Skip to content. | Skip to navigation

Personal tools

GSE&IS Resources

Navigation

You are here: Home / Incident Resolution
This is UNI Plone Theme

Incident Resolution

Creating a Culture of Advocacy and Accountability

Advocacy and Accountability


 

Welcome to the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies (GSE&IS) Advocacy and Accountability pages, including an Incident Resolution portal and a Continuous Improvement portal.  This website is designed to assist students, faculty, and staff to: (1) make suggestions to improve our community; (2) report hostile or disruptive incidents experienced in the context of your work at GSE&IS both safely and anonymously; (3) serve as an online compendium of campus-based resources and services readily accessible to our community members; and (4) offer a dedicated space in which to communicate current and on-going diversity initiatives by GSE&IS intended to make our internal teaching, learning and work climates more welcoming and inclusive. 

What Is a Culture of Advocacy & Accountability

The Graduate School of Education & Information Studies is dedicated to creating an institutional culture of advocacy and accountability; one that is in line with GSE&IS' commitment to scholarly rigor, social justice, inclusiveness, and democratic practice.  This institutional imperative requires that we not only instill these values in our teaching and learning, but in our organizational practices as well.

The reality is that, despite our best intentions, maintaining the highest level of institutional quality and support is an aspirational ideal to strive and constantly improve. There will always be moments in which an organization will fall short of its goals.  And no matter how good an organization we’ve created at GSE&IS, we can, and should, always strive for continual self-reflection and improvement, particularly in providing a welcoming and supportive intellectual and professional environment for all GSE&IS students, staff, and faculty.

What we cannot tolerate are acts of hostility and bias that disrupt a person’s ability to fully and safely participate in the scholarly and professional work of our community.   Hostile acts are understood as any demeaning, derogatory or otherwise offensive behavior directed toward any individual on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion or other group characteristics. Such behavior runs contradictory to the institutional values that matter most to us as GSE&IS community members.

 

GSE&IS' New Incident Resolution Portal (IRP): A First Step

A culture of advocacy and accountability reflects GSE&IS' comprehensive approach to creating a rigorous, safe, respectful, and supportive institutional climate. We aim to accomplish this by:  (1) maintaining organizational transparency,  (2) establishing a responsive, safe, and timely incident resolution process, and (3) building trust through a balance of advocacy for the aggrieved as well as ensuring proper due process for those accused.

In keeping with these institutional commitments, we have developed the GSE&IS Incident Resolution Portal (IRP).  IRP serves three important functions: First, community members can initiate a formal complaint process safely and anonymously through the portal's incident reporting feature.  More specific information on the specific steps involved in this process can be found via the following link: Registering A Incident:  An Explanation of the GSE&IS Incident Reporting Process.

IRP also provides an opportunity to make suggestions for improving your GSE&IS experience.  If you are a student or faculty member and wish to make a suggestion to improve any aspect of teaching, mentoring or student or faculty life, please go to our "Continuous Improvement" page.  If you are a staff member and have an idea about any part of our operations that could be better, please visit ur "Continuous Improvement" page.

IRP also provides a valuable compendium of campus and system-wide resources for those seeking mediation, redress or less formal guidance from sources outside of Moore Hall. While we strongly encourage community members to report incidents using the options available within Moore,  there may be instances where this is simply not prudent. The following links highlight the wide range of resources available to all members of the UCLA community as well as services catering to the specific concerns of particular campus constituencies (i.e. faculty, staff, and students).

Incident Resolution Process

GSE&IS Incident Resolution Process

 

Introduction:  Community Expectations

We expect all members of the GSE&IS community to behave with the highest degree of integrity at all times.  We define this idea of integrity as engaging in decision-making and day-to-day interactions guided by principles of honesty, fairness, trust, and respect.  When a community member fails to meet these operating standards, we must as an institution assess potential transgressions in a timely, sensitive and fair manner.

    Incident Resolution Procedures

    The GSE&IS reporting procedures outlined below serve as the framework for a fair, objective, and trustworthy resolution/redress process.

    It is often the case, however, that a large number of disputes can be resolved when addressed informally. We encourage those who are alleging misconduct to consider local resolution of the problem before initiating an inquiry through IRP.  If, however, attempts to resolve the problem prove unsuccessful or the situation continues, IRP serves as the next step in the resolution, adjudication, and/or mediation process.

    Those planning to submit an Incident Report form must also agree to see the GSE&IS process through before filing formal complaints with other UCLA offices. Filing complaints with multiple entities leads to a duplication of effort and could ultimately undermine the integrity of your case's resolution/redress process.

    Issuing an Incident Report:  The Step-by-Step Process


    STEP ONE:  INITIATING A COMPLAINT

    Any GSE&IS community member who wishes to report a hostile incident can do so, by completing the "GSE&IS Incident Report".  Once the form is completed and submitted, it will be reviewed by the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity.

    STEP TWO:  GSE&IS' OFFICIAL RESPONSE/FOLLOW-UP

    Upon receipt of the completed Incident Report, the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity has up to two weeks to respond. If, however, your request requires more immediate action, please be sure to check the "expedited review" box found on the Incident Report form and provide a brief written explanation for your request. The Associate Dean's office will be in contact as soon as they're able in order to determine further follow-up action.  If you feel that you or others are being threatened with immediate harm, please refer your complaint to the UCLA Police Department.

    STEP THREE:  JOINT DETERMINATION OF NEXT STEPS

    At some point within the two-week response window, the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity will be in contact to schedule a face-to-face meeting.  At the meeting,  you will be asked to review the specifics of the incident and to discuss options for further action.  Options for resolution/redress may include one or more of the following:  (1) Informal mediation between parties; (2) Further investigation into the incident; (3) Recommendations for involvement by offices external to GSE&IS; (4) Resolution of the complaint.

    STEP FOUR:  FINAL DETERMINATION AND APPEAL

    Once the subsequent investigation has been completed to the satisfaction of the investigating body, the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity, the merits of the complaint will be evaluated within the context of UCLA and GSE&IS policy. When appropriate, a remedy will be recommended. The remedy will be addressed in writing no later than the end of the quarter following the submission of the original complaint.

    If the grievant is not satisfied with this decision, he or she may appeal in writing to the GSE&IS Dean. This appeal must be submitted to the Dean within 30 working days of the decision.  The Dean will, in turn, have approximately 30 days in which to decide on the matter.

    What you can expect from the GSE&IS Resolution/Redress Process

    1.  Once submitted, your Incident Report will be handled safely, anonymously, and judiciously;

    2.  Your complaint will NEVER be included in your permanent student or personnel records;

    3.  As the aggrieved, you have the right to stop the resolution/redress process at any time.  This is true in all situations except in cases where potential harm could come to you or someone else;

    4.  The Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity may invite third-party campus entities into the resolution/redress process at the permission of the initiating party;

    5.  You will always retain the right to appeal any final determination in the GSE&IS' resolution/redress process.

    A Message from the Dean

    Dear Members of the GSE&IS Community,

    I am pleased to share the Final Report of the GSE&IS Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations. I am grateful to the Committee for their hard work and important recommendations. I believe that the Final Report provides a blueprint for establishing a “climate of respect, safety, and support for our students, staff, administration, and faculty” and “give guidance to the questions surrounding the race, ethnic, gender, sexuality, and disability climate” at GSE&IS.

    I look forward to working closely with Professor Daniel Solórzano, our inaugural Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity and Chief Diversity Officer (CDO) at GSE&IS. 

    As noted in a prior communication to the entire GSE&IS community, as Associate Dean and Chief Diversity officer Professor Solórzano "will be working closely with the me and the GSE&IS community, inter alia, in implementing the valuable recommendations of the Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations. Furthermore, he will be responsible for conceptualizing, nurturing, and ensuring the establishment of mechanisms and structures to support a rigorous and respectful race, ethnic, gender, sexuality, and disability climate at GSE&IS.  He will be an architect, along with the soon to be established GSE&IS Standing Committee on Equity and Diversity, drawing policies, procedures, and norms for the scholarly and civil discourse on matters related to racial, ethnic, sex, gender and disability at the GSE&IS. As Associate Dean and CDO Professor Solórzano will be working with the Dean and the Standing Committee on a variety of fronts including developing workshops, conferences, and speaker series to further the scholarly engagement with diversity and equity and to build best practices for work on matters of race, ethnic, gender, sexuality, religion and disability bias embodying the highest standards of scholarly inquiry."  

    In reading the reports, in visits with the Committee, in multiple on-going conversations with students, staff, administrators and faculty members, I am reminded that scholarly inquiry must be built on foundations of respect, rigor and reflexivity. Without these fundamentals, our fragile edifice of learning and teaching is undermined, our vision is blurred and our mission becomes an elusive mirage. Together, as a community, we must redouble our work towards creating a more just, equitable, and inclusive GSE&IS. 

    I am most grateful to Danny and to the entire membership of the Committee for their important work. The entire GSE&IS community joins me in thanking the Committee for its seriousness of purpose, broad and disciplined thinking, intelligent, ethical, and humane recommendations. 

    The important work lies ahead. 

    Sincerely yours, 

    Marcelo M. Suárez-Orozco

    Dean and Distinguished Professor of Education

    Campus and System-Wide Resources

    Campus and System-Wide Resources

     

    There are any number of support services available to those within the broader UCLA community who seeking external guidance.  For a complete listing of these offices, scroll down.

     

    UCLA Office of Ombuds Services 

    www.ombuds.ucla.edu/

    The Office of Ombuds Services mission serves as a safe space in which all members of the UCLA community can go for assistance in resolving conflicts, disputes, or in resolving a wide variety of complaints.  As a primary resource for campus mediation services, it operates in an independent, neutral and confidential fashion.  The Ombuds office is located at the Strathmore Building, 501 Westwood Plaza, Suite 105.  Phone: 310 / 825-7627.  Hours are 8 am–5pm, Monday–Friday or by appointment

     

    UCLA Police Department

    http://map.ais.ucla.edu/go/police

    In cases where you feel criminality is involved, you are encouraged to file a report with the UCLA Police Department. UCPD is headquartered at 601 Westwood Plaza
    Los Angeles, CA 90095-1364.  Their phone number is (310) 825-1491.  They also maintain an anonymous message/tip line:  (310) 794-5824

     

    American Disabilities Act & 504 Compliance Office

    http://www.ada.ucla.edu/

    The ADA & 504 Compliance Office is responsible for ensuring the university fully complies with all provisions of the American with Disabilities Act.  They also maintain a grievance procedure in cases where the university fails to meet ADA requirements.  You must contact an ADA & 504 Compliance Officer for specific filing instructions (http://www.ada.ucla.edu/contactus3.html).

     

    Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center
    www.lgbt.ucla.edu/

    In addition to provide a wide range of support services UCLA’s LGBT community, The LGBT Resource Center provides confidential assistance and support to students, faculty, and staff who feel they have experienced harassment or discrimination, or who have questions round issues of health, housing, financial aid, classroom, and personnel. The LGBT Resource Center is located at 220 Westwood Plaza B36 in the Student Activities Center.  Phone:  (310) 206-362.  Their hours of operation during the academic year are Monday-Thursday 8:30 am - 6 pm and Friday 8:30 am - 5 pm.

     

    Campus Assault Resources and Education (CARE) Office

    http://www.counseling.ucla.edu/care/

    CARE represents a safe space for survivors of sexual assault.  In addition to offering reporting services, they serve as an advocacy resource and help to guide individuals through the adjudication process.  CARE is located in The Counseling Center at Wooden Center West.

     

    Sexual Harassment Prevention Office

    http://www.sexualharassment.ucla.edu/

    The Sexual Harassment Prevention Office assists members of the UCLA community in navigating campus sexual harassment reporting procedures.

     

    Academic Senate Charges Committee

    http://www.senate.ucla.edu/committees/charges/

    The Academic Senate’s Charges Committee investigates complaints made against faculty members.  These complaints must concern a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct (which includes the sexual harassment policy).  This committee determines if there is sufficient evidence for a hearing to be held by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.  To initiate a complaint individuals must submit a written statement to the charges committee, which the chair will review to determine if all other college and department level administrative procedure have been exhausted. The chair conducts a preliminary investigation and presents their findings to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.  Typical grievances filed with the charges committee include issues with faculty teaching, discrimination (both against students and other faculty), sexual harassment, issues of academic integrity, salary related issues and workplace inequities.

     

    UCLA Whistleblowers Hotline

    https://secure.ethicspoint.com/domain/media/en/gui/23531/location.html?cid=23933

    In cases where fraud and/or unethical activity needs to be reported, you can do so anonymously via the confidential Whistleblowers Confidential Hotline: 800-403-4744.

     

    University of California Reporting Site
    https://ucsystems.ethicspointvp.com/custom/ucs_ccc/

    Consistent with the UC’s ongoing commitment to creating learning and work spaces free from discrimination, intolerance and hate, the UC has created a systems-wide form for reporting hostile incidents on UC campuses.  These include the following:

    • Expressions of Bias
    • Hate Speech
    • Hate Crime
    • Graffiti/Vandalism
    • Intimidation, Bullying or Physical Violence
    • Bias Incidents
    • Hostile Climate
    • Other Campus Climate Issues

    All members of the UC community are welcome to file a report with formal follow-up guaranteed within two weeks.

     

     

     

      Campus Resources for GSE&IS Graduate Students

      UCLA Legal Services

      UCLA Student Legal Services is located in A239 Murphy Hall.

      UCLA Student Legal Services (SLS) provide confidential* legal counseling and assistance regarding a wide range of legal issues to all currently registered and enrolled UCLA students. SLS is able to help students with a variety of problems, including: Landlord/Tenant Relations, Accident and Injury Problems, Domestic Violence and Harassment, Criminal Matters, Divorces and Other Family Law Matter, Automobile Purchases, Credit, Collections, and Financial Issues, Employment Matters, and Health Care and Consumer Problems.

      UCLA Student Legal Services also frequently assist students with issues they have with other UCLA departments in such areas as housing, financial aid, harassment, discrimination, ADA compliance, student discipline, and faculty misconduct. SLS gives students the information they need to assess their options and, in appropriate cases, will negotiate on behalf of the student, as well as draft letters and legal documents for the student. Students may make a an appointment by telephone or in person, and there is a $10 fee for the initial one-hour consultation with an experienced attorney. The office is open Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

      * All communications with the attorneys are subject to the attorney-client privilege, which means that the attorneys may not disclose anything that a client tells them unless the client authorizes them to do so. Students can talk about the most sensitive matters knowing that everything they say to the attorneys will never be discussed with anyone unless the students give their explicit permission. This highest level of confidentiality makes our office a very safe place for students to get help.

       

      Resources for Academic Student Employees

      UAW Local 2685, across the University of California system, including TAs, GSRs, Readers, and both undergraduate and graduate tutors. UCLA specific branch of UAW Local 2685 is Academic Student Employees (ASE). Their grievance procedure is Article 12 of the Contract on the following webpage:

       

      Article 12: Grievance and Arbitration

       

      For other related articles from the ASE contract, please visit for more information:

       Link to Academic Student Employee Contract

       

      www.brc.ucla.edu/

      Community Programs Office 
      www.communityprograms.ucla.edu/

      Counseling and Psychological Services 
      www.counseling.ucla.edu/

      Dashew Center for International Students and Scholars 

       

       

       

       

      UCLA Procedure 220 - re student records

      http://www.adminpolicies.ucla.edu/app/Default.aspx?&id=220-1

       

      UCLA Procedure 230.1 – re discrimination

      http://www.adminpolicies.ucla.edu/app/Default.aspx?&id=230-1

       

      UCLA Senate Reg. A-306 (d) – re grades

       http://www.senate.ucla.edu/FormsDocs/regs/ch1.htm#A306

       

      Graduate Division Standards and Procedures for Graduate Study at UCLA

       

      http://www.gdnet.ucla.edu/gasaa/library/spfgs.pdf

      Campus Resources for Ladder Faculty

      Charges Committee

      The Academic Senate’s Charges Committee investigates complaints made against faculty members.  These complaints must concern a violation of the Faculty Code of Conduct (which includes the sexual harassment policy).  This committee determines if there is sufficient evidence for a hearing to be held by the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.  To initiate a complaint individuals must submit a written statement to the charges committee, which the chair will review to determine if all other college and department level administrative procedure have been exhausted. The chair conducts a preliminary investigation and presents their findings to the Committee on Privilege and Tenure.  Typical grievances filed with the charges committee include issues with faculty teaching, discrimination (both against students and other faculty), sexual harassment, issues of academic integrity, salary related issues and workplace inequities.


      SBL 335

      http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/manual/blpart3.html#b335

       

      Grievance Advisory Committee

       Office of Faculty Diversity and Development

      https://faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/

       

      Committee on Academic Personnel

      http://www.senate.ucla.edu/committees/cap/

       

      Council of Advisors

      https://faculty.diversity.ucla.edu/resources-for/mentoring

       

      UCLA Human Resources Conflict Resolution

      http://map.ais.ucla.edu/portal/site/UCLA/menuitem.3f8e7342ad4ca217b66d4ab4f848344a/?vgnextoid=dd0e94245b8f1010VgnVCM1000008f8443a4RCRD

      The UCLA Human Resources’ Conflict Resolution office is a valuable resource for all UCLA employees who may be facing harassment, discrimination, or violence in the workplace.   The office is also able to support the specific needs of the disabled as well as military veterans.  

       

      Policies & Statements

      UC Faculty Code of Conducthttp://www.ucop.edu/academic-personnel/_files/apm/apm-015.pdf

       

      UC Academic Senate Bylaws (see § 335. Privilege and Tenure: Divisional Committees -- Grievance Cases):  http://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/manual/blpart3.html#bl335

       

      Campus Resources for Non-Academic Senate Appointees

      Non-Academic Senate appointments represents a wide ranging assortment of positions within GSE&IS:  

      Grievances by Non-Senate Academic Appointees (Adjunct Faculty Only)

       The Academic Personnel Manual Policy 140 (APM 140) provides non-Senate academic appointees the opportunity to file grievances for acts that adversely affect an appointee’s terms and conditions of employment.  The APM 140 Policy and the complaint form are located at the following web sites:  Complaints should be filed with:  Jane Lopatt, Grievance Liaison, University Of California, 3149 Murphy Hall, Box 951405, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1405.  Phone: (310) 825-7777; Email: jlopatt@conet.ucla.edu

      Additional Resources:

      UC Grievance Policy for Non-Academic Appointees 

      UC Non-Academic Senate APM 140 Complaint Form 

       

      Available Resources for Post-Doctoral Appointees

      United Auto Workers 5810 (UAW 5810)

      Post-doctoral researchers seeking support in the resolution of a workplace grievance are encouraged to contact their designated union, UAW 5810. A key function of the UAW 5810 is to ensure the implementation (and compliance) of the union's negotiated labor contract and the obligations therein.  Per the UAW contract, "(a) written grievance must be filed with the campus labor relations office on the grievance form agreed to by the parties (Appendix E) within thirty (30) calendar days from the date on which either the grievant or her/his representative knew or could have been expected to know of the event or action which gave rise to the grievance.”  To initiate a formal complaint process through the union, click here.

       

      Additional Resources:

      "Know Your Rights":  Summary of UAW Postdoctoral Contract

      UAW 5810 Labor Contract: Stipulations for Postdoctoral Grievance Process

      Campus Resources for Administrative and Professional Staff Resources

      University staff have access to a number of different resources to help them in navigating the resolution/redress process.  These include support services offered through UCLA Human Resources.  Unionized staff are encouraged to contact their specific union representation.  If you are unclear as to whether you current classification falls within the union/non-union category, contact your Human Resources representative or refer to the UCOP Labor Relations page by clicking here.

      UCLA Human Resources Conflict Resolution

      http://map.ais.ucla.edu/portal/site/UCLA/menuitem.3f8e7342ad4ca217b66d4ab4f848344a/?vgnextoid=dd0e94245b8f1010VgnVCM1000008f8443a4RCRD

      The UCLA Human Resources’ Conflict Resolution office is a valuable resource for all UCLA employees who may be facing harassment, discrimination, or violence in the workplace.   The office is also able to support the specific needs of the disabled as well as military veterans.   

       

      1. Non‐represented staff:

      PPSM 70

      http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_

      relations/personnel_policies/spp70.html

      2. Represented Staff:

      Union Contracts

      http://atyourservice.ucop.edu/employees/policies_employee_labor_

      relations/collective_bargaining_agreements.html

      Final Report of the GSE&IS Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations

      Committee Members:

      Professor Daniel Solorzano, Education Department, Chair of the Committee

      Sayil Camacho, Graduate Student, Education Department

      William Dandridge, Chief Financial Officer, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies

      Professor Johanna Drucker, Information Studies Department

      Alma Flores, Graduate Student, Education Department

      Professor Annamarie Francois, Director of Teacher Education Program

      Patricia Garcia, Graduate Student, Information Studies Department

      Professor Sandra Graham, Education Department

      Timothy Ho, Graduate Student, Education Department

      Professor Tyrone Howard, Education Department

      Professor Sylvia Hurtado, Education Department

      Professor Anne Gilliland, Information Studies Department

      Professor Patricia McDonough, Education Department

      Professor John Rogers, Education Department

      Professor Robert Teranishi, Education Department

      Professor Noreen Webb, Education Department

      Brian Woodward, Graduate Student, Education Department

       

      Committee Staff:

       

      Cassandra Gonzalez, Committee Administrative Assistant

      Kenjus Watson, Committee Graduate Student Researcher

       

       

       

       

      June 2014

       


       

      Prologue

       

      The Graduate School of Education and Information Studies prides itself on its social justice mission and the abiding commitment to researching and providing evidence-based strategies to remedy inequity in Education and Information Studies.  Our mission is dedicated to:

       

      “…inquiry, the advancement of knowledge, the improvement of professional practice, and service to the education and information professions.  We develop future generations of scholars, teachers, information professionals, and institutional leaders.  Our work is guided by the principles of individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of caring, and commitment to the communities we serve.”

       

      These unique commitments represent our collective strivings to build and sustain inclusive, fruitful, and democratic learning spaces for our faculty, staff, and students.  In turn, we believe the GSE&IS is a uniquely positioned social and public institution in the United States.

       

      GSE&IS faculty conduct cutting edge research and teach with immediacy on relevant issues of inequity in Education and Information Studies.  GSE&IS staff work collaboratively and offer a myriad of intentional and engaged support for their colleagues.  The GSE&IS student body is one of the most diverse in the nation, generates research that impacts educational policy, and intellectual achievement.  However, as several GSE&IS scholars[1] noted some time ago, we understand that progressive intentions and representative diversity are necessary, yet ultimately insufficient organizational characteristics to ensure positive racial climates.  In fact, general interactions may be more conflict-laden and damaging if multicultural communities are not equipped to engage intergroup issues of diversity and equity intentionally and honestly.

       

      In the Fall of 2013 three events occurred on the UCLA campus.

       

      • On October 15, 2013 the Moreno Report or the “Independent Investigative Report on Acts of Bias and Discrimination Involving Faculty at the University of California, Los Angeles” was released.  The Report found that “widespread concern among faculty members that the racial climate at UCLA had deteriorated over time, and that the university’s policies and procedures are inadequate to respond to reports of incidents of bias and discrimination.”

       

      • On November 8, 2013, the “Black Bruins” video was released on-line.  This five-minute video highlighted the small numbers of Black males on the UCLA campus (3.3% of all undergraduate and graduate males at UCLA) as well as the negative racial experiences that many encounter in everyday incidents on and off campus.

       

      • On Thursday November 14, 2013 a group of education graduate students named “Call 2 Action: Graduate Students of Color in Education” read a “Day of Action Statement” in a graduate level class and led a teach-in.  In part the statement read: “as a formal complaint of a hostile racial climate that we have been subjected to, and request that this be investigated and that appropriate actions, as suggested, be taken.”  Throughout the statement students documented their experiences in the class during the Fall quarter.[2]  This student action became the basis for the administrative and faculty response of Graduate School of Education and Information Studies (GSEIS) that follows.

       

      While these three events are not exhaustive, they can speak to a pattern of overt incidents on college campuses that researchers have referred to as the campus racial climate.  In addition, these three examples don’t explicitly acknowledge the covert incidents that happen away from the news media or in the general public square both on and off the university campus.

       

      On Saturday November 23, 2013, (within nine days of the Nov. 14th Teach-in) the Chair of the Education Department, Louis Gomez, sent an email to selected faculty in the Department.  It stated: “Marcelo [Dean of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies] and I would like your help to understand and improve the racial/ethnic social climate in our Department.”  On December 5th, Chair Gomez (on behalf of Dean Suarez-Orozco) sent an email to the Education and Information Studies faculty announcing the formation of the Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations (CRER).  It stated:

       

      "The committee is charged with examining all aspects of GSE&IS’s operations and culture from the perspective of race and ethnic relations.  You are especially charged to speak to a very broad range of students, faculty and staff.  You are further charged with reporting to Chairs and to the Dean on these matters.  Should you identify aspects of GSE&IS operations, culture or both, either in GSE&IS in its entirety, or at the Department or Division levels, that contribute to an unhealthy climate for racial and ethnic relations, you also charged with making suggestions for repair to the Department Chairs and to Dean Suárez-Orozco.  The work is to begin immediately.  The work of this committee will conclude on June 30, 2014.  This committee charged with making three reports, all of which aim to ensure that the School understands the committee’s progress, between now and June 30,2014 and to ensure that the committee is comprehensive in its analysis of current conditions and potential remedies.  The reports from the committee will include (1) A brief, early view, temperature-of-the-department by January 31,2014, (2) A brief mid-course report by March 15, 2014 and (3) A final report by June 30, 2014.  Moving forward, aided by the Committee’s efforts, GSE&IS shall re-double its efforts to nurture a climate of respect, rigor and reflexivity in all scholarly and interpersonal interactions."

       

      It is within this context that the GSE&IS Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations began its work.

       

      The Work of the Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations

       

      The GSE&IS Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations held its first meeting at the beginning of the Winter 2014 Quarter on January 8th.  We discussed the issues and events that lead to the establishment of the Committee, along with the Committee’s Charge and Milestones, and how the Committee would meets its Charge generally and the first Charge in particular—A brief, early view, temperature-of-the-department by January 31,2014.  The First Report of the Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations (below) was sent to Dean Marcelo Suárez-Orozco, Chair of the Education Department, Louis Gomez, and Chair of the Information Studies Department Gregory Leazer on February 8, 2014.

       

      ______________________________________________________________________________

       

      The First Report of the Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations

       

      The Graduate School of Education and Information Studies (GSE&IS) prides itself on its social justice mission and the abiding commitment to researching and providing evidence-based strategies to remedy inequity in education and information studies.  Recently, a group of our students have courageously challenged us to reflect on how we enact this mission in our own community. We owe these students a debt of thanks.  We, the student and faculty members of the Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations (hereafter, Committee), enthusiastically undertake our charge to investigate conditions that enhance or undermine an inclusive and supportive climate in GSE&IS that builds capacity for high quality research on educational equity and critical understandings of racism.  We charge ourselves with the responsibility to make actionable recommendations to the GSE&IS in order to create classrooms and other learning spaces that are simultaneously brave and safe.

       

      We want to remind us all of GSE&IS’ Mission, which is dedicated to:

       

      …inquiry, the advancement of knowledge, the improvement of professional practice, and service to the education and information professions.  We develop future generations of scholars, teachers, information professionals, and institutional leaders.  Our work is guided by the principles of individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of caring, and commitment to the communities we serve.

       

      Since we take our Mission and value statements to heart, we are approaching this investigation into student claims of a hostile learning environment as an occasion for learning and growth.  We intend to cast our net widely.  The Committee will be assessing if we have (as we say in our GSE&IS value statement) created democratic environments where students can:

      • systematically pursue new knowledge and its application;
      • meet high academic standards and integrity;
      • participate in an intellectually open, collaborative, and collegial environment;
      • have the freedom to pursue one’s intellectual passions;
      • be encouraged to consider multiple points of view and rival hypotheses; and
      • benefit from a nurturing, caring, and empowering  professional environment.

       

      In assessing how GSE&IS supports students, we will be investigating the processes of graduate training.  We plan to identify prevailing norms for having open and challenging (but not debilitating) discussions, and how those norms are conveyed, displayed and modeled.  GSE&IS has long been enthusiastically committed to reflecting on our pedagogical success and missteps, and elevating the state of our pedagogical practice.

       

      Some of our community’s perspectives on our racial and ethnic climate have been covered by web media, which has unfairly reduced the students’ legitimate concerns over the faculty engagement in research proposal conceptualization and design to merely problems of grammar and inadequate student preparation for graduate work.  We stand by all the students in our programs as being capable and owning their place at our table.  Many of the web comments have vilified our students, while other GSE&IS students have come forward with additional claims of a hostile learning climate.

       

      Any incident or experience shared by a community will always generate multiple narratives, each of which has the right to be respected and validated as an experience of events.  No single version of any incident is a full explanation of a complex situation, particularly one that carries the heavy weight of issues emotionally charged by historical legacies of racism, power imbalance, and systematic abuses that often go unrecognized and without articulation in our culture.  But no matter what the inequities are that need to be addressed and understood within complex and subtle perceptions, some behaviors are categorically intolerable in this community, and any community based on an ethic of respect, social justice, and fundamental values of fairness.  Any activity, speech, or behavior that has even a whiff of hate, retaliation, or ad hominem attack will not and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

       

      GSE&IS is a social and public institution in today’s America.  As such, addressing and discussing issues of race and ethnicity are often difficult and painful.  Because of the common conditions of pain and difficulties in talking about race and racism, most of America avoids these discussions.  We don’t and won’t.  We welcome the opportunity to step up to the leadership role that accompanies our social justice mission to work on remedying the unsafe and not brave learning spaces within our community and pledge to improving our pedagogical practices and classrooms so that all our students feel their work is valued.  The faculty are committed to supporting students through their graduate studies, and together we will create safe and productive classroom spaces.

       

      Our commitment to the broader community, as expressed in our Mission and Values webpage (http://gseis.ucla.edu/about/mission-values), states that we value the pursuit of social justice as we look at the research agendas of our faculty and students, the missions of our research centers and institutes, and the pedagogical practices in our classrooms.  Starting from the GSE&IS Mission and Values, we provide an initial “brief, early view, temperature-of-the-department/school” by exploring the following areas.

       

      Teaching and Mentoring: In the weeks ahead, the Committee will be exploring the need for professional development for faculty around issues of race based epistemology, theory, methodology, and pedagogy.  In our discussions so far, we have talked about the difference between disagreeing and being dismissive with each other on issues of race and ethnic relations.  We have discussed the importance of recognizing the differential faculty/student power dynamics inside and outside the classroom and how these power dynamics carry over to student/student interaction.  We have talked about the importance of the ethic of respect for each other (i.e. faculty, students, staff) in these contexts.  We have asked ourselves these questions:

      1. How can we create spaces where conversations on race and racism (and other forms of marginality) can happen in a constructive way?
      2. How do we have more inclusive discussions on the various theoretical and methodological frameworks that deal with issues of race and ethnic relations?
      3. How we challenge an intellectual/classroom culture where it’s OK to disrespect and dismiss issues of race and ethnic relations?
      4. How do we emphasize the importance of dialogue (deep conversations leading to a robust learning experiences) around issues of race and ethnic relations?
      5. How do we take our pedagogy more seriously—especially around issues of race and ethnic relations?
      6. How can we make an ethic of respect the core of our pedagogy?

       

      Answers to these and other questions will come in discussions with faculty and students in various forms of professional development, faculty meetings, GSE&IS Town Halls, and in classrooms.

       

      GSE&IS Racial Climate: The Committee plans to conduct a poll of students, faculty, and staff around issues of the race and ethnic climate.  In addition to providing us with critical and actionable information in the short term, the poll also will serve as a pilot for ongoing data collection that can be used to understand and improve our learning climate.  We also plan to consider using course evaluations to gauge the race and ethnic climate of the school.

       

      Grievance Process for Students:  At the moment, the GSE&IS doesn’t have a mechanism for students who have concerns with race and ethnic relations to go and seek redress.  The Committee agreed that this is an area for further investigation and we will pursue an analysis of policies and procedures within GSE&IS and in the university more broadly.  Also, do we need a process and structure that deals with the differential power dynamics for students who feel they are mistreated?  How do we deal with questions of student anonymity in the grievance process?  How do we deal with the vulnerability that students feel when are in situations where they are mistreated?  At some point, the GSE&IS faculty must meet and discuss the issues of student grievance.  Our Associate Dean, Pat McDonough, is working on this issue for the GSE&IS.  Also, the UCLA Moreno Implementation Committee and the UCOP Student-Administration Work Group on the Moreno Report are also working on this issue.  The work of the Committee should be aware of how these efforts are moving forward.

       

      Other Structural Issues.  The Committee has discussed other structural challenges that need to be addressed to ensure a positive learning environment for GSE&IS students.  For example, we recognize that too many of our students receive inadequate financial support, which undermines the development of our learning community.  The Committee also has discussed student-faculty ratios and their impact on our learning environments in and out of the classroom.  At future meetings we plan to explore further opportunities for enhancing student financial support and providing students with more faculty attention.

       

      Next Steps:  We agreed that these are not mutually exclusive issues.  We want to understand and address the ways in which one problem may be leading to others.  For example, the faculty to student ratio may be impacting mentoring, classroom dynamics, and peer relationships, etc.  We agreed to continue our discussion of these and other issues as we move toward making these issues more specific and actionable.

       

      ______________________________________________________________________________

       

      The Committee continued its work to and to meet the second charge and provide “A brief mid-course report by March 15, 2014.”  After a series of meetings and discussions the Committee decided that the Second Report (below) would include a set of recommendations that the Dean, the Chairs of Education and Information Studies Departments, and the Chair of the Faculty Executive Committee could move on before the end of the 2013-14 academic year.  The Committee submitted the Second Report on May 5, 2014.

       

      ______________________________________________________________________________

       

      The Second Report of the Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations

       

      The Graduate School of Education and Information Studies (GSE&IS) prides itself on its social justice mission and the abiding commitment to researching and providing evidence-based strategies to remedy inequity in education and information studies.  Indeed, the GSE&IS Mission is dedicated to:

       

      …inquiry, the advancement of knowledge, the improvement of professional practice, and service to the education and information professions.  We develop future generations of scholars, teachers, information professionals, and institutional leaders.  Our work is guided by the principles of individual responsibility and social justice, an ethic of caring, and commitment to the communities we serve.

       

      Since we take our Mission and value statements to heart, we approached our task as an occasion for teaching, learning, and growth.  The Committee is presenting a set of recommendations that can create new and reinforce existing democratic environments where students can:

      • Systematically pursue new knowledge and its application;
      • Meet high academic standards and integrity;
      • Participate in an intellectually open, collaborative, and collegial environment;
      • Have the freedom to pursue one’s intellectual passions;
      • Be encouraged to consider multiple points of view and rival hypotheses; and
      • Benefit from a nurturing, caring, respectful, and empowering professional environment.

       

      Our commitment to the broader community, as expressed in our Mission and Values webpage (http://gseis.ucla.edu/about/mission-values), states that we value the pursuit of social justice as we look at the research agendas of our faculty and students, the missions of our research centers, institutes, programs, and the pedagogical practices in our classrooms.

       

      This 2nd Report has gone through a rigorous process of discussion, reflection, and revision to come to these seven recommendations.[3]  It is our hope these recommendations will move the GSE&IS forward as we create a climate of respect, safety, and support for our students, staff, administration, and faculty.  We believe that, when implemented, these recommendations will help answer and give guidance to some of the questions surrounding the race, ethnic, gender, sexuality, and disability climate laid out in the first report of the Committee.

       

      Recommendation #1—Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity/Chief Diversity Officer

       

      The GSE&IS Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations is recommending the establishment of an GSE&IS Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity along with the requisite responsibilities.  This person should be a ladder faculty member—preferably at the Professor rank.  While the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity would serve in the Dean’s Cabinet, she/he would also serve as the GSE&IS Chief Diversity Officer with direct line of communication with the UCLA Chief Diversity Officer(s).[4]  The Associate Dean would help shape policies, procedures, and practices related to racial/ethnic, and sex/gender equity and diversity in all units of the GSE&IS.[5]  The Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity would be responsible for and provide guidance in the implementation of Recommendations #2 through #7.  This position should have the essential resources for the Associate Dean to carry out her/his responsibilities.

       

      Recommendation #2—GSE&IS Committee on Equity and Diversity

       

      The Committee recommends the creation of a permanent GSE&IS Committee on Equity and Diversity.  This Committee will serve as the voice and action team on issues related to racial, ethnic, gender, sexuality, and disability bias, equity, and diversity in the GSE&IS.  This Committee will also advise the Dean, Dean’s Cabinet, Department Chairs, and Division/Program Heads on matters affecting recruitment, selection and retention of tenure and non-tenure track faculty to support the GSE&IS goals of equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice.  The members of the Committee will be made up of senate and non-senate faculty, staff, and students from both Departments and Professional Programs in the GSE&IS.  As with other standing Committees in the GSE&IS, members will be elected by their respective units.[6]  The Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity will co-chair the Committee along with another elected chair from the members of the Committee.  The Committee’s work will be reported on a regular basis to the faculty at the All Personnel Meetings (Fall and Winter) and when needed.

       

      Recommendation #3—GSE&IS Grievance Process

       

      The Committee recommends the development of a GSE&IS Grievance Process for students, staff, and faculty regarding incidents of racial, ethnic, gender, disability, religion, and sexuality bias.  This system is currently under development led by Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Patricia McDonough.  The Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations supports this effort.  We are recommending that the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity be responsible for the oversight and coordination of the GSE&IS Grievance Process.  The Associate Dean takes first responsibility for organizing a response to grievances in the GSE&IS.  Using data from the Grievance Process and other sources, the Associate Dean will also prepare a report at the end of each quarter cataloguing grievances and incidents of racial, ethnic, gender, sexuality, religion, and disability bias in the GSE&IS community.  The Associate Dean will share this Grievance Process with the GSE&IS community at Convocation at the beginning of each academic year and when needed.

       

      Recommendation #4—GSE&IS Climate Assessment

       

      The Committee recommends a regular on-going GSE&IS Climate Assessment.  With the consultation of the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity and the GSE&IS Committee on Equity and Diversity (Recommendation #2), this can take the form of surveys, focus groups, course evaluations, and other methods of assessment.  Students, staff, administration, and faculty will be asked to participate in assessing the race, ethnic, gender, sexuality, religion, and disability climate in the GSE&IS.  In addition to providing the GSE&IS with critical and actionable information, the assessment will also serve as an ongoing data collection process that can be used to understand and improve the teaching and learning climate of the GSE&IS.  The Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity and the GSE&IS Committee on Equity and Diversity will be responsible for planning and monitoring these regular on-going GSE&IS Climate Assessments.

       

      Recommendation #5—Professional Development

       

      The Committee recommends regular on-going Professional Development for all students, staff, administration, and faculty.  With the consultation of the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity and the GSE&IS Committee on Equity and Diversity, this Professional Development will focus on curricula, pedagogy, and mentoring issues related to racial, ethnic, gender, sexuality, religion, and disability bias, equity, and diversity in and out of the GSE&IS.  Through this Professional Development, the Associate Dean and GSE&IS Committee on Equity and Diversity will provide leadership and strategic direction in creating and nurturing a school climate that is welcoming, inclusive, respectful, just, and free from all forms of discrimination and harassment.  The Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity and the GSE&IS Committee on Equity and Diversity will be responsible for planning this Professional Development.

       

      Recommendation #6—GSE&IS Support for Students

       

      Students need an array of supports – financial, social, and academic – to pursue scholarly interests and contribute to a vibrant and collegial intellectual community.  This need is particularly felt amongst students who are first-generation college-goers, and hence strong supports are essential for advancing GSE&IS’s social justice mission.  The Committee recommends that the Dean establish a GSE&IS Committee to assess and report to the Dean on the sufficiency of financial support and the quality of faculty mentoring available to students across our educational programs.  This assessment should consider how financial support and mentoring differ across departments, divisions, and programs as well as how supports in GSE&IS compare with those provided to students at comparable institutions across the country.  We also believe this effort can be well-informed through consideration of the admissions process and how it intersects with issues of financial support, sufficient access to mentoring, and diversity throughout the school.

       

      Recommendation 7:  GSE&IS Support for Intellectual Engagement Around Issues of Diversity

       

      The Committee recommends that the Dean work with the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity and the GSE&IS Committee on Equity and Diversity to promote and incentivize intellectual opportunities (such as conferences, seminars, and/or speaker series) that bring together ladder and clinical faculty, doctoral and professional students, and staff to examine the meaning and possibilities of diversity in Education and Information Studies.

       

      We trust that action in this set of recommendations will move the GSE&IS forward in meeting our goals of equity, diversity, inclusion, and social justice.

       

      ______________________________________________________________________________

       

      Epilogue

       

      The students, staff, and faculty of the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies have and continue to go through a painful period in our history.  The leadership of the GSE&IS identified the racial climate challenges that emerged in the Fall Quarter and moved quickly and decisively to address them.  To meet those challenges, the Committee on Race and Ethnic Relations went through a rigorous process of discussion, reflection, and revision to produce the recommendations included in this Report.  It is the Committee’s expectation that this Final Report will serve as an equity, diversity, and social justice roadmap for the GSE&IS.  This Report and its recommendations are the continuing steps in the GSE&IS’s commitment to educational equity, diversity, and social justice in all aspects of our mission.



      [1] Hurtado, S., Milem, J., Clayton-Pedersen, A., & Allen, W.  (1999).  Enacting Diverse Learning Environments: Improving the Climate for Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Higher Education.  ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report Vol 26 No 8. Washington DC: The George Washington University, Graduate School of Education and Human Development.

      [2] UCLA defines underrepresented minorities as “domestic faculty or students identified as American Indian/Native American, African American/Black, Mexican American/Chicano, Latino/Other Hispanic, and Filipino.”  In 2011-12, 39% of the Education faculty and 42% of its graduate students were underrepresented minorities.  In addition, 41% of the faculty and 71% of the graduate students were women.  These numbers show that the Education Department is one of the most structurally diverse Departments at UCLA.  However, as the incidents on November 14th show, there is an area of academic diversity that the Department and the GSE&IS could work on.  As the student protest demonstrated, there can be a greater diversity and appreciation of various theoretical, methodological, or epistemological frameworks (e.g. critical, qualitative, and feminist).

      [3] The Committee may have additional recommendations as we move forward in our charge.

      [4] These UCLA Chief Diversity Officer(s) are yet to be established but as far as we know the GSE&IS and the Law School are the first units to be recommending this position along with its requisite responsibilities.

      [5] This would include issues related to faculty and student diversity.  For example, the Committee is recommending that the Department Chairs meet with the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity before Departmental searches begin.  Also, the Committee is recommending that all members of faculty search committees participate in the campus-wide diversity training  that now only includes search committee chairs.

      [6] In the first year (2014-15), the Committee will be appointed by the Departmental Chairs in consultation with the Associate Dean for Equity and Diversity.