You are on page 1of 4

Dear Senators,

Below are two motions the Senate Executive Committee will bring forward to the Senate meeting on
January 23, 2018. Before each motion is included the background case for making these motions. We
look forward to the opportunity to discuss them with you.

I. Case for Censure of Florian Jaeger, based on the Independent


Investigators’ Report (IIR)

• Professor Jaeger engaged in a variety of inappropriate and unprofessional


sexual or sexualized behaviors in his interactions with students. These
behaviors had predictable and harmful impact on students.

◦ The summary of the report, section I.C.2 (pp. 29-31), states, in


part, "during the earlier period of 2007-2013 (and especially during
the earlier years in that period), Jaeger engaged in behavior that was
inappropriate, unprofessional and offensive. Among other things, he
engaged in four consensual sexual relationships with current, former
or prospective UR students between 2007 and 2011, he was flirtatious
with other students, he blurred appropriate faculty-student boundaries
in other ways, including by renting a room in his home to a female
graduate student, and he sometimes made comments in social and
academic settings that included inappropriate sexual content or
innuendo… these behaviors were harmful in a variety of ways; for
example, a number of female graduate students from that time period
told us that, as a result of Jaeger’s reputation or behavior, they made a
conscious decision to avoid him and the educational opportunities he
offered.”

• The fact that this behavior may have taken place with the consent of
students in some cases does not excuse the behavior. Voluntary consent in
sexual or sexualized behavior by a student with a faculty member is
inherently suspect because of the asymmetry in power (see report IV.A, p.
176).
◦ Jaeger had sexual relationships with two students over whom
he exercised academic authority (see report II.B.2.b, pp. 76-
77). Contemporary regulations for faculty (Faculty Handbook,
February 2007 and July 2008 revisions, II.A.2.b) “strongly
discouraged” sexual relationships between faculty and "students over
whom they have a direct, current supervisory or evaluative
relationship."

◦ Many of the students subjected to sexualized behavior also


engaged with Professor Jaeger in an academic setting in which he held
authority (see report II.A.1.e-f, pp. 62-63 and 65, III.A.3, pp. 158-
159).

• Professor Jaeger ignored the concerns expressed over faculty-student


sexual relationships in the contemporary Faculty Handbook, which also
noted, "Such relationships, even when consensual, are problematic because
they may result in favoritism or the perception of favoritism which imperils
the integrity of the educational environment."

◦ By doing so, he exposed himself to the risk that these


relationships or knowledge of these relationships would introduce an
unwelcome sexual element into relationships with students over
whom he held academic authority. The result was a deleterious
impact on the educational opportunities for many of these students.

◦ The report documents many such complaints of students (see


report II.A.1.e-f, pp. 60-66, II.B.3, pp. 81-82, and III.A.3, pp. 156,
158-159).

• Jaeger's actions were not confined to a single incident that could be


attributed to one lapse in judgment, but occurred repeatedly over a period of
years.

• The Report of the Independent Investigator establishes facts about Jaeger’s


behavior and the complaints, investigations and actions related to his case
previous to the EEOC filing. It concludes that the University has already
acted appropriately in this case because it treats the governing standard as
the minimum protection for students that the University is legally required to
uphold and that standard as reflected in University HR and faculty policies.

◦ Whether that minimal standard is the standard that the


University should hold faculty to is a question for our community to
determine. The faculty should help to answer this question.

◦ The Faculty Handbook IV.A.10 specifies, in part, that the


Board of Trustees can revoke tenure and abrogate contracts of faculty
for “moral conduct unbefitting the position” and for “failure to
discharge responsibly his or her fundamental obligations as a teacher.”

Motion for the censure of Professor Florian Jaeger

The report of the Independent Investigation has documented numerous instances of


inappropriate and unprofessional sexual or sexualized behavior by Professor
Florian Jaeger between 2007 and 2013. These behaviors were harmful to the
educational environment of his department and of our university. We condemn
Professor Jaeger's behavior in the strongest terms. We believe these behaviors and
their effects meet the standards of Faculty Handbook IV.A.10, under which the
Board of Trustees can revoke tenure and terminate contracts, of “moral conduct
unbefitting the position” and “failure to discharge responsibly his fundamental
obligations as a teacher.”

II. Case to Protest the Actions of Gail Norris and Susan


Wormer, based on the IIR

• Gail Norris and Susan Wormer of the Office of Counsel (OOC)


transmitted faculty emails gained from a search of University
servers with the immediate supervisor of the authors, BCS Chair
Greg DeAngelis, without the consent of the faculty members
whose emails were searched (see report II.C.16, p.134).
• The Independent Investigation concludes that this action was
inconsistent with the emphasis on confidentiality in Policy 106,
under which the OOC was investigating a complaint at the time of
this transmission of emails (report II.C.16, p. 137) and
reflected “questionable judgment” (report I.C.9, p. 37).

• The transmission of these emails from a faculty member to her or


his supervisor(s) should only be done in situations of extraordinary
necessity, as it violates reasonable faculty expectations of privacy
and may undermine a faculty member's relationship with a
supervisor who holds considerable power over her or him. Such
action could be considered as a gateway to a serious threat to
tenure of a tenured faculty member.

Motion to Protest the Actions of Gail Norris and Susan Wormer

The report of the Independent Investigation has documented that


members of the University's Office of Counsel searched the email
messages of members of the faculty and subsequently shared the content
of those messages with the faculty members’ department chair. This
search and sharing occurred without sufficient justification, reflected
“questionable judgment,” and was inconsistent with the guidelines for
confidentiality found in HR Policy 106. It has damaged the faculty’s
trust in the administration to uphold reasonable expectations of
privacy. We strongly protest this action.

Mary Jane Curry and Kevin McFarland,

Senate Co-chairs, 2017-18

You might also like