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

[Nicholas Gier]

Dear Visionaries:


I've been on both sides of this issue. In the late 1970s I was contacted by
a UI female staff member who claimed that she was being fired because she
rejected her supervisor’s sexual advances.  (He recruited her at a
conference to be his lover!)  These were the early days of dealing of
sexual harassment, and the UI administration refused to hear her
complaints.  Only when I delivered the love letters to the academic
vice-president did he finally act, but not in a satisfactory manner. The
woman was given a nice letter of recommendation for a new job, and the guy
stayed in his position until his retirement.


I'm now involved in a case where I'm convinced the faculty member is
innocent. We must be very, very careful in investigating these charges and
give those accused full due process. It is significant to point out that of
the 11,364 cases of sexual harassment filed in 2011 with the federal Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, 6,658—53 percent—were determined to have
no “reasonable cause.”  See www.eeoc.gov/
eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual
_harassment.cfm<http://www.eeoc.gov/%20eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.cfm>
.


Pittsburg attorney David R. Johnson warns that “employees should be
cautioned against making false complaints. Although the employer does not
want to ‘chill’ the complaint process, it also does not want to suggest
that there will be no consequences if one employee alleges without any
basis that someone else is engaging in sexual harassment.”


The UI recognizes the “damage [that] could result to the career and
reputation of any person who is accused of sexual harassment falsely or not
in good faith” (*Faculty Staff Handbook, *3220 C-2).  The career of the
faculty member I'm now representing has been destroyed by false charges.


Due Process Forever,


Nick


On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> >> =======================================================
> >
>
> =======================================================
>  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
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130312/1bed5294/attachment-0001.html>