![]() |
University Archives of Virginia Tech |
Virginia Tech
Governance Minutes ArchiveApril 20, 1994
Date: April 20, 1994 UNIVERSITY COMMITTEE ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MINUTES APRIL 20, 1994 Present: E. Braaten, C. Burger, T. Dillaha, T. Fairbanks, L. Graham, R. Hayman, M. Holmes, G. Holtzman, P. Hyer, R. Purdy, B. Purswell, V. Reilly, L. Roy, S. Short, R. Stith, D. Travis. Guests: Colleen Porter, Delores Scott. CALL TO ORDER: Dr. Holford called the meeting to order at 2:35 p.m. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA: Dr. Hyer asked that the Affirmative Action Incentive Grants be added as an agenda item. Otherwise, the agenda was adopted as presented. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES: Minutes for the March 16, 1994 meeting were approved. EO/AA OFFICE REPORT: Dr. Holford announced her appointment a EO/AA Office Director. She presented her vision for the office, beginning with the compliance process. To promote timeliness, effectiveness, and equitable response, she's developing a policy manual which will outline how complaints are investigated and provide a timeline for the office's actions. This will be made available to all parties involved in a complaint. Secondly, Dr. Holford intends to supervise the complaint process by having bi-weekly case meetings with the office's Compliance Officer. She has also developed a compliance report format to be used for every complaint that's formally filed. The response to informal complaints will be less structured, but follow-up letters will detail what actions have been taken in an investigation. Third, after instituting effective interoffice management, Dr. Holford intends for the office to address the two larger issues of broad-based retention and campus climate. She believes the university is past the stage of awareness and that the next step is for supervisors and department heads to take ownership of the issue of climate. Devising ways to do so will remain a directive of the Committee. Dr. Holford stated that the office's Compliance Officer should be selected by the end of May. The basic job duty is to investigate complaints and handle any ADA issues that should arise. The office submitted a Phase II initiative which proposed a reduction in the number of "Breakfast With" programs. Additionally, the office will coordinate with colleges, departments, and administrative units in advance so that speakers can be utilized in classes and workshops. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION INCENTIVE GRANTS: Dr. Hyer reported that the selection committee reviewed just under thirty applications. The total amount to be dispersed is $20,000, with individual awards of no more than $2,500. Eleven projects covering an expanded university community are to receive funding. Dr. Hyer explained to David Travis why projects submitted by extention offices were denied. A major criterion was how closely connected to the university is the audience with which they'd be working; the audience was felt to be too intermediate, and the projects needed a more direct impact on the institution. Dr. Hyer will send feedback letters offering explanations and suggestions to those applicants not chosen. REPORTS FROM SUBCOMMITTEES: O MONITORING SUBCOMMITTEE: Dr. Holford stated that the EO/AA Office will be monitored through quarterly reports of non-confidential case load statistics, compliance activities and conflict resolutions, with the exception of informal sexual harassment claims whose tracking is prohibited by the current sexual harassment policy. Recordkeeping should pinpoint any trends and may thus affect future programming. o RETENTION TASK FORCE: Delores Scott reported that they will do a pilot focus group study this summer on tenure-track faculty to include (as a mixed group) women, African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanic Americans. The success of this pilot will determine the direction of their actual fall focus group study. Ms. Scott asks for the assistance of members with expertise in this area. o DIVERSITY SUBCOMMITTEE: Dr. Roy reported on the group's upcoming Diversity Grants Writing Workshop to be held April 26th. Attendants will first meet as a group to discuss previously successful grants of over $50,000. They will then break into smaller groups to focus on actually writing the different parts of grants and then reconvene to discuss which foundations to apply to and why, and when, and how. The emphasis will be on the extremely practical aspects of applying for grants. Afterwards, a list of foundations that tend to fund diversity initiatives will be produced and circulated. Dr. Roy added that this summer the College of Arts and Sciences will have a diversity grant writing team of about fifteen people; they hope to produce at least eight proposals. They also have a funding initiative to invite three junior minority faculty members to join them, each of whom will have three or four mentors to work with them on their own individual proposals. Their progress will be reported to the Committee this fall. o POLICY SUBCOMMITTEE: Dr. Hyer said that they have met twice, and will meet a third time (April 29), with the Commission on Faculty Affairs to discuss the proposed revisions to the the sexual harassment policy. If approved, it will be introduced to the University Council this fall, as we are past the opportunity to have it considered this spring. In addition to CFA, the subcommittee has met with the Commission on Classified Staff Affairs, Commission on Student Affairs, and the Commission on Administrative and Professional Faculty; they have made contact with all the major personnel-related commissions. This summer the subcommittee will consider how to develop an educational program for next year, may draw up a request for proposal, and draft a handbook for individuals and supervisors who might deal with sexual harassment complaints. Dr. Holford thanked all the subcommitees for following through on their pledge to focus on specific issues and originate plans of action. SUMMER PROGRAMMING SUBCOMMITTEE: Dr. Holford called for volunteers for this group which will discuss ideas for programming in the next year that have been brought to her attention by various people and organizations. Members will not be required to prepare any programming, but rather will act on a directional level. Susanna Short, Jennie Reilly, Terry Fairbanks, Richard Hayman, Leslie Graham and Dr. Hyer agreed to serve. OTHER BUSINESS: Dr. Hyer asked Dr. Braaten about the status of the CAMPUS CLIMATE COMMITTEE and what, if anything, this committee should do about it next year. Dr. Braaten said it was disbanded because it felt it had no clarion call for any responsibility. Out of the 15 members, eight met on a regular basis. They discussed administering a survey, but were sidetracked by questions of to whom they were to report, how they could effect change, and how their charge differed from that of the Committee on Human Rights and Social Responsibility. They asked then-President McComas for a letter clarifying their purpose and responsibilities and offering his support, but this wasn't received until after they had disbanded. Dr. Braaten feels that the CCC should become part of the EO/AA Committee. Dr. Hyer proposed for next year's agenda that the EO/AA Committee rethink its structure and conscript the CCC into its ranks, citing that the EO/AA Committee is now composed of faculty and representatives from colleges who are concerned with classroom climate and who can provide leadership; that the Committee focus and re-energize the CCC and give it a charge it can manage; and that the CCC be required to report to the Committee. Dr. Holford agreed that the CCC should become a subcommittee, but composed of members and a chair with expertise from outside the current membership. This proposal will be more thoroughly discussed in the fall. Dr. Roy suggested as a topic for next year, ways to get SUBSTANTIAL FUNDING, externally and internally, for projects and initiatives the Committee deems significant, such as Ms. Scott's faculty retention study. Dr. Holford agreed. Dr. Dillaha asked if there have been any changes in opinion in classifying CONSENSUAL RELATIONSHIPS as sexual harassment. While he understands the prohibition of consensual relationships between direct superiors and subordinates, and that they are also prohibited because a third party could make a charge of favoritism or bias, he feels that there should be a separate mechanism for handling charges of favoritism because sexual harassment, per se, is not really a factor. Dr. Hyer said that nonetheless it is, by federal law and evolving case law, interpreted as sexual harassment because it could aggrieve a third party and create a hostile work environment. The adverse favoritism/bias could be perceived as harassment toward the third party that is arising out of a consensual, albeit in itself nonharassing, relationship. As an additional sanction, CFA may decide to include a statement prohibiting consensual relationships in the ethics section of the faculty handbook. Dr. Holford added that, from a legal standpoint, it's wise to have school policy reflect the law, and the university really doesn't have much choice to do otherwise. Dr. Roy raised the issue of how the COMMITTEE CAN MAKE ITSELF MORE EFFECTIVE next year. She said while the subcommittees were a good idea, time was wasted by not being focused enough at the beginning. She suggests focusing on two or three things that will have substantial impact and stressed the importance of finding a continuum to carry the Committee's energy into next year. Members stated that part of the problem was the reorganization of the Committee, that initially there wasn't a chairperson for some months, and that the EO/AA Office had two different directors this year. Dr. Braaten said it would be helpful if past members were to come together with current committees at least once a year to offer advice and perspective. Dr. Holford asked those members whose term expires this year to meet with their replacements, share information, and explain what your role has been. She said the Committee accomplished phenomenal things this year in a short amount of time. Members suggested that the Committee expand its membership as a way to educate its target audience; that department heads be invited to sit in and discuss diversity issues and be available for direct questioning; that by only talking among ourselves, we aren't educating enough people. Other members opposed this, stating that disinterested members would slow the Committee down; that these members would continue to be resistant; that it could turn into a "dog and pony show"; that the whole focus of the Committee would change, and it would lose its activist stance and become "department minders". The Committee agreed next year to consider more sophisticated ways to reach the university community. THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 4:05 P.M. THIS WAS THE FINAL MEETING FOR THE 1993-94 ACADEMIC YEAR.
VT History | Digital Library and Archives | Special Collections | University Archives
Send questions or comments to:
Tamara Kennelly, University Archivist
University Libraries
Virginia Tech
P.O. Box 90001
Blacksburg, VA, 24062-9001URL: http://spec.lib.vt.edu/minutes/eoc/1994/April+20++1994.html
Last modified on: Tuesday, 25-Sep-2001 13:57:37 EDT