[NCUC-DISCUSS] Statement from NCUC executive committee

[Mueller, Milton L]

Corinne:
You said “I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on this important matter” so here is my view
1. Why is the breach of confidentiality presented as a reason to being unable to further investigate the alleged harassment case? Why does/should such a breach impede the Ombudsman from further investigating?
MM: I tend to agree that nothing actively prevents an investigation from going on. I see it as the Ombudsman feeling pre-empted and perhaps a bit manipulated by the decision to jump into public in the middle of his process. I think Padmini went public by sending documents and correspondence only a week after his investigation started. So it wasn’t like he was taking an overly long time. So while I do not think the statement of hers prevents an investigation, I can see why an Ombuds who is used to confidential procedures would feel stymied by what happened.
2. “The matters alleged cannot be considered serious by any standard. If in fact the action and statement were made, it may have been a lapse of good manners and insensitive to gender. Such issues need to be taken in proportion, and best practice is not to debate this in a public forum where the issues are not yet clear. I note Ms. Baruah does not agree with my view.”
Why and how was this assessment of the seriousness of the alleged harassment made? What standards has the Ombudsman looked at or taken into consideration when making this judgment?
MM: I do not know what standards he used, but I have to agree with the assessment. I would turn this question around to you and ask what standards you are using to assert that it is “serious” or “grave”?
If you look at real world experiences of sexual harassment, you find some pretty serious things, such as demanding sexual favors for job advancement, unwanted physical touching, persistent stalking, constantly making sexual comments, repeatedly saying things that create a hostile environment, propositioning, etc. This was an unpleasant and likely rude, one-time encounter that falls fairly low in that spectrum, even assuming it is on the spectrum of _sexual_ harassment. (The cheese sandwich bit, if true, strikes me as an offensive thing to say to a proud, intelligent and independent young woman, but since the person was not actually in a position to require that of her or punish her for failure to do it I see the seriousness level as pretty low.) People have been much, much ruder to me, and far more consequentially, at numerous meetings.
4. Does the overall language in this blog strike a fair balance between the gravity of the alleged harassment case and the breach of confidentiality?
MM: Tell me again about the gravity of the harassment. What standards are you using? I have, in other contexts, defended Padmini’s right to speak out (whether or not it was the best thing to do, she had the right to do it) and you will note that the NCUC EC statement does not complain about that. In my view, a judgment about the gravity or seriousness of the incident is rather independent of the issue of how and why she went public.
5. How has the Ombudsman weighed these two issues (alleged harassment and the breach of confidentiality)? And to what extent should they be separated and addressed individually?
MM: This seems to be a repeat of question 4
I look forward to hearing your thoughts and comments on this important matter and I hope that as the NCUC we can be part of the process to develop the necessary policies and procedures.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20160330/154c491f/attachment-0002.html>