By Jacquie Powers
Provost Don M. Randel announced recently that he will modify the university's procedures for addressing complaints of sexual harassment to accommodate some changes suggested in recent months by members of the campus community.
Randel announced the changes in a letter to members of the Cornell community dated May 12. He pointed out, however, that the procedures adopted in July 1996 after months of campus discussion and input would not be broadly rewritten. The Employee Assembly had requested a broad revision to provide the same set of procedures for faculty and staff. Currently those procedures differ.
In describing what he called "improvements to the existing system," Randel noted in the letter that two key concerns had emerged: "(1) the degree to which the procedures will in fact be used by those who have legitimate complaints and (2) the degree to which the faculty is or ought to be afforded separate procedures or 'rights' under the universitywide procedures."
In addressing the first concern, Randel agreed to a proposal by students to incorporate the use of peer advisers to make the procedures less intimidating. He also said he would include specific timelines in the existing procedures to assure prompt response to complaints.
With regard to the second concern, Randel wrote: "Here we must recognize that freedom of expression in general and academic freedom in particular are essential to the very existence of the University and that therefore the role of the faculty within the institution must be the subject of safeguards that are not called for by the roles of others within the very same institution. . . .
"In the charged atmosphere in which we as a society and a local community attempt to define sexual harassment, we cannot always be sure that a charge of sexual harassment against a member of the faculty is not a surrogate for an attempt to restrain the legitimate expression of merely unpopular or controversial views.
"Accordingly, a charge of sexual harassment against a faculty member must always be adjudicated in a forum in which issues of freedom of expression and academic freedom can be addressed at first hand by those with some standing in relation to those issues."
For that reason, Randel said, it would not be appropriate to add a student and an employee member, as requested by the Student and Employee assemblies, to the Academic Freedom and Professional Status Committee. That committee adjudicates faculty harassment complaints.
Randel agreed with the Faculty Senate's suggestion to streamline the procedure by removing a hearing from the first investigative phase of the current procedures for all those charged but disagreed with the senate's suggestion to include a faculty co-investigator in all cases involving faculty members.
Rather, he said he would modify the procedures to use faculty co-investigators only "in instances when a faculty member is the party charged with sexually harassing behavior that is alleged to have occurred in the context of a subordinate-supervisory academic relationship or to have involved an issue of academic freedom...." Randel, in adhering to the spirit of the Employee Assembly comments, agreed that in all other instances of alleged sexual harassment by a faculty member the procedures would be the same as for members of the staff.
Finally Randel agreed to change the standard of proof in all complaints of sexual harassment to "clear and convincing evidence," as provided in the Campus Code for other kinds of misconduct complaints. Currently the sexual harassment procedures refer to the "preponderance of evidence" standard.
Randel said the policy revisions will take effect in the fall after the Policy Advisory Group revises and reformats the document.