In the year since the release of the Moreno Report, which revealed that UCLA has insufficient procedures to address discrimination among faculty, the university has been too slow in implementing vital elements of the report’s recommendations.
In order to demonstrate its commitment to tackling the vital problem of faculty discrimination, UCLA administration must move faster to adopt a clearer reporting procedure for faculty to respond to incidents of faculty bias and discrimination, like the one mentioned in the report, as a first step toward a more equitable campus climate.
The 2013 report found that the university failed in a number of key areas in how it dealt with faculty discrimination.The report also included a series of “practical, fiscally responsible, and realistic” recommendations about how to address faculty concerns.
UCLA administration has fully completed just a few of the recommendations made in the report. For one, Chancellor Gene Block sent out a letter in October 2013 which acknowledged the faculty concerns outlined in the report and stated a policy of zero tolerance toward incidents of faculty bias, discrimination and intolerance.
But the faculty still faces a winding bureaucratic process in its attempts to make and resolve incident reports.
First, there is little easily accessible information detailing the distinction between the simple reporting of a bias incident and the filing of a formal charge or grievance against another faculty member with the UCLA Academic Senate. Those are different types of reporting that entail different procedures and potential consequences, and that fact isn’t made clear.
Secondly, while there is a relatively simple pathway toward reporting incidents of bias – a link on the Diversity at UCLA page pulls up a form to fill out – there is little clear and accessible information about what happens once the report is filed. Essentially from the point of view of the reporter, after clicking “submit,” the report is sent out into the ether to make its way through the tangled webs of UCLA bureaucracy.
Filing a formal charge with the UCLA Academic Senate has the opposite problem: detailed flowcharts, that provide a step-by-step guide for the resolution of charges, exist. But actually finding the form to file a formal charge requires digging and there is no way to initiate the process online.
The still-present issues with reporting procedures appear to underline the UCLA administration’s cloudy commitment to combating faculty discrimination.
A statement by UCLA said the recently hired discrimination prevention officers are currently in the process of reviewing faculty discrimination reporting procedures, but changes to fix these problems don’t require a year and new staff positions to solve.
If UCLA is actually serious about fighting the faculty discrimination on campus, the solution has to be more tangible than empty words and more bureaucracy.