The models lay out the processes by which the university responds to allegations of sexual violence or sexual harassment involving faculty and non-faculty employees.
Under the UC Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment Policy (SVSH Policy), the campus Title IX office conducts a fair, thorough and impartial investigation to determine if the SVSH Policy was violated. Both the person who filed the complaint (complainant) and the person responding to allegations (respondent) are notified of the investigation’s findings and have the opportunity to submit a response.
If the investigation determines that the respondent violated the SVSH Policy, the process for resolution, including discipline, is as follows:
For faculty: The chancellor or his/her designee will consult with the location’s Peer Review Committee to advise on an appropriate resolution, including any disciplinary action. The Peer Review Committee helps ensure that resolutions in these cases are consistent, that appropriate action is taken to prevent and correct behavior that violates university policy, and that any discipline matches the seriousness of the violation. After consulting with the Peer Review Committee, the chancellor or his/her designee makes a determination on how to proceed, which may include filing a notice of charges with proposed sanction with the Academic Senate Privilege and Tenure Committee. In all cases, both the complainant and respondent are notified of the terms of the resolution, including any discipline.
For more information, read the Investigation and Adjudication Framework for Senate and Non-Senate Faculty.
For staff: The respondent’s supervisor will propose disciplinary or other action to the chancellor's designee(s). The chancellor’s designee will review for approval the proposed disciplinary action. The designee helps ensure that resolutions in these cases are consistent, that appropriate action is taken to prevent and correct behavior that violates university policy, and that any discipline matches the seriousness of the violation. Upon approval by the chancellor’s designee, the respondent's supervisor will implement the action, including any discipline. Both the complainant and respondent are notified of the action, including any discipline.
For more information, read the Investigation and Adjudication Framework for Staff and Non-Faculty Academic Personnel.
The investigation procedures for faculty and staff are the same, but the process for deciding discipline differs.
Faculty are subject to the Faculty Code of Conduct, and the UC model of shared governance gives faculty a role in advising the administration regarding appropriate discipline for other faculty members. There is no equivalent in the staff context, and disciplinary decisions have generally been made by the respondent’s supervisor.
Although the models differ between faculty and staff, both models set forth a fair and thorough process to promptly investigate and resolve reports of sexual violence and sexual harassment. Both models also provide for a deliberative disciplinary process to ensure that resolutions are consistent, that appropriate action is taken to prevent and correct behavior that violates university policy, and that any discipline matches the seriousness of the offenses. In both models, the chancellor or his/her designee(s) has a key role in determining what the disciplinary decision will be.
Both the faculty and staff models were developed after extensive consultation. The faculty model incorporates recommendations the president accepted from the Joint Committee of the Administration and Academic Senate, and the staff model incorporates recommendations the president accepted from the Committee on Sexual Violence Sexual Harassment Disciplinary Process for UC Personnel other than Faculty. Both committees had diverse membership, and solicited input and participation from a broad group of stakeholders. The frameworks are intended to address concerns raised by students, as well as by faculty and staff.
