What should we make of a report saying that a University of Rochester professor’s behavior was inappropriate, unprofessional, and offensive, that he exhibited “gross lapses of judgment” in getting sexually involved with students, but that he didn’t violate any university policies in place at the time?
An investigation that spanned three and a half months and cost the university $4.5 million did little to quell the controversy surrounding the professor in question, T. Florian Jaeger, a tenured member of the department of brain and cognitive sciences.
Some say the report, which at least partly vindicated Mr. Jaeger and the university over its handling of the case, may discourage women from coming forward with harassment complaints.
Others say the report, issued last week, reinforces the importance of due process and proportionality in an era of “naming and shaming” those accused of harassment.
Depending on which side of the fault line one was on before it was released, the report is loaded with supporting material.
It concluded that Mr. Jaeger, who is on leave, blurred boundaries between his personal and professional lives, partying with graduate students and offending some with promiscuous behavior and salty language.
Some of his accusers, meanwhile, embellished and exaggerated their accusations to paint him as a sexual predator, occasionally participating in the sexual banter they later complained about, it said.
“Claims and allegations are not proven facts and are not always true,” the report cautioned.
When the university decided Mr. Jaeger’s behavior didn’t violate existing policies, his accusers went public with their complaints after discussing ways of “making his professional life miserable,” the report said.
Many of the complaints against Mr. Jaeger concerned events that happened shortly after his arrival at Rochester, in 2007, a time when the university’s policies strongly discouraged but didn’t prohibit sexual relationships between professors and students. Those policies were changed in 2014 to ban such relationships with undergraduates as well as with graduate students over whom a faculty member has academic authority.
The report presents a legal finding, not a moral or social judgment, said Mary Jo White, a former federal prosecutor who led the investigation.
In a news conference after the report was released, she said that Mr. Jaeger at times had engaged in behavior that was “inappropriate, unprofessional, and offensive,” and that he had demonstrated poor judgment in having consensual intimate relationships with four current, former, or prospective students.
Due to his sexual innuendo, flirtatious behavior, and raw language, “some former graduate students had to endure behavior and inappropriate remarks they shouldn’t have had to,” Ms. White said.
‘What Do We Do Now’
Kristen S. Gorman, who earned her Ph.D. in brain and cognitive sciences at Rochester and participated in the investigation of Mr. Jaeger, doesn’t think the report exonerates the university, which still faces a lawsuit from some of the students.
“It paints a very complex picture of an institution that, at a lot of turns, was willing to accept and encourage problematic behavior,” said Ms. Gorman, adding that her career was disrupted by her efforts to stay clear of Mr. Jaeger. She is now an education program specialist at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. “The real question is what do we do now.”
Even if Mr. Jaeger’s behavior did not fit the investigators’ definition of a sexual-misconduct violation, university leaders, faculty members, and students at Rochester and other institutions should challenge such behavior when they see it, Ms. Gorman said. She is worried, she said, that the report could have a chilling effect on women who might be considering speaking out about sexual misconduct.
I don’t think anybody is comfortable with multiple women over a multiple-year period experiencing harassment and then changing their educational lives in order to avoid that harassment.
“I don’t think anybody is comfortable with multiple women over a multiple-year period experiencing harassment and then changing their educational lives in order to avoid that harassment,” said Ms. Gorman.
The onus is now on universities to protect students from aggressive behavior that may not qualify as sexual harassment, said Kim M. Cobb, a professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology who has been active in efforts to help more women advance in the sciences.
“There’s a big gray zone between legal sexual harassment and a culture of inclusion,” she said. “In that gradient, real damage is done on a daily basis that changes people’s lives and changes people’s careers.”
Hours after the report was released, Rochester’s president, Joel Seligman, publicly announced his resignation, effective February 28. The university appointed Richard Feldman, dean of the college from 2006 to 2017, as interim president.
In a written statement on Sunday, Mr. Feldman said Rochester had an opportunity to be a model for other universities as it heals, rebuilds, and responds to the report’s recommendations.
In a statement through his lawyer, Mr. Jaeger said the report demonstrated the need for a “fair and fact-based” investigation when complaints of sexual harassment are lodged. He commended the university for “its commitment to seeking out the truth” rather than giving in to pressure to punish him.
A Breach of Confidentiality
Meanwhile, the report continued to generate controversy. In a letter to the Faculty Senate’s executive committee, the plaintiffs said that, as a result of the report, students are likely to be confused about their rights as well as the definitions of sexual harassment and a hostile environment.
“Without a forceful denouncement of the ethical failings of Jaeger’s conduct and the administrators who protected him, women at UR will see they are alone and left to fend for themselves,” they wrote.
“After seeing the university spend millions to defend itself against women with legitimate complaints by twisting their own words against them,” the letter continued, “students would be perfectly justified in feeling too intimidated to come forward.”
The letter pointed out that when the report was first posted online, it included the names of some of the people who had been interviewed, even though they had been assured confidentiality. While the names had been redacted from documents, they were included in the titles of the exhibits. Later, the titles of the exhibits were changed to “Exhibit 1,” “Exhibit 2,” and so forth.
I find it outrageous that she would out witnesses, especially since they had expressed concerns about their safety.
Several women who participated in the investigation found that oversight galling, especially since the investigator, Ms. White, had criticized Mr. Jaeger’s accusers in her report for publicly discussing information about the university’s investigation that she said should have been kept confidential.
“I find it outrageous that she would out witnesses, especially since they had expressed concerns about their safety,” said Keturah Bixby, a former graduate student in brain and cognitive sciences who is among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Rochester.
“One of the witnesses whose name was revealed said the only reason she participated was to make it easier for other victims of harassment to come forward,” Ms. Bixby added, but instead, more will probably stay silent in the future.
A spokesman for Debevoise and Plimpton, the law firm that handled the investigation, declined to comment on the apparent confidentiality breach.
A ‘Slap on the Wrist’
Issuing a report that allowed Mr. Jaeger to claim that he had been at least partly vindicated tarnishes the university’s reputation, said Deborah L. Rhode, a professor of law at Stanford University who heads its Center on the Legal Profession. “It also illustrates the frustration that complainants often feel when it’s clear that at least some of their complaints are well founded and the university ends up not taking substantial actions.”
Most sexual-misconduct complaints involve serial abusers, Ms. Rhode said. “It’s really important when you see a pattern and practice to intervene at an early stage,” she said, whether or not a specific university policy has been violated.
Directing Mr. Jaeger to complete an antiharassment program, one step the university took, is a “slap on the wrist” that is more likely to cause resentment than better behavior, Ms. Rhode added.
“It’s become increasingly clear that universities need a bright line against even purportedly consensual relationships,” Ms. Rhode added. “The power imbalances are too great to ensure that these relationships are fully consensual or, even if they start out that way, remain consensual.”
She isn’t convinced, though, that the report will silence anyone. “This is a moment when, courtesy of #MeToo, women are feeling they can speak out without career-suicidal repercussions, and I don’t think that’s going to change.”
But Carly N. Mee, a staff attorney at the victims’-rights group SurvJustice, still worries about the message the Rochester report sends.
“Not holding someone accountable is going to create a level of distrust and make survivors wonder if there’s a point in bringing a complaint,” she said. “It’s such a hard process to go through.”
Mr. Jaeger’s accusers said they would vigorously defend their contention that the university had retaliated against them, in part by sharing their private emails with their department chair. Their lawsuit against the university is pending.
They attacked our privacy and our reputations, they made our colleagues angry with us to the point that they wouldn’t listen to us and we were unable to work.
“They attacked our privacy and our reputations, they made our colleagues angry with us to the point that they wouldn’t listen to us and we were unable to work … all because we made a sexual-harassment complaint and we stuck with it,” said Jessica Cantlon, an associate professor in the department.
Ms. Cantlon and her husband, Bradford Mahon, are both leaving Rochester for Carnegie Mellon University, a move they said had been prompted by their frustration over the university’s response to their complaints.
Richard N. Aslin, a prominent professor in the department, earlier resigned in protest, and another researcher, Ben Hayden, left for the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities.
Kenneth Westhues, a professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Waterloo, in Canada, who studies what he calls academic mobbing, said the Rochester case fits the pattern of aggrieved professors’ refusing to accept defeat and taking matters into their own hands.
The lawsuit against the university “publicly embarrasses the president and provost by discussing their sex lives in derogatory terms,” he said. “For its part, the university’s having poked around in professors’ emails, even if legal, is a serious breach of standard norms of university life.”
“Rancorous conflicts like this one tend to drag everybody down,” he said, “and nobody comes out looking very good.”
Nell Gluckman contributed to this article.
Katherine Mangan writes about community colleges, completion efforts, and job training, as well as other topics in daily news. Follow her on Twitter @KatherineMangan, or email her at katherine.mangan@chronicle.com.
