Wednesday, November 28, 2018

Women in Science and Engineering Panel

Students from all majors were invited to a Women in Science and Engineering Panel, featuring Q&A bon success and advancement of women in STEM.  Panelists included Cristina Albunio PE, Agency Engineer, OCRRA (formerly a consultant with Arcadis; alumna ERE); Katie Cooper (air dispersion modeling) and Maria "Mimi" Scicchitano (wastewater; alumna ERE), O’Brien and Gere; and Danielle Hurley, Department of Water, Onondaga County (alumna EFB).  Maria is also currently a part-time graduate student at SU.  The panel was moderated by ERE department chair (and sole female member in that department) Dr. Lindi Quackenbush.  The event was coordinated and hosted by NYWEA and the ERE Club.

What is the climate  like at your workplace?  May vary depending on the group, composition and the manager.  The percentage of women is more balanced in the younger cohorts.  Two had issues (different sectors) with single individuals that has treated differently, to the degree they went to HR--which improved the situations. (See follow up question below).  Women were dropping out at 8-10 yr mark because part-time was way out, not way up. All received encouragement to move forward.
Difference between industry and public sector?  Yes. 
In ERE, current class is ~50% female.  

Are any of you in the field you anticipated as a little girl?  Cristina says yes, was inspired by a tour at OCRAA's waste to energy plant, and lucky a position opened up there a few months ago.   Katie as well:  Meterology didn't come into her focus until a freshman in high school, but didn't want to be on TV, radio, etc., but air pollution route interested her through college.  Maria became interested in science in high school, but didn't consider wastewater until college.  Danielle: not many 5 year olds will tell you want to work in wastewater (Katie:  but they will ask what happens to what goes down the toilet!), but wanted to work with animals, focusing on fish in masters program.  Lindi discovered surveying in 10th grade.  

Were you ever told what you do like or don't like [as a child, because a girl]?  Yes, one was told to "do something easy and find a husband." Another  "Are you sure you can do that?" by engineer relatives.  Challenge accepted!  And she surpassed them in scope of job and credentials, noting that "Bias has been motivation to do more."  However, contrary to their mothers' generation, all were expected to go to college, and choices were no longer limited to teaching and nursing. One of their mothers was explicitly told no, although all her brothers were anticipated to go.   And another was told "So, what do you want to do?  You can be anything."  But when the response was "nuclear physicist", counselor backpedaled, revealing that by "anything", they'd meant "nursing or teacher." 

Had impression that older cohorts were male because that's who was going into engineering, not because women were dropping out at faster rates.  What could individuals do differently? Coworkers that successfully stayed within the field re-prioritized their time, and sacrificed career advancement opportunities.  Those that "off-ramped" to care for families have had a very difficult time finding opportunities to reenter the workforce.  What can companies do to make it easier for women to stay, or for it to be more acceptable for men to temporary off-ramp?  Many managers didn't realize that part-time was even an option, so didn't offer it and if they did, didn't know how to advise appropriately. Make the schedule transparent; individual schedules should show the times not scheduled to work clearly, so important meetings aren't scheduled when you aren't expecting to be there.  Pro-rate timelines for promotion, rather than eliminating the option. Increase communication within teams to meet client needs.  Expect all employees to have work-family balance.  Partner may also be in a time constrained profession which will also compound that.  One of the panelists with children noted that she was asked many times during pregnancy "So, are you going to go part-time, or become a stay-at-home mom?" and the repetitive nature of the question could cause employees to second-guess a choice that doesn't include either option.  [note: the expectation that this is going to happen at some point or another can also cause women to be overlooked for advancement opportunities].   She also noted that husband was never asked the same question, and recommended not asking it of anyone, or to make it equal opportunity "Are either of you going to cut back workload or stay-at-home?"

Cultural expectation:  In Australia, people take vacation.   If you take time off, you won't come back to all that compiled work.  Here, industry folks are expected to be available by phone and email even while on vacation and get negative comments when don't.   Which is not what company officially promotes.  For the panelist working around classes, also receives comments about that.  County employee--most positions are team based, so other people are on call for coverage during your vacation, which is a much better scenario.  One notes a spouse who has a position where he is not only not expected to check in from time off, he cannot--he must use company time and resources to check email.  Another's spouse has a similar schedule:  when shift is over, responsibilities are passed on to the next shift, and he's 'free' until next scheduled shift.

Other advice?  Advocate for self:  earn your advocacy, need to work hard and prove yourself, and also learn who to ask.  When hear something that bothers you, say something.  You'll feel better, and may make a change.  May need to go to a higher authority.  Small, soft-spoken "You will not be taken seriously."  

Do you have a network of supporters to bounce things off of?  How confident were you in approaching HR?  Neither's first impulse was to go to HR.  They discussed with family members, and trusted coworkers, who encouraged them to do so.   In general, when you are the only (or one of few) women,  its more challenging to recognize as a systemic issue.  But when you do, you choose either keep working in this environment as is, and it weighs on you, or address it.  Once you advocate for yourself a few times, it does get easier.  Find a network that you can bounce things off of, whether or not they look like you.  

What does future hold--what challenges moving forward and what do do about it?  Read Lean In, by Sheryl Sandberg.   Get past gender issues, as children generally have two adults in their lives.  Help each other along.  

Sunday, November 11, 2018

Empowerment 2018


Griot (storyteller) and Keynote Speaker Vanessa Johnson opened ESF's 4th Annual Women's Empowerment Brunch in song, segueing to stories of empowerment and recovery, and finding joy. The panel, comprised of Ann Moore, Chris Kosakowski (an educator from Vera House), Dr. Kelley Donaghy, Dr. Malika Carter, Kerrie Findlay, and Dr. Biljana Bujanovic, answered questions posed by facilitator Brittany Wong and the floor. Panelists shared goals for improving their workplace, "removing barriers put in place for no good reason," and shaking things up. They explained their personal definitions of feminism, which were largely consistent with one another, and revolved around intersectionality, respect, and promoting equality and equity for people of all genders (ironically, few of the panel had considered themselves to be feminists prior to being asked to consider the question!). They shared personal stories of being subject to, or witnessing, bias in the workplace.

They advised questioning microaggressions, listening more and talking less, and that "its OK to tap out and practice self-care. You have a right to feel safe in the conversation." In regards to supporting survivors of Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence in times like the #MeToo movement (credit: Tarana Burke): Believe them; understand consent (which applies to all thing); stop perpetuating rape culture; know when to step up and to step back; support education to recognize those at risk and prevent abuse; "stop caring more men's reputations than women's lives," speak with them, not for them, and help them hold power. They shared examples of using privilege to help: advocating, recognizing that individuals from marginalized groups are too often called upon to teach but that its not their job "to coddle my little white ego" and that gold stars aren't earned by "just not being a bad person"--call out when see or hear something.

While panelists did recall times when women were in competition with one another, in general, they felt that women should support one another, and they actively do. They also noted that women are taught that negative reactions are due to personality (they don't like me) rather than gender (they treat all ___ this way) (NOTE: in retrospect, when the numbers of women or non-binary people are very low, its very difficult to tell the difference). They also advised not to compare self to social media ideals, as people tend to show only the best sides of themselves. When asked "What does it mean to be an ally?" Panelists described times when "partners in society change" asked them "This seemed to bother you. What can I do?", requesting permission and guidance to ensure they amplified in an affirming way. And noted that "its not the 'four-letter words' (like f-bombs) that are so painful, its the pronouns [that relay that only a 'he' can be expected to be hired, or to have some achievement] and other words that demean." Know when to speak up and when to shut up, and don't expect a pat on the head for not being a jerk. Acknowledge that the price is high, but the reward is great. "Allyship can be a 'soft-term'...prefer 'advocate' or 'accomplice.'

When asked by the floor for action items to continue the discussion:
  • Think of your spheres of influence. Each of us has some power--where can you be a support or a change agent? 
  • Question that which you take for granted. Think critically about it. 
  • Support girls in whatever they want to do, and especially in education 
  • Keep talking 
  • Be known for something 
  • Call out the word "girls" or other terms that infantilize women or diminish their expertise and experience
A different set of discussion questions was distributed among the tables (as well as historic elements of last week's election!), and posted along the walls. Participants were asked to add their thoughts.

I personally, want to thank Ms Johnson and the panel for sharing with us today. Organizers strived to maintain a safe space, but its the participants that make that feasible, and I thank them for doing so. I also thank Ruth Larson of the Counseling Center for standing by in the event any participant needed to step out, and Christopher Baycura who arrived early to set up and test event audio, and the students who spent time each week drafting and ordering questions, and spent their weekend on the last minute touches.

The Women's Empowerment Brunch was a collaborative effort of the Baobab Society, Undergraduate Student Association and the ESF Women's Caucus. Voluntary contributions to the donation jar will be sent to the YWCA to benefit their Girls Inc. programming.

Friday, November 9, 2018

A Convening of Leaders in Academia to Prevent Sexual Harassment Webcast: November 9, 2018

…[M]ore rapid and sustained progress … is jeopardized by the persistence of sexual harassment and its adverse impact on women’s careers in … colleges and universities.

On November 9, 2018, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine offered a convocation on developing and implementing policies, procedures, and practices to prevent sexual harassment in academia. Building on the recommendations in the recent report Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Science, Engineering, and Medicine, this event brough together academic leaders, Title IX and diversity officers, ombudsmen, researchers in sexual harassment, and leaders from professional societies, foundations, and federal agencies to discuss strategies and share promising practices. Summary of, and images from, the webcast sessions follow.


Opening Remarks from National Academies Leadership
Frazier Benya, Senior Program Officer
NSF was lead sponsor, joined by NASA, NIH, NIST and others, representatives from many here today as funders also have role to play.  Encourage to strive to create a culture where it stopped before it starts.

Victor Dzau, President, NAM
Academies bring together experts to evidence-based advice. Report has already spurred action among a number of organizations.  Each of the Academies is now examining its own policies and procedures and defining codes of conduct.  Report found that issues aren’t limited, absolutlely must change to prevent women from continued to be bullied out of carreer paths, and to protect integretity of institutions.  IF take a public health approach, need to address culture and climate that allow SH to continue.  Medical encourages that some discomfort is to be expected, therefore reluctance to come forward. 

Dan Mote, NAE.  Engineering has long struggled to find talented people to study.   To this end, working to increase recruitment of women, but progress has been too slow. SH is a serious impediment, plus morally reprehensible in the first place.  Cannot reach full potentional in engineerring or are pushed out all together.  Must implement system wide change.  Firmness on this matter is mandatory for future of engineering.  IEEE Spectrum Op-Ed, enthusiatic endorsed by editorial team.  “Will and need to make substational changes are here, so lets do it. “

Myth Busting: responding to the most common misperception[s] about sexual harassment
Kathryn Clancy, Associate Prof. of Anthropology, U Illinois; Lilia Cortina, Prof. of Psychology & Women’s Studies, UMich; Vicki Magley, Professor of Psychology, UConn



Figure 1. https://www.nap.edu/visualizations/sexual-harassment-iceberg/ 
  
Myth:  misplaced romantic feeling, physical SH is worst type
Sexual harassment (SH) omes in three forms:
  • sexual coercion (SC), e.g., quid pro quo, stereotypical “sleep with me or fired”
  • unwanted sexual attention  (USA), i.e., touching, hugging, repeated requests for dates or kisses, sometimes assault
  • gender harassment (GH), “a broad range of verbal and nonverbal behaviors not aimed at sexual cooperation but that convey insulting, hostile, and degrading attitudes” that convey that women don’t belong or aren’t smart enough to succeed, also sabotage.    Not about romance or conquest.  About contempt. 

 Only 37% of women faculty hadn’t experienced any SH in the two years prior to survey.  Most experienced some type of GH.  GH is the most common form of SH encountered by women students.  GH rates vary by discipline, and medicine encourters most.  Engineering experinces more sexist GH.  Think of it like an iceberg (see image).    Put downs (and out), not come ons.   SH because based on sex or gender.  Is it true that verbal harassment is not nearly as “bad” as physical?  None of assumptions held up to scientific scrutiny (See Figure 2).

While SC and USA lead to more lawsuits and bad publicity, they are low frequency.  GH is pervasive.

Myth:  SH is no big deal, but false accusations are a big deal (see next paragraph for this part).
Can’t you just suck it up?  No.  Rude behaviors of malicious intent are directed more at women
of color.  Low level, unchallenged behaviors have a massive cumulative effect.   Looked at impact of being the “only.”  We have to hire more…., but have to keep up our standards?  Implies the Other person there is not => internal gaslighting. Uncertainty permeates.  When not the Only, develop meta awareness and cognition that it’s not them.  Students ARE standing up for faculty and checking in on them, but what does that say about the institution that they are the only ones that do? 

Fig 2.  Impact of gender harassment on health and satisfaction.
Myth: False accusations are a really big deal.  They do happen, but do so in every type of crime.  Why do we care so much more about false accusations here?  How much effort is put into questioning credibility of robbery victims?  2-8% of reports are false, while 14-40% of men are sexually harassed in the workplace, so men are far more likely to be a victim of harassment themselves than to be falsely accused!!!

False reporting red flags:  know accuser, have prior relationships, no severe, young victim, inconsistent details.  What science tells us is that these are normative! 

When over worry about false reports, results in poorer mentoring—leads to closed door meetings, failure to engage students, one on one conversations, treating women differently.   Can also make you a bad administrator, as bad risk management to avoid perpetrator lawsuits rather than future victim lawsuits. 
Myths:  there are Magic bullets to try to fix the situations
Harassment Reporting:  If institution gets it right, investigates perfectly, then will end SH affliction!   So, if really happened, will report, and no negative ramifications-not scary, or hard.  Research doesn’t support.  In reality, SH reporting is a LAST resort.   Most likely to Avoid, seek social support, relabel, appease harassers, self-blame, endure, deny.  Across 20 years:  formal reporting remains about 6%.  Hasn’t increased with empowerment of women, so should we focus here?  Research on labeling of SH experiences.  Assume people are naming behavior as SH, but most are not.  Does labeling matter?   Yes (see Fig 3), but focusing on the experiences is more important that reporting or the label.  Relevant facts:  both professional and social retaliation (see Table).  Fear of retaliation is the #1 reason not to report.  

Fig. 3    

Relevant Fact:  Reporting can breed retaliation
Professional Retaliation
Social Retaliation
Given less favorable job duties
Shunned or excluded by others at work
Unfairly demoted
Slighted or ignored by others at work
Denied a promotion I deserved
Gossiped about in an unkind way
Denied an opportunity for training I deserved
Threatened
Given unfair poor job performance appraisals
Criticized for complaining about the situation
Transferred to a less desirable job
Blamed for the situation

Considered a troublemaker
Cortina &Magley (2003, Jn Occupational Health Psy)
(Note: table text has been transcribed from a photo)

Myth:  training is the other silver bullet.  Because WE care, our training works. Because we have low reports, must be working. One and done!  Lots of  support for training,  Very little published on training efficacy.  Training increases certainty, but not percentage of correct responses to knowledge questions.  Only one question that trained people did do better:  on legality.   Untrained people are more likely to say “I don’t know.”  Trained were more certain that they answered right, even though they scored the same.  They are slightly more likely to response that SH is trivial and expect false/exaggerated reports.  What we want is for behaviors to cease.   

Employee cynicism matters. 

Employees are good at sniffing out when only directed at compliance, which affects perceptions of tolerance.  Need to work on best approaches, assessing impact, reducing cynicism.

Questions:  As long as institutions aren’t paying women as much as men, how are men expected to respect us as much?  Uncertain how to respond, because Amen.  Pay inequity is an example of GH.  Data based on the people still there, but doesn’t capture those lost (lost willingly or fired in retaliation). 

Reporting is necessary, but insufficient, puts excessive burden on victims, and ignores their (justifiable!) fears.  Need to dispel belief that it is only appropriate for most egregious acts, set appropriate sanctions and enforce.

Labelling of behavior—“I would never grope, etc.” without recognizing that they engage in “put down” behaviors.  Absolutely don’t want SC and unwanted sexual attention, but also need to deal with rest of the iceberg.  Remediation doesn’t need to be limited to those things above the bar of legal definition of SH. 

Trainings that allow for more perspective taking, theater based, are more impactful than online knowledge based. 
Glad we did this first today, as first thing need to deal with!  Need to consider retaliation aspect more—who happens to, and when.  Happening as a deterrent, before and during reporting as well as after.  Institutions haven’t figured out best practices to intervene.  Much of the time its social retaliation-shut out, shunned.  And institutions don’t know what to do about those.  Example of a successful practice:  At moment of report, management team should set up a non-retaliation plan.  Not much on best practices:  hope  afternoon sessions (not webcast) will address. When universities respond, there is a large swell of volunteers.  And perpetrators situate themselves in on those committees.  Make look like good apples when not.  Shift framework.    Workforce and pipeline development:  anecdotally, hear that women can be harder than men on bringing certain subjects forward.  Is there a real difference? Anyone is capable of harm; women also soak up the lessons of patriarchy and culture norms.  May push women to complete studies faster and get out situation, rather than fixing the situation.  For women, 98% of perpetrators are men.  For men, ~50%.  Which doesn’t bear out that women are harder on women than men are. 

Title IX coordinators are working within a troubled construct to begin with-recommendations are ignored.   Livelihoods and careers of the victims are on the line.  Google last two cases at Univ of Illinois, didn’t rise to legal threshold but sanctions recommended, but were not levied.    Think of Title IX—think legal, investigation, adjudication, not the counseling concerns and mental health ramifications.  PhD student—if I go forward with complaint against renowned scientist, my own future screwed.   Training slides were disheartening!  If more and more training, will you still see?  Look at what is significant difference.  When focusing on prevention and leadership responses, will see.  Right now, going through traumatizing experience that often doesn’t help the victim.  Diffusing the power network for the student also improves outcomes. 

Moving Beyond Legal Compliance and Toward Prevention 
Lynn Pasquerella, President, Association of American Colleges and Universities; Lorelle Espinosa, Assistant VP, Center for Policy Research and Strategy; Lorelle Espinosa, Vice President for Research, American Council on Education; Kimberlee Eberle-Sudre, Director of Policy Research, Association of American Universities; Kacy Redd, Assistant Vice President of STEM Education Policy, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities

At doctoral granting institutions, 20% have women presidents, considerably less than percentage at all US colleges and universities. When you look at all institutions, only 5% of presidents are women of color.  Looking for parity by 2030, to move on action rather than just talking about it.  Do we actually have data that women presidents do better?  NSF INCLUDES research.  Diversifying faculty remains a concern. 

AACU.  Results of undergraduate student surveys were sobering, showing much higher rates of assault than had official reporting mechanisms.  “I don’t report because I don’t know where to go.” 
How do organizations support change makers?  APLU has been action oriented, bringing institutions together to work.  Bringing in more diverse faculty.  Look at institutional culture to be more welcoming and supportive. Hiring faculty that support that.  Looking at intervention.  Looking at bias training in search committees, how are you using exit interviews.  Each institution has a plan to work through.  How are you connecting these?  Some institutions looking at departmental climates.   Regional summits and moving to online formats to deliver content to people wherever they are.  Bring disparate leaders together to do situational and table top discussions.   Campuses are more comfortable with diversity conversations than equity, as they don’t understand what that means. Have been looking at things as if they don’t permeate classroom environment.    Don’t want to “unnecessarily lengthen the syllabus.”  People don’t see themselves as fundamentally part of the picture.  Its other people. But It is part of the learning environment.    Microaggressions—address in the moment or after class?  Need strategies.  LGBT+ students experienced the most harassment.  80% of schools said they “changed it” for a specific populations.  Not all inclusive.  Leadership on campus can do a lot through rhetoric, accountability and monetarily.  More we can equip graduate students with the skills to be compassionate faculty members, those are game changers.  Networks, need to be top down.   Reaching into disciplinary societies.  Need to include all levels in the conversation. 

Questions:  Structures to address are institution based.  But experience and research show that local institutions are not equipped to deal across all interactions.  Are there opportunities among your organizations to develop a collaborative system to investigate, something that institutions could buy into? You are talking to many different layers.   An independent entity that could adjudicate?  Sounds really smart.  EEOC.  Grants and agencies also hold people accountable. Think critically important not to impose hetero/cis paradigm.  What do we do with larger community issues?  Leaked memo from NYT that defines biological sex.  All of the panel organizations have an advocacy role.  Campuses can set the tone and ensure it permeates through campus.  Modeling dialog, empowering student voices.  What is the role of the Offices of General Counsel?  They can be conservatizing.  They provide info on the law, but can also provide us with info of what we see in our job.  Former General Counsel in audience shared personal story:  asked who is the client?  Was fired for asking for an GC investigation.  What role has GCs played to make sure past crimes were not shared with the public? 
Try to find institutions that are ahead of the pack, and nucleate others around them. Are we putting as much energy into proactive measures?  SH is about power.  What are other places doing about relating to SH intervention?  Compounded by social media—stalking takes multiple forms.  Looking at using technology as safe forms of reportings.  Calisto for example.  Chat Box.  Transphobia can take the form of SH, and SH is not a women’s issue but a gender affected issue.  NSF INCLUDES, IGEN,  Onus needs not to be put on people of color or LGBT because tend to me more junior. 
Thoughts and guidance for postdocs, fellows, medical residents who aren’t easily tracked because so many different possible titles and capacities, but not captured under student, faculty or staff umbrellas. Many are concentrated in medical centers.  Also subject to all of retaliation. 

The Role of Federal Agencies
Kelley Bonner, Workplace Violence Prevention & Response Program Manager, NOAA; David Chambers, Equal Opportunity Program Manager, NASA; Rhonda Davis, Head, Office of Diversity and Inclusion, NSF; Lawrence Tabak, Principal Deputy Director, NIH; Rachel Gettler, General Attorney, Office of Civil Rights, Department of Education

University Title IX perception “Fox guarding the chicken coop.”  Can go directly to any grant reporting agency—they all have their own title IX coordinator, and can report there within 180 days of incident and have adjudicated more fairly.  But limited resources, so smart action is “shotgun approach” to multiple agencies.  Pay equity, EEOC is the best bet instead.   How to ensure harassers don’t have access?  NSF director sent out to 3000+ institutions that SH would not be tolerated.  Put together a task force, and met every two weeks as launching, now bimonthly.  Went into effect in October if there is a SH  violation, and they are unable to carry out terms of grant, working on that process now. 
NIH has Indirect and direct approaches.  Indirect—extensive anti-harassment program that they hope is a model, with option for anonymous reporting, central investigations, will issue a survey of all NIH staff in 2019 about workplace environment.   Issued a federal register note to indicate to institution that speaks to what employees and grantees can do to pursue.  Support much needed research.  In December, will launch a working group/advisory council on this topic.  Frazier Benya spoke to packed audience not that long ago. External funding:  always had policy that if an individual’s status policy changes, the institution is obligated to notify the NIH.  Typically by VP of research.  Reflex is to take away the grant, which has collateral damage, particularly taking away support of the individual that reported.  Work with university.  Truthfully, agencies don’t make a big deal where a PI has been removed because of legal framework issues—speaking about someone else’s employee. 

NASA has a robust anti-harassment process.  Pre-award, there is a civil rights assurance form, compliance reviews.  Indirectly, try to focus on the environment that allows harassment to breed.  Do you show gender diversity on your website?  Do you also recruit at Society of Women Engineers and Association of Women in Science?  Promote promising practices as well as compliance? Title IX requires self-evaluation.  Are you using GRE math score as gateway criteria which shuts out those with tremendous experience and references, reducing diversity)?  Mediation with wronged party rather than invoking title ix "broken" investigation process could empower them while educating the aggressor.  (this could work IN SOME CASES, but without also fixing other aspects of system, how to reduce retaliation?) 

NIGMS has announced that there must be an anti-harassment training and dual mentoring to distribute power and achieve results that are more favorable.  Series of initiatives to diversify the work place in terms of gender, race and ethnicity.  Improved early investigative stage.  Diversifying panels—not just old white guys, but post docs, young professionals. 
What is one thing you will invite colleges and universities to do to help efforts?
·        Have Research Office communicate with Title IX office.  Be intentional about culture change efforts.  Be honest and forthright. 
Questions? 
Do you have policies to prevent supervisors from have sexual relationships with supervisees?  NIH does, and has a mandatory reporting requirement. Adjudicate each situation, and if truly consensual, readjust the reporting relationship. How do you define consensual?  Getting ready to get married (really?!) Nat. Academy staff has new training on the way.  Recommend providing flexible funding for grad students to diffuse power structure.  But not generally allowed to pool funding.  Parental leave concern:  Usually can extend for a year for family issues.  Having child as a woman, negative impact, for man, positive impact (how was he unaware of this prior to this study).  Some societies are redefining scientific misconduct to include sexual harassment. 

Reporting has to be the silver bullet for the agencies, as otherwise they cannot act. How do respond?  Still report, but bypass the institution.  Title IX didn’t anticipate influence of today’s social media.  Tremendous strength in numbers.  What if a PI or co-PI came and said we had to remove an individual because of harassment?  Not stopping at those levels. If we hear of something through another form would follow up to confirm safety of parties and determine if institution can still fulfil terms of grant. Could be delayed by loss of lower levels as well, but don’t have to notify. Accommodations could be made.

How does anonymous reporting actually work?  Hire a contract organization so there are none of our employees are involved, and use a system of checks and balances for web forms or phone call.  With an anonymous report, may not get enough info to proceed.  Reporter may come back later, but cannot seek.  With regard to Title IX structure and review—if there are issues, does that trigger a review of what the office should be? 

Don’t think the report highlights an “emerging threat.”  Problematic behavior has been present a long time and limiting performance.  Need to increase inclusive practices across the board to tamp down bullying, 
Compliance isn’t enough, but it has to be part of it.  What can institutions be doing beyond reporting?  Can be diversifying senior leadership and throughout organizations.  Ensure equity, review every department for equity measures and tie institutional reward system to it. 

Recordings are now available at:  https://vimeo.com/album/5561695
Afternoon Concurrent sessions and closing plenary were not webcast.