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