. Again, I don't know the
circumstances beyond what you know but some of the complication is due
to the need for maintaining the complainant's privacy. This is one of
the disturbing things about sexual crimes in general. Most of the
crimes are committed in private. It is difficult to find facts in such
a case. I don't think we should use this as a reason for loosing the
standards for what counts as information.

I read the first LT article and I found it disturbing for different
reasons than you did. Below you note these quotes:

> "In a separate incident detailed in the police documents released to the
> Tribune, UI Director of Human Rights, Access and Inclusion Carmen Suarez
> requested extra police patrols at her residence in 2011 because she
> investigated a sexual harassment claim against Williams.
>
> "Williams has not directly threatened Suarez but Suarez is concerned because
> Williams originally took responsibility for his actions but has now changed
> his mind and is going to file a lawsuit against the university," according
> to a police report from ***Aug. 29,2011.***"

Here is another quote: “(The student) told me she is in fear for her
safety as Williams is a large, intimidating guy and she thinks
Williams knows it is her that made the complaint,” Keen wrote in his
report. “(She) told me she thinks Williams knows where she lives and
she knows he has multiple firearms.”

If we add up the reasons for the complainant's worries -- ALL of the
reasons in the two articles you've posted -- we get this:
1/ Williams changed his mind about his level of guilt.
2/ Williams is large and intimidating.
3/ Williams owns multiple firearms.

The last two points apply to nearly every large man in Moscow. I have
sympathy with the woman and no more facts than these, so I'm not
saying I blame here for worrying. But if these reasons do not prove or
establish a genuine threat to her safety. Maybe this is enough reason
to keep an eye on Williams but it is not enough of a reason to arrest
him. It is not enough to fire him on the spot, or even remove him of
his duties, without further investigation.

What we have here are competing rights. Instructors have the right NOT
to be falsely accused and students and co-workers have the right NOT
to be sexually harassed. NOTHING I have read about this case makes it
clear whose rights were violated, though my guess would be it was the
student. I hope and trust that the UI did a good job compiling the
evidence and came to the right conclusion. But it is not clear that we
can do that quicker, better than they did it, at least not without
compromising the rights of instructors.

No matter what, ALL of the information about this case cannot be
released since there are explicit laws about revealing information
about complainants. That puts the dead man and his living family and
friends in an unfortunate situation. If the complainants wanted to
press things further, I could understand the need for releasing more
information. Actually, I can even understand your desire, and Art's
desire to do so, given the need for future students to know. But my
concern is what they can KNOW with the release of more "information,"
as opposed to what they might BELIEVE given that all the press cares
about is selling papers. I'm sure you could grab any set of student
evaluations and make a nice front page story with only 5-10 (out of
potentially thousands) quotes. That is not information. If I was
confident that the information released would be quality information
that might help future students make decisions, I'd think otherwise.

Joe

On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 12:25 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Joe, I think this pretty clearly explains some of the concerns:
>
> "Outside the glare of statewide publicity, the Williams case still matters.
> This marks the first time the reforms devised after the Benoit-Bustamante
> case were tested.  How are we to know if the system worked, where it failed
> and what refinements are needed if the key players insist on hiding behind
> closed doors?"
>
> Because the issue wasn't covered by the Daily News, which is the paper I've
> been subscribing to, I've certainly missed some facts, but if you read the
> pdf I linked to, you'll see this:
>
> "In a separate incident detailed in the police documents released to the
> Tribune, UI Director of Human Rights, Access and Inclusion Carmen Suarez
> requested extra police patrols at her residence in 2011 because she
> investigated a sexual harassment claim against Williams.
>
> "Williams has not directly threatened Suarez but Suarez is concerned because
> Williams originally took responsibility for his actions but has now changed
> his mind and is going to file a lawsuit against the university," according
> to a police report from ***Aug. 29,2011.***"
>
> For those who don't remember, Katy Benoit was tragically murdered by just
> barely resigned UI professor Bustamante on 8/22/2011.  The above (from the
> linked PDF file) indicates to me that there was ***at least*** one
> apparently somewhat substantiated investigation into Williams during the
> time Katy had filed a complaint, yet Williams apparently remained actively
> employed and teaching for another full year before being placed on a
> presumably paid leave for another four months or so before termination,
> apparently following *at least* one MORE complaint and investigation.
>
> Let me tell you:  if I was a UI female student, staff, or faculty (we don't
> know the category of the person who complained in 2011) who filed a sexual
> harassment complaint in early 2011 and it took ***18 months*** to address
> the apparently somewhat substantiated complaint followed by at least one
> *more* allegation of sexual harassment by *another person*, I'd be beyond
> livid and feel incredibly betrayed, particularly given the UI's stunning
> failure with respect to Bustamante.
>
> And, I understand that hindsight is 20/20, but in this instance, there was
> apparently enough evidence against Williams that he was to be terminated by
> the UI, however belated -- or not -- that termination was.  As I think we
> all know, terminating a presumably tenured professor at the UI isn't a
> simple matter, and given the undisputed report that Williams was, in fact,
> to be terminated, the UI's investigation apparently substantiated *at least*
> one of the complainant's allegation(s).  There was apparently sufficient
> fire accompanying  the smoke (more than one complaint of sexual harassment
> by more than one student) to justify termination.
>
> Of course, it's entirely possible that I've messed up the above sequence or
> determinations or timeline or whatever.  We don't know *because* the UI had
> returned to its standard CYA stance.
>
> As things stand, I am deeply, deeply concerned that the UI learned nothing
> from Katy Benoit's murder other than to use the money Katy's family provided
> to fund completely ineffective "fairs" like the "Got Your Back" one before
> Joe Wiederrick's tragic death.  Minimally, the UI certainly doesn't seem to
> be walking the promised "transparency" walk.  I have a sick feeling in the
> pit of my stomach that those promises following Katy's tragic death were
> nothing more than smoke and mirrors to get out of the heat of public
> scrutiny.
>
>
>
> Saundra Lund
> Moscow, ID
>
> It's a matter of taking the side if the weak against the strong, something
> the best people have always done.
> ~ Harriet Beecher Stowe
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Campbell [mailto:philosopher.joe at gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 10:33 AM
> To: Saundra Lund
> Cc: Vision 2020
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Lewiston Tribune: It's back to the shadows for the
> UI
>
> What is the unreleased information supposed to tell us?
>
> The LT tried to contact the two persons who filed charges but they don't
> want to talk. And among the information included in Williams'
> personal file would apparently be information that might help someone
> identify the people who made the initial charges. Isn't that why that
> information is not allowed to be released? Williams is dead. But he left
> behind at least one child. Maybe Williams no longer has a right to privacy
> but what about his child(ren)?
>
> Honestly, if I thought the information would be helpful I'd be on your side
> but the man is dead and can no longer defend himself and the
> (supposed) victims don't want to talk about it further. I see nothing but
> speculation and innuendo arising from the release of this "information" and
> I can't for the life of me see what good it would do.
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Saundra Lund <v2020 at ssl1.fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>> A friend shared the below editorial with me - I'm surprised and
>> disappointed there was no Daily News coverage  L
>>
>>
>>
>> What on earth is wrong with the UI?!  And, that question applies to
>> more than just the reprehensible and anemic response highlighted in
>> the editorial below.
>>
>>
>>
>> Since Kent Nelson was brought onboard, the UI has become incredibly
>> secretive, particularly with respect to public records requests.
>> Indeed, I'm perfectly comfortable saying that it has added extortion
>> to its bag of shady tricks.
>>
>>
>>
>> For those who depend on the Daily News - as I do - and don't subscribe
>> to the Lewiston Tribune, I found this article that provides more
>> detail about the Williams scandal than does the editorial:
>>
>> http://media.spokesman.com/documents/2013/03/2472_001.pdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Saundra
>>
>>
>>
>> It's back to the shadows for the UI
>>
>> Posted: Friday, March 8, 2013 12:00 am
>>
>> University of Idaho administrators act much differently when the
>> spotlight is glaring upon them.
>>
>> And the lights were blazingly hot during the summer of 2011, when
>> former UI psychology professor Ernesto Bustamante gunned down graduate
>> student Katy Benoit and subsequently took his own life in a Moscow motel
> room.
>>
>> Chastened by criticism that its response to Benoit's appeals for help
>> had been inadequate, UI responded with a mixture of contrition and
> transparency.
>> Rules governing relationships between faculty and students were tightened.
>> Sexual harassment allegations would be aggressively pursued.
>>
>> Most vital of all, the public would see for itself how well UI
>> conducted its affairs. In the Bustamante case, that meant UI would
>> join news organizations in seeking release of the late professor's
> personnel file.
>>
>> Some of the details that emerged embarrassed UI, such as a student
>> evaluation that reported Bustamante tossed around the idea of killing
>> students while in the classroom. Nonetheless, it telegraphed the
>> institution's commitment to public disclosure.
>>
>> Now the lights are off.
>>
>> What's happened since?
>>
>> With the Benoit case still in the courts during 2012, the university
>> had been looking into claims that law professor Alan Fitzgerald
>> Williams sexually harassed at least two female students.
>>
>> Based upon almost a year of the Tribune's Joel Mills' reporting,
>> Moscow police reports and the university's own acknowledgements, we
>> know College of Law Associate Dean Benjamin Beard accompanied one of
>> the students to the police interview.
>>
>> When requested by Carmen Suarez, UI director of Human Rights, Access
>> and Inclusion, police provided her additional security.
>>
>> Williams was placed on administrative leave during the fall 2012
>> semester and was about to be terminated when he committed suicide at
>> Gig Harbor, Wash., on Dec. 30, according to the Pierce County Sheriff's
> Office.
>>
>> As far as UI is concerned, that is all you need to know.
>>
>> Never mind the precedent of 2nd District Judge John Stegner's ruling
>> in opening Bustamante's files. Because Bustamante was deceased,
>> Stegner found he had no right to privacy. The judge then found a
>> compelling public interest in releasing the documents.
>>
>> What's different this time? Only the university's rejection of the
>> Lewiston Tribune's request to see Williams' personnel file. In
>> response to the second request - filed after Williams' death - UI said
>> the public interest in releasing the file was "nonexistent."
>>
>> Never mind a 1996 2nd District Court ruling declaring student
>> evaluations of faculty to be public documents. Says UI, the law school
>> holds itself apart from the rest of the university. But it is merely a
>> graduate school, an extension of the university, not some government
>> entity responsible for licensing lawyers. During the Benoit-Bustamante
>> episode, UI President Duane Nellis was ubiquitous, frequently granting
>> interviews assuring a statewide audience of his intent to remedy the
> situation.
>>
>> Today, Nellis is nowhere to be found. He's on his way out the door to
>> lead Texas Tech in Lubbock. The voice of UI is lead attorney Kent Nelson.
>>
>> Outside the glare of statewide publicity, the Williams case still matters.
>> This marks the first time the reforms devised after the
>> Benoit-Bustamante case were tested. How are we to know if the system
>> worked, where it failed and what refinements are needed if the key
>> players insist on hiding behind closed doors?
>>
>> What secrets do UI officials want retained within Williams' files and
>> student evaluations?
>>
>> And how genuine was this UI commitment to transparency in the first place?
>> In all likelihood, the courts were going to order the university to
>> turn over Bustamante's records. UI could resist, get out of the way or
>> appear to cooperate.
>>
>> Under no such pressure this time, UI has retreated behind its moat of
>> secrecy. In the background, you can hear the faint echo of an
>> unmistakable
>> phrase: "Trust us.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>>  List services made available by First Step Internet,  serving the
>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>                http://www.fsr.net
>>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>



More information about the Vision2020 mailing list