************** The Following File includes materials pertaining to the Report to Make the Department of Political Science (at the University of Victoria, B.C.) More Supportive to Women. ************** The File includes: the report itself; a chronology of the events surrounding the April 8 letter of intimidation and implied legal threat demanding the retraction of that section of the report entitled Sexual Harassment and Everyday Hostility; the resolutions, letters, memos and press surrounding the April 8 response to the report. The file itself is approximately 120k. CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS By: THE CHILLY CLIMATE COMMITTEE SUPPORT GROUP What follows is a brief account of the events leading up to the current impasse. Spring '92 Department votes to set up Commmittee to Make the Department More Supportive to Women. Membership: Dr. Brodribb, 1 female graduate student, 1 female undergraduate student to be chosen by a body of their peers. Sept. '92 Brodribb memo to Wilson informing him that the Committee, now consisting of 2 graduate students and 3 undergraduate students, has started to consider its mandate and how to proceed. Fall '92 Women's Caucus of the Political Science Course Union and Course Union established. Meetings held throughout academic year. Fall '92--Spring '93 Climate Committee engaged in producing report. Wide consultation among women students and examination of similar reports produced in other departments from across North America. February 1: Representatives of Women's Caucus present views on hiring to departmental meeting--department's main line of questioning is around the women's right to represent and their representativeness. March 23/24 Report of Climate Committee and Appendix circulated. See attached Report. March 29 '93 Department meeting to discuss Climate Committee Report. April 5 '93 Beginning of interview process for tenure-track Public Administration position in the Department. Brodribb proposes external observer throughout interview process. All three female faculty members supported the motion. Motion defeated: 4 votes to 3. April 8 '93 Tenured faculty send threatening letter to Dr. Brodribb. See attached Letter. Letter circulated to entire department along with copy of "Gender Equity in the Department of Political Science: A Response from the Tenured Faculty to the Report of the Climate Committee". See attached Response. April 13 '93 The two other women faculty members (both untenured) Drs. Desai and Teghtsoonian write to the tenured faculty expressing their opposition to their approach to the issues raised by the climate Committee as expressed in their Letter and Response. See attached Statement. Desai and Teghtsoonian also meet with the Vice President Academic, Dr. Sam Scully to express their concern with the turn of events in the department. They point out a number of things to Scully including their discomfort in the department with the exceptionally hostile reception to the report and the manner in which the department has become divided. They also expressed their support for the Report which they said should have been discussed constructively and openly. May 11 Committee of two external investigators report (Marilyn Callahan and Andrew Pirie) their findings from an investigation into views. They recommend that the 8 tenured men withdraw the April 8 letter and acknowledge it was inappropriate. They also recommended an impartial chair for departmental meetings and that the Climate Committee continue its work over the summer. Eight tenured men reject the Callahan/Pirie review. May 17 Warren Magnusson and Rob Walker circulate 12 and 3 page "open letters" denouncing the Climate Committee and its supporters. Magnusson's "Feminism, McCarthyism and sexist fundamentalism" is sent to the press and government ministries and across the country. It calls the women cultists. According to Magnusson, the women's activities are "aimed at the creation of a religious cult, with its prophet and its goddess, and its mass of cult-followers doing their leaders' bidding. We are yet at the early stages of this movement. I hope it can be contained...." Rob Walker refers to the CCC as "inquisitors". We have organised this Support Committee with two distinct purposes. Firstly, we feel strongly that the events following from the report of the "Climate Committee" (officially known as the "Committee to Make the Department More Supportive to Women") at the Department of Political Science, University of Victoria have endangered the personal and professional position of Dr. Somer Brodribb. She presently stands threatened with a law suit (see also letter of tenured men to Desai & Teghtsoonian, April 25). We think this is very wrong and that a campaign to publicise the issues and garner support and funds for Dr. Brodribb's possible legal defence is imperative in the circumstances. Also, we are extremely concerned about the reputational harm being done to the students on the CCC and those who have studied with Dr. Brodribb. These attacks against students who serve on university committees are unprecedented and the Learned Societies must not condone this. Our second purpose is as important and wider in its scope. We think that the issues raised both by the Climate Committee as well as by the manner in which it has been received by the Department of Political Science at the University of Victoria are of gathering relevance across campuses in Canada. Indeed, some of them also pertain to other institutions concerned with the production and dissemination of knowledge in the country as a whole. Given this, it is important that the issues gain wide publicity and understanding, and that those concerned gain an opportunity to share their experiences, analysis and strategy with each other. The committee aims therefore also to direct its energies to this end. PLEASE CONTACT US AT THE ADDRESS BELOW TO PROVIDE SUPPORT OR SHARE INFORMATION: THE CHILLY CLIMATE SUPPORT COMMITTEE c/o RADHIKA DESAI (POLITICAL SCIENCE) AND MARGO YOUNG (LAW) UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA V8W 2Y2. TEL: RADHIKA DESAI 604-721-7500; MARGO YOUNG 604-721-8175 Dept. of Political Science Fax: 604-721-7485 To date (May 24) the Chilly Climate Committee has received public support and/or resolutions of support from: University of Victoria Students' Society UVic Faculty Women's Caucus UVic Graduate Students' Women's Caucus UVic Poli Sci Women's Caucus National Action Committee (Regional section) Michele Le Doeuff Mary O'Brien and Cath McNaughton Jennifer Fry Elizabeth Loughran Judy Tyabji (MLA Okanagan-East) Suzanne Klausen Coordinating Committee, Centre for Women's Studies in Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education Women's Caucus, University of Western Ontario Status of Women Action Group, Victoria (Thanks also for the many private letters and calls of support!) Confidential Fax line to Somer Brodribb: 604-386-3312; or "`Sisters' e-mail": Brodribb@uvvm.uvic.ca --------------------------------- (April 8 letter) UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA P.O. BOX 3050, VICTORIA, B.C., CANADA V8W 3PS TELEPHONE (604) 721-7486, FAX (604) 721-7485 April 8th, 1993 Dr. Somer Brodribb Department of Political Science University of Victoria Victoria, British Columbia Dear Dr. Brodribb: DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE The "Report of the Climate Committee to the Department of Political Science" provides a portrait of our Department that, in our view, does not reflect reality. Elsewhere we set out our concerns about this document and we hope to be able to discuss these with you, and with others, in the near future. Our proposed discussion with you would properly be a dialogue between colleagues. Unfortunately there are two utterly false statments in the report which are sufficiently harmful to our standing in the community that such a collegial discourse is not possible until they are withdrawn. On page 5 of the report it is asserted that: "Female staff and students experience harassment and hostility. The range of behaviours that women experience include the following: sexist and racist treatment of students in the class and during consulations....sexual advances at social gatherings by male faculty members to students." Although there are other unfounded assertion this section of your report, and, indeed, through the whole of the document, these two, the first alleging sexist and racist behavior, the second suggesting gross sexual misconduct, are so obviously damaging to our reputations that it is necessary for us to ask you to provide us with an unqualified repudiation of them. You will recognize that these assertions indicate a pattern of corrupt and repugnant behaviours. Moreover it is clearly implied that there have been many instances of racist treatment in public and in private, and that more than one faculty member has made sexual advances to more than one student on more than one occasion. Indeed, a reasonable person reading these statements in the context of your section on "Sexual Harrassment and Everyday Hostility" would conclude that these specific behaviors are widespread and recurrent. Your language does not suggest that you have simply heard of some isolated incident. It is our belief that there have been no incidents whatsoever of the behaviours described and we can only conclude that the implication that such behaviours are regular occurrences is completely without foundation and therefore totally unacceptable If you have any credible evidence to support these assertions we insist that you immediately provide such evidence to the proper university authorities. It is our view that the University of Victoria's procedures for investigating all forms of harrassment are sound and fair. If you have a different view we can suggest an alternative. We would be happy to have Professor Marilyn Callahan look at any evidence you might have and to report to us her findings. If Professor Callahan, or some other well-respected investigator finds that there is substance to your assertions then, of course, we will proceed no further. If you are not in a position to provide credible evidence to substantiate the assertions detailed above, then we demand an unqualified apology and retraction in an acceptable form to be given by 4:30 pm on Wednesday, April 14, 1993 . We have asked Professors Morley and Walker to act for all of us concerning the form of the apology and retraction. It will need to be circulated to all those who have seen a copy of your report. Once this matter is resolved we look forward to discussions with you on the subjects raised in your report. If this matter is not resolved, either by way of the presentation of credible evidence or by means of your apology and retraction, then it will be necessary for us to take further steps to protect our reputations. Yours sincerely Robert Bedeski, Colin bennett, Ron Cheffins Warren Magnuson, Terry Morley, Norlman Ruff, Rob Walker, Jeremy Wilson March 23, 1993 REPORT OF THE CLIMATE COMMITTEE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE Michele Le Doeuff addressed women in the halls of higher learning: "So the question seems insignificant and thus irritating; and yet, as soon as a woman thinks she is able to guarantee herself equal legitimacy in philosophical life, formidable resistances are deployed, often with unexpected crudity. This type of paradox is well known to anyone who has looked in any detail at any aspect of women's position. It's nothing, and yet...So little would be required to make life more pleasant, and yet one comes up against fierce opposition. It has all been over since about the day before yesterday, and yet I experienced it just this instant. But if you say that you experienced it just this instant, you will be told that you are making a lot of fuss about nothing. You will tell yourself that." The Committee to Make the Department More Supportive to Women was established at the May 11, 1992 Department meeting. It came into being in response to long term concerns raised again during the writing of the report of the Committee on Graduate Teaching (?) regarding the discouraging and unsupportive environment experienced by graduate and undergraduate women students. This report is preliminary. It emerges from discussions with and focusses on women students. The issue of equity is open for discussion, sustained attention and serious remedy. It is the responsibility of the Department to take the initiative for changes within it. Faculty play a critical role in creating an just and fair climate for female students, staff and faculty. Professors demonstrate by their own behaviour the treatment of women that is legitimized and considered appropriate. It should be recognized that it is the responsibility of the department as a whole to make changes to ensure an equitable environment. With recent hirings, the Department has recognized its responsibilities to create an equitable learning environment and address issues of gender imbalance among faculty. These issues are of concern to female students and staff. Women's experiences of sexism are not vague, but there is a difficulty in presenting these in a context of inequity. For example, women who organize against discrimination are often targets of further discrimination. It is therefore the responsibility of the Department to be fully conscious of this dynamic as it attends to the following report. Following the largely unwelcoming reception of the Women's Caucus of the Political Science Course Union at the February 1, 1993 Department meeting, the Climate Committee has become concerned about the attitude which will attend this presentation and document. That meeting was exemplary of the kind of climate women experience in terms of hostility, indifference and the calling into question of women's credibility and right to participate in and make representation to the department on issues of equity. This committee therefore recommends the following: *A permanent committee should be established to address the issues raised and to report on the response to this document and its recommendations *This report should be widely distributed to incoming students *A special work-study position should be established for the Women's Caucus of the Political Science Course Union in order to seriously address these issues in a sustained and recognized manner The following section indicates the quality of learning environment experienced by many women students in the Political Science Department. The committee has taken this extraordinary and risky step to demonstrate that women's concerns are not vague and to give substance to the discussions about change. Recommendations are included. RECOMMENDATIONS: TEACHING: The following are examples of barriers women have experienced in the Department: -well they just didn't write about women (as an excuse for not including political scientists' ideas and writings about women) -faculty comments such as "feminism is just Marxism in a skirt" and "feminism is just political puff" -professors often refuse to allow women students to respond to extremely sexist and anti-feminist comments made in class by a male student -professors do not interrupt men who are dominating seminars or class participation, and do not encourage and support women speaking -male graduate students are put forward as "serious" theorists especially when they advance critiques of feminism; yet women and feminist scholars are trivialized and stigmatized -often women who raise questions about sexism in class are harassed and followed afterwards, and experience severe verbal abuse from other students. This usually occurs after classes where the professor tolerates or encourages sexist behaviour or does not actively prohibit it. Professors set the climate in classrooms and have considerable power to either encourage or discourage feminist analysis and women's participation. The silencing of women begins prior to university entrance and therefore professors must take special steps to provide an environment encouraging to women. We recommend: *Resources such as the Teaching and Learning Centre should be invited to offer practical educational sessions and workships on gendered and raced classroom environments. These workshops should involve teaching assistants and part-time, sessional faculty as well. Faculty interest and activity in improving pedagogy in this way should be related professional evaluation and remuneration *the Department should develop a policy on the gendered and raced classroom environment which sets some guidelines for anti-sexist and anti-racist teaching. This guideline document should address issues such as "the chilly campus climate" and growing anti-feminism. A formal policy of this sort is important since it offers concrete guidelines and acknowledges the legitimacy of discussing and challenging inequity. All new appointees, sessional and visiting lecturers should be made aware of the Department's commitment to an equitable learning environment. *Complaint procedures should be established to accomodate subtle differential treatment as well as overt discrimination. The procedure should have formal and informal components for airing concerns and include a means of providing feedback to those whose behaviour is discriminatory. Such behaviour should be cause for refusing reappointment, tenure, promotion and merit pay increase. *the Department needs to establish procedures to assess existing courses on their attention to anti- sexist and anti-racist issues and all forms of discrimination that women experience, such as classism and homophobia. A special committee to review curricula and vet new courses is required to ensure that courses address these issues. This committe should include female faculty who have a demonstrated commitment to feminist scholarship, representatives from the Women's Caucus of the Political Science Course Union and the next members of the Chilly Climate Committee. *policies on non-sexist and non-discriminatory language should be distributed to all classes. This policy statement for students and faculty should make it clear that overtly biased comments, use of sexist humor, and related behaviour are not appropriate. Information on the Equity Office and Traffic and Security procedures should be available. *workshops for faculty who are academic advisors should be available to familiarize them with classroom climate and larger social issues that can limit women students' academic and career choices. CLASS CONTENT: Some practices in the department which have discouraged women from participation, especially from feminist studies: -marginalization of feminist scholarship (ie. one class is set aside for feminist methodology, always at the end of the term, and when there is often no time for it). -required courses offer no feminist analysis and or scholarship by women. -paper topics discourage feminist critiques or analysis, -very angry comments about "essentialism" and "arrogance" are received on feminists' assignments -patronizing and demeaning comments on work submitted We recommend: *Courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level should include writing by women and feminist scholarship regardless of the topic area. *In particular, POLI 100 and 300B need attention. Mandatory courses need mandatory feminist scholarship. POLI 100 requires Feminist and Native instructors; as it stands 300B requires at the very least feminist guest lecturers at the beginning of the course, and readings on feminist critiques of malestream thought should be made central *Courses at both the undergraduate and graduate level should include writing which critically addresses sexism and racism and other inequities *Teaching evaluation forms should be revised in consultation with this Committee and the Women's Caucus of the Course Union. Teaching evaluations should include a section for feedback on the course's attention to anti-sexist and anti-racist issues, as well as the instructor's attempts to create an equitable learning environment *Teaching evaluations of all courses should be publically available and accessible. FUNDING: The fact that women, on average, earn less than men sets up barriers to equal participation in university life. For example, the life-time limit on student loans prevents some students from continuing at the graduate level. Although the department has no control over this issue, an effort to redress the imbalance could include: *more work study positions for women students *work-study programmes should be possible with women-oriented organizations, such as those providing services and research for women: LEAF, TAPS, Women's Equity Ministry, Victoria Transition House, Victoria Sexual Assault centre, Status of Women Action Group. *scholarships specifically aimed at assisting financially disadvantaged women *a work-study position should be available for the Women's Caucus of the Political Science Course Union in order to carry through with the concerns and work of this Report. *the Graduate Advisor should be authorized by the Department to write the Faculty of Graduate Studies and request the following: a)FGS should lobby various government levels and granting agencies and other donors to earmark scholarship funds for female graduate students. b)FGS should increase the amount of UVIC scholarships and teaching assistantships to make them competitive c)special scholarships should be established for part-time students and for students during thesis writing period d) scholarships should be targetted for women and external funds raised for the university should be earmarked to commemorate women who have made significant contributions to teaching and learning at UVIC SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND EVERYDAY HOSTILITY : Subtle (and not so subtle) forms of sexual harassment are a significant barrier to women's full and equal participation in the department. Female staff and students experience harassment and hostility. The range of behaviours that women experience include the following: -comments about the "feminist imperialists" -comments like "I'm not going to be evaluated by the feminist police" -sexist and racist treatment of students in the class and during consultations -sexual advances at social gatherings by male faculty members to students -pitting women against each other during class (eg. calling upon a devout anti-feminist woman to argue it out with a feminist -interruption or blocking of conversations and exchanges between women, especially when these seminar discussions focus on feminism -the general silencing of women in seminar classes -disparaging scholarship on women, or ridiculing material that deals with women's perceptions or situations in class and informally (eg. derogatory comments about "the feminists" and "feminism") -sexist humour as a classroom device *We recommend that this behaviour stop. *We also recommend that faculty, staff and students who are addressing issues of sexual harassment receive departmental support. *We recommend that the Department take leadership in formulating a serious and unequivocal policy against sexual harassment. This policy may serve as an example to other sections of the University community. *We recommend that an effective and serious aproach to women's safety become part of the mandate of Traffic & Security. HIRING: Redressing the faculty gender imbalance in the department is perhaps the most significant method of undermining sexism. For this reason the committee also recommends: *the ability to provide an equitable learning environment for all women should be a key criteria in evaluating all applicants for faculty and staff positions *A vote in the hiring for the Women's Caucus of the Political Science Course Union. *Paricipation in all hiring committees and sub- committees *Feminist scholarship must be recognized as significant and central. Applicants using feminist methods or scholarship should be valued applicants. For example, applicants who write on Women and Public Policy should be considered for Public Policy positions. *feminist scholars should be aggressively sought out and encouraged to apply. Scholars should also be vigorously sought through minority networks, such as the United Native Nations Organization, Aboriginal Personnel Services. Again, the ability to establish an equitable learning environment for women is essential. *the Department should aggressively seek out qualified female candidates, especially feminist scholars and those who have shown a commitment to improving the status of women and minorities. *all hiring committees and sub-committees should include at least one female faculty member who is especially committed improving the status of women and supportive of women and politics research *untenured women faculty should be protected from being overburdened by service assignments *during recruitment visits, women candidates should be introduced to formal networks for interaction with other women that exist on campus. *The September 1992 issue of Political Science recommends, and we concur: "Department chairs should prevent bias from entering the review process through the interpretation of vitae, the reading of letters of recommendation, the treatment of co-authored research, the devaluing of women reviewers, and the devaluation of women and politics research". This is an issue which pertains to this department. For example, hiring discussions have painted feminists as "austere" or "uppity" in contrast to "serious" male candidates. Feminist scholars have been largely excluded from shortlists despite the Department's Equity Policy which states that feminist scholarship should be valued. The Department considered 7 women and 20 men as external reviewers and discussed their qualifications in the following ways: women: "mild-mannered, agreeable, feminine, from an (upper-class) family, feminine; `didn't she change her name?', very outspoken; `that was my criteria: it would be nice to have a French Canadian woman'" men: "well respected, moderate, sensible, well- balanced, fairly well-known, open-minded, friendly kind of fellow, forceful personality, well-plugged in, fair-minded, quiet spoken with a rigorous mind, productive scholar, knowledgeable, high status, well-respected". FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS: *The department should regularly gather and compile data by race and sex covering such areas as salary, benefits, awards, grants, courseload, advising load, committee assignments for faculty. For students, such data should also include statistics on scholarships, and a survey to discover why or why not undergraduate women are considering graduate school. This Committee is composed of two graduate students (Sylvia Bardon, Phyllis Foden), three undergraduate students (Nadia Kyba, Denise McCabe, Theresa Newhouse) and one faculty member (Somer Brodribb, Chairperson). The Climate Committee has consulted widely with the student body and the Political Science Women's Caucus of the Course Union, and through a variety of meetings, forums and exchanges. In addition, the Committee has organized opportunities for faculty to view films addressing issues of classroom equity ("The Chilly Climate" September 29 and "Inequity in the Classroom" February 22). MATERIALS CONSULTED Committee on the Status of Women, American Political Science Association, "Improving the Status of Women in Political Science: A Report with Recommendations" Political Science September 1992, pp. 547-554. Roberta Hall, with the assistance of Bernice Sandler, Project on the Status and education of Women, Association of American Colleges, "The Classroom Climate: A Chilly One for Women?" AAC 1991. Additional materials from the Project on the status and education of women, including "Selected Activities using`The Classroom Climate: A chilly one for women?"; "Teaching Faculty Members to be better teachers, A Guide to Equitable and Effective Classroom Techniques"; Bernice Sandler, with the assistance of Roberta M. Hall, "The Campus Climate Revisited: Chilly for Women Faculty, Administrators, and Graduate Students" AAC, 1991; Bernice Resnick Sandler, "Success and Survival Strategies for Women Faculty Members" (All available from Association of American Colleges, 1818 R. Street, NW; Washington, DC USA 20009). Michele Le Doeuff, Hipparchia's Choice, An essay concerning women, philosophy, etc. Basil Blackwell 1991. Carmen Lambert, ed. Toward a New Equality, the status of womenin Canadian Universities, Victoria 1990 Ottawa: Social Science Federation of Canada, ($5) 1991 (SSFC 415-151 Slater St., Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1P 5H3). Michele Paludi, Ivory Power, Sexual Harassment on Campus, SUNY 1992. Not Satisfied Yet: Report of the Task Force on the Status of Women Graduate Students, Submitted to Sandra W. Pyke, Dean, Faculty of Graduate Studies, April 1992. York University, 4700 Keele St., North York, Ontario M3J 1P3 Canada ($5). To: Members of the Political Science Department We were chosen by the Women's Caucus of the Political Science course Union to present the views and suggestions of women in the department regarding the current hiring policy and upcoming hiring. We found this experience representative in its reinforcement of the chilly climate women face in the department. For us, the tone of the reception was set with the requirement that we request the permission of the chair to make this presentation. During this request we were discouraged from making the presentation on the grounds that no hiring would be taking place in the near future and our presentation would thus be pointless. Indeed this was the conclusion we also came to after the presentation but for very different reasons. >From the beginning of the meeting we felt the department questioned our validity in being present and in holding opinions about the hiring policies. We were introduced to the meeting as though our being there was an incredible privilege being extended to us and as though we had been invited. After the presentation the type of questions asked deepened our sense of the complete disregard the department has for women, especially women students. These questions focused on the reasons why we had not used "normal channels" (meaning the student reps) to express our views and the number of women we represented. Both of these questions had already been answered during our presentation and seemed incidental to the content. We were left feeling that the department did not believe our words or felt we should have reason to misrepresent the experiences of women within the department. rt seemed strange to us that a department which has expressed a wish to make everyone feel welcome and to support a variety of political opinions should play this numbers game with us when we were appealing to them for support. Should not the department play a leading role in addressing these problems rather than waiting for the majority of students to demand en masse a desire for more progressive hiring policies? We are supported by a large number of women and men within the department who have witnessed or experienced harassment, all of whom have felt the effects of the chilly climate towards their work. Even after explicitly stating this, the members of the department seemed not to believe us. Through this line of questioning the substance of our presentation was completely ignored. Despite specifically requesting a response to our proposals, none has been made. In the act of making this presentation about the chilly climate in the department for women we were again subjected to it. The validity of our anger was questioned and our words silenced and erased. We were treated in a manner both explicitly and subtly condescending and disempowering. Perhaps members of the department felt they were trying to obtain the truth or force us to substantiate our claims, yet the effect was to render our words meaningless and question our ability to understand our own situation. To us, it was a learning experience which reinforced our knowledge of men's lack of desire to deal with issues about the harassment and oppression of women. In writing this we hope to show how your treatment of us was completely unacceptable and give you cause to rethink your actions and their motivations. We also request, once again, that you allow us the dignity of responding to the substance of our presentation. Sincerely, Nadia Kyba, Theresa Newhouse, and Denise McCabe February 4, 1993 T0: The Department of Political Science RE: DEPARTMENTAL MEETING FEBRUARY 1 It has come to my attention that two female students representing the Political Science Women's Course Union (who attended the above meeting in order to present the legitimate student demands for input on Faculty hiring policy) were apparently questioned not on the content of their demands, but the validity of their existence. Such an attitude is not only disgraceful, but extraordinarily silly. For a Department that ostensibly functions to encourage "thinking" about politics, such an attitude towards some of its more thoughtful students belies a serious poverty of discussion about politics (where it's closest to home!). It seems to me that the Emperors have lost their clothes. Yours sincerely Political Science Department To whom it may concern: February 4, 1993 I am a political science student and I would like to notify you that the opinions expressed by the Women's Caucus are mine. Please ensure that they are addressed. As well, and not least importantly, I hope that the Women's Caucus can expect a warmer reception within the department so that all voices can legitimately be heard in the determination of hiring practices for the future. Thank you for your attention. February 2, 1993 T0: Political Science Department As a student at UVic, I would like to say that the views expressed by the Political Science Women's Caucus represent mine as well. It is important to realize that these few women represent many people, both female and male, on campus, and must be taken seriously. February 5, 1993 Attention: All Faculty, Department of Political Science I am writing this letter in support of the Women's Caucus of the Political Science Course Union, whose representatives recently made a presentation at the departmental meeting on February 1. The concerns they addressed, such as gender parity in hiring, and a voting student representative on the hiring committee are concerns that I share. It has come to my attention that not only did professors attending the meeting question the "validity" and "legitimacy" of these students but their presentation was received with disdain and outright rudeness. Such infantile behavior on the part of my "teachers" both shocks and disgusts me. We are your students, more than half of us are women, it's about time you started listening to our concerns...so do it! February 5, 1993 To: Faculty of Department of Political Science I am very disappointed with the treatment given to the students who represented the Women's Caucus of the Course Union at the Department's February 1st meeting. I fully support the changes called for by the Women's Caucus to introduce a real role for students in hiring committees, meaning votina positions. I also agree with the call for real steps to achieve gender equity in the Faculty. I also have noticed the light treatment/verging on complete ignorance of feminist analyses in the majority of the courses offered by UVic's Department of Political Science. The reading lists and course content of many classes do little other than to reproduce oppressive structures within our society. Sincerely concerned TO: The Political Science Dept. I am disgusted that I even have to write this letter, as if the statement put forward by the Women's Caucus that they "represented a large # of women in the Poli Sci Dept" isn't valid enough for you. Do you think they were lying? Or perhaps merely exaggerating their support? I think in reality it is you in the department who are exaggerating your own support. You do not represent my interests. In fact, you won't even listen to what my interests are. When the women's caucus gave their presentation (which was an expression of my opinions as well as the opinions of many other women) you refused to acknowledged the content of their recommendations and instead focused on your ATTACK on their right to speak. Need I remind you this is 1993? We have the right to speak. The Women's Caucus spoke for us. You chose to ignore them. I guess this means we'll just have to SPEAK MUCH LOUDER IN THE FUTURE!!! We're not going away. February 3, 1993 TO: The Department of Political Science As a female political science student here at UVic., I am appalled at the behaviour of particular members of the department. I am disgusted at the rudeness and immaturity of particular members attending the department meeting. At this meeting representatives from the Political Science Course Union Women's Caucus made a presentation on hiring policies. I agree with their recommendations and feel properly represented by them and thus I am dismayed at the department's apparent auestions on the legitimacy of this student caucus. In sum, I am glad I am graduating in May because I can no longer study in a department with such chauvinistic and anachronistic assumptions. February 4, 1993 TO: The Head of the Political Science Department RE: THE WOMEN'S CAUCUS I am a political science student and I would like to express my support for the Political Science Women's Caucus and its views concerning the department. I feel that it plays a very necessary role in representing the interests of all political science, and deserves a degree of respect and consideration from the department, which has, till now, belittled and dismissed a very valid group. It is time to listen to the students who are most affected, both directly and indirectly, by the hiring procedures employed by the department. The Political Science Department I am a Political Science major, and I wish to express the fact that I support the opinions expressed by the Political Science Women's Caucus. These concerns that were brought forth are vital issues that must be addressed. February 2, 1993 As a 4th year student at the University of Victoria, I will say that the views expressed by the Poli. Sci. Women's Caucus are also a concern of my own. 4 February 1993 To the Political Science Department: It is apparent that there is speculation on the part of certain faculty members as to the validity and representativeness of both the Women's Caucus of Political Science students and the Women's Caucus presentation on departmental hiring process at the Departmental meeting of February 1, 1992. As a fourth year honours student in political science I was present and participated at the Women's Caucus meeting on hiring issues January 27, 1993. The views presented by the Women's Caucus are shared and jointly articulated by many women and incorporate concerns expressed by students as a whole. It is imperative that the University of Victoria recognize and move to eradicate structural bias against both women and women's knowledge. The Women's Caucus represents my concerns as to the unwillingness of the Political Science department to consider seriously the implications of systemic exclusion of women. To the Head of the Political Science Dept. I am appalled at the reception of our representatives at the department meeting concerning hiring practices. The representatives met with many poli sci students to canvass opinions and ideas among students. By rejecting the input of these representatives, you, in fact, rejected the validity of a student voice. I am also a student in the English Department and have been personally included in hiring in that department. Undergraduates are invited to attend the guest lectures of the candidates, given private interviewing time, and are asked to submit written comments and recommendations on the candidates. Student involvement in hiring can work effectively, and with a working model existing on campus, the Political Science Department has no excuse for refusing to even entertain the idea of student involvement. As active students in the department, we demand a response to our ideas. February 2, 1993 To the Chair of Political Science The interests and opinions expressed by the Women's aaucus of the Poli Sci Course Union need to be addressed as they are important and vital to the growth of this University. I hope they will not be overlooked and the requests of this student body will be dealt with as serious and deserving respect. February 4, 1993 TO: The Department of Political Science I am writing in support of the concerns addressed by the Political Science Women's Caucus. Evidently the treatment of their concerns at the departmental meeting indicates how profound the mistreatment of women's concerns is in political science. As a fourth year student who is considering doing work at the graduate level, I am disturbed with the apathy in the department over women's issues. Clearly, unless there is evidence of improvement and critical change, I will not consider this University for further studies. Moreover, I will voice these concerns with student organizations at other Canadian Universities. February 4, 1993 To the Political Science Department I am writing to express my frustration and internal anger toward all of you "intellectual" elites and your petty attempt to include students within your department. As political science students, we are taught to question ideas and accepted truths; it seems that with your position comes a myopic perspective on what is progressive and fruitful. I support the Women's Caucus opinions as my own, but not necessarily that of the student "representatives". I am happy to be graduating soon, as it is harder and harder to stomach your policies and viewpoints the more I open my mind. To the Department of Political Science As much as I would like to say that I am shocked at your treatment of the Women's Caucus - I cannot. I am not shocked because this sort of behaviour is precisely what many women find so disturbing in the department, and why so many choose to leave it after the first or second 1. Your hiring policies are blatantly sexist (how many senior/tenure positions belong to women? O) 2. You offer little if any permanent courses that are of interest to women (the male view of the world is not the only and definitely not the most accurate view of the world) 3. You do not take the concerns of women seriously (as evidenced by Mr. --------'s refusal to pay attention during the presentation behaviour which I find childish, rude and unprofessional.) 4. You refuse to acknowledge that women scholars have anything of importance to contribute (how many courses even discuss women much less include their writings as course requirements?) And please don't insult my intelligence by claiming there isn't enough valid work written by women.) 5. You claim that your job is to teach us how to think but I fear you really believe that it is your duty to teach us what to think. (We have told you time and again in questionnaires, surveys etc. what we would like to see change in the department with respect to new courses and the revisions (inclusion of feminist ideologies) in old courses yet you choose to ignore). I sincerely hope that you have not permanently discouraged women from entering into and staying in the Political Science Department with your recent behaviour. I suggest that you issue a formal apology and attempt to listen to and implement the recommendations of the Women's Caucus. Attention: Department of Political Science The departmental meeting on February 1st that three female political science students (representing the Poli. Sci. Women's Course Union) attended seemed to be very "closed" for lack of a better word. These women were expressing concerns and making legitimate demands that seemed to fall on deaf ears. The overall attitude of the faculty at that meeting seemed patronizing and dismissive. These women were not questioned on the content of their demands but the validity of their very existence. This is shameful and leaves me with a feeling of disgust and disrespect for the department. I sincerely hope the students' concerns will be addressed. The Tyrants running the Department Hello! Hello! are you listening? Yes, the Women's Caucus represents my viewpoint. Is this another example of your masculinist bias interfering with your ability to perform your job? We pay large sums of money to acquire an education in this institution. One would think this entitles us to some say about what we will be taught and by whom we will be taught this information. One would also surmise that it is your job to illicit student input in order to make administrative decisions about hiring, firing, and promotion, as well as decisions about what kinds of courses will be offered. The Women's Caucus organized and mobilized so that you could not claim that you did what you "thouqht" was in students' best interest. We are telling you what our interests are. Had you listened to the presentation rather than hiding behind a magazine to show your contempt (Bedeski) we may have been able to come to a compromise. As it stands, you have succeeded in insulting, angering and further alienating the female students in the department. You have further reinforced our perceptions to you as sexist tyrants protecting your positions of privilege. I suggest you make every effort to change these perceptions. --------report end --------- RESPONSE TO COMMON CRITICISMS OF THE CHILLY CLIMATE REPORT BY: THE CHILLY CLIMATE COMMITTEE SUPPORT GROUP We believe that the recent and ongoing events at the Department of Political Science have a wider significance for women, both faculty and students, at the University of Victoria, and for that matter, at other universities. We are therefore committed to publicising the issues emerging from the report of the "Climate Committee" of that department as well as the hostile and unconstructive reaction of the tenured faculty of the Department (eight men) to it. One of the tasks we have found ourselves engaged in repeatedly over the last many days is to respond to questions and criticisms about the issues raised in the report. We have decided, therefore, to circulate the following response to some of the most common queries. The selection has been based on a combination of the frequency with which the questions have been asked of us as well as their wider relevance to the deeper issues of equity. However, before we do that we would like to note that very often these question have been posed in a hostile spirit, meant to undermine the credibility and validity of the report. However, despite this we believe it is most constructive to treat them as honest questions. 1. Is the report representative? One of the commonest questions raised about the report relates to the extent to which it can be seen to represent a true and representative picture of the experience of women in the department. The Committee, formally The Committee to Make the Department More Supportive to Women, was established with the understanding that there were problems. Consequently, the Report does not paint a portrait of the experiences of women and men who are content with the existing structures, but seeks ways to make the department more inclusive and attends to those who are excluded. The Report does not describe the satisfactions of those women and men who like things the way they are. Yet there are a number of different questions embedded in the "representativeness" complaint which we will deal with in turn. Firstly, the question refers to the number of women contacted. Many women students taking political science courses were interviewed. Conducting a comprehensive survey survey was not part of the mandate of the committee. No resources for such a survey were offered at any time. Nevertheless, the Committee contemplated this possibility and found that it had neither the time (being a entirely volunteer committee and not a paid research team) nor the resources. Also, many women immediately came forward to the committee with their stories, and since one of the functions of a survey is to identify respondents for interview a survey was not required for this. A survey is not necessarily the most appropriate methodology for allowing women to speak about their concerns in this context. Experiential and oral interviews--while very time consuming--are a significant aspect of feminist research and methodology. Secondly, the question refers to the representativeness of the experiences cited in the report. Given the power differentials within the university it is important to keep in mind that both the self-censorship on the part of the victims of sexist behaviour as well as the interests of anonymity mean that the number of experiences that can be cited are many more than those cited in the report. Thirdly, underlying the question seems to be a concern that the committee relfects the views of one person: the Chair of the committee. Indeed, this has been stated repeatedly. We believe that it is a profound insult to the five other members of that committee, the Chair, and the women who shared their experiences. Fourthly, and this point is all too often ignored, particular incidents which reveal sexism in a particular context are revealing not only the sexism of that particular instance but point to a continuum of disregard, disrespect, devaluation and dismissal of women in general. As such these incidents are epiphanic of deeper structural problems and attitudes. 2. Isn't it essentialist? Does it not pit men against women and imply that men have no role to play in the battle against sexism? It is fashionable, and an integral part of the backlash against "political correctness", to charge any feminist views as being essentialist. What is implied in this charge is that the feminists are claiming that women are, by the fact of their sex, superior, more perceptive, etc. This is not part of the claim of the report. The general outlook it relies on goes something like the following: Only women as such (and probably some more than others) can have a direct experience of sexist discrimination. This does not mean that men cannot try to understand, especially through the employment of an imaginative sympathy arising out of their own experience of vulnerability (no one is completely invulnerable), to understand this experience. Moreover, the experience of sexism itself is not enough. Time and again women have realised how important it is to validate, interpret and analyse this experience, that it is not innate to being a woman and may be worked towards. Indeed, a common experience of those experiencing racist and sexist bias has been that it is only recognised as such after they have shared their experiences with others who have had similar experiences. On these grounds, we believe that men may play a role in the fight against sexism but that they must begin by trying to understand women's experience and then to analyse it. In this, they must most fundamentally be willing to listen to women. Without this it is impossible that they will even be able to take the first step - that of a sympathetic understanding. Therefore it is especially pernicious that the university silences women - in its curricula, in its classrooms and now, with redoubled vengeance, in its committees. 3. Does it not focus exclusively on women while ignoring the experience of other minority groups such as people of colour and gays and lesbians? What about the staff as well as the students? The reason for the principal focus on the experience of women is that it was the mandate of the Climate Committee. The Report does raise problems concerning racism, homophobia and other forms of discrimination which women experience. We also think that a number of the issues raised under the rubric of sexism necessarily open up those of racism and homophobia. It is high time the Department engaged with these issues and now they have been brought forward to the department for discussion and serious attention. Finally, due to the importance of the climate for students, the sense of crisis they were bringing forward and the overwhelming amount of work, the Report could only focus primarily on students' experiences and not on those of staff (instructors or support staff). 4. Is it not unfair to hide behind the screen of anonymity? Does this not "tar all the male instructors with the same brush?" There are two aspects to the question of anonymity, both of which have been made controversial. The first is the anonymity of the interviewees and the second is that of the anonymity of the instructors and courses which are experienced as sexist and/or racist. Before we deal with them in turn it is important to point out one point common to both. And it is that it is not only common practice but a requirement in the social science research to ensure anonymity of the subjects (in this case the students as well as the instructors). On this question we would like to cite Alison Whyte, one of the authors of the Chilly Climate for Faculty Women at University of Western Ontario: On the specific question of the anonymity of the women students, it is important to note that these are women students already operating in an environment of great power differentials and anonymity is a condition of their safety, both personally and academically. Indeed, without accepting the condition of anonymity, the report would never have been able to gather the information it did. Many women would only share their experiences if they were assured of it. Moreover, we have not been able to include many of the experiences confided in us as the details would easily have identified the women students. On the subject of the anonymity of the instructors, one must bear in mind first of all that the report's aim is not to raise specific complaints of sexual harrassment. This is already the task of the University Sexual Harrassment procedures. Rather the purpose was point to the systemic nature sexist bias of various sorts within the department common to working environments. It is only by ignoring this that the Eight male tenured faculty members have proceeded to jeopardise the prospects of any constructive action on the report. Secondly, naming names in most such context constitutes libel. Thirdly, often naming names of the instructors may jeopardise some women by identifying them. 5. What does the Climate Committee mean by unconscious sexism and racism and how can we do anything about it if it is unconscious? We feel that this issue is most liable to misunderstanding. What we mean by it is the habitual and systemic bias against women which is embedded in the institutions and practices which we face -in teaching practices, curricula, evaluation and so on in addition to the behaviours (unconscious or otherwise and habitual) of various instructors. While we clearly do not propose to pay for the psychoanalysis of the instructors, we do think that intelligent, constructive, open and sensitive restructuring of these institutions, practices and behaviours can go a long way to make the department more supportive to women. 6. But, aren't women already in the academy in large numbers? Haven't things improved for them? Isn't this just impatience for change which after all takes time? Yes, women are now in universities in significant numbers. However, this very presence has itself created problems as the previously all male preserve must accomodate to the presence of women. And that it is not accommodating well should be obvious not only from reports such as the present one but many others which have been written and have been recieved with varying degrees of hostility. As far as time and change is concerned, yes, we do think change takes time. However, change, even over time does not occur without pressing the issues to the forefront as we have attempted to do. Moreover, there is an urgency to the matter as well in that while the university adjusts itself at its own lugubrious pace to the presence of women, we continue to face a climate which is unsupportive at best and hostile at worst. This is clearly a violation of the university's own aim of creating an enabling learning environment for all. 7. Isn't there a pluralism in the department so that there is no case for arguing a bias against feminist scholarship? The ideology of a tolerance for many perspectives within the department is just that, an ideology. In fact, the department exercises a significant amount of (what Dorothy Smith calls) "gate-keeping" power. This is expressed not only in its power to admit and hire students and faculty of a certain kind but in hegemonic constructions of what a discipline is. Within these practices it is easy to discriminate against certain critical kinds of scholarship, especially when it uses methods and material which are different from (and therefore can be dismissed by the gatekeepers as inferior to) that of the mainstream cannon. This arises not only from presumption, but from actual ignorance of the work in important areas such as feminist work or that in areas such as Native studies, third-world studies, studies of racism as well as the corpus of marxist writing. This becomes especially important given what we have already highlighted as the ignorance of most faculty of many theorisations and analyses of women's experiences. It is all too easy to dismiss new (and not so new) scholarship by facilely questioning its methodology (not rigorous), its subject-matter (not central) or its perspective (too committed). We believe that curriculum reform is necessary not only for reasons of academic excellence (it will enable students and faculty to keep in touch with important scholarly material) but also if the aims of equity are to be substantially attained. Only if the knowledge and analysis of women's experiences ( as also that of those others--Native peoples, people of colour, people of the "third world" as well as the working class) hitherto excluded from the academic canon are integrated in their rightful position within the academic curriculum and the awareness of it made general will there also be an advance in the transformation of attitudes and practices towards women (and other minorities). It will also enable the ever increasing numbers of students who are women to find themselves fully part of the university environment. For more information contact: The Chilly Climate Committee Support Group c/o Dr. Radhika Desai (Political Science) or Dr. Margo Young (Law) University of Victoria, Victoria B.C. Canada V8W 2Y2 Tel. Radhika Desai 604-721-7500 or Margo Young 604-721- 8175. The Chilly Climate Committee (Committee to Make the Department More Supportive to Women, Political Science, UVic) is composed of one female professor, 2 graduate students and 3 undergraduate students. Confidential Fax line to Somer Brodribb & CCC: 604-386-3312; "`Sisters' e-mail": Brodribb@uvvm.uvic.ca RESOLUTIONS TO: Dr. David Strong, President Dr Sam Scully, Vlce-Presldent Academic and Provost Deans & Chairs Or Departments Professor Marilyn Callahan, Advisor to the VPAc on Faculty Women's Caucus Professor Barbara Whittington, Harrassment Advisor Ms. Sheila Devine, Director, Equity Issues DATE: May 7, 1993. FROM: THE FACULTY WOMEN'S CAUCUS Alison Preece, Chair The following resolutions were passed on May 7, 1993 at a meeting called by the Faculty Women's Caucus to which all female faculty members were invited: 1. The Faculty Women's Caucus supports the female facully and students of the Department of Political Science in articulating their concerns about the climate for women in that department. 2. The letter of April 8, 1993 to Dr. Somer Brodribb from the tenured faculty of the Department of PolitcGal Science was implicitly threatening and in fact intimidating. As such it endangers the recognition of the problems faced by women on campus and progress towards addressing them. 3. The Faculty Women's Caucus has decided to set up a committee to investigate university-wide issues of climate for women at the University Of Victoria. It is imperative that we work together to find proactive and constructive ways to facilitate open dialogue about, and awareness of, the systemic factors-and behaviours which can constrain and render inhospitable the working environment for women on this campus. Our goal is an equitable, productive, and collegial professional environment for all faculty and students. We anticipate and welcome your support of our erforts to achieve this goal. MEMORANDUM To: Dr. Samuel E. Scully. Vice President Academic and Provost From: the Faculty Women's Caucus Alison Preece, Chair May 12, 1993 At a meeting on Wednesday, May 12, 1993, called by the Faculty Women's Caucus to discuss issues of climate, the following. motion was passed unanimously by those in attendance: The Faculty Women's Caucus is concerned that pressure will be brought to bear upon the University Administration to form a quasijudicial-inquiry into the situation in the Political Science department. The Faculty Women's Caucus urges most emphaticaliy that the University Administration refuse to subject the women of the Political Science Department to such a process for the following reasons: 1. an individualized complaint process is not the way to learn about systemic issues of discrimination; 2. such a process does not give more power to those who have little power but rather makes them more vulnerable; 3. such a process does not build bridges, but rather severs them. cc: Professor Marilyn Callahan, Advisor to the Provost on Faculty Women's Issues May 18, 1993 Dear Dr. Strong, At the meeting of the UVic Students' Society Board of Directors on May 17, 1993, the board passed a number of motions supporting the Political Science Chilly Climate committee, Dr. Somer Brodribb, and the women students involved in the Chilly Climate report. The resolutions are as follows: 1 ) Whereas policy 89/10 iGM states that the UVSS supports the right to an education environment free of sexual harassment, the right to effective, legal and academic grievance procedures recognized by students, faculty and support staff; and Whereas policy 93103129 states the UVSS: supports-the development and implementation of a mandatory course or part of the curriculum focusing on issues around racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism; and Whereas the Chilly Climate Committee, struck by the Political Science Department, and comprised of three undergraduate, two graduate women students, and one woman faculty member, in consultation with other female students and faculty reported that the department was not free from sexismI racism or sexual harassment; and Whereas the Chilly Climate Report called for the issues of racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism to be addressed within the curriculum, and identified many other issues which affect students' abiiity to receive and participate in postsecondary education, 1) BIRT the UVSS supports the Chilly Climate Report and the women of the political science department at the University of Victoria in their struggle against sexual harassment and for equality, 2) BIRT the UVSS calls for the retraction of the letter of April 9, 1993 to Dr. Somer Brodribb from the tenured faculty of the Departrnent of Political Science as it is implicitly threatening and, in fact, intimidating and as such endangers the recognition of the problems faced by women on campus and progress towards addressing them, 3) BIRT the UVSS opposes the UVic Administration undertaking of a fommal interrogatory inquiry into the Chilly Climate Committee's members and the Committee's subsequent report, and urges the university administration to refuse to subject the women of the Political Science Department to such a process for the following reasons: 1. an individualized complaint process is not the way to learn about systemic issues of discrimination, 2. such a process does not, give more power to those who have little power but rather makes them more vulnerable 3. such a process would potentially violate the confidentiality of the women involved and thereby threaten their safety; 4. such a process does not build bridges, but rather severs them, 4) BIRT the Chairperson of the UVSS be directed to write a letter to the Political Science departrnent, with copies to be sent to Dr. Samuel Scully, President David Strong, and other student associations and post-secondary institutions, inclusive of this motion. Student Union Building, University of Victoria, PO Box 1700 Victoria, BC V8W 2Y2 Phone (634) 721-8355 The UVSS takes a very strong position on the issue of harassment, and the need to have these issues addressed in the academic environment. Particularly disturbing is the harassrnent received by the women on the original committee, simply for writing a report commissioned by the very people who now vilify them. I cannot express how concerned we are over the effect this crisis will have on students (especially women students) participating in any process initiated by the university. Up to this point, the UVSS has always assumed that the inclusion of students on faculty and university committees was to ensure a meaningtul student voice in the university community. We suggest that if students continue to be discredited, threatened and harassed by tenured faculty for the work done on. the request of such faculty, there will be an impact on student participation not only irl departrnent committees, but also in any course work graduate work, and performance reviews under faculty direction. I also urge yourself and the Equity Office to accelerate the review of the University's Harassment Policy, especially consideration of policy to enable group complaints (and investigation) of climate in any area or department of the university. Had the university such a policy in place before this incident, the women political science students involved in the Chilly Climate report would not be in the position of jeopardizing their academic futures to hostility from within the department - in fact, jeopardizing the successful completion of their degrees for a department-initiated -review. A formal university progress, for investigating and s----ng issues like climate, would have prevented the crisis, and the further harassrnent of the women in the department. Please feel free to contact me for any further discussion regarding these issues. I hopa to see our recommendations: implemented by the university regarding the Political Science department. I urge you to find some way of resolving this dispute as quickly as possible, as it is obvious that the crisis cieepens the longer it continues. Sincerely, Janeta Ozard, Chairperson - University of Victoria Students' Society : cc: Dr. Samuel Scully, Dr. Somer Brodribb, and members of the Chilly Climate committee. To: Dr. David Strong, President Dr. Sam Scully, Vice-President Academic and Provost Date: May 21, 1993 From: The Graduate Student Women's Caucus M.C. Schraefel, Acting Chair The Graduate Student WomenUs Caucus, open to all women graduate students at UVic, met Tuesday, May 18 to discuss the implications of an investigative process that the University may be contemplating to address the situation in the Political Science department. Students involved in that process gave their information because their anonymity was guaranteed. We are greatly concerned that that confidentiality may now be challenged should the University be persuaded to proceed with any sort of quasi-judicial inquiry. We recommend to the UniversityUs attention models of confidentiality that the University itself already maintains: research using human subjects and the distribution of classroom evaluations. Any investigator using human subjects MUST assure their subjects confidentiality before any research may proceed. Similarly, when instructors deliver course evaluations, they are obligated to assure their students that a) the instructors cannot look at the evaluations until after the final grades for the course are in and that b) the evaluation is to be anonymous. Surely the University puts these restrictions in place to provide an environment that will allow the student to speak freely about the course and the instructorUs performance? In both cases, the University has determined that in gathering information on a subject, the anonymity of the participants must be guaranteed. The situation of the Political Science report on climate must be seen in the same light as a course evaluation, except that it extends to the entire department rather than to one course. We fear that should the University proceed with an investigation that would attempt to name names, a dangerous precedent would be set that would only discourage any honest input from students when their department requests it. Rather than encourage student participation, this would surely suppress it; trust would be irrevocably compromised. The Graduate Student WomenUs Caucus therefore passed the following resolution: BIRT students who participate in departmental information gathering processes and do so under conditions where their anonymity is assured, must be guaranteed that that anonymity extends in perpetuity; that at no later point can any university body demand that these students must come forward in their own name to speak to the information they initially provided. The Graduate Student Women's Caucus is deeply concerned about the effect the Political Science situation is having on the graduate student population. We see our peerUs work being discredited, their input -- requested by their own department -- castigated. We hear how senior tenured professors reject a UniversityUs committeeUs request that they pursue education on the issue of harassment. We see more than anything that they have threatened with legal action parties who hold names of women students who have risked providing input that the department itself requested. How can we pursue our studies in an environment that on the one hand, encourages us to speak freely in collegial discourse and then on the other, takes such virulent umbrage with what is said when we do? The GSWC is meeting again May 27, 10:30 am to continue our discussion of this issue. Please feel free to contact me at 721-9552 or mschrae@uvvm.uvic.ca for any further discussion of these issues. I look forward to being able to tell our membership that the University has heard our concerns and has taken some definite action on behalf of its students. Yours, m.c schraefel LETTERS AND MEMOS | MEMORANDUM UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA April 7, 1993 TO: Somer Brodribb FROM: Jeremy Wilson Would you please distribute the minutes that I gave you yesterday to the Faculty so that they could have a chance to verify their comments. I plan to move that these minuteE be appendedJ,to the department minutes and since there are so many pages it would be a good idea to give people an opportunity to read through them. In particular, could you check with Warren Magnusson that these reflect his comments since he speaks so often. ======================== April 13, 1993 Tenured Faculty, Department of Political Science From: Dr. Radhika Desai, Assistant Professor, Political Science Dr. Katherine Teghtsoonian, Assistant Professor, Political Science Your letter to Dr. Somer Brodribb of April 8, 1993 and the accompanying document "Gender Equity in the Department of Political Science: A Response to the Report of the Climate Committee" [referred to below as your Letter and Response] We are shocked and deeply troubled by the tone and content of the above-noted documents that you distributed to us and to other members of the University community last week. We feel it is particularly important to state our views in this regard because we are concerned that our silence might otherwise be construed by you, or by others who have received these documents, as indicating support for the positions you have taken and the means you have chosen to express them. We want here to identify three procedural aspects of your response to the Climate Committee's work that we find unacceptable. In addition, there are many claims and arguments in your Response with which we take issue. However, because we think the substance of the Report deserved to be talked abcut openly and constructively we have not chosen here to undertake a line-by-line critique of this document. There is, nevertheless, one substantive aspect of your Response which is so central and problematic that we have felt compelled to respond to it below. Prooedural Concerns (1) It is impossible to overstate our concern about the hostile and confrontational nature of your letter to Dr. Brodribb. We do not understand how you can engage a collegial disoourse concerning the matters raised in the Report of the Climate Committee (or, for that matter, on other departmental issues) in a context where an ultimatum and threat have been directed by the tenured members of the department to one of its other members. We have serious reservations about a Department in which such methods replace the reso--ful discussion of disagreement. This action on your part has seriously undermined our confidence in the capacity of the~epartment to engage in constructive discussion. (2) We find it unacceptable that you have chosen in your letter to target Dr. Brodribb as an individual. The Report was, as you knaw, the work of a multi-member Committee, not of Dr. Brodribb acting alone. Nevertheless, your letter personalizes the issues involved in an unwarranted way. In our view, this is both unfair to Dr. Brodribb and deeply damaging to the possibility of collegial relationships in this department. (3) We are also disturbed by the fact that you have put Dr. Brodribb in an impossible position. In demanding that she either apologize for and retract the claims presented in the Report, or provide evidence to substantiate them, your letter presents her with a "choice" between two non-existent options. First, we believe that it is quite beyond Dr. Brodribb's mandate as Chair of the Climate Committee, inconsistent with established University policy, and beyond the bounds of morally acceptable behaviour, for her to pressure the students who have articulated these concerns to make themselves known to University authorities. Individuals have a right to proceed or not with their grievances in their own time, and for reasons that make sense to them. We do not accept that this right should be sacrificed under any circumstances, and we are dismayed that you do not seem to share this view. Your apparent expectation that those who have experienced harassment will want to engage with the relevant University institutions, and should be pressured under certain circumstances to do so, is unrealistic and problematic. Second, the Report of the Climate Committee brings forward the concerns of students in this Department as they have been expressed to that Committee. As such, they are not Dr. Brodribb's to retract or apologize for. We believe, therefore, that the ultimatum which you have delivered is both unfair and disrespectful to her. Substantive Concern We are gravely concerned about what the views expressed in your Letter and Response suggest about your attitudes toward, and understanding of, the issues involved in harassment, sexism and racism. In particular, we wculd draw your attention to a central inconsistency in the documents. Although you acknowledge in ycur Response that "much of the behaviour at issue could be unconscious" (p. 3), this is contradicted by the explicit assertion in your Letter that you know for a certainty that such behaviours have not taken place in this Department (the content of the Climate Committee's Report notwithstanding). We feel that progress on questions relating to women in the Department must be pr-icated on an unambiguous recognition by its n---rs of the possibilities of systemic and unconscious sexism and racism. At the very least, this must entail a willingness to listen to and take seriously the concerns about these issues articulated by our students. We are extremely worried about whether students will feel able to bring forward their concerns about harassment, sexism and racism in a context in which these are dismissed cut of hand. The hostile reception that has been accorded the Climate Committee's Report and the aggressive action taken toward Dr. Brodribb have, we believe, been extremely harmful in this regard. Issues of sexism and racism are also of enormous concern to us at a personal level: we are both women; one of us is a self- identified member of a visible minority. Sexism and racism are not just abstractions for us; rather they shape and inform the context within which we must conduct our professional lives. The attitudes expressed in your documents have substantially increased the degree to which we find this context unccmfortable and difficult to work in. In conclusion, we would like to reiterate our support for the work that the Climate Committee has done, and our commitment to addressing productively the issues it raises. However, we must also express our deep disappointment that the Department did not take advantage of the opportunity learn from, and engage with, the substance of the concerns brought forward by the Climmate Committee when its Report was presented for discussion. To respond to the issues it raises, as you have, with an ultimatum and threat endangers, rather than fosters, the possibility of dialogue. Dr. Radhika Desai Dr. Katherine Teghtsoonian Dr. S. Scully, Vice-President Academic Dr. L. Costa, Dean, Social Sciences Dr. B. More, President, Faculty Association Dr. S. Brodribb, Dept. of Political &ience Dr. M. Webb, Dept. of Political Science Prof. M. Callaghan, Faculty Equity Officer Ms. S. Devine, Director, Equity Office UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE P.O. BOX 3050, VICTORIA, B.C., CANADA V8W 3P5 TELEPHONE (604) 721-7486, FAX (604) 721-7485 April 25, 1993 TO: Radhika Desai and Katherine Teghtsoonian FROM: Colin Bennett, Warren Magnusson, Terry Morley, Norman Ruff, Rob Walker, Jeremy Wilson RE: Your Memorandum of April 13, 1993 The deterioration in collegial relations in our Department following the publication of the Climate Committee Report has been personally unpleasant and extremely damaging to the Department. We sincerely regret the concerns that our Letter and Response of April 8th seem to have raised in your minds. We want to assure you that we have not taken any legal action involving Professor Brodribb. No such action should be necessary if the University undertakes an investigation of the events leading to the present impasse. However, it is unreasonable to expect us to withdraw our request for an apology and retraction while we are being subjected to attacks in the media and elsewhere. We had hoped that we could resolve these matters within the Department, but since April 14th we have had "to take further steps to protect our reputations" -- namely, to demand in private and in public a University investigation, which would deal both with the allegations of sexism and racism in the Department and with our own concerns about unethical and unprofessional behaviour in connection with the production, distribution, and subsequent discussion of the Climate Committee's Report. We very much want to continue the Department's efforts to ensure that we operate in an environment that is free from all forms of sexism and racism. We will shortly be circulating proposals in this regard. As we indicated in our earlier response, it will be easier to act once the more serious allegations in the Committee's Report have been investigated or withdrawn. A more immediate concern is that we have not yet been able to meet to make our appointment in public administration. There is a clear majority amongst the male faculty in favour of hiring Margaret Little, a feminist scholar with a national reputation for her work to promote the position of women in the discipline. We assume that this would be a welcome appointment. If so, it certainly would be sad and ironic if our current predicament prevents us from acting. We hope that this letter will assuage some of your concerns, and that we will soon be able to resume normal collegial relations. Dr.Samuel E. Scully V.P. Academic cc: Kathleen Beattie, Ombudsperson Sheila Devine, Equity Office UVSS Graduate Student Women's Caucus Faculty Women's Caucus Women's Caucus, Political Science Dept. Graduate Students Office, Poli Sci Enc: Dr.Samuel E. Scully V.P. Academic University of Victoria. May 21, 1993 Re: Warren Magnusson's "McCarthyism" Document. Dear Dr. Scully: Thank you for providing me with a copy of Warren Magnusson's (and Rob Walker's) rather paranoid diatribe against the "Climate Committee." After reading Warren Magnusson's attack of my account of discrimination, as it appeared in the Globe & Mail, I delivered a brief memo to Dr. Magnusson informing him that the story I related to the Globe had nothing to do with his seminar class or with Canadian political theorist Mary O'Brien. Dr. Magnusson responded the same day, May 18,1993, by stating: "I cannot distinguish between myself and my colleagues in this respect." Please find enclosed a copy of this memo. My concern is that although Dr. Magnusson has been informed that the assumptions underlying his entire essay are absolutely unfounded he has failed to apologize for the personal attack, or to publicly correct his poor judgment. In fact, I pointed out in my May 18, 1993 memo that it was very unfortunate that he had not contacted me first to confirm his suspicions. At the May 18, 1993 meeting of the Graduate Student Women's Caucus, some of the women who had publicly condemned us for our report attended and attacked our committee on the basis of Dr. Magnusson's essay. Having just finished reading the essay it was fresh in my memory and I was astounded by the almost verbatim account given of how we had "erred" in naming sexism. As a result of this particular experience, and a general fear of the potential consequences of Dr. Magnusson's much circulated and personalized attack, I am writing to request that you assist me in this matter. I would greatly appreciate it if you could speak with Dr. Magnusson, regarding his unfounded and widely circulated condemnation of myself and other committee members, with the aim of obtaining a public correction and apology. As a student and a single-mother in desperate need of employment I am deeply disturbed by the public attack on my credibility. In addition to my own concerns, our entire committee along with our graduate student representative have been maliciously maligned. I do not believe it is appropriate to stand by and allow personalized and unsubstantiated attacks against students of the University of Victoria to go unchecked. For example, Phyllis Foden's account as it appeared in the Globe was attacked with absolutely no consideration given to the fact that calling women's memories of abuse faulty and fantasized ("Memory plays strange tricks...") is an age old strategy indeed. Further, as Dr. Magnusson points out in his essay, I was also present the night Professor X made the comments regarding Phyllis Foden's "personal experience" and can attest not only to the validity of her account but also to the deleterious effect it had on her that evening and subsequently. Having outlined the above, the point I wish to reiterate on behalf of the committee is that our report was never a personal attack on specific individuals within the department. Thus, the only reputations personally and publicly maligned, as a result of the department's reactionary stance, are our own. As we have stressed, again and again, our preliminary report was intended to name women's experiences of systemic discrimination. It is a shame that the tenured male faculty have responded by launching a personalized attack against specific individuals and that we have had no institutional support or protection to date. Sincerely, Sylvia Bardon Member, Chilly Climate Committee cc: Kathleen Beattie, Ombudsperson Sheila Devine, Equity Office UVSS Graduate Student Women's Caucus Faculty Women's Caucus Women's Caucus, Political Science Dept. Graduate Students Office, Poli Sci Enc: PRESS CLIPPINGS: Sexual-politics battle rages in university (THe Globe and Mail, Monday, April 19, 1993) Victoria professors under fire from women students BY DEBORAH WILSON British Columbia Bureau VANCOUVER Q It started with a simple' resolution from political science faculty members: To investigate ways the department at the University of Victoria could create a better learning environment for women students. It has evolved into a noncredit, no-holds-barred, crash course in sexual politics. And as a result, relations in the department have deteriorated into open hostility between the committee appointed neariy a year ago to assess the problem and male faculty members. The committee's report accuses male professors of racism and sexism toward women students in class. It also states male professors have made sexual advances to women students at social gatherngs. On Friday, in an attempt to resolve the dispute, the university's academic vice-president, Sam Scully, appointed a two person committee from outside the department to conduct a fact finding review. The chairman of the political science department, Jeremy Wilson, could not be reached for comment. Professor Terence Morley said faculty could say little about the matter while the fact-finding review takes place. He said that their primary concern was that there should be an investigation, both of the handling of the report itself and of the claims of misconduct by unidentified students against unnamed faculty, and "that seems to be beginning." While it is the kind of dispute that gets a roll of the eyes and a dismissive comment about "political correctness" in many circles these days, the divisions are deep and both factions fear their careers hang in the balance All eight tenured male professors in the department have issued an ultimatum, demanding that the female professor who headed the all-female committee repudiate what they called "utterly false statements" in the report, or, alternatively, turn over any evidence of sexual misconduct to university authorities. Otherwise, they threatened "further steps to protect our reputations." Please see PROFESSORSQA2 % From Page Al Professors, students-clash over report Professor Somer Brodribb, in response, has insisted she has no authority to singlehandedly withdraw the fidings of the committee, which included five female students. Prof. Brodribb and a student on the committee said the students' complaints were made on the condition of strict confidentiality and they cannot disclose the details. "The mandate was to investigate the climate: We did so, now they're trying to punish us," Prof. Brodribb said in an interview. The current dispute began with the "chilly climate" committee report, as it was unofficiallly known, dated March 23. "The committee to make the department more supportive to women," its official name, was created in response to concerns about a "discouraging and unsupportive environment" expenenced by graduate and undergraduate women students, according to the report. The report said progress has been made with the recent hiring of several women to faculty, after it had been all-male until 1988. But it said there were also incidents in which women students were denigrated for advancing feminist arguments in class, criticized for feminist analysis in their written work, interrupted, trivialized, and in some cases followed and verbally abused after class by other students. Although the report did not give specific exarnples, it said female staff and students had been subjected to derogatory remarks about "the feminists" and "feminist imperialists," and had been told: "I'm not going to be evaluated by the feminist police." In departmental discussions on hiring, it said, feminists were described as "austere" or "uppity," compared to "serious" male candidates. Two of the students on the committee said they did not describe specific incidents in the report because the circumstances would have identified the women who complained. But Sylvia Bardon and Phyllis Foden said their own experiences were illustrative. Ms. Bardon said the professor in one seminar class she attended constantly criticized feminist analysis, to the point of insisting there was no distinction between women's and men's experience. She said she felt picked on, and two women in the class told her later that they remained silent because of the hostile atmosphere. Ms. Foden said a professor humiliated her by telling a prominent visiting sociologist at a gathering attended by students that her research on prostitution was grounded in personal experience. The same professor approached her later pulled out his wallet, handed her some money and said- "Thanks for last night," she said. She said she was left to try to account for his behaviour to the other people present. The report recommended educational sessions on sexism and racism, with pay raises and promotion tied to faculty members' interest and activity in improving their teaching methods in that regard. It suggested new complaint procedures to deal with subtle differential treatment of women and recommended that feminist and native instructors teach introductory courses. In one third year course, it said, "readings on feminist critiques of malestream thought should be made central. " A written response from the male faculty members took issue with the report's "oddly distorted" views and its "extremely negative" portrayal of the department. Their letter said the report's unspecified allegations of misconduct by professors "defames every member of the faculty, including the untenured and sessional instructors." The response also described the committee's recommendations as threats to academic freedom which "seem to insist on feminist orthodoxy, in the guise of a campaign against sexism and racism. " However, the tenured professors' response said they welcomed constructive discussions about the report and added they were "worried that a predominantly male faculty may act in ways that make women students uncomfortable, even unintentionaly. C6 Times-Colonist Wednesday April 21, 1993 UVic's poli-sci faculty divided by war of sexes By Denise Helm Times-Colonist Staff UVic's political science department has become a battleground between the sexes over a committee report aimed at improving conditions for women. Eight male faculty feel their reputations are damaged by the report and want an apology and retraction, saying the report lacks credibility. The women believe the men's hostile reaction is further indication the department is not willing to listen to female students' concerns. Such a rift has developed that the university's administration has stepped in to calm the waters. "We need a situation where everybody's views can get clearly laid out with help from people experienced in dealing with tension which is certainly what we have here," Sam Scully, vice-president of academics, said Monday. Two faculy members from outside the department will meet with all faculy involved to hear their views and then advise on where the process should go from there. The discussion will involve both the report's contents and what has happened since it was given to the department in late March. Jeremy Wilson, department chairman, would not comment on the report or the department's response. "I welcome the initiative that the vice-president has announced." Wilson said he is looking forward to "participating in a process that will re-establish some normalcy in the department." Somer Brodribb, the female professor who chaired the committee, said the eight tenured male faculy sent her an intimidating letter, implying legal action. "The treatment of students on this committee and dismissal of all the experiences of the students who have come forward is disturbing," said Brodribb. "It indicates they [the male faculty] are facing a crisis in authority and credibility." The department established a committee last May to make political science a more supportive learning environment for female students. A committee of five female students and Brodribb suggested several changes in a March 23 preliminary report after talking with dozens of female students who said they experienced inappropriate comments and behavior. Although the report did not list specific incidents or names, it said women were belittled for raising feminist arguments in class and verbally abused for their views in and out of class. There were also claims of sexual harassment. At a meeting March 29 to discuss the report, male faculty said it was not representative and questioned its validity without discussing its contents. Although another meeting was planned, the students never heard from the department again. Brodribb received a letter April 8 demanding an unqualified apology or credible evidence. The men were particularly concerned about the report's reference to sexist and racist treatment as well as sexual advances toward students. Brodribb said names were not given as a matter of confidentiality. The committee raised structural inequities that need an institutional response, she said. "I'm surprised the eight tenured men have attempted to personalize and individualize this." She said it was not up to her to withdraw the committee's findings. "The students were being made invisible." The department, which had only male faculty until 1989, has three untenured female faculty, eight tenured male and one untenured male. Students want more diverse faculty and literature than is offered, said Brodribb. "Not everyone wants to be educated as if they are a white male." Among the committee's recommendations were educational sessions on sexism and racism, new complaint procedures for dealing with subtle differential treatment and feminist and native instructors to be included for first-year courses. Graduate student Sylvia Bardon said she was shocked at the male faculty's reaction. "In effect, they are calling us liars," said Bardon, who has been in the department for six years. "I believe they are willing and open to comply with the equity policy . . . this has shown their true colors." Fourth-year student Denise McCabe said the faculty's reaction would be more understandable if the report sought punitive action. "We gave some general recommendations to change the climate and were open to discussion about it." Regarding how representative the report was McCabe said if inappropriate behavior "happens to one, ten, or five students, that's too many." Students also fear backlash from the department if they are identified, she said. 10 students join fray at Victoria U Report alleging sexual harassment not representative, open letter says BY DEBORAH WILSON British Columbia Bureau THe Globe and Mail pA4, may 12, 93 Sevcral women studying political science at the University of Victoria, where faculty members are snarled in a dispute over a report alleging sexual harassment and intimidation have issued a statement of support for their embattled male professors. Ten women signed an open letter saying their experience as students in the department is completely at odds with the "chilly climate" report prepared by a committee composed of Professor Somer Brodribb and five women students. They called for the report's withdrawal. The letter said that "the committee, which claims to speak for women students, conducted its activities with a minimum effort to contact a significant and therefore representative number of students. " It also accused female faculty members supporting the committee of thwarting attempts to improve the climate for women in the department by boycotting hiring meetings that considered a feminist scholar among other candidates, for a tenure-track teaching position. Cara Stewart, a graduate student who signed the letter, said some students believe that Prof. Brodribb and her committee did not adequately advise students of the committee's existence or its operations, and that the result reflected a particular version of feminism. In an interview, Prof. Warren Magnusson said three female professors are not speaking to him and the other male faculty members, and that has brought most department business to a halt. The report of a two-member review team appointed by the university administration to help resolve the dispute, which is in its second month, was to be received by the department yesterday. Samuel Scully, the university's academic vice-president, said the department's response to the recommendations will be released publicly in a few days. Prof Magnusson said the impasse appears to be attributable partly to different definitions of sexism and harassment. Of Prof. Brodribb, he said, "there is a tendency to define harassment incredibly broadly... to include any kind of criticism of the position that she and her students take. " Her committee's report was critical of professors who challenged feminist analysis who referred to feminist "imperialists" and "police", or who pitted feminists against nonfeminists in classroom debate. "On the other hand, I think most of the rest of us would want to adopt a narrower and more precise definition of harassment," and make some distinctions concerning behaviour that clearly constitutes harassment, Prof. Magnusson said. The present impasse was brought about by Prof. Brodribb's decision to circulate the "chilly climate" report to other universities, he said. That prompted all eight tenured male faculty members to sign a letter demanding retraction of unspecified allegations of sexual misconduct contained in the report, describing them as utterly unfounded and suggesting legal action would result if that was not done. "Those are extremely serious allegations that are being made, not just as a claim that these things exist in our society, but within a very specific and small group of people that these things are occurring he said. While the faculty members cannot know everything their colleagues do or say, Prof. Magnusson said, their reputations should not be damaged on the basis of published, anonymous allegations that are not backed by any evidence or formal complaints to the university's harassment office. He said the conflict could probably have been avoided if the committee's report had been less accusatory, and instead had suggested constructive measures to prevent sexual misconduct and intimidation of female students. Reached by telephone yesterday, Prof. Brodribb declined to comment further on the dispute. Students on the committee could not be reached for comment. When the report and the objections to it first became public, Prof. Brodribb said it would have been wrong to withhold the alarming information received in the course of preparing the report, and that it was not the committee's role to prove the allegations. She said the report pointed out structural inequalities in the department, and was aimed at improving the climate for female students, not singling out individuals. UVIC WOMEN CONDEMN IMPLICIT THREAT Monday Magazine, May 13-19,1993 Volume 19, no. 20, p.5 THE battle of the sexes at UVic's political science department has become a university-wide issue. Last week, the Faculty Women's Caucusi which represents all female faculty at UVic, leapt into the controversy involving faculty and students in the poli-sci department. The women's caucus voted to: %Support the female faculty and students of the-political science department for speaklng out about their concerns about the climate for women in that department; %Condemn the tenured male faculty for sending an "implicitly threatening" and "intimidating" letter to poli-sci prof Somer Brodribb; %Set up a committee to investigate the treatment of women at UVic. here needs to be productive ways found to open dialogues on issues of climate, said caucus chair Alison Preece. "It's important for women faculty and students to be able to bring forward their concerns about Issues of climate in a comfortable and collegiate atmosphere." The caucus made the motions to protest the reception of the controversial "Chilly Citmate Report." Prepared by Brodribb- and five female students at the request of the political science department, the report concluded male political sctence professors "marginalized feminist scholarship" and exbiblted "sexist and racist" behavior towards female students. The frightening females of UVic Male professors claim they're victims of the 'harassment industry' When the eight tenured male faculty members in the University of Victoria's political science department heard complaints that they were not providing women with a "comfortable" academic setting, they moved quickly to demonstrate their sensitivity. A committee of one female instructor and five female students was struck to investigate and recommend ways of alleviating the "discouraging and unsupportive environment." But after a year of meetings and interviews, the perceived problems had swelled into something more sinister than insensitivity. The report that committee chairman Somer Brodribb (a feminist political science instructor) leaked to the media cited rampant sexism and sexual harassment and it outraged the professors who had commissioned it. In one seminar, says Sylvia Bardon, a graduate student who sat on the committee, her professor "blatantly" criticized feminist analysis. This, she claims, made her feel "picked on." She alleges that two classmates also felt intimidated in the "hostile atmosphere." Other female students complained that scholarly projects were singled out for criticism if they included feminist analysis. They also claimed to have endured "nasty comments" and unwelcome "sexual advances" from professors. The department has been left in turmoil, with male professors threatening legal action if the statements made in the committee's report are not withdrawn. The professors, who won't comment publicly on the report, say that by omitting the names of the complainants and the allegedly offensive faculty members, the reputation of the entire department has been tarred. Samuel Scully, the university's vice president for academic affairs, has established a two-person inquiry to clear up the controversy. But outside the political science faculty, it is the committee's recommendations to rectify the "hostility" that are creating a stir. Some academics fear the political-correctness crusade indicates the university is becoming more concerned with internal politics than with research and learning. The recommendations include a call for "educational sessions on sexism and racism." Pay raises and promotions would be tied to attendance and interest demonstrated at those sessions. Ms. Bardon says, "Faculty should receive this kind of education to make them more aware of unconscious actions that could potentially threaten or intimidate students." Women on campus: Victims of 'upper-class white male heterosexism?' Other proposals would involve establishing hiring quotas for female and native instructors. There is also a demand for a third-year political science course in which "readings on feminist critiques of malestream thought should be made central." Ms. Bardon says now is the time to open the curriculum to "something other than the traditional canon of upper-class white male heterosexism." Ironically, the university was already moving to appease the feminists by instituting a policy of affirmative action. Several departments, political science included, are committed to hiring more female and minority staff members. Political science at UVic had been all male until 1989. Now, the department has three untenured female instructors out of 13 faculty. In fact, one professor says Ms. Brodribb is being rushed through the tenure-tracking process. "She's been given treatment that no male could possibly hope to get. They changed all the rules for her." Another professor from outside the political science faculty says that politics is the chief motivation for the controversial report. The objective is to cow the department into hiring more females with a feminist bent and to intimidate faculty who oppose their appointment. One tool of intimidation is the threat of sexual harassment charges. "They've created a sexual harassment industry. They extend the definition so now the official sexual harassment has nothing to do with anything a faculty member does or says, it has to do with the subjective impressions of the supposed victim. If a person feels uncomfortable, that is sexual harassment. We're scared stiff." Other professors are warning that this report is part of an ideological war. James Cutt, a professor at the university's School of Public Administration, considers the political-correctness movement a threat to academic freedom. He says a key weapon in the ideological war is the insistence by feminists that their views be represented in each faculty. "The sinister nature of it is that it's authoritarian. You're prescribing outcomes. It's suppressing freedom of expression, free debate. Worst of all, you're introducing formal mechanisms of discrimination rather than freeing people." Professor Cutt insists that special quotas are unnecessary. "There's no question that women can make it on merit. They don't need to have a special deal." Instead, the push for hiring quotas masks an ideological agenda to attract more radical feminists. "Feminism has become the vehicle of the left." Professor Cutt says the report's recommendations present chilling evidence of how far political correctness at the University of Victoria may go one day: "What they're talking about is re-education, political indoctrination and suppression of freedom of inquiry and truth. That is the destruction of the university as we understand it." Steve Vanagas British Columbia REPORT, MAY 3, 1993 Harassment report flops A UVic review to address tensions in the political science department over a harassment report has failed, the university's vice-president of academics said Friday. "It doesn't seem to have provided any basis for action within the department on any kind of broad front," said Sam Scully. The university administration now will have to consider external ways of handling the controversy. The department has been steeped in tension since an all-female committee reported on harassment by male professors and made several recommendations in a March report. The male faculty want the report's contents verified with names and specific events, or else retracted. They have also threatened legal action. The director of UVic's Institute of Conflict Resolution and the university's equity advisor suggested ways it could be handled. But both sides rejected their report, saying it missed the mark. There are few options. Scully said the matter is complicated by different members of the department wanting different approaches. The male faculty favor a judicial inquiry while the committee doesn't. "They all want different things which in different ways are incompatible." TImes Colonist, May 15, 1993, pA10 6 % THE MARTLET % THURSDAY, May 20, 1993 CHILLY RECEPTION Women's lives are being ruined. The students who agreed to form the Chilly Climate Committee are having their names and their work dragged through the mud by the male profs of the political science faculty. In good faith these women agreed to investigate the climate of the Political Science department and give its faculty some recommendations on how to improve women's experiences in the department. They did that. And now they are being called liars, feminist police, and cult followers. Are you confused yet? And not just here on the UVic campus, or in the pubs downtown and other social gatherings, but in every Political Science department across the country. The male professors are crying that their professional reputations are being smeared, but these same profs are tenured. Guaranteed jobs. The female students who helped draft the preliminary report of the committee haven't got jobs, period. All these women want to continue in their chosen discipline. It is a fairly obvious irony that the women who studied the reasons why women do not continue in political science are beginning to find their way blocked by angry, vengeful professors. No, this can't be sexism, can it? We don't need professors showing utter disrespect for their female students. The Chilly Climate Report makes suggestions and points out problems existing in the treatment of women. The report enables people to take a look at the reality of being a female student in a patriarchal institution. It does not dictate over the professors' lives. It does not attack them personally. None of them are singled out as cult members, liars or male supremacist police. The report only points out a few of their mistakes, but these problems all have solutions if the professors are willing to try and learn. It is a shame that the professors weren't mature enough to recognize their mistakes and try to remedy the situation. Instead, women's and students' lives are being ruined. There were no surprising actions by the male professors. They only incriminate themselves by proving that the Chilly Climate Report is based on reality. Editorial toplcs are decided on by staff at editorial meetings which happen every Monday at 4p.m. in the Martlet office. :Editorials are written by one or more staffers; opinions are not necessarily those of the Martlet or all staff ************************************************************************ UPDATE FRIDAY, AUGUST 27, 1993 THE CHILLY CLIMATE COMMITTEE, UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA Two main issues figure in the UVic political science department: workplace fairness and equal access to education for women. These have both been grievously affected by the eight tenured men's continued hostility to the Committee to Make the Department More Supportive to Women Students (The Chilly Climate Committee) and the refusal of the UVic Administration to prevent or condemn the retaliation we have experienced since last March when we raised issues of equity and systemic discrimination in our Report. On May 26 we received a letter from Vice President Academic Sam Scully urging us to comply with the threatening letter from the 8 tenured men and their demand that we withdraw sections of our report. In June, we brought forward our class action complaint against the UVic administration and the 8 tenured men to the BC Ombudsman and the Human Rights Council. Yet on Wednesday August 25 President Strong appointed an external review commission to investigate the working and learning environment for men and women in the Department of Political Science. The terms of reference were developed with input from the eight tenured men. Since presenting our report in March, the Chilly Climate Committee has suffered retaliation and defamation. We have reported this harassment yet the Administration claims it must be neutral and not intervene. Before the external review was appointed, we asked President Strong to publicly distance himself from the defamatory and harassing actions of the eight tenured men which are done with benefit of university resources. This has not been done. Such a gesture on Strong's part would convince us of the administration's genuine commitment to addressing systemic discrimination and ending the retaliation we now endure for raising issues of equity. In good faith we accepted the invitation of the department in May 1992 to recommend ways in which to make the environment more supportive to women but we have been targetted and maligned for doing so. Further participation in any university appointed process is contingent upon the recognition of the current harassment we have suffered and a commitment to ending and redressing it. Until the retaliation against us for reporting systemic discrimination is recognized and remedied, there can be no meaningful and sincere inquiry into improving the environment for women students and staff. We have received support from over twenty four women's organizations, students' and scholarly associations, such as the Canadian Women's Studies Association, the Canadian Sociology and Anthropology Association, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the United Steelworkers of America local 9288. We will be happy to assist the university in developing policies and procedures to improve the climate for women when the harassment we have endured for developing such recommendations in our March Report is addressed and the University takes the responsibility for ending it. Chilly Climate Committee: Dr. Somer Brodribb (Chair) 598-6061; Sylvia Bardon 592-3672, Phyllis Foden, Nadia Kyba, Denise McCabe, Theresa Newhouse (students). -- 30 --