What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Develop a diverse pool of trained advisors—including academic deans, faculty members, and other officers—who can advise claimants, potential claimants, and faculty members accused of sexual harassment. Make readily known the availability of these advisors, the range and purpose of their services, and the confidentiality accorded to their consultations.

White says that these changes “would align the University with many other universities’ policies, including those of Harvard, Columbia, Case Western and Cornell, which allow both parties to have advisers during the investigative process,” as does Rochester’s Sexual Misconduct Policy for students.

“This change also will provide parties with additional guidance throughout the investigative process—guidance that to some extent was lacking in connection with the investigations that took place in this matter,” she writes.

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Undertake and complete a review of the University’s current mandatory training on sexual harassment for faculty, students, staff, and trainees, with the goal of providing the best possible training at least annually and when anyone joins the University community.

Throughout the history of this case, both faculty and students were uncertain of what the University’s policies allowed, prohibited, and required, says White. That uncertainty was especially acute before 2013, she says, when campuswide sexual harassment training for all employees was implemented, but such training did not solve the problem: “While the change in 2013 was a step in the right direction, the current training for employees does not deal at all with faculty-student relationships. The significance of this gap in training is underscored by Jaeger’s conduct and the University’s and the claimants’ responses to such conduct.”

White argues that discussing faculty-student relationships in future training will help prevent instances like the Jaeger case, and that including training initiatives as part of the evaluation process for department chairs will help ensure that training receives the attention and funding it requires.

“Annual training on key policies is increasingly a standard tenet of compliance programs at large institutions, not only in the business world, but also in other sectors,” White writes. “We believe the University should be at the forefront of this trend.”

For students, she recommends increased peer-training to augment the online training for students that is already mandatory.

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Amend the University’s Policy 106—the policy on gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment—to specify examples, use clear language, and indicate the range of disciplinary and other remedial actions that may be taken. The University should also consider adding a statement to encourage University community members to report sexual harassment by anyone subject to the policy.

Policy 106 lies at the heart of much that unfolded in the Jaeger case. The White report explains: “The law and UR Policy 106 recognize two types of sexual harassment: (1) quid pro quo harassment, in which an adverse employment or academic action (e.g., termination, pay cut, bad grade) results from a refusal to submit to a supervisor’s or professor’s unwelcome sexual demand or where submission to such a demand is made a condition of receiving employment or academic benefits; or (2) hostile environment harassment, in which sexual harassment is so ‘severe or pervasive’ that it creates an abusive working or academic environment.”

The independent investigation found no evidence that Jaeger had engaged in unlawful sexual harassment, given the policies then in place, or that the University had retaliated against those who brought complaints against him.

“We credit, as the complaints allege, that during the earlier period of 2007–13 (and especially during the earlier years in that period), Jaeger engaged in behavior that was inappropriate, unprofessional, and offensive,” the report states. But “there is no evidence that Jaeger ever engaged in so-called quid pro quo sexual harassment, or ever had any non-consensual sexual contact with any person.”

White notes that, in response to the unfolding Jaeger case, BCS department chair Greg DeAngelis sought “to tighten the relevant policies for at least BCS.” She also writes that “[citing] inherent conflicts of interest, lack of sufficient support for claimants, confusion about the reporting and investigative process and lack of transparency in reporting investigative results and remedial actions, the claimants also urged changes and enhancements to the relevant policies, procedures and process used by the University to address claims of sexual misconduct by faculty members.”

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Retain expert outside counsel to advise the president and general counsel on developing new procedures regarding the confidentiality of investigations of claims of sexual harassment or sexual misconduct by faculty members—with the aim of adopting, within six months, formal procedures that more carefully and flexibly balance needs for confidentiality and transparency.

Investigators found a tangle of expectations among those involved regarding confidentiality and transparency, ambiguities that fueled grievance and frustration on all sides.

“The current policy leaves uncertainty as to what will be kept confidential and in what circumstances,” White writes. “We found that there was confusion among the Complainants, witnesses and Jaeger about whether information they provided in connection with the investigation would remain confidential, whether information they knew about the investigation needed to remain confidential, and whether information collected by the [University’s Office of Counsel] during the investigation would remain confidential. Witnesses were not notified when the investigation had concluded unless they followed up actively. . . .”

White notes the “need for confidentiality surrounding an investigation” and the fact that “lack of communication created confusion and distrust toward the University’s administration.” She urges the University to take steps to “achieve an optimal balance between the important interests served by confidentiality and transparency.”

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Publish annual data about complaints and their resolution.

The release of such data, White writes, “would serve to increase transparency and community awareness.”

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Clarify IT policy, making clear the process for reviewing email.

When Aslin and Cantlon made allegations to the University about Jaeger’s conduct—allegations that involved Celeste Kidd ’13 (PhD), who is now an assistant professor in BCS—the University investigated the allegations.

Following that investigation, Kidd filed another claim in July 2016. Her allegations included retaliation against her for her part in the investigation. That claim led to a second investigation, during which the University’s Office of Counsel (OOC) requested access to BCS faculty members’ emails to trace issues of confidentiality.

“A new problem erupted in BCS in January [2017],” White writes, when the OOC shared some of those emails with BCS department chair DeAngelis. At a faculty meeting that month, he “announced that he had in front of him a stack of emails that showed ‘manipulation and deception of faculty members’ and the ‘smearing’ of Jaeger,” White says.

She writes that “the OOC’s decision to provide DeAngelis with the emails did not violate any University policy” and that it “was done in an effort to help DeAngelis effectively lead BCS.” But she adds that “the judgment to do so resulted in deepening the divide between the claimants and others in the department and was inconsistent with the emphasis that Policy 106 places on confidentiality.”

As a result, White recommends that the University “review its IT policy to make clearer the range of circumstances that justify review of emails and to specify criteria for sharing emails outside of OOC.”

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Improve online access to policies and procedures, and provide easy-to-use contact information for the Title IX coordinator, the intercessor, and other relevant staff members.

The independent investigation report bases its findings on federal laws and University policies. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972, and the New York State Human Rights Law prohibit sexual harassment, as does Policy 106.

Making such information easy to find and digest is key, White says, advising that Rochester’s policies and procedures “should be streamlined and presented in an intuitive format, with separate sections based on the identity of the accused and the nature of the claim.

They should provide examples of conduct that would violate the policy. The revised policies should clearly lay out the full range of potential discipline and other remedial action that may be taken when there is a policy violation, and set forth a range of potential consequences for conduct that does not rise to the level of a policy violation, but is still problematic.”

The benefit of such specificity, White says, is that “members of the University community will know exactly where to go to report a concern and what the process will entail should they choose to move forward with a complaint, as well as what to expect in terms of sanctions.”

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

The Board of Trustees should direct the president and provost to initiate consideration by the Faculty Senate of proposed amendments to the Intimate Relationships Policy flatly prohibiting all intimate relationships between faculty and students in the same department.

This recommendation grows out of the investigation’s findings concerning Jaeger’s intimate relationships with multiple BCS students. “We found that these relationships contributed, at least in part, to making some female graduate students in BCS uncomfortable; in some cases, these women actively avoided pursuing academic opportunities with Jaeger,” White writes.

At the time of those relationships, the University’s policy strongly discouraged but did not prohibit intimate relationships between faculty and students. In 2014, the policy was revised to make it a violation for a faculty member to have an intimate relationship with an undergraduate or with any member of the University community over whom the faculty member has authority.

Jaeger’s conduct, and the allegations made by the complainants, involved both the University’s Intimate Relationships Policy and Policy 106, which concerns sexual harassment. They “thereby highlighted the potential tension between the two policies—and the acute challenges that can arise when intimate relationships between faculty and students are permitted,” says White.

Her advice is to banish ambiguity as much as possible: “[W]e believe that in light of the University’s experiences in this matter, a bright-line rule would be beneficial. Although the University has strengthened its policies recently, we believe that they can and should be further reinforced as described above.” What she recommends, she notes, is “stringent” but in line with what peer universities have done.

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Dedicate an office to investigating sexual harassment or misconduct involving faculty.

The complainants voiced concerns that there is at the least the appearance of conflict of interest in having the OOC handle Policy 106 claims.

“It is true that if a party disagrees with the outcome of a UR Policy 106 investigation and decides to sue the University in an administrative proceeding or in court, the OOC defends the University,” White writes. “We therefore recommend that such investigations be handled by a separate office in order to avoid the perception of a conflict.”

She notes that the University is an “outlier” in allowing the OOC to deal with sexual harassment claims. Most universities have a separate office designated to handle such claims.

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

The president should appoint a senior, cabinet-level official to oversee the implementation of the report’s recommendations, including compliance with deadlines.

White makes this recommendation in response to the importance of the issues raised in the Jaeger case and “the challenges of taking into account the interests of all relevant groups and stakeholders.”

What now?

The report makes several recommendations, including:

Recommendation

Create a trustee-level committee to oversee implementation of the recommendations and deadline compliance, as well as other initiatives at the University to combat sexual harassment, misconduct, discrimination, and retaliation throughout the University.

White suggests this measure to further ensure comprehensiveness and accountability.