|
Post by gks on Feb 4, 2019 19:46:49 GMT -5
TV3 report.
|
|
|
Post by Sons of Vaval on Feb 4, 2019 20:04:05 GMT -5
Time for a new president.
|
|
|
Post by rgs318 on Feb 4, 2019 21:09:26 GMT -5
Of course those of us of a certain age remember the donut boycott. Who among us could forget?Didn't the school reverse itself on the price increase due to the protests? How about BARF, the Ban Against Retroactive Flunking? The demonstration/protest on the library steps with the Jesuits quietly looking on from the OKane porch. If memory serves me correctly a graduating senior (accepted to dental school) complained to his Philosophy prof about a "D" on his blue book final exam. The prof., a Jesuit reread the blue book and gave the student an "F" and the students were pissed off. The local tv station was contacted by the student protest leaders and covered the protest as a student band played on the library steps surrounded by students waving BARF placards and signs. The resolution was this:The Faculty refused to change the "F." Although the "F" grade stood, the student did not have to repeat the course. And, the "F"was not counted in his QPI. I believe he was the only student to have ever graduated with a failing grade. Is my memory correct or am I way off base? Ah, the mists of time do cloud up the mind. Obviously, today the students are not protesting donut prices or even a grade but an issue of transcending importance for HC. LoveHC I had forgotten that one, but it all came back when I saw BARF. I believe al the details are correct as I remember them.
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 4, 2019 21:09:51 GMT -5
The ratio of good news from HC hitting the newswire the last two years to bad news from HC hitting the newswire the past two years is absolutely awful for HC. Almost bizarrely so. (I am assuming that Catholic parents eyeballing HC are not impressed with Pr. Liew and the whole self-inflicted Crusader kerfuffle so I'm lumping that in with the obvious bad news stories we've generated.) While one ordinarily takes student protests with a grain of salt, the underlying issue on this sit-in is certainly substantive (and not good for HC on a number of fronts.) What is going on at HC pales when viewed through the prism of the insurrection by some alums against Georgetown. Their attempt to de-Catholicize GU didn't hurt the reputation of Georgetown one bit; indeed, it probably enhanced it in the eyes of many.. www.ncregister.com/blog/reilly/exorcist-authors-canon-law-case-against-georgetown-continuesNor did this gift to GU by the former President of the GU BoT detract from Georgetown's reputation. lgbtq.georgetown.edu/tagliabue-initiativeFrom a parental standpoint, the underlying issue at HC, IMO, would be that a substantial portion of the student body believes that sexual assaults are far too commonplace on campus, and the administration has done too little to address and correct this problem.
|
|
|
Post by crossbball13 on Feb 4, 2019 21:58:06 GMT -5
For the love of Pete, Fire borroughs. Enough is Enough.
|
|
|
Post by HCFC45 on Feb 4, 2019 22:02:27 GMT -5
Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of people coming up to me and asking "what the hell is going on at (your alma mater)Holy Cross"! !
|
|
|
Post by longsuffering on Feb 5, 2019 0:47:47 GMT -5
1) The rich wood paneling along Mahogany Row in O'Kane/Fenwick still looks great.
2) None of this would be happening if we had joined the Big East.
3) Seriously, let's speed up investigations from 20 months to a couple of weeks or so and then be as transparent as the law allows. As a lifelong procrastinator, it doesn't pay to put off hard decisions Fr. B.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 5, 2019 7:30:38 GMT -5
The ratio of good news from HC hitting the newswire the last two years to bad news from HC hitting the newswire the past two years is absolutely awful for HC. Almost bizarrely so. (I am assuming that Catholic parents eyeballing HC are not impressed with Pr. Liew and the whole self-inflicted Crusader kerfuffle so I'm lumping that in with the obvious bad news stories we've generated.) While one ordinarily takes student protests with a grain of salt, the underlying issue on this sit-in is certainly substantive (and not good for HC on a number of fronts.) ... From a parental standpoint, the underlying issue at HC, IMO, would be that a substantial portion of the student body believes that sexual assaults are far too commonplace on campus, and the administration has done too little to address and correct this problem. At the risk of stating the obvious to those who are familiar with our application stats (and gender ratios therein), anything that impacts on perceptions regarding the treatment of women at Holy Cross is a very important issue. This sit-in does send a message.
(This is not to suggest the treatment of men is unimportant or that other schools don't have their issues, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 5, 2019 8:21:13 GMT -5
.............. 3) Seriously, let's speed up investigations from 20 months to a couple of weeks or so and then be as transparent as the law allows. As a lifelong procrastinator, it doesn't pay to put off hard decisions Fr. B. The particular circumstances of the student's claim asserting misconduct by the philosophy professor almost dictate a prolonged process. The student did not make her claim until the Spring of 2017, and she graduated in 2017. Unless she resided in Greater Worcester, that means she was no longer on campus and readily available. Any witnesses, in the same class as she, or a previous class, who might corroborate her claims had long scattered. As I read the narrative of her claim, initially (in her sophomore year) the professor showed favoritism toward her academically, which then progressed to what I would characterize as infatuation on his part. When the infatuation progressed to a point where the professor proposed intimacy, she rebuffed his advances. In her senior year, she became concerned about her grade as the professor was her thesis adviser, and might penalize her for rebuffing him. From an investigation standpoint, in this instance, how does one get beyond 'he said, she said' in a harassment case which the basic interaction is entirely verbal? From what I read, she did not object to the academic favoritism, but accepted it. I personally think of the professor as resembling, in a much less pronounced way, the character Humbert Humbert, a professor of English, in Nabokov's novel Lolita. Nabokov was a professor at both Wellesley and Cornell, and was known to introduce biography in his writings. And I am not defending the professor, --accepting the facts in her narrative as true, he crossed several bright lines.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 5, 2019 8:28:43 GMT -5
Here is another take in regard to the duration of this investigation. In talking with an individual involved in both personal and personnel investigations, this individual had the following to say:
"What is a 20-month investigation of improper interaction and /or engagement between a professor and a student?"
"A cover up."
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 5, 2019 8:31:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 5, 2019 8:54:46 GMT -5
Let me make an observation. I have read comments on this thread and in the Gibbons thread which suggest the poster is unfamiliar with employee rights in some large organizations, including a college or a government organization. The poster may be self-employed, work for a small company, or in a large company under at 'at will' employment contract.
All, or nearly all, faculty at Holy Cross do not have 'at will' employment contracts. That means their employment cannot be terminated without good cause being shown. If the college were to attempt such a termination without having shown good cause, there will be litigation, and the college will likely lose, and pay. .
|
|
|
Post by KY Crusader 75 on Feb 5, 2019 9:12:13 GMT -5
.............. 3) Seriously, let's speed up investigations from 20 months to a couple of weeks or so and then be as transparent as the law allows. As a lifelong procrastinator, it doesn't pay to put off hard decisions Fr. B. The particular circumstances of the student's claim asserting misconduct by the philosophy professor almost dictate a prolonged process. The student did not make her claim until the Spring of 2017, and she graduated in 2017. Unless she resided in Greater Worcester, that means she was no longer on campus and readily available. Any witnesses, in the same class as she, or a previous class, who might corroborate her claims had long scattered. As I read the narrative of her claim, initially (in her sophomore year) the professor showed favoritism toward her academically, which then progressed to what I would characterize as infatuation on his part. When the infatuation progressed to a point where the professor proposed intimacy, she rebuffed his advances. In her senior year, she became concerned about her grade as the professor was her thesis adviser, and might penalize her for rebuffing him.
From an investigation standpoint, in this instance, how does one get beyond 'he said, she said' in a harassment case which the basic interaction is entirely verbal? From what I read, she did not object to the academic favoritism, but accepted it. I personally think of the professor as resembling, in a much less pronounced way, the character Humbert Humbert, a professor of English, in Nabokov's novel Lolita. Nabokov was a professor at both Wellesley and Cornell, and was known to introduce biography in his writings. And I am not defending the professor, --accepting the facts in her narrative as true, he crossed several bright lines. If the facts are exactly as described above I'd say (1) the professor is a loathsome creep who should have been disciplined severely but (2) I have to wonder why the student agreed to have that creep[ as her thesis advisor. Unless he was the head of the department who assigned the advisors, could she not have been paired with someone else? Still, he would be the transgressor and should pay the price.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 5, 2019 9:19:08 GMT -5
I am of the opinion that it is far better to pick the fight and perhaps lose an individual battle so as to draw a line in terms of where one stands on values and principles and ultimately win the war.
In trying to keep everybody happy or at least content and not hold people fully accountable, one typically cedes the moral code upon which any organization rests.
|
|
|
Post by gks on Feb 5, 2019 9:28:28 GMT -5
Let me make an observation. I have read comments on this thread and in the Gibbons thread which suggest the oster is unfamiliar with employee rights in some large organizations, including a college or a government organization. The poster may be self-employed, work for a small company, or in a large company under at 'at will' employment contract. All, or nearly all, faculty at Holy Cross do not have 'at will' employment contracts. That means their employment cannot be terminated without good cause being shown. If the college were to attempt such a termination without having shown good cause, there will be litigation, and the college will likely lose, and pay. . You terminate the predator in question and deal with the consequences later. Slow and steady does not win the race when it comes to this.
|
|
|
Post by CHC8485 on Feb 5, 2019 10:00:52 GMT -5
And that thought process is new. Most processes for dealing with this type of behavior were set up 10 or more years ago where the bias was to protect the reputation of the accused. It is only in the last 12 months or so with Me Too, Times Up and the continuing scandal within the Catholic Church that the bias has swung VERY quickly (and I’ll say appropriately) to protect potential victims.
Policies and practice have to catch up to that reality. Read what the protesters are demanding (not their signs) I think that is essentially what they are asking for - in addition to applying similar standards for student transgressions.
And with respect to students, it is a new world and things many of us shrugged off as boys being boys and drunk college student behavior can no longer be shrugged off. Holy Cross is hardly the only instition struggling with this.
|
|
|
Post by alum on Feb 5, 2019 10:17:52 GMT -5
The privacy rights of the student and of the professor seem to be preventing us from knowing what is going on here. I don't know exactly what Dustin's rights are under the College's employment agreements, but it would seem to me that as soon as the College was aware he should have been placed on leave (probably with pay) while the matter was investigated. I am guessing this was a classic he said/she said. The article does not mention any documentary evidence which makes it hard. Two kinds of people generate no documents (letters, texts, emails, social media posts:) really evil ones and really innocent ones. Given that there has been some discipline, it would seem that at least some of the allegations must have been credited and Dustin has been found to have done something wrong. The College may be unable to tell us what we have here. If so, unless the student or the professor chooses to do so, we are stuck not having enough information. We don't know if the investigation concluded that he made one inappropriate joke or if he did all of the things alleged in the article. If it is the former, he ought to be disciplined and keep his job in my opinion. If he did what is described in the article, he ought to have his ass fired and if he wants to sue the College, they ought to tell him to bring it on.
I am not suggesting that victims should be required to publically air their complaints, but if we look at the #metoo events of the past couple of years, those who have been the most successful in outing their abusers are the ones who have identified themselves by name. The problem, of course, is that if victim identification becomes the norm, fewer victims will likely come forward.
The failure of the College to handle this more quickly is unacceptable. There is some sort of reference to a procedural misstep which is unfortunate. I thought that the College's quick reaction regarding Christie was well done. This was not. Good for the students who are sitting in and demanding answers.
|
|
|
Post by td128 on Feb 5, 2019 10:17:57 GMT -5
This situation with Psychology professors at Dartmouth has previously been referenced around these parts. A complaint was filed this past November. Interesting what happens when situations such as these are not aggressively addressed with an absolute ZERO TOLERANCE approach. Dartmouth Allowed 3 Professors to Sexually Harass and Assault Students, Lawsuit Chargeswww.chronicle.com/article/Dartmouth-Allowed-3-Professors/245095
|
|
|
Post by Pakachoag Phreek on Feb 5, 2019 10:27:32 GMT -5
Some of this continues to be in a state of flux.
The Spire, Dec 7, 2018 Bolding mine
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 5, 2019 10:40:35 GMT -5
It looks as though HC made the judgement call (based on the severity of the accusations - sexually suggestive speech directed at one student) that he could continue to function in some limited employee capacity (with safeguards) during the lengthy investigatory process. A balancing of his due process rights and their responsibilities. Apparently there are no allegations related to that 20-month period.
To some folks, that might seem like a horrible judgement call. To others that might seem prudent - an allegation of a physical threat or actual assault would require a different response altogether.
(It is unknown whether or not students had made complaints against him previously.)
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 5, 2019 11:55:18 GMT -5
And that thought process is new. Most processes for dealing with this type of behavior were set up 10 or more years ago where the bias was to protect the reputation of the accused. It is only in the last 12 months or so with Me Too, Times Up and the continuing scandal within the Catholic Church that the bias has swung VERY quickly (and I’ll say appropriately) to protect potential victims. Policies and practice have to catch up to that reality. Read what the protesters are demanding (not their signs) I think that is essentially what they are asking for - in addition to applying similar standards for student transgressions. And with respect to students, it is a new world and things many of us shrugged off as boys being boys and drunk college student behavior can no longer be shrugged off. Holy Cross is hardly the only instition struggling with this. Actually, as PP notes, the pendulum has swung back very recently to protecting the rights of the accused (at least in cases of student-v-student accusations and college disciplinary procedures.).
I don't know if this is germane to student v teacher complaints of the sort underlying this most recent HC issue wherein tenure and due process rights for employees are very much in play for non-criminal allegations.
|
|
|
Post by nhteamer on Feb 5, 2019 14:36:37 GMT -5
the faculty essentially runs the school.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 5, 2019 16:44:06 GMT -5
You terminate the predator in question and deal with the consequences later. Slow and steady does not win the race when it comes to this. I’m not an employment law attorney but immediate termination upon an allegation seems problematic. Administrative leave while the investigation occurs seems more appropriate. But to be clear: allowing an employee contact with students after a credible allegation is ludicrous. I am not defending the college but it is only fair to point out that after the (non-physical) sexual harassment claim and before he was ultimately disciplined via administrative leave: ".... according to documents, Dustin’s interaction with female students had been limited and he was restricted from conducting private, one-on-one meetings or unsupervised communications with female students or junior employees, including by e-mail." www.worcestermag.com/news/20190131/holy-cross-professor-on-administrative-leave-after-sexual-harassment-allegations
|
|
|
Post by WCHC Sports on Feb 5, 2019 17:14:37 GMT -5
I’m not an employment law attorney but immediate termination upon an allegation seems problematic. Administrative leave while the investigation occurs seems more appropriate. But to be clear: allowing an employee contact with students after a credible allegation is ludicrous. I am not defending the college but it is only fair to point out that after the (non-physical) sexual harassment claim and before he was ultimately disciplined via administrative leave: ".... according to documents, Dustin’s interaction with female students had been limited and he was restricted from conducting private, one-on-one meetings or unsupervised communications with female students or junior employees, including by e-mail." www.worcestermag.com/news/20190131/holy-cross-professor-on-administrative-leave-after-sexual-harassment-allegationsWithout the facts of what actually occurred and only speaking about possibilities: the college could not guarantee or otherwise "prevent" interaction, one-on-one meetings, or otherwise unsupervised communications between the professor and any of his students unless the college imprisoned him. He still had his freedom, cell phone, car, legs to walk, and go wherever he wanted, regardless of an administrative decision. We're lucky this didn't become anything more tragic, that we could tell, but I think it was somewhat reckless-- even akin to the Catholic Church's abusers who were merely placed in isolation or moved from parish to parish-- to not act more decisively and publicize the issue.
|
|
|
Post by hcpride on Feb 5, 2019 17:30:10 GMT -5
Without the facts of what actually occurred and only speaking about possibilities: the college could not guarantee or otherwise "prevent" interaction, one-on-one meetings, or otherwise unsupervised communications between the professor and any of his students unless the college imprisoned him. He still had his freedom, cell phone, car, legs to walk, and go wherever he wanted, regardless of an administrative decision. We're lucky this didn't become anything more tragic, that we could tell, but I think it was somewhat reckless-- even akin to the Catholic Church's abusers who were merely placed in isolation or moved from parish to parish-- to not act more decisively and publicize the issue. No doubt HC could not imprison him based on the (non-criminal and non-physical) complaint. And you are correct that there was no way (and still is no way BTW) the College could absolutely ensure he did not communicate with a female student in an unsupervised setting (including via email, text, etc.).
|
|