Minutes of the 2/18/21 CCSRM Meeting

February 18, 2021

9:00 a.m. Zoom

Call to order: 9:05 a.m.

1. Welcome
2. Introductions/Attendance: Alexandra Fulcher, Andrea Boyle, Avanti Puri, Christopher Arguedas, Elizabeth Braker, Isaiah Thomas, Jacalyn Feigelman, James Tranquada, Junko Anderson, Kim Lundy, Marianne Frapwell, Rick Tanksley, Robert Bartlett, Tiffany Mendez, Vivian Garay Santiago
3. Updates
   1. Spring Climate Survey
      1. After meeting with Jackie Cameron again, future of mega survey is unclear, so we will be sending out questions related to remote learning with part two of EverFi Sexual Assault Prevention courses.
      2. Proposed Questions:
         1. Since starting remote learning, have you experienced sexual assault, non-consensual sexual contact, dating violence, domestic violence, or stalking?
            1. No
            2. Yes, on the Oxy campus 
            3. Yes, online (including online classrooms)
            4. Yes, off campus, at an apartment, house, or another location in the Los Angeles area
            5. Yes, off campus, while outside of the Los Angeles area
            6. Not sure
            7. Prefer not to answer
         2. Since starting remote learning, have you experienced sexual or gender-based harassment?
            1. No
            2. Yes, on the Oxy campus 
            3. Yes, online (including online classrooms)
            4. Yes, off campus, at an apartment, house, or another location in the Los Angeles area
            5. Yes, off campus, while outside of the Los Angeles area
            6. Not sure
            7. Prefer not to answer
         3. If Yes to Question 1 and/or 2, did you file a report about this conduct to any of the following entities? 
            1. No
            2. Campus administrator (e.g., Title IX Coordinator, Student Conduct officer)
            3. Campus police/security or local police (county, city, state)
            4. Campus confidential resource (Survivor Advocate, Emmons Counselor, Religious & Spiritual Life, 24/7 Hotline)
         4. If you did not file a report, why was this the case? 
            1. It occurred outside of the Los Angeles area, so I didn’t think the College could help
            2. I was ashamed/embarrassed
            3. It’s a private matter—wanted to deal with it on my own
            4. I was concerned others would find out
            5. I didn’t want the person who did it to get in trouble
            6. I was afraid of not being believed
            7. I didn’t think what happened was serious enough to talk about
            8.  I didn’t think others would understand
            9. I didn’t have time to deal with it due to academics, work, etc.
            10. I didn’t know the reporting procedure at my school
            11. I wanted to forget it happened
            12. Other (please describe the reason in your response to question 5)
         5. If your reason for not reporting the incident was not included in the list above, please describe the reason here. 
      3. Future surveys to be administered, ideally, in the fall every other year
         1. Homegrown survey vs. HEDS survey 
         2. Create a Climate Survey working group to meet over the summer to assess whether it is best to have a homegrown survey or the HEDS survey we have been using previously and create questions for the survey if doing homegrown survey
   2. Spring Road Show
      1. First Years - Last training with Student Engagement Assistants today
      2. Faculty - Introducing ourselves at faculty meeting today - give heads up about reaching out to individual departments and offer ourselves to meet with their classes
4. SB 493 Requirements
   1. Copy in Shared Drive
   2. Highlighted provisions that either we are not currently doing, or need to amend the policy to reflect
      1. Examples: making sure we provide a notice of nondiscrimination to volunteers and independent contractors, add statement to the policy that the disciplinary resolution process is not adversarial in nature, cannot automatically implement mutual no contact orders, cannot allow mediation of cases involving sexual violence
      2. Some provisions conflict with the federal regulations, but the bill provides that any provisions in conflict with federal law on the date of implementation shall be rendered inoperative without affecting the rest of the bill. Example: provision stating that cross examination in a hearing cannot be conducted by a party or a party’s advisor. 
5. Policy Revision Working Group 
   1. Meet over summer and fall to ensure compliance with SB 493 and any new regulations/guidance from department of education. SB 493 revisions deadline: January 1, 2022.
6. Prohibited Relationships by Persons in Authority Review
   1. Currently, the policy only explicitly prohibits relationships where there is a direct supervisory or evaluative role over the other party (page 16 of policy)
   2. For consideration: faculty/staff prohibited from engaging in relationships with students. 
      1. Possible exemptions: The relationship existed prior to the implementation of the revised regulation. 2) The relationship existed prior to a change in either partner’s status. 3) Staff or faculty member in a consensual relationship with a nontraditional undergraduate student. 4) The president retains discretion and authority to grant exemptions in other individual situations that appear to be “exceptional” according to their professional judgment.
      2. Many other institutions have moved to prohibiting relationship between faculty/staff and students outright: Swarthmore, Pomona, Wellesley, Skidmore, Wesleyan, Stanford
   3. Discussion:
      1. Tabled until March meeting