Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Blog and Media Roundup - Wednesday, February 21, 2018; News Roundup
Topic Started: Feb 21 2018, 06:43 AM (130 Views)
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2018/02/women-speak-out-about-sexual-harassment-experiences-at-duke


Women speak out about sexual harassment experiences at Duke
Amid the #MeToo movement, two women share issues with the University’s handling of their cases
By Likhitha Butchireddygari | 02/20/2018

Content warning: This story includes a detailed account of sexual harassment. The Chronicle has changed the name of the students with an asterisk next to their name due to the sensitive nature of the story. Their harassers have also been given different names or not named upon the students’ request in fear of retribution.

“If you just put a frog in boiling water, it jumps out. But if you slowly turn up the heat, it stays in it until it dies.”

That’s how Anne* described her experience with one professor in the religious studies department, George*, last Spring. For Anne, who was enrolled in George’s class during her last semester as an undergraduate, it was small things over time.

Anne told The Chronicle that by the end of the semester, George had created an uncomfortable environment for her by talking about her appearance and regularly asking her before and during class to get coffee. Another student in the class also noted that George made inappropriate comments towards Anne.

“I started dreading going to class, because every time I walked in the door he had a comment about what I was wearing—if I wore a normal outfit and mascara, I looked ‘lovely’ and if I wore a sweatshirt he would say ‘surely [you] are heading to the gym,’” she said. “He asked me to meet for coffee one-on-one to ‘pick my brain’ most weeks, too, which I declined again and again.”

At approximately 9 p.m. the night before Valentine’s Day last year, Anne got an email seen by The Chronicle from George that she felt was improper.

“Ever since our first meeting, I was impressed with your keen intellect and unusual maturity. Every additional meeting has only confirmed those early impressions. I feel privileged to share a small portion of your college experience and just wanted to let you know,” he wrote. “I look forward to sharing the rest of the semester with you and reading some of your written work.”

Anne said she went back and forth about whether George’s behavior was inappropriate. At points, she thought he could just be an overly-friendly old guy. But then, in March, George asked Anne for a hug—something she was decidedly uncomfortable with.

“One day after class he walked up to me and said, ‘I’m sad, can I have a hug?’ I stood there frozen, with no idea how to respond to the request—I stood there awkwardly while he put his arms around me,” she wrote.

But by the end of the semester, Anne said she felt so uneasy about his behavior—which she said he made during most classes—that she would get to class exactly on time and dart out as soon as it was over. She also started not participating in the class.

“I was just so worried that he was just going to pick on me, and say things about me or make comments about my appearance that I just felt so uncomfortable that I would just sit there taking notes and be totally silent,” she said. “Then, when I would do that, he would come and sit next to me and lean over my desk and look at my notes.”

Anne decided not to file an official complaint with the Office of Institutional Equity—which handles harassment and discrimination complaints—but shared her experience with OIE and various religious studies department administrators. OIE decided to follow-up on Anne’s concerns with an investigation that included an interview with George.

“During his interview, the instructor denied engaging with you in an inappropriate manner,” concluded an OIE investigation. “He also denied some of the incidents you reported. The instructor acknowledged using phrases that were personal or intended to engage with students, but explained they were not used in a romantic or sex based context.”

The outcomes

Anne was not alone in her experience. Esther*, a graduate student, also faced harassment in the form of creepy emails and unwelcome touching from a male superior, who was found to have “more likely than not…violated the Duke Harassment Policy” through an OIE investigation. She said that she did not want to publicize the details of her story in fear of retaliation from the University.

Both Esther and Anne’s alleged harassers are still at Duke and interacting with students, based on LinkedIn, DukeHub and Duke websites. In fact, George taught classes in Fall 2017 and is currently teaching this semester.

For Esther, termination of her harasser was the only appropriate solution.

“If he is found responsible, I think he should have been fired because it's a high-risk situation for him to interact with other female students,” Esther said.

For Anne, a just outcome didn’t necessarily include George’s termination.

“I'm not saying that they need to fire him or to put him in jail or anything like that,” she said. “I'm really just saying, do the things you need to do to keep your students safe because that's what a university should do.”

She suggested that more useful University responses would have been further training for George, monitoring of his classes and collecting student evaluations tailored to his behavior. It is unclear whether any of these or other sanctions were placed on George following an OIE investigation in his behavior. The Chronicle reached out to George for this story and he declined to comment.

“As a result of the garnered information, we have reported them to the appropriate dean,” the OIE investigation into George’s behavior concluded.

David Morgan, professor of religious studies and chair of the department, wrote in an October 2017 email to Anne that the University’s response to her complaint went beyond what was in OIE’s letter, but didn’t give any specifics.

“I believe your concerns were frankly explored,” he wrote. “Moreover, as department chair, I can assure you that the entire matter has signaled to me the importance of diligent monitoring and proactive consideration of matters of sensitivity to gender dynamics in the classroom. The need to continue learning about this is ongoing, and the experience you’ve had has underscored the fact. Record-keeping is also a significant take-away.”

Morgan did not respond to a request for comment in time for publication.

Issues with the OIE process

Like in Anne’s case, OIE did not share with Esther the sanctions placed on her alleged harasser. Both Anne and Esther found the lack of transparency to be problematic.

“At the very least, I think sanctions should be required for anyone found responsible and I think the process for deciding those things should be transparent for the person filing the claim,” Esther said.

According to page 14 of the OIE Harassment Policy and Procedure, the office will notify the parties of any sanctions that “relate directly to them” and will verify that remedial actions have been implemented. It does not say OIE will inform both parties of sanctions.

Another aspect of the process that was troubling to Esther was not being able to talk to an objective, non-Duke affiliated advocate during the process. Both Anne and Esther interacted with Cynthia Clinton, assistant vice president in the OIE and director of harassment prevention and special projects.

“It shouldn't have just been me and a Duke lawyer,” Esther said. “That's an unfair power dynamic, where she tells me what I should be doing and I agree because I'm traumatized from this experience.”

Esther noted that this is where a graduate student union would have been helpful as they might have been able to provide her with an advocate. Clinton, however, wrote in an email to The Chronicle that the office doesn’t push people in any direction regarding decisions they have to make during the process. One such decision is whether to go through the informal or formal process.

The informal process, which should take no longer than 45 days, is when OIE and/or the respondent's department in consultation with OIE conduct an investigation. The formal process, which should be completed in 60 days, is when a three- or five-person panel adjudicates the case.

One factor that deterred Esther from choosing the formal process was having to appear in the same room as her alleged harasser. Clinton wrote that such a requirement is to ensure fairness.

“The procedures for the formal hearing process were adopted with the intent to protect the rights of both parties and to assure a fair process,” she noted.

Still, even if a complainant chooses the formal process, the hearing panel can decide that the case should be handled via the informal resolution process. When asked on what basis a hearing panel would make that decision, Clinton noted that it was “case-by-case.”

Clinton also wrote in an email that the office does not “discourage or encourage complainants to use a specific process”—informal or formal.

OIE’s Harassment Policy and Procedures, however, does include benefits of the informal process, stating it is generally “more expeditious and less polarizing than the formal process.”

In fact, Clinton noted in an email that “a very small percentage of complainants elect to use the formal complaint handling process.”

During the OIE investigation, there was a no-contact agreement between Esther and her alleged harasser. As part of that agreement, Esther had to inform a third party if she needed access to a certain building that her alleged harasser worked in. Through that process, he would be told that he wasn’t allowed to be there at that time. Esther found this provision troubling.

“It all required responsibility on my part to keep track of where he was and it would require him to know where I was,” she said.

But, now that the investigation is over, there is no institutional provision—even one that is perhaps flawed—that helps Esther avoid her harasser, who still works on campus in buildings Esther needs access to for work.

“Rather than risk encountering him in the spaces of my research and networking, I continue to avoid them entirely or develop contacts not relevant to my work,” she said.

One aspect of OIE’s harassment procedure was especially “ridiculous” to Esther. According to Duke’s harassment policy, there is a statute of limitations for when a complainant can file a complaint after the harassment incident occurred. For students, complaints are actionable until the student graduates.

For all others, a complaint must be filed “no more than year after the most recent conduct alleged to constitute harassment.”

“I think it's ridiculous and it benefits only faculty and staff in superior positions to graduate students,” Esther said. “I think it's horrific, especially for graduate students because we're here working with
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2018/02/180221-bateman-believe-her


The Bridge leads panel on campus culture surrounding sexual assault
By Alexandra Bateman | 02/21/2018

In her recent, fiery Golden Globes speech, Oprah Winfrey said, “I want all the girls watching here, now, to know that a new day is on the horizon! And when that new day dawns, it will be because of a lot of magnificent women … fighting hard to make sure that they become the leaders who take us to the time when nobody ever has to say ‘Me too’ again.”

We are witnessing a women’s movement in our time, the likes of which we haven’t seen since women won the right to vote in 1920. This time, we’re fighting against gender violence, specifically sexual assault and the culture that has long been silencing us. Monday night, amid the #MeToo and Time’s Up movements, women from all sectors of Duke came together for Believe Her, a discussion on gender violence on campus.

The Bridge, a student-run online publication for Black and Latina women at Duke and UNC-Chapel Hill, sponsored the event and co-led the discussion with Dr. Nahal Kaivan and Dr. Marvice Marcus, both of whom work for Duke Counseling & Psychological Services. The pair acted as moderators for a forum on students’ understanding of Duke’s campus culture surrounding sexual assault. This discussion was particularly poignant given a survey released by the University in March 2017 that placed campus undergraduate sexual assault rates at 40% overall for women — twice the national average for college-aged females.

Almost immediately, attendees recognized the pervasive sexual assault narratives on campus as centering primarily on white, heterosexual women. This inaccurate representation of gender violence is especially problematic given that sexual assault and other forms of gender violence affect people of color and LGBTQIA+ identifying individuals disproportionately — at Duke, 42% of black women, 54% of latina women, and 59% of gay, lesbian and bisexual women are sexually assaulted during their undergraduate career.

One attendee said, “sexual assault at Duke is a very straight issue. Members of the LGBT community are not included in the discussion or considered. People just think that [sexual assault] doesn’t happen unless it’s between a man and a woman.”

Mumbi Kanyogo, co-editor in chief of The Bridge, added: “As a black woman on campus, it’s difficult to speak about sexual assault within our specific communities, because we’re at a PWI [predominantly white institution] where we’re constantly having to perform respectability politics that make it hard to call people out in your community that perpetuate the culture that makes sexual assault, rape and harassment posible.”

Perhaps one of the most visually striking things about the Believe Her discussion was the alarming lack of male-presenting participants. The only man in the packed Holsti-Anderson Reading Room was speaker Dr. Marcus.

One student attributed the lack of men to their unwillingness to recognize their participation in a larger misogynistic machine: “The conversations on campus have, unfortunately, othered a lot of males. They feel immediately when the conversation comes up that they are themselves being blamed. Even if they haven’t committed any acts of gender violence themselves, they refuse to think about it in terms of, ‘What are the little things that I’ve been doing, or how can I actually help?’”

Our culture has forged a toxic relationship between masculinity and violence, and it is this relationship that has allowed sexual assault to persist. In order to progress toward a society that doesn’t tolerate gender violence, we must engage everyone in conversation — men and non-survivors included.

Another student recognized that our campus discussions of sexual assault leave very little room for male survivors. According to the University survey, 10 percent of men at Duke have been sexually assaulted during their undergraduate Duke career, and yet Monday’s event was titled “Believe Her.” If there is a hierarchy of humiliation in sexual assault survivors, are men not at the top? In our efforts to include all women in this discussion, have we forgotten that men can also be assaulted?

Believe Her was a starting point for shifting, revising and fact-checking Duke’s current narrative of gender violence on campus. It was a call for us — everyone who considers themselves a part of the Duke community — to exchange in more open, honest dialogue, to consider life from another’s perspective and to believe one another — because accusers don’t benefit from speaking out.

Sexual assault and gender violence are, and always will be, complex issues with so much to unpack. The conversations around them are uncomfortable because they require that we examine not only our own practices and the ways in which we interact with one another, but the culture we live in and perpetuate. Believe Her along with other discussions are a starting point, but there is work to be done. Believing and supporting survivors and standing in solidarity, whether that means #MeToo or telling our misogynist society that it’s “Time’s Up” — that’s what our campus needs, what our community needs and what our world needs.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2018/02/duke-law-clinic-to-open-law-clinic-for-first-amendment-cases


Duke Law to open law clinic for First Amendment cases
By Claire Ballentine | 02/20/2018

The Duke Law School recently announced plans for a new First Amendment Clinic to help people who claim their rights to free speech have been violated.

Led by law professor H. Jefferson Powell, the clinic will allow law students to work with both individuals and organizations that cannot afford legal representation. Opening in August, it will primarily focus on First Amendment claims, such as advocating for the right to speak at a public university or defending against libel or slander.

“This is valuable for Duke as whole because we live in a time where many people would recognize the First Amendment is of central importance,” Powell said. “It’s a time when these issues are front and center.”

Powell has a notable background in constitutional law, serving twice as a lawyer in the U.S. Department of Justice where he worked as the deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel and as the principal deputy solicitor general. He has also briefed and argued cases in state and federal courts as well as the U.S. Supreme Court.

Funding for the clinic will come from the Stanton Foundation, which supports First Amendment rights and advocates for a more informed citizenry. The foundation will also hire a lawyer with constitutional law expertise to serve as a teaching fellow and supervise students.

The Stanton Foundation approached the Law School about providing the money to set up the clinic, explained Andrew Foster, clinical professor of law and director of experiential education and clinical programs.

“We’ll be doing a lot of work with media organizations and reporters advising about their rights under the law,” he said.

Powell added that the clinic will give students hands-on experience, allowing them to represent and advise clients and be involved in litigation.

“One of the distinctive features of an education at Duke is the integration of active learning and legal education,” he said. “I’ll be in charge of making sure both sides—the experiential and academic—come together.”

Four students will work in the clinic each semester next year, but Powell noted that it will mostly likely include more as the Law School spread the word about the program and take on more clients. Second and third-year law students will be chosen through a lottery system, with a preference for third-years.

The clinic will mostly work on First Amendment cases in the Southeast. In addition to helping litigation, the students will provide advice to journalists with concerns about free expression rights.

Although the First Amendment also includes protections for freedom of religion, the clinic will focus on the spheres of freedom of speech, press and assembly. For instance, they might represent a citizen who had been thrown out of a county commissioners meeting for expressing a viewpoint that the commissioners didn’t agree with.

Powell explained that one of the best features of the clinic is that it will provide free representation for those who cannot afford it. The program also expands the Law School’s offerings as its twelfth legal clinic.

“We’re trying to always give our students the opportunity to do complex lawyering and problem-solving in relevant areas,” Foster said.

He noted that the First Amendment is critical within our constitutional framework, especially in today’s world where freedom of speech is under attack in many realms.

“This will give students the opportunity to speak about the role of speech in civic society and the ways in which the legal system can support and enhance speech or not,” Foster said. “Through that critical analysis, we can help them launch off into their professional careers with what many would see as a core value of our profession and society.”
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2018/02/19/lawmaker-who-led-metoo-push-invited-staffer-to-play-spin-the-bottle-complaint-says/?utm_term=.057c445fc40e

Lawmaker who led #MeToo push accused of firing aide who wouldn't play spin the bottle
by Kristine Phillips February 20 at 8:35 AM Email the author

California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, one of the leading voices behind the #MeToo movement, is facing accusations that she sexually harassed staffers — including one who said she fired him after he refused to play a game of spin the bottle with her.

David John Kernick, a former field representative for Garcia, said the Democratic lawmaker from Southern California approached him after a 2014 fundraiser at a whiskey bar and suggested that they play spin the bottle in her hotel room, according to a complaint filed Saturday with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.

Kernick said he was written up for insubordination after he questioned the appropriateness of Garcia’s suggestion and was fired two days later.

The complaint also says that it was “extremely stressful” working for Garcia, who represents Bell Gardens, Calif., and holds numerous leadership positions in the state legislature.

“Ms. Garcia was very disparaging to the staff and others, used vulgar language, discussed topics inappropriate for the workplace and showed herself to be very vindictive in nature,” the complaint says.

Kernick’s complaint is the latest in a series of sexual misconduct allegations against Garcia, who has denied that she behaved inappropriately

“Over the last weeks, there have been several claims accusing me of inappropriate conduct in my role as a California State legislator. In each case, these accusations are simply not true and are inconsistent with my personal value system and how I seek to conduct myself as an elected official,” Garcia said in a statement to The Washington Post. “I believe these accusations are part of a concerted effort to discredit my person and record as a legislator.”

The allegations began to surface on Feb. 8, when Politico reported on another former staffer’s accusation that Garcia had groped him.

Daniel Fierro told The Washington Post’s Derek Hawkins that Garcia approached him after an assembly softball game in 2014, squeezed his buttocks and tried to touch his crotch. He said Garcia was visibly intoxicated.

Fierro, who was 25 at the time, did not report the incident because he worried about the long-term consequences of accusing the powerful lawmaker of misconduct. Garcia heads the Legislative Women’s Caucus and also chairs the assembly’s Natural Resources Committee.

But in January, Fierro reported the incident to his former boss, state Assemblyman Ian Calderon (D-Whittier), who referred the matter to the assembly panel that is now investigating Garcia.

On Wednesday, attorney Dan Gilleon unveiled new sexual harassment allegations from four anonymous former staffers during a news conference on the steps of the state capitol in Sacramento, the Sacramento Bee reported.

The former staffers alleged that Garcia talked about her sex life in front of employees; drank alcohol at work; and told staffers that they were expendable, Gilleon told The Post.

Gilleon said his clients decided to come forward after Fierro went public with his allegations in January. He also said he is prepared to take legal action if there is any retaliation against his clients.

“They decided to come out not for themselves … but also to let everybody know what it was really like working for her,” Gilleon said. “Had Fierro not come out, my clients would not have talked.”

One of those clients is Kernick, who revealed his identity in the newly filed complaint.

Garcia has taken a voluntary, unpaid leave of absence and said she will address each of the allegations after the investigation is closed.

On Wednesday, she wrote on Facebook: “I will add that in order for legislators to accomplish all we want for the people of our districts and the people of California, we need talented staff who feel empowered to do their work. … I am confident I have consistently treated my staff fairly and respectfully.”

In her statement, Garcia said someone had hired a private investigator in an effort to smear her reputation.

Tenants at properties she owns reported to her last November that the private investigator had knocked on their doors asking questions about her ethics as a landlord, Garcia said. Former staffers also told her that they had received calls from the investigator asking if she was an abusive boss, or whether they would believe allegations that Garcia had committed a sexual misconduct and had problems with alcohol, she said.

“I believe it is rational to ask why someone would hire a private investigator to carry out such a line of questioning,” Garcia said.

Garcia did not say who the private investigator is or who may have hired that person.

Tim Reardon, the legislator’s former chief of staff, told the Bee that Kernick’s accusations were a “complete falsehood.” Reardon said Kernick was fired because he wasn’t doing his job.

“It’s like a malicious, really bizarre alternate universe built on a lot of innuendo and lies solely to destroy the character of Assemblywoman Garcia,” Reardon said of all the allegations against his former boss.

Elected in 2012, Garcia has made women’s issues among her legislative priorities and introduced legislation that would repeal a state tax on feminine health products. Following the outrage after a judge handed down a six-month prison sentence to a college swimmer who had sexually assaulted an unconscious woman on campus, Garcia co-authored a bill that expanded the legal definition of rape to include all forms of nonconsensual sexual assault.

The allegations against Garcia come as she has been playing a more prominent role in the #MeToo movement. A few days before Politico reported on Fierro’s allegations, Garcia celebrated the passage of a California law that would penalize a lawmaker who retaliates against a staffer for making a “good faith allegation.” This includes allegations of sexual harassment.

Garcia was also among the dozens of “silence breakers” featured by Time magazine in December. “The Silence Breakers,” or those who spoke out against sexual assault and harassment, are Time’s Person of the Year for 2017.

“I didn’t know I was part of the story. That I was pictured and added to a timeline of this reckoning. It’s an awkwardly humbling experience, but I am proud of this work and the company I am in,” Garcia tweeted in response to her inclusion. She used the hashtags #MeToo and #WeSaidEnough.

Garcia also was a strong critic of male colleagues who had been accused of sexual misconduct.

“I believe the victims who’ve broken their silence on the actions of Mendoza & Dababneh,” Garcia tweeted in December, referring to state Sen. Tony Mendoza and Assemblyman Matt Dababneh. “They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Let alone it’s multiple victims who’ve come forward. Both members should resign.”

Mendoza (D-Artesia) was accused of making sexual advances toward three interns. Dababneh (D-Encino), who has since resigned, was accused of sexually assaulting a lobbyist.

Derek Hawkins contributed to this report, which has been updated.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quasimodo

Quote:
 
Duke Law to open law clinic for First Amendment cases


Does Duke have a Law School?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

Quasimodo
Feb 21 2018, 07:23 AM
Quote:
 
Duke Law to open law clinic for First Amendment cases


Does Duke have a Law School?


Wonder where these clowns were when the students were trying to register voters for the DA election?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic »
Add Reply