Which Way UCLA?

For instructors, it's not just a simple matter like throwing a light switch.

The New York Times spotlights UC-Davis as deciding to live with the coronavirus in a profile of various universities:

Universities from Northeastern in Boston to the University of California-Davis have begun to discuss Covid in “endemic” terms — a shift from reacting to each spike of cases as a crisis to the reality of living with it daily. And in some cases, there has been backlash...

At University of California, Davis, Chancellor Gary S. May faced a strong negative reaction after a Dec. 30 statement in which he characterized the Omicron variant as “milder” and suggested a shift to “living with Covid-19 at an endemic level.”

Classes were expected to resume in person on Jan. 10. But a petition signed by 7,500 people, referencing Dr. May’s use of the term “endemic,” accused the university of “not prioritizing the immuno-compromised, the disabled, unvaccinated people, children, those who live with people from any of these groups, or the general health of the public.”

Most in-person classes have been delayed until Jan. 31. “People were sharing their concerns, and the campus leaders listened,” said Julia Ann Easley, a spokeswoman for the university, who also noted a growing Covid-19 case count on campus...

Full story at https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/16/us/politics/colleges-covidcoronavirus.html.

So, is the Davis model going to prevail at UCLA starting in week 5 of the current winter quarter? Instructors really need to know at least a week in advance. As we have stressed in this blog, moving courses in and out of online instruction is not a simple matter like toggling a light switch. Some courses, for example, in week 5 - the half-way point in the 10-week quarter - will have scheduled midterm exams. And there are other courses with design features in which advance planning is needed.

So-called Title IX cases generally arise out of charges of sexual misconduct or assault. As we have pointed out many times on this blog, when such cases escape the internal university mechanisms and get into the external court system, judges have their own views about due process. One aspect of court cases is that the judge (or judge and jury) are seen as neutrals, unbiased towards or against defendants. That's what courts are used to. Title IX cases, however, are often administered and decided by university employees who may not be perceived by outside courts as neutrals. When defendants complain about Title IX outcomes, courts may reverse internal university decisions as a result.

That outcome recently occurred in a case from UCLA. The case - based on the latest court decision - involved an engagement to be married that fell apart, a confrontation by the two parties involved that occurred as a result, and a he-said/she-said difference of statements as to what happened in that confrontation. The male involved claimed he was treated unfairly by the university in the handling of the case because he was male, i.e., sex discrimination. From Inside Higher Ed:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed an order by a district court dismissing a suit brought by a Chinese graduate student at the University of California, Los Angeles, who alleged the university discriminated against him based on sex in the course of a Title IX disciplinary investigation after a former student accused him of misconduct.

In a Jan. 11 ruling in favor of the student, identified as John Doe, the three-judge panel “concluded that Doe’s allegations of external pressures impacting how the university handled sexual misconduct complaints, an internal pattern and practice of bias in the University of California and at UCLA in particular, and specific instances of bias in Doe’s particular disciplinary case, when combined, raised a plausible inference of discrimination on the basis of sex sufficient to withstand dismissal.”

Source: https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2022/01/18/court-reinstates-suitalleging-sex-bias-title-ix-inquiry.

Court decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2022/01/11/20-55831.pdf.

As we have noted in the past, the university, in cases of employee grievances of unionrepresented workers, leaves ultimate resolution (once other steps are exhausted) to outside neutral arbitrators. The arbitrators hear cases which sometimes involve conflicting testimony as in the Title IX case above. Courts have long largely deferred to such arbitration processes because the professional arbitrators are seen as neutrals who adhere to appropriate due process standards. A university process for Title IX resolutions that more closely resembled such grievance arbitration would likely stand up better in external courts than one in which key decisions are made by university employees. Why not use a process that has been long established at the university and is widely accepted as fair by courts?