After publishing an article last week on the sexual harassment case ("Tenured professors resign to avoid third investigation" - 08/18/08), it was natural that there would be some comments on our Web site.
What I didn't expect was to have my e-mail account bombarded by anonymous messages from both sides, so perhaps it's best to clear up a few points here.
In writing the article, it was not my job to decide which of the parties involved was on the side of reason or truth. I interviewed the protagonists on both sides for a total of three hours. Affirmative Action Office Director Grace Hernandez conducted hundreds of hours of interviews and her results were inconclusive.
According to Faculty Senate Chair Dr. Gary Ebersole, it was not even Hernandez's job to pass judgment, but merely to gather information. The only body empowered to give or remove tenure is the faculty itself, and it would have been the duty of the Campus Faculty Committee on Tenure to evaluate the results of the report compiled by Hernandez.
Clearly, however, there are some lingering problems. In last Tuesday's Faculty Senate meeting, Hernandez faced a series of questions from the senators demonstrating many are still troubled by the outcome of this mess.
Senator Bob Yang, School of Medicine, noted the university had paid $1.1 million to the plaintiffs, and then subsequently reached a financial settlement with the two professors under investigation. In his opinion, the university was getting "the short end of the stick."
Senator Susan Sykes, Libraries, said paying a similar settlement to the plaintiffs, yet summarizing the investigation as "inconclusive" made the university look guilty.
Hernandez made clear certain decisions were made at another level and it was a decision of the University of Missouri (UM) Office of General Counsel to pay the plaintiffs, but Senator Bob Schubert, Staff Council, wasn't satisfied.
"We didn't come out smelling as sweet as we could have," Schubert said. "UM System Counsel needs a little PR."
Ebersole said the university's hands were tied, as the original lawsuit named the chancellor, provost and deans, and therefore they were prohibited from talking. Due to personnel and privacy laws, many restrictions still apply, according to Ebersole.
In fact, Hernandez, asked to comment on a quote in the U-News article said she had never used the word "exonerated" when talking with the professors privately about the results of the investigation, but couldn't say more on the matter.
So where does this leave us?
Interim Chancellor Leo Morton said he's at an age where he's learned "there are some things only time can heal."
The university is working on better grievance policies. Ebersole has issued a strong call for a formal policy of zero tolerance leaving no wriggle room or uncertainty, not only in cases of sexual harassment, but on abuses of power in general.
That the university has taken a big negative hit is clear. The initial story published in the Kansas City Star over a year ago was emblematic of the ineptitude of how this has been handled. True or false, the allegations of the lawsuit were published as if they were facts.
From a purely cynical point of view, when the UM lawyers decided to pay the plaintiffs a huge sum of money to make the story disappear, then they should have at least included a gag order preventing the plaintiffs from talking to the press. Otherwise, the whole purpose of the settlement is defeated.
The results of the Hernandez Report were delayed for nine months and then given in a summary of a summary form. This does not encourage confidence in the transparency of all the hard work Hernandez did in the fall of 2007.
Sexual harassment cases are really, really difficult. So are removal of tenure hearings. Given the choice, this is a situation no university would ever want to have to deal with. UMKC has been thrown into this, and, over the last year, it has been gasping desperately for breath.
dsimons@unews.com
