CSE Diversity & Climate Town Hall — February 17, 2021

I am feeling sad, isolated and unheard. It is hard to focus on work and be productive. Most people I know feel the same way. What will CSE do to improve things?

Wes Weimer reiterated CSE and Engineering support of student wellness and briefly mentioned efforts to survey students and give advice to faculty based on those findings. Michael Wellman offered solidarity and stressed the importance of understanding your own situation and getting the help you need.

Angie Farrehi gave a substantial response, highlighting resources available in general but with a focus on how students might be feeling in response to recent issues associated with sexual misconduct. She discussed SAPAC, noting that many students have indicated that they want to contribute to improving the community. SAPAC has new circles focused on restorative justice; these are small (e.g., at most ten people) and are facilitated by a SAPAC staff member with no reporting obligations. No faculty will be present in the student circles. The explicit plan is to take results from the circles back to the faculty and others to take action. She discussed CAPS as a good place to start for one-on-one support, highlighting it as a safe, confidential space to talk. She discussed the Engineering CARE Center, noting that it provides broader resources, including communication with faculty (without details) for students who may need additional support in the classroom (e.g., additional time for an assignment). She also noted that for urgent issues, there are CAPS counselors on duty 24 hours per day and Psychiatric Emergency Services (PES) are available.

Faculty members whose labs have a high percentage of student dropouts (due to fostering a toxic lab environment over several years) face zero consequences. Why isn't this taken more seriously?

Michael Wellman clarified that there are, in fact, very real consequences for mistreating graduate students. In particular, he highlighted that for every promotion or tenure case, the CoE and CSE Executive Committees carefully consider how faculty treat graduate students and that there have been multiple instances where promotion was denied because of this. In addition, he noted that other consequences are possible, describing that some faculty members cannot recruit new graduate students because of known issues.

Wellman also noted that the focus, in the past, was on finding the student a new home or advisor quickly. Going forward, he argued that we need to better about addressing the problem of underlying behavior. He outlined the need for more and clearer reporting pathways, as well as help from the students.

Associate Dean Mary-Ann Mycek suggested that CSE could institute exit interviews to find out why students leave. She has seen this be useful in other contexts, providing a potential model. She acknowledged that the reluctance to share information can be hard to overcome, but emphasized the importance of communication and transparency.

Emily Mower Provost encouraged students to reach out to us if they know anyone encountering these issues: CSE may not understand these issues well enough. She noted that she does talk to students who are leaving to understand why and agreed that formal exit interviews would be useful. She described the importance of rebuilding trust, continuing the conversation, and finding a shared path together for our community.

Wes Weimer noted that many students have come to him about advisor problems and he has focused on finding them new homes, acknowledging that he has not done a good job of following up on underlying issues, and apologizing for that failure.

The Chair said that a faculty member was found by OIE to have not committed any violations. Is it that he was found to have not committed a violation, or that there was no finding either way? — Given that the statement mentioned removing alcohol and instituting boundaries, it seems there were other events even if no policy violation was found. Does that faculty member accept responsibility for those actions?

Chair Wellman clarified that he had written the statement but that the content was based on an agreement worked out with the faculty member. It was an iterative process. For any public statement to be made, the professor had to release CSE from our confidentiality obligations. As a result, Michael Wellman could not say more about the specific case. However, he did clarify the OIE process, noting that the standard of proof and judgment is a preponderance of evidence to determine if one or more of the University Policies (Standard Practice Guide, SPG) had been violated.

He acknowledged the follow-on questions but noted that he could not answer them in this forum. He emphasized that many such questions need to be answered by that professor.

Please create a public list of when faculty members are up for tenure/promotion, and how students can submit (optionally anonymous) letters detailing concerns.

Michael Wellman noted that CSE has not, in the past, publicized who is up for promotion or tenure, but that we are not prevented from doing so. The process starts in April and feedback is collected over the summer. We do solicit student letters as part of the process and cannot take into account anonymous feedback in this process. We may not end up making the list public but can provide the names to those who ask. Wes Weimer asked if it might be possible to convey a list to a student group (e.g., a CSEG meeting) as a compromise, and Michael Wellman agreed that that might be possible. Atul Prakash asked for clarification that even a signed letter would still be protected and all steps would be taken to avoid retaliation, and Michael Wellman agreed, noting that all such letters are confidential and are not revealed (e.g., unless through subpoena).

Amir Kamil noted that the discussions around the wording of the recent Open Letter considering publicizing that list as one of the recommendations, but ultimately chose not to in response to significant concerns about implicit bias against minority faculty. He argued that we do not feel like we understand the negative consequences well enough to recommend this action.

Chad Jenkins underlined the dangers of bias in such a process. He noted that unpopular does not necessarily mean improper, and that an implementation would need to be very careful in the evaluation process to distinguish between the two.

The Open Letter did not include concrete dates or deadlines. What has been done about the actions proposed there? Why might some not have signed the letter?

Wes Weimer indicated that there has been rapid motion even though the letter did not include deadlines. Dean Alec Gallimore came to the CSE faculty meeting the same week the letter was published to directly discuss the next step, including the rapid formation of the CSE Climate Assessment Committee (CLASS) a committee to carry out an external, independent assessment and make recommendations. He noted that there has not yet been similar movement on the training proposal in the letter.

Michael Wellman observed that it was remarkable how quickly the responses came together given the complexity of the situation. He noted the letter started before the allegations against Professor Chen were know, but was accelerated in response. He attested that it was quite positive that the faculty and community were able to come together on the letter despite disparate opinions on how to improve things.

Emily Mower Provost emphasized that there are many reasons why someone might not have signed the letter. For example, there may have been different individual reactions to the allegations based on relationships to the accused, individual past experiences, and even the short time frame.

Angie Farrehi noted that the restorative circles focus on collaborative healing for everyone in the community. She emphasized that it may take some time to get through this, and that we may not be able to get everything we want: for example, it may not be possible to avoid difficult conversations.