Last updated on 01/24/2015
Josephine Woolington has the report in the RG, here:
… In the UO case, filed Jan. 8, the unnamed student says she was raped by three UO basketball players. She is suing the university and head basketball coach Dana Altman, alleging they violated her federal civil rights because one of the students who raped her had been recruited by the UO, even though he previously had been accused of rape elsewhere. The lawsuit also says that UO administrators and attorneys in December accessed information about the female student’s therapy sessions — in violation of state and federal privacy laws — in order to prepare against any lawsuit. The woman had previously threatened to sue the university.
The UO on Friday said that it did not unlawfully access the student’s counseling records. A UO spokeswoman also said the university will file a response soon in U.S. District Court in Eugene. …
These seem like serious and credible allegations. Presumably the University will immediately demand the return of these documents from its administrators and attorneys, and hire an outside investigator to discover what happened. Maybe they can use the same firm that is examining the Presidential Archives situation?
The RG article left me confused, as it seems to be conflating two things. The confusion about mandatory reporting and confidential sources is a national issue, triggered by a “Dear Colleague” letter sent by the federal Department of Education a few years ago regarding Title IX compliance:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/which-matters-more-reporting-assault-or-respecting-a-victims-wishes/276042/
On the other hand, if UO tried to access a student’s health records in order to gather dirt for a lawsuit, that is unambiguously despicable.
“Some professors have discussed a sexual assault with students and promised to keep that conversation confidential, she said.
“‘But legally and ethically, they don’t have any standing to keep that confidential,’ Holmes said.”
Legally? Maybe, though different universities seem to be interpreting the Title IX obligations somewhat differently.
Ethically? When an adult in no imminent danger tells a professor about a past assault and asks the professor to keep it confidential, I think it is far from clear that the professor has an ethical obligation to violate the victim’s request.
Now Robin Holmes is a lawyer? She tells the press what a professor can do, legally? Really?
What does she even mean about not having “any standing” (legally) to keep information legally?
Does she mean that the federal law requires mandatory reporting?
Has General Counsel written a legal opinion about this? If so, is it a secret legal opinion that only Robin Holmes can see?
Or does she mean that just the UO rules do? In that case, they can be changed.
Wait! Wait!
Robin is quoted: “The UO cannot simply give simply designate any employee as being confidential, Holmes said, because the UO wants these employees to have certain credentials in social work, therapy or law, among other things, to have legal standing to assert confidentiality.”
But the Senate Task Force made this recommendation: “3.1. Review policy on required (mandatory) reporting, OAR 003 0025, Subsection 2A:”
I thought that President Coltrane hadn’t made his decisions yet on the Task Force recommendations. Has Robin made a decision for him on this one — that there is nothing to review? She says “the UO wants” everybody except social workers and lawyers to rat out the students who come to them, even if the students don’t want that.
Does “the UO” want that? Who decided that? Is that published somewhere?
Josephine Woolington’s excellent article notes that the whole issue of sexual harassment reporting at the U of O is one of ignorance and confusion among students and faculty both. Both the senate task force and the president’s panel bemoaned the problems of reporting, and called for immediate action to address them.
When is the administration going to act? Does it have a plan, a timeline to educate/clarify how students should report these issues? This problem exists NOW, and impacts our students daily. Perhaps the administration could set aside its obsession with library leaks and focus on this urgent issue.
Geller sent one of his attorneys to train us on these matters. Can’t remember his name; so many people came and went out of that office. Expectations were low (Geller wanted to outsource all health services), but he was a regular standup guy. His presentations covered the legal waterfront of privacy, confidentiality, privilege, and mandated reporting. He had some kind of healthcare background and his legal analysis was really helpful for healthcare professionals. Both well informed and entertaining! Walked us through it and it made sense.
He lasted longer than one of those other guys down there, but then also disappeared without a trace. Working with Randy was difficult, but I cannot imagine what it was like to work for him. He burned through three assistants in less than three years; the attorney turnover was even worse.