PSU Still A Hunting Ground: A Case Study in the Department of Chemical Engineering’s Handling of a Title IX Case Post-Sandusky
On June 21st, 2016, a student disclosed that he/she had been a victim of sexual assault while enrolled at Penn State University. The student reached out to two chemical engineering faculty members and asked for the opportunity to make up coursework over the summer, stating this would enable him/ her to graduate and accept a pending position. Ultimately, both faculty members failed to report the disclosure to the Title IX office, the university’s centralized office of sexual misconduct & response.
The student was not given the opportunity to make up the coursework, thus failing to graduate. Without consent, the student’s name was disclosed to 25 faculty members and 53 Penn State employees were made aware of the events in its aftermath. Months later, the Title IX office’s (now former) attorney admitted that the case had been “botched”. While not malicious in their intent, the faculty immediately involved in the case represent prevailing university culture. This is an issue that needs to be meaningfully addressed, as mandated by Title IX regulations, to create a truly safe environment in which student victims may come forward and be wholly supported.
This case study of a student victim failed by the Department of chemical engineering also critically highlights a clear lack of leadership in those, that are endowed with the most trust to safeguard students’ health and safety. Specifically, in the (more than) two year period since the student’s disclosure, no corrective action to address this case or the implicit systemic issues has been taken--even when a faculty member has proposed that his failure be used as a teaching opportunity for others. Further, a Penn State employee that repeatedly raised concerns to multiple university offices about the Title IX mishandling and pervasive departmental culture was repeatedly ignored before being made ineligible for re-hire. In fact, on December 3rd, 2017, the chemical engineering department head Phil Savage contended,
The student was not given the opportunity to make up the coursework, thus failing to graduate. Without consent, the student’s name was disclosed to 25 faculty members and 53 Penn State employees were made aware of the events in its aftermath. Months later, the Title IX office’s (now former) attorney admitted that the case had been “botched”. While not malicious in their intent, the faculty immediately involved in the case represent prevailing university culture. This is an issue that needs to be meaningfully addressed, as mandated by Title IX regulations, to create a truly safe environment in which student victims may come forward and be wholly supported.
This case study of a student victim failed by the Department of chemical engineering also critically highlights a clear lack of leadership in those, that are endowed with the most trust to safeguard students’ health and safety. Specifically, in the (more than) two year period since the student’s disclosure, no corrective action to address this case or the implicit systemic issues has been taken--even when a faculty member has proposed that his failure be used as a teaching opportunity for others. Further, a Penn State employee that repeatedly raised concerns to multiple university offices about the Title IX mishandling and pervasive departmental culture was repeatedly ignored before being made ineligible for re-hire. In fact, on December 3rd, 2017, the chemical engineering department head Phil Savage contended,
"The department has received no criticism or concerns from the Title IX office or any other office at PSU [Pennsylvania State University] regarding its handling of any issues related to sexual misconduct or Title IX cases. Assertions to the contrary are without merit."
It took 1 courageous student victim to come forward, disclose, and ask for support. It took 6 Penn State employees to fail that student in less than 19 days. It has taken 53 Penn State current and former employees cumulatively aware of these events to continue to fail the culture for more than 2 years by ultimately doing nothing to change. This video, posted February 27th, 2015, depicts University President Eric Barron accepting all of the recommendations proposed by the Sexual Assault Task Force. Barron states,
As a member of our community, I’m asking you to take on the weighty responsibility of educating others, reporting issues, preventing harm, and fostering a culture that prioritizes consent and respect… I’m setting our community on a path to create an environment in which sexual misconduct is unacceptable, reporting is encouraged, and survivors are supported to the fullest.
The case study herein (see full PDF below) evidences that this “weighty responsibility” is not something university leadership prioritizes in its own practices.
The PDF displayed below via scribd platform is also available at THIS LINK and the download link below.
The PDF displayed below via scribd platform is also available at THIS LINK and the download link below.
| __20190520_swept_under_the_psu_rug__part_i_-_title_ix_final.pdf |
