College graduates need real legal recourse for sexual harassment

After six months of negotiations, the Stanford Graduate Workers’ Union (SWGU) has reached a tentative agreement with the university on a grievance process that will serve as an enforcement mechanism for the upcoming first contract. However, the university proposed excluding sexual harassment, sexual assault and other prohibited sexual conduct from the contract as concerns.

“Any decision pursuant to the University’s sexual harassment policy is final and cannot be appealed under this agreement.”

This exclusion could have been predicted by Stanford, the institution that employed Jay Fliegelman (accused of assault, deceased) and Franco Moretti (accused of harassment and assault, retired) and currently employs Vincent Barletta (who early on violated Stanford’s sexual policies harassment). 2010s). The daily investigated Barletta in June 2022, but he quietly returned to teaching that winter despite calls for his firing.

The latest proposal says nothing about abuse of power and bullying. Our colleagues at MIT said it best: “Protected status (…) does not cover cases of power-based harassment, more commonly referred to as bullying.”

Like MIT graduates, Stanford graduates deserve comprehensive protections that will enable them to effectively protect their people and workforce from illegal violations, including harassment and discrimination in all forms.

Reporting rates for harassment and discrimination of all kinds are shockingly low at Stanford. Of IDEAL respondents, only 6% of college graduates who experienced discrimination and/or harassment filed a formal report. This means that 94% have decided not to lodge a formal complaint. However, 43% of them sought resources for advice, support or information. These figures suggest that graduate students do not view the university’s existing procedures as capable of taking meaningful remedial action.

In negotiations with SWGU, university officials admitted that the low reporting was due to a lack of trust in existing procedures and argued that building trust takes time. They also argued that the union’s protections against sexual harassment, sexual assault, other prohibited sexual conduct, abuse of power and bullying would be redundant to existing procedures under the university’s sexual harassment policy and would not improve reporting outcomes.

Trust does not come from procedures that are completely inadequate and lacking control from the start. Under the current system, college graduates report sexual misconduct to the Title IX Office of Sexual Harassment/Assault Response & Education (SHARE) or the Stanford Police Department. However, advocates for survivors of sexual violence criticize the existing reporting processes as confusing and non-transparent.

Additionally, SHARE Title IX simply does not have the power to adjudicate power differences between academic ranks. Take, for example, the fact that only 11% of IDEAL survey graduates “strongly” agreed with the statement: “In my department or work unit, it is easy to discuss difficult topics and problems.” This finding alone shows us that fear of retaliation is an everyday reality for most Stanford graduate students. However, SHARE reported a total of zero – zero! – Reports of retaliation in fiscal year 2022-2023.

Currently, the university refers graduate students to their dean if the complaint involves abuse of power, bullying, and/or an allegation of sexual misconduct that does not trigger a SHARE Title IX investigation. (Little known fact: The university’s human resources department does not handle complaints against faculty members.) The dean makes an individual and subjective assessment that the complaint meets an undisclosed threshold for the need for an investigation.

With or without SHARE Title IX investigations, the Dean is the final point of contact for graduate students who are concerned with or even suspect sexual harassment, sexual assault, other prohibited sexual conduct, abuse of power, and/or bullying. Once a Title IX investigation is completed, SHARE Title IX typically issues recommendations to the respondent’s dean, which may include sanctions against the respondent. The University’s sexual harassment policy does not guarantee the implementation of these recommendations. As a result, bad actors at Stanford behave with impunity because they know they will likely never face sanctions or public scrutiny.

Remember the Barletta case. The pseudonymous Rachel told investigators that she went to her dean and asked for institutional support in navigating her working relationship with Barletta. She recalled that Dean Debra Satz “laughed and told her, ‘The only thing I can think of is the advice of an older, wiser woman: If a man behaves in a way that makes you uncomfortable, you have to tell him.’ simply say.’ He should stop.’” Then Sentence showed Rachel the door.

Rachel wasn’t the first graduate student affected by Barletta and the university’s callous betrayal. Barletta had “sexually molested his student a decade ago” and “his inappropriate behavior had never stopped.” The pseudonymous Jeanne said of Barletta’s ongoing behavior: “(it’s) all a riff on the same story (…) he has refined his techniques.” The story is a glaring example of how perpetrators are encouraged to continue their harassing behavior when it is Survivors lack real recourse and perpetrators lack responsibility.

Graduate students need union-supported channels to address all complaints, including those that fall under the university’s sexual harassment policy. Going forward, the ability to file a union complaint will serve as a deterrent to all forms of discrimination and harassment recognized in the contract.

Union-sponsored grievance procedures not only provide an opportunity to call out misconduct, but also promote resolution. Under union-sponsored grievance procedures, cases are typically resolved before arbitration is initiated because the prospect of arbitration encourages the parties to resolve disputes. Additionally, the threat of external arbitration will further deter bad actors.

Everything would have been different for Jeanne and Rachel if they had had real help. Jeanne had no union or union-sponsored grievance process and was left alone to navigate the complex landscape of SHARE Title IX and university administrators, some of whom behaved like bullies and “apparently sought a narrative that she disliked.” “wanted” to be closely associated with Barletta.” If the sanctions against Jeanne had been effective, Rachel may not have been subjected to Barletta’s harassment in the years to come. Instead, “(…) the (Rachel) case emerged while the sanctions from Jeanne’s Title IX case were still in effect.”

In the future, the SGWU must be the primary point of contact for university graduates at risk of misconduct, and not the university administration. The union must be able to give graduates the opportunity to seek real redress, regardless of the nature of the abuse.

With comprehensive non-discrimination provisions, the SGWU will play a crucial role in protecting the workplace from all illegal violations through codified procedures. Every union member has the right to request the presence of a union representative at a disciplinary meeting or at any meeting at which disciplinary action is likely to be taken. Should a graduate suspect a breach of their contract or an unlawful violation of their labor rights and decide to take action, their case will be assigned to a union representative who is trained, experienced and legally protected and will use every available resource to address the issue.

Additionally, if the graduate is retaliated against after making a complaint, he or she will be fully protected because retaliation is not only power-based harassment, but is illegal in the state of California. Ultimately, if cases cannot be resolved through this mediation, the union has the option to refer the decision to a neutral third party.

The only way for college graduates to ensure job security is with a strong contract that includes a union-backed process with full, unfettered protections.

University graduates: We are counting on you to come to the SWGU event on May 16th. Be sure to attend Treaty Action Committee meetings and your area meetings. Now it’s time to win this powerful contract.

Chloe Brault is a Ph.D. Candidate in Comparative Literature. Sophie Jean Walton is a Ph.D. Candidate in Biophysics and member of the Stanford Graduate Workers Union Bargaining Committee