Minutes of the 3/17/21 CCSRM Meeting

  • March 8, 2021 Executive Order on Guaranteeing an Educational Enviornment Free from Discrimination on the Basis of Sex, Including Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity
  • Prohibited Relationships by Persons in Authority Policy Review
  • CCSRM Report to President Elam and the Campus Community

March 17, 2021

3:00 p.m. Zoom

Call to order: 3:05 p.m.

  1. Welcome
  2. Introductions/Attendance: Alexandra Fulcher, Andrea Boyle, Ashley Claiborne,  Avanti Puri, Elizabeth Braker, Jim Tranquada, Junko Anderson, Kim Lundy, Lisa Sousa, Marianne Frapwell, Rick Tanksley, Robert Bartlett, Sara Semal, Vivian Santiago
  3. Updates
    1. President Biden's Executive Order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/03/08/executive-order-on-guaranteeing-an-educational-environment-free-from-discrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-including-sexual-orientation-or-gender-identity/
      1. Takeaway: Department of Educaiton has 100 days from March 8 to review existing regulations and provide the findings of the review to the Office of Management and Budget
    2. EverFi Post-Course Survey sent out February 26. Have received over 700 responses so far.
  4. Prohibited Relationships by Persons in Authority Review
    1. Currently, the policy only explicitly prohibits relationships where there is a direct supervisory or evaluative role over the other party (page 16 of policy)
    2. For consideration: faculty/staff prohibited from engaging in relationships with students. 
      1. Possible exemptions examples: The relationship existed prior to the implementation of the revised regulation. 2) The relationship existed prior to a change in either partner’s status. 3) Staff or faculty member in a consensual relationship with a nontraditional undergraduate student. 4) The president retains discretion and authority to grant exemptions in other individual situations that appear to be “exceptional” according to their professional judgment.
      2. Many other institutions have moved to prohibiting relationship between faculty/staff and students outright: Swarthmore, Pomona, Wellesley, Skidmore, Wesleyan, Stanford
    3. Discussion:
      1. Reasons for broader restrictions:
        1. Students can feel like they had no agency to discontinue the relationship, or the lost their ability to get a recommendation letter
      2. Reasons against broader restrictions:
      3. Considerations:
        1. Reach out to faculty council when there is a recommendation
        2. If a revision of the faculty handbook is necessary, this would be a process
        3. Who defines a relationship? Is this something that the parties decide or an outsider decides
        4. Would the student receive any kind of sanction?
        5. Is this too paternalistic? Framing issue - respecting power imbalances when presenting to student body
          1. Compare to staff to staff relationships where there is a supervisory relationships
        6. Community impacts and ripple effects - can make others uncomfortable
  5. Report to President/Community
    1. 2015-16 report available here: https://www.oxy.edu/sexual-respect-title-ix/campus-committee-sexual-responsibility-misconduct/committee-meeting-29 
    2. “The CCSRM will present an annual report to President Elam and the campus community by May 1, 2021. The report will include a summary of the year's work, as well as any recommendations made by the committee with respect to existing policies, procedures and practices.”
    3. Topics for consideration
      1. Summary of the Year’s Work
        1. Note the system for sending surveys, institutionally, and how this impacts the climate.
        2. Impact the pandemic had
          1. On the committee
          2. On student body
          3. Drop in reports, consideration re: data moving forward. How long will it take to get back to pre-pandemic numbers?
      2. Committee Recommendations