Exploring Policies to Prevent "Passing the Harasser" in Higher Education (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

Introduction
Pages 1-5

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 1...
... Inquiring about misconduct beyond the scope of the background check is an unusual practice, and the human resources staff who would typically be responsible for doing so may not be directly involved in the recruitment or selection of new faculty members. For tenure-track positions in particular, a search committee composed of members of the department, potential supervisors, or other peers may be utilized, leaving the faculty hiring process largely decentralized and disconnected from human resources.
From page 2...
... While passing the harasser itself is difficult to quantify, studies on the rate of faculty sexual harassment demonstrate that it is a severe and pervasive problem in higher education. Studies report that 5.9 percent of undergraduate women experience harassment from faculty or staff, as well as 22.4 to 38 percent of women in graduate school and 23.4 percent of men in graduate school (Cantor et al., 2015; Rosenthal et al., 2016)
From page 3...
... spent nearly 3 years and $9.4 million settling a lawsuit brought by both faculty and students, alleging the mishandling of sexual harassment and retaliation complaints against one tenured professor (Mangan, 2018, 2020) .4 Although the professor in question was not found responsible for violating UR's sexual misconduct policies, the university's reputation suffered, and their president resigned (Mangan, 2018, 2020)
From page 4...
... notes that compliance with various legal policies and privacy laws, and the interpretation of such policies, have meant that academic institutions have maintained "secrecy and/or confidentiality regarding outcomes of sexual harassment investigations, arbitration, and settlement agreements." It also notes that fear of being sued may inhibit an individual's willingness to warn about sexual harassment in the context of hiring or promotion. According to the report, "this lack of transparency in the adjudication process within organizations can cover up sexual harassment perpetrated by repeat or serial harassers." At the federal and state level, the report recommends legislative action "prohibiting confidentiality in settlement agreements that currently enable harassers to move to another institution and conceal past adjudications." At the institution level, it recommends that academic institutions "be as transparent as possible about how they are handling reports of sexual harassment," carefully balancing confidentiality concerns with demands for transparency.
From page 5...
... To this end, we have identified key considerations for implementing policies that target the hiring process in order to support those who are interested in implementing them. The topics discussed here come from our collective experience and knowledge as a group that represents a range of stakeholders and disciplines within the higher education community, including Title IX officers, provosts, academic administrators, human resources staff, general counsel, sexual assault prevention and education program leaders, and faculty members.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.