The Site Visit Report
A Brief Historical Overview of Actions
Taken by the Philosophy Department
Elsewhere,
I have referred to the way in which the site visit team has grossly
exaggerated the problematic behavior with which the Philosophy
Department had been attempting to deal, transforming, for example, the
existence of a single member of the Department
who was found guilty of sexual harassment into a climate that one
reporter referred to as one of “pervasive sexual harassment” , and
similarly for other problems, such as uncivil behavior. Another feature
of the Site Visit Report, however, is that it makes no mention of the
many things that the Philosophy Department had done, and was in the
process of doing, to deal with unacceptable behavior. In this document,
then, I want to offer a brief account of the Department’s efforts.
1. The Office of Discrimination and Harassment, and the Veil of Total Secrecy
Before doing that, however, it is important to touch upon a barrier
that stands in the way of one’s knowing when someone has engaged in
problematic behavior. So here, very briefly, is the situation.
Once a report has been lodged against a faculty member, the Office of
Discrimination and Harassment imposes a complete veil of secrecy, so
that there is no public knowledge of the report, of whether it took the
form of a complaint, of what or who it was about, of whether it was
judged to be prima facie
without merit, of whether it was informally dealt with, or of whether
it led to a formal investigation, and, if it did, what the result was.
The upshot is that if one of one’s colleagues was
found guilty of some offense, there would never be any announcement of
that fact. Members of the Philosophy Department could learn about such
cases, if at all, only if someone involved in the case leaked
information, contrary to University regulations.
2. The Actions Taken by the Philosophy Department
Because of the veil of total secrecy that I have just described, most
people in the Philosophy Department were, for a number of years,
completely unaware that any of their colleagues had behaved in very
unacceptable ways. Gradually, however, information leaked out, and as
it did, the Philosophy Department asked itself what action it could
take.
The first thing that the Philosophy Department did was to create, in December of 2011, an ad hoc
Departmental committee to look into the issue of behavior that the
Department considered unacceptable, including behavior that is highly
undesirable in spite of the fact that it does not violate any of the
University’s policies. (This ad hoc committee, of which I was a member, was subsequently replaced by a permanent, ‘Climate Committee’, within the Department.)
That committee immediately began deliberations,
consulting with the Office of Discrimination and Harassment as it did,
and the result of that committee’s deliberations was a recommendation
to the Department by the Climate Committee that led to the adoption by
the Department of a detailed “Code of Conduct Concerning
Relationships,” of which I was a principal author, and which was posted
on the Philosophy Department website along with links to the AAUP
Statement on Professional Ethics, as well as to the discussion, in the
CU Faculty Handbook, of Principles of Professional and Ethical
Responsibilities, together with the University of Colorado’s official
policies concerning sexual harassment, discrimination, and amorous
relationships. (The detailed “Code of Conduct Concerning
Relationships” document has, however, been taken down by the External
Interim Chair, Professor Andrew Cowell.)
In addition, Professor Graeme Forbes, who was Head
of Department until the University Administration recently – and quite
unjustifiably – replaced him with an External Interim Chair, made it
very clear that unacceptable behavior would not be tolerated. So, for
example, when one member of the Department behaved in an uncivil way
during a Department meeting, and stormed out, Professor Forbes took
immediate action, forbidding that person from attending meetings, and
also from using some of the Department’s email lists, the use of which
had sometimes generated friction. Or again, whenever Professor Forbes
learned of any problematic behavior, he immediately talked at length
with the person involved, impressing upon that person in no uncertain
terms the unacceptability of the behavior, and its harmfulness.
Next, the Philosophy Department, because of its
concern about the underrepresentation of women in the profession
generally, and in graduate programs, and with a desire to learn what
the causes might be, and what might be done about it, organized a
Colloquium on the topic of “Philosophy and Inclusion,” which was held
in April of 2013, with two invited female speakers who addressed the
question of why there are so few women in philosophy, and whose talks
were followed by a panel discussion on that topic.
Then there was the Department’s decision, when it
learned of the newly formed Site Visit Program, to request a site visit
– a decision that resulted from a unanimous vote at a Department meeting.
Finally, a number of members of the Department also
had ideas about preventive measures that the Department could take,
especially as regards behavior that, though it does not violate
Universities policies, is undesirable, and those members, with the
strong support of Professor Forbes, were planning on discussing those
ideas at Departmental meetings this semester. Professor Forbes was,
however, replaced by an External Interim Chair – Professor Andrew
Cowell – who is following his own course of action, including
“bystander training”, along with a compulsory Departmental “retreat”
that took place on April 11-12. (Members of the Department who
attended that “retreat” cannot say anything about what took place
there, even to members of the Philosophy Department who were absent for
some reason.)