Provost Hawrence Ianni charged yesterday that the new sexual harassment policy adopted by the Academic Senate Tuesday is "insufficient and irresponsible in protection of students.
"The senate, he told Phoenix, "clearly has uppermost in its minds the rights of faculty."
Ianni was the only person to vote against the policy when it was adopted.
The policy calls for the training of volunteer harassment advisers who would work with the university sexual harassment officer to hear complaints, counsel victims and help offenders stop the behavior.
It also requires the university to establish an educational program for the campus and to keep published reference materials with the sexual harassment officer.
who will be appointment if President Chai-Wei Woo approves the senate's policy.
Ianni said he voted against the policy because it was "too complex and too indirect" for students, the people "the policy is supposed to protect.
"Students need a place to go where they can phrase complaints and expect that authoritative administrative action will occur, even if that action finds the person not guilty," he said.
He said the faculty already has "plenty of protection" in their collective bargaining agreement but the students do not.
The criticism is common among various faculty and administrative members, including Woo.
The campus has not had a sexual harassment policy consistent with the California State University requirements since CSU trustees enacted executive order 345 in 1981.
Earlier senate policies were rejected by Woo last year.
At that time, Woo expressed similar objections that Ianni expressed yesterday.
Woo said the senate's earlier policy was "much too protective of the alleged harasser and (placed) too many barriers in the way of the harassee.
"Woo, who has not seen the latest senate policy, was noncommital on whether or not he will approve it.
"If indeed it is in the form I have seen before (fall 1984 version), it will continue to contain parts that would make things difficult for the harassee.
If so, I will make modifications before accepting it," he said.
He added that he understands the new policy "will permit several paths, at least one of which will be very direct."
No mention of specific funding for the educational program is included in the policy.
But Woo said he will wait until a policy is approved before attempting to secure funding.
Two of the three sexual harassment officers on campus, Sally Lovett, who handles student complaints, and Helen Stewart, who handles faculty complaints, were also critical of the senate policy.
Lovett said two weeks ago that "faculty members are concerned" about possible lawsuits resulting from sexual harassment complaints.
Stewart also said two weeks ago that the policy was more protective of the harasser than the victim.
At the senate meeting, however, Jules Tygiel, associate professor of history, said the policy is not biased toward the faculty. "It provides for due process where not one person will be judge, jury and sentencer," he said.
Similar to the CSU guidelines, the senate policy defines sexual harassment as "sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual ,, nature.
Lovett, Stewart and Art Hathan, who hears staff sexual harassment complaints, said two weeks ago that SF State has taken too long to adopt a policy.
Ianni concurred with the officers. "We've been kicking this thing around for three years," he said. "We as a campus should be embarrassed that we don't have a policy since the executive order was issued in 1981."
[ back to Golden Gater Online May 2, 1986 ]
[ back to top ]