WAGE Position Paper

From the paper and notes prepared for the meeting with UC's Office of the General Counsel

On January 30, 1996, a group of WAGE members met with representatives of the University General Counsel's Office. Charity Hirsch participated in the discussions and reports on them in her Welcome on page 1 of this issue. Here is a summary of the position paper and related notes prepared for this meeting:

WAGE and the University General Counsel's Office have some common ground. We all respect the University and its aspirations for academic excellence. We all believe that discrimination in academic employment is inimical to these aspirations and wish to work with the University to enforce its anti-discrimination policies.

WAGE's role as forum in which academic women share their work experiences has permitted us to see both patterns of discrimination and some of the difficulties the University has in responding to them effectively. We have observed problems at all stages of the process.

When a woman faculty member makes an initial complaint of discrimination or harassment she does not see the whole University as her adversary. She is looking for a solution to a specific problem and needs someone within the system to whom she can turn for impartial fact finding and a prompt resolution. Affirmative action officers are limited in what they can do; they may feel compromised by the need for collegiality with fellow administrators and as staff may lack academic authority.

The Committee on Privilege and Tenure is ineffective in resolving complaints since it cannot investigate the facts. Members of the Committee may also be hampered by issues of collegiality which tend to exclude the grievant. And when the General Counsel's Office becomes involved in the P&T process, it sides with the administration without making its own investigation. The resulting polarization makes rational settlement discussions very difficult.

When a case reaches the litigation stage the General Counsel's office reacts aggressively and the process is heavily weighted in favor of the University and its limitless resources. The complaining faculty member is by now very angry and determined to win a large financial settlement. At the last stage of a long series of failed, inadequate procedures, a limited problem has become a vicious and costly war.

And at all stages of this process the complaining faculty member may suffer retaliation by members of her department, the administration or the General Counsel's Office. Women commonly report they find the harm done them for complaining worse than the damage from the original discrimination. Settlement clauses that exclude the plaintiff from future University employment or deny their right to discuss their cases are clearly retaliatory.

WAGE asks that the General Counsel's Office help initiate the formation of a task force to study the University's internal procedures for handling discrimination grievances. We believe that the University is missing opportunities to resolve disputes and correct wrongs; earlier resolution would save money, avoid rancor and be more humane.

We also ask the General Counsel's Office to follow the guidelines of the Torres bill; to try to settle meritorious cases quickly; to be less aggressively litigious; and to report expenditures on discrimination cases accurately and in full.

-wage@wage.org-