The Faculty Senate last week voted overwhelmingly to approve a revised draft of the universitywide sexual harassment policy adopted last July.
In an earlier vote at the special Senate meeting Feb. 19, the senate defeated a hotly debated amendment that would have limited the participation of lawyers in the hearing process. The amendment was defeated in a 47-20 vote.
The revised draft has been forwarded to President Hunter Rawlings and Provost Don M. Randel for consideration. Rawlings must approve any changes to the university's sexual harassment procedures.
"This is a significant achievement for the Faculty Senate," said Peter C. Stein, dean of the faculty. "It has taken a considerable amount of time and effort, but I believe we have performed an important service for the university community. The Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Status should be commended."
Randel said the administration will review the faculty's proposed changes, as well as changes that have been proposed by other interested groups. Administrators will decide within a few weeks what revisions they will make to the procedures.
"The administration will review all the proposed changes carefully and thoroughly and will decide on what revisions should be made to the procedures," Randel said. "Our goal is to have a universitywide procedure for investigating complaints of sexual harassment that is fair and equitable to all."
The new draft, prepared by the Committee on Academic Freedom and Professional Status, revises some of the procedures for processing complaints of sexual harassment against faculty members and includes a revised definition of sexual harassment that differentiates between the working environment and the educational environment. The revised draft is available electronically at http://www.cornell.edu/Faculty_senate .
The new policy initially was drafted by Randel and University Counsel James J. Mingle in November 1995 and was reviewed, revised and discussed widely on campus by students, faculty and staff before being finalized.
But due to faculty members' dissatisfaction with aspects of the procedures, in November 1996 the Faculty Senate directed its committee to review and revise them.
The committee's draft sets forth a new procedure for the investigation and handling of sexual harassment complaints involving faculty members. It continues to give the university Office of Equal Opportunity the responsibility to initially investigate and mediate those complaints, with the aid of a faculty co-investigator. But the committee's draft gives the committee the greater responsibility for adjudicating cases in which the faculty member contests the OEO-recommended sanctions.
The amendment defeated last week would have allowed lawyers to attend hearings and advise their clients but would have denied them the right to participate in the proceedings.
Professor Terrence Fine, electrical engineering, and a co-author of the amendment, explained that the idea was "to quiet lawyers, not eliminate them. This allows a faculty-based peer committee to make a judgment on an issue. Lawyers aren't interested in the truth but in advocating for their client even if that means obfuscating the truth."
Members of the university's legal community and others argued that in restricting the participation of lawyers both defendants and complainants would be denied the legal expertise they need to present their cases effectively in matters with potentially significant consequences, including dismissal.
Steven Shiffrin, professor of law, said that even if the amendment passed, "There will be advocates. The question is, will you have trained advocates or untrained advocates?"