By: Sean McGahan
Interim Chancellor Sam Goldman said he’s had difficulty walking the fine line between privacy and transparency in regard to the sexual harassment policy.
As university officials and constituents review the policy, Goldman stressed the difficult balance between the two.
“You read our current document, and there’s a problem in that document, and we’re aware of it. On the one hand it says you’ve got to be open and you’ve got to show transparency, and on the other hand you’ve got to protect privacy,” he said.
“The difficult part is juggling those two because they are somewhat contradictory. It’s in the document. We will have difficulty with that.”
University officials are very cautious to protect the privacy of people who make claims, but they are at a constant disadvantage, Goldman said.
They can’t answer questions that people make about their actions, though others are free to speak and be critical, he said.
“It’s a tough road for us to walk on. And it’s going to be very tough with the new policy. I don’t know how you do it. I don’t know how,” he said.
“When you get into a group setting, there are others there, and they’re not bound by the same rules that I’m bound by, so they’ll say things and I can’t answer them.”
Goldman said his motivation is never to be secretive.
“We got accused of that. It’s not secrecy. It’s privacy. He (John Y. Simon) knew all of that stuff (the specifics of the allegations against him), and I’m sorry to say there are some people who wanted to make a different kind of case, and I’m sorry for that.”
Many were skeptical about secrecy in the Simon case and were under the impression Simon was fired, Goldman said.
But it was not up to administrators who recommended Simon to be fired prior to a grievance being filed, he said.
“I’m the final step. But those are recommendations. Nothing happens until I decide,” he said.
“This is all part of the process. Nothing happens until the chancellor makes the decision.”
Goldman said he read the information differently than previous administrators who made their decisions.
“A lot of it has to do with how people read information and the information they get,” he said. “That’s why it goes to judges and it goes to the Supreme Court. They all read the same stuff, but justices view it differently.”
“They’re reading on the severity of it was different than mine. That’s all. That’s what the justice system is all about. That’s why we have courts of appeal.”
Goldman said there was no question Simon would continue teaching.
“What we needed to do was recognize a way so that — I got to be careful how I say this — so that it was recognizable by all parties that we were serious about dealing with this case. Remember, there are victims here, and you’ve got to take them into account,” he said.
Dear Chancellor Goldman:
The yiddish word “chutzpah” comes to mind. As an opponent of the old code BEFORE the Meyers and Simon cases, and an opponent of the new code, I have never made this about a single case. Nor did the committee two year ago, and I would say the same about statements issued by ACLU president Leonard Gross. Yet for months the administration has accused its critics of focusing on one case (interesting how the Meyers’ case gets lost — did he know all the details? Did HE have a chance to respond? More importantly, is the accused entitled to know his/her accuser under current policy?).
So, here we are and the chancellor (you) brings this down to ONE case. Even more chutzpah: He admits implicitly that “severity” is the standard — something I and others and the U.S. Supreme Court demand. Please be consistent and have the standard — “severe, persistent, or pervasive” written into the code, hammered into the training so we all have guidance. That is only fair (and legal).
I must say I was struck by this passage from your full blog:
“A lot of it has to do with how people read information and the information they get,” he said. “That’s why it goes to judges and it goes to the Supreme Court. They all read the same stuff, but justices view it differently.”
It should not have to go to judges, that is why SIU has a code to prevent that from happening, to take steps before it escalates. As for “justices view[ing] it differently,” that is a dodge: Once the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court speaks (see 1999 ruling) that is the law binding on SIU and the rest of us. The ruling wa 5-4 but you do not have the privilege, power, or authority to select from the dissents, unless you want to make a court challenge to the policy that you, implicitly, used in the case you cited (severity).
In other words, Chancellor Goldman, you can’t have it both ways. And please stop making this about one individual — you face two lawsuits, the prior committees noted many other abuses, and you hide behind a single case. If you think the prior committees were wrong, tell us why. Obviously, your Legal Counsel rejected all their major recommendation. Why?
Sincerely,
Jonathan Bean
Professor of History
President, Illinois Assn. of Scholars