SEXUAL HARASSMENT POLICY AND COMPLAINT PROCEDURES FOR UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND PERSONNEL

INTRODUCTION

Alfred University is an educational community where strong emphasis is placed on self-discovery and awareness. Where there exists such an atmosphere for freedom of expression, however, it must always be combined with a mutual respect and consideration for the lives and feelings of others. In such a setting, there is no place for conduct that diminishes, uses, or abuses other individuals. Any violation of trust, any form of sexual intimidation or exploitation, jeopardizes the mission of the institution and threatens the careers, educational experience and well-being of students, faculty, and staff. The campus community, therefore, is assured that sexual harassment will not be tolerated by Alfred University and that the institution will take appropriate action, as deemed necessary, to prevent and address such conduct.

POLICY

The Alfred University Board of Trustees has adopted an explicit policy prohibiting sexual harassment throughout the University community.

It is the policy of Alfred University, in keeping with efforts to establish an environment in which the dignity and worth of all members of the institutional community are respected, to view sexual harassment of employees or students as unacceptable conduct which will not be tolerated. [1]

Recognizing its responsibility to uphold the tenets inherent in this policy, the University thus establishes the following procedures and guidelines designed to educate and inform faculty, students, and staff relative to (1) the definitions of sexual harassment, and (2) procedures for filing and resolving related complaints. Except as otherwise stated in this policy, the procedures set forth in this document shall be followed in adjudicating all complaints of sexual harassment, notwithstanding general complaint procedures which may be contained in other personnel and/or student policies of Alfred University.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT DEFINITION

(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1980)

Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors or other verbal, written or physical conduct of a sexual nature constitute sexual harassment when:

• Submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, academic standing, or limits a student¹s ability to participate in or benefit from the education program
•  Submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment or academic decisions affecting that individual
• Such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work or academic performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working learning environment.[2] Examples of the verbal or physical conduct mentioned above include but are not limited to:
• direct or implied threats that submission to sexual advances will determine and/or affect working conditions, work status, 

        promotion, tenure, grades, letters of recommendation, etc.;

• a pattern of unwanted conduct that would seem disrespectful and/or humiliating to a moderately sensitive person at whom the conduct was directed;
• unnecessary touching, patting, hugging, or brushing against a person's body;
•     repeated staring or ogling;
• remarks of a sexual nature about a person's clothing or body;
• remarks about sexual activity or speculations about previous sexual experience; or
• harassing use of the electronic mail or telephone communication system.

Particularly in an institution of higher education, it is to be understood that the Sexual Harassment Policy is not intended to restrict discourse or debate in the classroom or other academic forum. However, protecting these values does not preclude simultaneous protection against sexual discrimination or harassment.

For purposes of identification it should be noted that, while sexual harassment is most frequently associated with those situations in which a power differential exists between persons involved, this policy recognizes also that such harassment may likewise occur between persons of the same University status, student-student as well as employee-employee. It is to be further understood that charges of sexual harassment may involve a female victim and male harasser, a male victim and female harasser, as well as victims and harassers of the same gender.

In determining whether alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment, those entrusted with carrying out this policy will look at the record as a whole and at the totality of the circumstances, such as the nature of the sexual advances and the context in which the alleged incidents occurred. The determination of the suitability of a particular remedial action will be made from the facts, on a case-by-case basis. (It should be noted, however, that the president, vice president for student affairs [in the case of an employee alleged offender], dean of students [in the case of a student alleged offender], or a designee may immediately impose interim suspension of the accused when there is reasonable cause to believe such procedure is necessary in order to protect lives and/or property, ensure safety, and maintain order. During such times, the suspended party will not be allowed on University property without the prior written permission of the President, Dean of Students, or the designee.)

SEXUAL HARASSMENT COMPLAINTS AND PROCEDURES

Anyone who feels that s/he has been a victim of sexual harassment is strongly encouraged to bring such incidents to the attention of any of the following individuals (hereafter referred to collectively as the Sexual Harassment Review Committee or, individually, as Review Officers) designated to deal with such cases:[3]

Director of Human Resources, 871-2118

Assistant Director of Human Resources, 871-2118

Director of Communications, 871-2170

Director of Special Academic Services, 871-2148

Dean of Students, 871-2132

Director of Enrollment Operations and Research, 871-2346

Director of Residence Life, 871-2186

Assistant Dean, College of Business, 871-2630

Faculty: Karen Porter 871-2186

 (*All claims of student-student sexual harassment should be reported to one of these individuals.)

During the initial inquiry phase of the process, the review officer will provide full information and guidance and suggest referrals for support and counsel as they may be indicated. It should be recognized, however, that the review officer is not a counselor. Rather, this individual will be serving as a neutral party, acting on behalf of Alfred University, to try to determine the facts and provide whatever education is deemed necessary to protect the interests of both the parties involved as well as those of the institution. If the decision is made to enter either the informal or formal complaint procedures, the officer shall likewise be responsible for maintaining and keeping appropriate aggregate documentation pertaining to those cases which remain at the informal level. (Note: Any and all inquiries, proceedings and deliberations will be conducted with as much confidentiality as possible.)

INFORMAL PROCEDURE

The term “informal” means that there will be no actual finding in the case (as determined by an investigating committee) and that the emphasis will be on conciliation as opposed to sanction(s). (Sanctions, as appropriate, however, are not precluded by this procedure.) It is at this stage that there is the most flexibility in procedure. An initial decision by the complainant to pursue the informal procedure does not, at any time, preclude that individual from terminating the informal procedure and pursuing the formal procedure. Generally, the process will include efforts by the review officer to provide information, guidance and assistance in informal resolution, as it pertains to involved parties.

To use this procedure, a report should be filed with an appropriate review officer as soon as possible following the alleged harassment incident. (One consequence of the failure to present a complaint promptly is that it may preclude formal procedures, should they eventually be deemed necessary.) The review officer receiving the notice, hereafter called the intake officer, will document the situation and work to arrive at appropriate resolution.[4] The intake officer will suggest various remediation options. Examples of such options may include, but are not limited to, the following:

• The intake officer assisting the complainant in preparation for, and in the conduct of, a meeting between the complainant and alleged offender (intake officer and directly involved supervisors may be present at the meeting, as deemed appropriate), the purpose being to discuss and resolve the perceived harassing behavior to the satisfaction of both parties
• The intake officer assisting the complainant with the development of a letter to the alleged offender outlining the perceived harassing behavior and asserting that the complainant would like the behavior to stop. (If desired, the recipient may provide a written response)
• The intake officer attempting to facilitate a solution and written statement of agreement, acceptable to both the complainant and the alleged offender
• If the intake officer has notified the alleged offender that an informal procedure is in process, the intake officer will likewise notify the alleged offender when the proceeding is completed and whether a formal procedure will commence

The intake officer will conclude informal proceedings by preparing a written report, signed by both the intake officer and the complainant, documenting the resolution of the situation. This document, as well as all other pertinent papers, will then be held in a confidential file in either Student Affairs (student-student) or Human Resources (all others) for a period of three years, after which time such documentation will be archived and maintained in accordance with University records retention practices. (Note: Such a file will be available to University personnel other than review officers on a strict need-to-know basis only. A request for such access must be submitted in writing to the vice president for student affairs or director of human resources, as appropriate, for consideration.)

While mediation (either direct or indirect) is strongly recommended and informal resolution is generally less traumatic for everyone involved, no complainant shall be denied access to the formal procedure, the details of which follow.

FORMAL PROCEDURE

FILING THE COMPLAINT

Should a formal complaint be filed, such an action means that resolution will involve a finding and possible resulting sanctions. The procedure is initiated by filing, with an appropriate intake officer,[5] a written description of the alleged incident (prepared in consultation with the intake officer) and a statement of formal complaint, such documentation being signed by the complainant. Filing for formal resolution must take place no later than one year beyond the date in which the alleged incident occurred. (Note: For those cases involving extenuating circumstances deemed sufficient to warrant further investigation; the University reserves the right to process cases beyond the one-year deadline.)

PROCEDURE

The Officer receiving the complaint will promptly inform the accused of the charge and identify the complainant, thus initiating the procedure. (Note: In cases between University employees, immediate supervisors of both parties will also be informed, the purpose being to ensure that such individuals receive an unbiased accounting of the case as well as an awareness of the need for understanding relative to the stress and demands placed on both parties during the ensuing investigation.) The alleged offender will be given a copy of the original complaint and the opportunity to submit a written response, which if given will likewise be shared with the complainant.

The intake officer will then request that the president [6] assemble a team of three individuals, hereafter called the Investigating Committee, to hear the case. Two of these individuals shall be other review officers,[7] chosen by the president. For the third member, the president shall submit to the complainant and alleged offender a list of three individuals, all full-time employees of the University who have consented to be involved in the investigation, if ultimately selected. (Note: In submitting this list, the president shall ensure, where possible, that both genders are represented on the committee. Further, for those cases in which the accused is an employee, the selections offered shall attempt to ensure, where feasible, an employee who is a member of the same personnel group as the alleged offender, such groups being defined as administration, faculty, technical specialist, and support staff. Ideally, where such distinctions are meaningful, eligible employees shall also be at a classification comparable to, or exceeding, that of both the accused as well as the complainant.) From this list, each party may strike one name, thus resulting in the third member. Or, in that case in which either the complainant or alleged offender does not wish to delete a name, the president shall make the final decision regarding membership from those names which remain. The investigating committee, in turn, will choose one of its members to act as chairperson to direct and guide the investigation.

It shall be the obligation of the committee to begin proceedings by hearing a formal presentation of the case from the intake officer. Responding to any questions the committee may have, this officer will make all files relative to the case, including written statements from either party, available to the committee. The complainant and alleged offender will likewise be requested to meet with the investigating committee, appearing alone and/or together, as determined necessary by committee members. In an attempt to alleviate the possible stress of such meetings, the presence and support of a University counseling professional (it being understood that this individual is not a participant in deliberations) may be requested by either party, with each being free to choose the individual with whom they feel most comfortable. Although the investigation will be conducted with as much discretion and privacy as possible, ensuing deliberations will likely involve interviewing others as well.

In conclusion, it is here noted that during these proceedings, considered to be internal to the institution, neither the University nor the parties involved shall bring legal counsel to the deliberations.

DECISION

Upon completion of the investigation, the deliberations shall be concluded with the chair forwarding to the provost [8] a written report detailing the group's findings in the case as well as any one, or combination of, the following recommendations:

• that, because a complaint has been unable to be substantiated, it be dismissed;
• that a written agreement detailing the terms of resolution, signed by both the Investigating Committee as well as the parties      involved, be approved;
• that a suggested sanction, determined according to the nature of the alleged violation and supporting evidence, be approved. However, it cannot be stressed too strongly that education is nevertheless considered the strongest preventive tool and will frequently be involved as an additional required condition in the resolution of sexual harassment cases. (Note: It is to be understood that suggested internal disciplinary actions do not preclude or replace legal sanctions where they are otherwise imposed.)

Examples of University employee sanctions include, but are not limited to, the following:

• A verbal and/or written reprimand, often with the stipulation that the letter of reprimand be placed in the harasser¹ ’ s personnel file for a predetermined period. If there are no further sexual harassment problems within this time-frame, the letter is removed to a general file held by Student Affairs (student-student) or Human Resources (all others) in archives. Once in the archived file, access will be carefully controlled and available to others on a strictly need-to-know basis only. A request for such access must be submitted, in writing, to the vice president for student affairs or director of human resources, as appropriate, for consideration.
• Letter of reprimand plus suspension without pay or leave of absence without pay.
• Termination of employment of harasser.[9]

For those sanctions relevant to University students, the reader is referred to the list found in the student judicial system guidelines. Generally, however, disciplinary actions will fall into categories roughly comparable to those noted above for University personnel.

Once the investigating committee report has been made to the Provost, s/he, in consultation with the appropriate supervisory personnel, will make a final decision within ten business days of the receipt of such recommendation and submit it, in writing, to the investigating committee chairperson and parties involved.

APPEAL PROCEDURE

(based on procedural grounds or new evidence only)

Should either the accuser or the accused wish to appeal the decision, a request for such appeal should be delivered, in writing, to the University ombudsperson within five working days of the original decision. Appeals must be based on either procedural grounds (technical departures from these procedures and errors in their application shall not be grounds for appeal unless, in the judgment of the ombudsperson, the departures or errors were such as to have prevented a fair and just determination of the charge) or availability of new evidence (not previously available and considered germane to the finding). Within ten working days the ombudsperson will determine whether the case warrants further review and deliver this finding to the provost. The provost, in turn, will inform the Investigating Committee, as well as the parties involved.

In the event the request is granted, the provost may ask the investigating committee to re-examine the case, based on those points contained in the appeal. In response, a remaining eligible review officer (chosen by the president) as well as the previous investigating committee will be assembled to reconsider the case. It shall be the responsibility of the additionally added, but non-voting, review officer (hereafter called the oversight officer) to carefully monitor subsequent deliberations to ensure that pertinent new evidence and/or procedural concerns are adequately and impartially considered.  Upon further review of all information relative to the charge, the chair of the investigating committee will once again present a written finding and recommendation to the provost. Should the oversight officer feel there is any further relevant information the provost should have in rendering a final decision, s/he may likewise include such detail in an accompanying statement. Based on the completed report, the provost will then render a final written decision in the case, again in consultation with appropriate supervisory personnel, to both the committee and parties involved. (Note: Every effort will be made to complete the appeal process within 30 working days of that date in which the request for an appeal is received by the provost.)

APPEAL PROCEDURE - PRESIDENT

In concluding consideration (regardless of whether the ombudsperson appeal procedure was used), both complainant and the accused have the option of final appeal to the President. Such an appeal may be based on the decision(s) and/or action(s) relative to the case.

A written request for such consideration must be filed in the president¹ ’ s office no later than three (3) days beyond that in which the provost's decision was rendered. In response, the President will review procedure and evidence pertinent to the case, likewise considering the overall decision(s) and possible resulting sanction(s) imposed. Conferring as appropriate, and gathering whatever additional input is considered germane, the final decision will then be communicated to the provost, committee, and parties involved.

MONITORING CASE RESOLUTION

It shall be the responsibility of the chairperson of the investigating committee to provide follow-up to ensure that final decisions of a given case are carried out completely. Student affairs (student-student) or human resources (all others) will be responsible for maintaining all records in accordance with University record retention practices once a final decision is rendered.

Adopted by: Alfred University Board of Trustees, October 23, 1992

Updated: 2/94, 9/94, 9/95, 9/96, 5/99, 8/00, 6/01, 6/02, 7/03, 10/05

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] It is here noted that in the same way it is violation of policy for any member of the University community to take action against an individual for reporting a sexual harassment complaint, it is likewise considered a violation for any member to file a deliberately false and malicious complaint. Instances of such behavior would be referred for consideration and possible resulting disciplinary action according to student or personnel policy and procedure guidelines relevant to the individual being so charged.

[2] Since “hostile environment” harassment takes a variety of forms, many factors may affect this determination, including: (1) the severity of the conduct and whether it was verbal or physical, or both; (2) how frequently it was repeated; (3) whether the conduct was hostile and patently offensive; (4) whether there existed a power differential between the parties involved;

(5) whether others joined in perpetrating the harassment; (6) whether the harassment was directed at more than one individual; and (7) whether such conduct was of a sexual nature and sufficiently severe, persistent or pervasive to limit a student¹s ability to participate in or benefit from the education program or to create a hostile educational environment. In determining whether given conduct is so severe or pervasive as to warrant a “hostile environment” claim, the Investigating Committee must endeavor to adopt the perspective of a reasonable person's reaction to a similar environment under similar or like circumstances. To determine the “unwelcomeness” of given conduct, while a contemporaneous complaint or protest to the accused strengthens the charging party's case, it is not a required element in a claim. (“EEOC Policy Guidance on Current Issues of Sexual Harassment,” Sexual Harassment on Campus: A Legal Compendium, 2d ed., National Association of College and University Attorneys.)

[3] Although it is standard protocol and operating procedure for an inquiry relative to possible sexual harassment involving two employees to be filed first with the immediate supervisor, in this case it is recommended but not required. However, for those cases in which the supervisor is the individual to whom such a reference is made, s/he is required to handle the matter by immediately securing the services of a Review Officer to provide relevant guidance and information as well as assistance in documentation and/or resolution as they may be appropriate to the inquiry.

[4] In those cases where the accused is an employee, it shall likewise be the responsibility of the Review Officer to promptly inform the appropriate immediate supervisor, keeping this individual fully informed throughout the case, ultimately advising of its resolution. (Note: The immediate supervisor of the complainant will be informed and advised as it is deemed and appropriate to do so.)

[5] For those cases which began at the informal level, the Intake Officer of record during those proceedings will remain in that position during formal deliberations as well.

[6] In circumstances where it is determined that the President needs to recuse him or herself, the Chair of the Board of Trustees will appoint a designee to act in this capacity.

[7] For those cases involving student-student charges, at least one of the appointed Review Officers shall be from the Division of Student Affairs.

[8] In circumstances where it is determined that the Provost needs to recuse him or herself, the President will appoint a designee to act in this capacity.

[9] Where the proposed sanction is termination of a faculty member on tenure or one whose term appointment has not expired, such sanction shall be further subject to the procedures in the provisions of faculty appointment which pertain to such action.