Education, Top Stories

Pursuit of Injustice: Further Adventures Under Title IX

A specter is haunting American colleges and universities, the specter of Title IX. Originally the portion of the Civil Rights Act concerned with gender equity on campus, the previously laudable Title IX was twisted beyond recognition by the infamous 2011 “Dear Colleague” Letter and the new regime of federal compliance it created. The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued the DCL with the intent of reducing sexual harassment and assault, but instead it ushered in ivory tower McCarthyism. Last year, I endured a Title IX investigation (detailed in a previous article for Quillette) over trumped-up allegations made by a colleague seeking to settle a decades-old score. I was acquitted, but the ensuing investigation led to an entirely new set of administrative charges originating from a different office on my campus, the University of Utah. This article tells the story of how a Title IX case metastasized into a protracted and expensive ordeal.

So, how did the Dear Colleague Letter turn universities into star chambers? It lowered the burden of proof for a guilty finding in sex cases, and stripped the accused of due process. Perhaps more importantly, it established a system of perverse incentives that fueled the witch hunt. Colleges deemed insufficiently vigorous in ferreting out sexual misbehavior could now be shamed by their inclusion in a federal registry. Furthermore, they were threatened with compliance reviews that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to complete. Colleges now had a strong incentive to pursue every case brought to their attention, no matter how frivolous. Despite the recent retraction of the Dear Colleague and new federal guidelines, the Title IX machine continues to hum along, perhaps motivated by higher education’s broad hostility to the Trump administration.

My own investigation for alleged Title IX transgressions lasted several months before eventually clearing me of sexual harassment and gender discrimination. In the end, I was very lucky. I remain a tenured professor at the University of Utah. The costs to me were limited to my time and the $14,000 I ultimately paid to my attorney. Some tenured faculty members end up losing their jobs. Students are often expelled from college and effectively barred from matriculating elsewhere in the United States.

Yet the successful resolution of my Title IX case a year ago didn’t come as much of a relief to me. Although the investigator’s report cleared me of sexual misconduct, it far exceeded its original mandate by going to great lengths to depict me as a bad colleague. Most of this concerned my behavior at faculty meetings. I had rolled my eyes. I had said “fuck” once. And so on.

I protested to my Title IX inquisitor about the irrelevance of all this to a Title IX case focused on sexual harassment and gender discrimination, but to no avail. The response included this unhappy reminder: “Please be advised that the OEO/ AA is not bound by strict rules of legal evidence or procedure. . . .” Translation: we can do whatever we want, with virtually no accountability. My Title IX report was entered into the official record with all the commentary about my comportment at faculty meetings intact.

I freely concede to being impatient at faculty meetings—most of us are—but the imputation that I was a lousy colleague is a stretch. Case in point: I’ve published three papers in academic journals and co-edited a book with three different departmental colleagues. Whatever my interpersonal limitations may be, I’m not congenitally unable to get along with the people I work with.

In any event, it was clear why the Title IX report tried so hard to impugn my collegiality: it was providing the source material for additional complaints that would originate elsewhere in the university bureaucracy. Three months later my suspicions were realized, as I received an official complaint from my dean about my hostile body language and overall poor collegiality. The complaint was based entirely on the findings in my Title IX report.

The dean’s letter recapitulated the eye rolls, the one-time profanity, and so forth from the report. “Hostile body language,” my dean wrote, “[is] unacceptable in a professional setting.” She imposed two punishments for my transgressions. The first was an official reprimand, with the stated threat of dismissing me if my body language didn’t improve forthwith. The second was a month of unpaid suspension. I wasn’t scheduled to be teaching during the specified month, but the suspension would amount to a fine of over $5,000. I also would be barred from campus. A month of freedom from faculty meetings ultimately wasn’t worth $5,000 to me, but I did have to give it some consideration.

There are two broader points to make about the dean’s charges. First, no one in my department had actually complained about my collegiality, to her or anyone else at the university (indeed, my collegiality hadn’t been part of my initial Title IX complaint). These details emerged simply because an over-zealous investigator included them in his report after soliciting dirt from my colleagues. Indeed, no one had previously asked me to tone down my body language, or reported feeling scandalized by my use of the F-word.

The second point concerns the dean’s demanding expectations regarding my behavior. (At this point, I encourage anyone reading this article to make sure s/he is sitting up straight if s/he’s reading it in a public place. Who really knows if slouching is “hostile body language”?) Likewise, I encourage my peers at research universities not to publicly observe that they’re at research universities. Otherwise it might seem as though they’re “”look[ing] down on anyone who he sees as doing more teaching/service and less research.” Yes, that was part of the dean’s complaint against me: at a research university I shouldn’t discuss the primacy of research with my colleagues. More broadly, seeking to control an employee’s body language and sentiments about his coworkers and place of employment can’t be called anything other than Orwellian.

The dean’s complaint offered me two outs. The first was an offer to rescind the reprimand and fine if I wrote a response that pleased the dean. The second was a review by the “consolidated hearing panel,” essentially a trial by a jury of my peers. These hearings are the usual means of meting out punishment in higher education, and they’re consistent with guidelines set forth by the American Association of University Professors.

After another expensive consultation with my attorney, I submitted a response to my dean. I pleaded extenuating circumstances—hardship in both my personal life, dysfunction in my department that had been documented by a review committee composed of faculty at other institutions—coupled with an apology. The response of the dean was to cut my suspension (and fine) to two weeks, rather than a month. So, I contacted my faculty senate about convening the consolidated hearing panel.

I requested background: guidelines about how my trial would proceed, information about prior trials, and so forth. The senate secretary was unable to provide me with any information, in part because she claimed the senate had no record of anyone ever contesting a disciplinary action anything like mine.

It is difficult to imagine that my fellow faculty members—a jury of my peers—would actually vote to uphold the unpaid suspension imposed by my dean. Would they really want to set a precedent of faculty members getting fined, especially for charges as frivolous as their body language in faculty meetings? To the best of my knowledge it would indeed be a precedent, at my university or any other, as none of my many friends in higher education had ever heard of a dean trying to fine a faculty member.

Still, I didn’t relish the idea of a hearing. Preparing for it would have been a time-consuming endeavor. It would have been expensive in terms of attorney fees. And I would not be allowed to have my attorney at the hearing, only a “support person.” Nevertheless, I envisioned extensive pre-trial consultations with my lawyer.

It was therefore a relief when a university administrator who outranks my dean called the whole thing off. In exchange, I agreed to a de jure half-time appointment. I had been de facto half-time for years, so making it official was a matter of convenience for me. It was an agreeable outcome to an ordeal that had lasted almost a year. Meanwhile, the university was spared having to follow through on an outrageous punishment. I can’t imagine that the university would have wanted the attention the dean’s attempt at heavy-handed discipline might have ultimately produced. Still, what if I didn’t want to be half-time? Would the friendly vice-president for faculty still have saved me from my dean’s witch hunt?

The tribulations resulting from trumped-up Title IX cases have been well documented by Laura Kipnis, among others. Some of them have spun off into legal proceedings. My experience at the University of Utah shows that Title IX can beget other kinds of administrative tribunals in higher education.

I’m still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Filed under: Education, Top Stories

by

Nicholas H. Wolfinger is Professor of Family and Consumer Studies and Adjunct Professor of Sociology at the University of Utah. His most recent book is Soul Mates: Religion, Sex, Love, and Marriage among African Americans and Latinos (with W. Bradford Wilcox; Oxford University Press, 2016).

20 Comments

  1. Joe Halstead says

    For a time, it will continue to get worse before it gets better. Those wielding the weapons of Social Justice haven’t yet had these weapons turned on them, after all.

  2. Reading this as well as the tribulations of your Title IX experience in the other posting here at Quillette reaffirms my choice NOT to pursue academia but instead private industry. Yes, private industry has the inklings of SJW embedded as well, but at least you have the actual legal justice system available to you (although it remains to be seen if it helps someone like Damore). I wonder how many great educators and researchers are intimidated away from their calling simply because of this type of nonsense? Even the left wing demagoguery of their right leaning peers dissuades many. I know of many right-leaning, extremely competent computer scientists would would never DREAM of accepting a position at the big IT shops of Silicon Valley for that specific reason.

  3. Shawn Fitzpatrick says

    In the analogous Title VII context, courts often write that the law was not intended to be a workplace civility code. Regardless what was intended or how courts are obligated to apply them, these laws seem to be evolving into tools for the imposition of civility codes.

    I wonder how much trouble Prof. Wolfinger would have found himself in if he had disciplined a student for slouching in class . . .

    • Shawn, one problem with Title IX is that it isn’t the courts that are applying them, at least not the courts of the Federal, State, or Local governments. It is the kangaroo court of the educational facility which in turn does things like — eliminate due process, remove the right to counsel, etc.

  4. Alex Bensky says

    Months of stress and thousands of dollars in costs, and it comes out not too unhappily. This for a tenured professor. You aren’t tenured or you’re a student, the message is clear–the process is the punishment so just shut up and say what you’re told to say.

  5. William Russ says

    I and my wife are/have been university professors.

    I fantasize him organizing a faculty demonstration in front of the Admin Building
    (with press invited as well as the Board of Trustees) Carrying signs,
    “No Justice, NO Peace!”.. and ” Free Professor Wolfinger”

    ..and see how far that goes.. enlist some SWJ’s to make it authentic too

    Luck!
    William Russ, Ed.D.

  6. I’m not so bothered by giving a hard time to a guy who slouches and says “fuck”. People -should- stand up to louts.

    • Ken James says

      Imagine if someone had the power to fine you, perhaps fire you from your job for writing what you just did.

      • Higher ed is much different in that tenured professorships are very hard to come by. At the very least, it’ll require relocation to another state. For better or worse it’s a unique workplace in many ways.

        In the private sector, there are numerous alternative employers (but not if your case gets as well publicized as James Damore’s did).

  7. Alec Rawls says

    The author drops a bomb at the end and acts as if it is nothing. He got half-fired from a tenured position for commonplace speech. Don’t see how it makes any difference that he is okay with a half-time appointment. This had to have violated tenure conditions. Don’t go along where you have the leverage man.

  8. sestamibi says

    One would think that after reading dozens of horror stories like this, Congress would see fit to determine whether or not Title IX needs some reform, clarification, or perhaps even outright repeal. Why is this issue never raised, even by its victims like the author?

  9. The similarities are striking. When the outrageously false Title IX charges brought against me were dropped by the administration at Providence Christian College in Pasadena, CA, the CFO simply started another investigation. The CFO dug into my emails, found a few “bull shits,” and then terminated me for “excessive profanity.” Oh…and the emails were from 2013; I was terminated four years later in 2017.

    Faculty members need muster the courage to expose such abuses.

  10. This is another example of the Western world moving away from the rule of law to the rule of ‘feelings’.

    We have at least another 20 years to undo the damage that the emotional left has let lose on us in the guise of doing the ‘right ‘ thing as opposed to doing what the law states.

    Has anyone, with an eye on the future, written an article or a book on the potential damage to our society by moving away from the law and into the murk of righteous indignation, designed by emotional, left leaning academics?

  11. Finally! There is a great way how you can work from your home using your computer and earn in the same time…You can earn many more from site….Only basic internet knowledge needed and fast internet connection… Earn as much as $3889 a week… >> PlanrHino.CoM

  12. Ardy,

    I understand what you’re saying, but I’m not convinced that this is a left-right issue. The nefarious scumbags at Providence Christian College were all right-wing conservative evangelicals, many of whom voted for Trump. Their prosecution against me was, like Nick’s, purely retaliatory. Title IX and the second investigation were merely a pretext to get rid of me, not for my politics, though I am far left on most issues, but because of power, arrogance, and fear that I would expose their immoral and illegal activities.

  13. Just an old white guy here, (65) and I guess I’m what they call these days, a White Supremest.
    It’s been interesting to watch the Universities ruin what has stood the test of time.
    I grew up in Cambridge, Mass. and have worked at Harvard and M.I.T. as well as gone to Northeastern.

    For me, the Liberals have ruined our education system.
    Those going to school now, demand that students follow their set of social guidelines.

    Students run for safe spaces, melting down, not even sure if they even have debate classes anymore., may get expelled by hurting someone’s feelings…Really.

    Love how the Black Students are demanding their own dorms, as they are scared.
    Boy, talk about producing meek, robotic students, and turning back the clock to segregation.

    Myself, II’m going to try to get fellow seniors to start attending classes and add some fuel to the fire.
    Time for these young minds to start debating their positions, and understand that life is just not the one way they have been programmed to believe.
    I’m glad to see you got a taste of the system that the Liberals have created.

    These students will never get hired, if they don’t toughen up, and be able to hear different points of views.
    They can’t run for a safe space, or find a kangaroo court to complain to.
    The education system has failed the students, as the rest of the world students will eat them up in the workplace.
    Great Job.

    • Liberals have ruined our higher education system, the best in the world? Come on.

      Most faculty are liberal. Only a minority are radical extremists. It’s been this way for decades, and we haven’t ruined it yet.

  14. Pingback: Pursuit of Injustice: Further Adventures Under Title IX - PoliSpin

  15. markmandell says

    Only in academia do people expect a pass on bad behavior, all under the guise of academic freedom. Academic tenure may have once offered protection for unpopular viewpoints, but today it seems mainly to protect the lazy, the bigoted and the unproductive. Given that social science departments tend to restrict tenure to individuals with a limited range of opinions, it is not even clear that tenure serves to protect unpopular viewpoints.

Comments are closed.