Harassment policy revised, privacy protections remain

The original version of this article contained an error and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for additional information.

Editor’s note: Due to the sensitive nature of this story, a name has been changed to protect the privacy of an individual who reported a sexual harassment incident to UCLA. The individual requested anonymity and the pseudonym “Valerie” because her case is ongoing and she fears repercussions in how UCLA handles her case if her identity is revealed.

A University of California privacy policy that prevents some survivors of sexual harassment from learning how their campus disciplines their harasser was left unchanged in the newest revision of UC Sexual Harassment and Violence Policy, released on Feb. 25.

The lack of revision is a disappointment to some UCLA officials, experts and survivors who recommended changes in privacy policy last year to better protect survivors’ rights and ensure the university follows through with appropriate disciplinary sanctions.

UC spokeswoman Brooke Converse said the systemwide policy will be further revised in response to the comments received from the community, guidance from federal government and possible changes mandated by the state government.

But whether the privacy section of the policy will be altered to reflect the specific concerns raised by UC community membersis still uncertain.

Some of the UCLA students and employees who submitted comments critiquing the University’s privacy claims to the disciplinary details include Sexual Harassment Prevention Office Title IX Officer Pamela Thomason, sociology professor Abigail Saguy and a student survivor of sexual harassment.

The aim of the privacy law, according to UC policy, is to protect students and employees involved in the “gathering of extremely sensitive information about individuals in the university.”

But the privacy law also prevents some survivors from knowing how the university disciplines a harasser, information that provides closure for some survivors of sexual harassment, said Valerie, a UCLA graduate student in the College of Letters and Science who submitted feedback to the University about the policy.

Valerie’s former adviser, a tenured professor at UCLA, made sexual advances toward her several months ago. She said she reported his conduct to the Title IX Officer and after a preliminary investigation, the professor admitted to some of the misconduct.

The university is still investigating her case through an early resolution process, a procedure for resolving complaints often pursued when all parties show desire for cooperation.

Though the investigation is ongoing, she said she knows it is not guaranteed her case will fall under any exceptions that would allow her to find out how the university punishes her former adviser.

Exceptions include if the accused consents to disclose the details, if disclosure is necessary to ensure the safety of individuals or to ensure the harasser’s compliance. For example, the university would disclose the sanctions if they involve restricting contact with the complainant. The complainant is also informed of the disciplinary details if the harassment constitutes a sex offense under California Penal Code.

In the comments about the policy revision she submitted to the University,Valerie said she expressed her concern that disclosing information only to survivors with cases that fall under certain exceptions grants an unjust protection to individuals that violate sexual harassment policy. She added that she believes failing to disclose the punishment makes students and employees think that the university does not take harassment cases seriously.

Valerie said her former adviser repeatedly insinuated that he would not get in trouble for his behavior. She added that a number of professors in her department told her the university would probably give her adviser “a slap on the wrist” for misconduct.

Thomason said she believes survivors have a right to know how the university punishes the person who harassed them. She said withholding such information is an “ineffective enforcement mechanism” on the part of the university.

“(It’s like) we have a rule but we’re never going to tell you what we do to enforce it,” Thomason said. “To people who have experienced harassment, it feels very unsatisfactory, ‘Here, trust me, I’m from Murphy Hall, I took care of it.’”

Professor Saguy, author of the book “What is Sexual Harassment,” said that the current privacy laws make her “deeply concerned” that the University does not take the issue of harassment seriously.

“University policy seems to protect the privacy of harassers at the expense of informing the harassed and public about what disciplinary actions were taken,” Saguy said.

Saguy also sent the University feedback on the privacy section of the policy months ago, and said she recommends disciplinary action be revealed inevery harassment case where the accused is found guilty. She added that in such cases she is in favor of telling not only the complainant, but also the public.

“The university community should be made aware of what the sanctions are so as to send a message that this is not tolerated at UCLA,”Saguy said. “Otherwise, you run the risk of faculty and students believing that harassment goes unpunished.”

Even if university policy does not make these details public, Valerie said she hopes the policymakers at least decide to let all complainants know how the university punished the person who harassed them.

“Most of us are looking for some closure,” said Valerie. “We want to know what’s going to happen, when it’s going to be over.”

The original article said that Valerie stated she knows her case will not fall under any of the exceptions that would allow for disclosure of disciplinary details. Her statement has been amended to say she knows she is “not guaranteed” her case will fall under these exceptions.