They are a subset. After we receive a report, we invite a reporting party to meet for an intake. Not everyone who reports wishes to meet, and a number of reports are made anonymously. When we do have an intake, we will attempt to respect the reporting party’s decision regarding how they wish to proceed. Our case management process also includes periodic check-ins to see if a reporting party has changed their mind and/or whether they’re in need of any resources or accommodations.
This depends on the substance of the anonymous report. If the report provides sufficient details for us to act upon, we will do so. For example, if a report states that a professor in a certain department said something inappropriate in a previous class, our ability to respond is more difficult than if the reporting party provides the name of the professor, the class, the date of the incident, and details about what was said that the reporting party found offensive.
The Bias Response Team is in the process of adding reporting numbers and data to our Bias Reporting web page. There are various laws related to campus sexual violence that require the publication of specific Title IX data on each campus. While there are no similar requirements for bias reports (with the exception of hate crimes, which are captured in our Annual Clery Report), we understand the usefulness in providing bias reporting numbers to the community and will work to publish that information this spring.
Yes. Non-confidential employees, including student employees, are required to refer any incident of bias or sexual misconduct they become aware of to the college. They may use our online reporting forms to make referrals or reach out directly to the Director of Title IX and Equal Opportunity.
When we publish bias reporting data later this spring on our web page, we will include how many reports are for separate incidents versus reports of the same incident. If a reporting party does not wish to pursue an investigation, the Bias Response Team will make every effort to honor that wish. However, if the reported incident is especially egregious and leaves other community members at risk, the Bias Response Team might decide that an investigation is warranted despite the reporting party’s request not to investigate. The Bias Response Team discusses each report and attempts to balance reporting party autonomy with community safety when considering next steps.
It’s easier to identify a “confidential” employee: Boe House Counseling Center staff, College Ministry staff, SARN Advocates, and Health Services staff. All other employees are “non-confidental,” although this does not mean what you share with in your bias report will be widely broadcast. Only individuals who have a “need to know” the information will be looped in after a report is made.
A “mandated reporter” is someone who state law requires to report suspected abuse or neglect of vulnerable individuals, including children and the elderly. Mandated reporters are persons in designated professional occupations including people who work in health care, social services, education, mental health, child care, law enforcement, the courts, clergy, and corrections settings. Mandated reporters report incidents they become aware of to law enforcement or child protective services. In contrast, a “required referral” is a term created by St. Olaf that applies to all non-confidential employees of the College. These employees are obligated to refer any Title IX or Bias incident they become aware of to the Director of Title IX and Equal Opportunity.
When we publish bias reporting data later this spring on our website, we will include comparison data from previous years.
The Bias Reporting process is accessible regardless of whether the responding party (i.e., accused individual) belongs to the St. Olaf community or not and regardless of where the bias incident occurs. The options available to reporting parties in that situation are slightly different, but the opportunity to receive resources and accommodations is the same.
For both Title IX and Bias incidents, we have an amnesty policy in place regarding drug and alcohol policy violations as well as COVID-19 Community Standard violations. In other words, if a party discloses violating a campus drug, alcohol, or COVID-19 policy as a part of a Bias or Title IX report or investigation, that party will not be disciplined for those policy violations. We feel it is important to uphold this amnesty policy so that parties will feel comfortable reporting and seeking help, and will also feel comfortable being honest about the context of the incident.
There are many valid reasons why someone might not feel comfortable reporting an incident. Examples include fear of retaliation, not knowing whether what happened was a “big deal” or not, or being concerned about what might happen after reporting. Our goal is to decrease barriers to reporting as much as possible. One way to do this is to increase the understanding that making a report and going through an intake meeting with the Director of Title IX and Equal Opportunity does not automatically initiate any next steps. An intake meeting allows the reporting party to better understand all the options and resources available to them, so that they can make an informed decision about what they’d like to do next (if anything). Making a concerted effort to educate our community about the intake process and the options available after a bias incident is reported will hopefully help increase trust in the reporting process.
The investigator pool we utilize consists of attorneys who have been trained to conduct these types of investigations. They understand how to determine whether evidence is relevant or not and are also able to assess credibility of the parties involved. Investigators are required to complete implicit bias training as well. Even when there is not much physical evidence from an incident, which is oftentimes the case, investigators assess credibility through interviews with parties and the witnesses. Regarding concerns about false reports: if it’s true that a responding party (i.e., an accused person) did nothing wrong, then that will come out through the investigation. Concerns about a reporting party intentionally lying and making a false report can also be addressed via our policies against general harassment and retaliation.
Bias Response Team members were initially chosen based on best practices. These best practices indicate that there are individuals from each community who fulfill certain roles on campus who should be involved in this work. However, we are certainly open to discussing the benefits of adding additional individuals to the Team and acknowledge the fact that the group should be more diverse. As for potentially adding students to the group, that is something we will have to think deeply about. While students would undoubtedly add a crucial voice to the Team, there are also significant privacy and confidentiality measures the Team must adhere to.
Our policy and process provides significant reporting party autonomy when it comes to investigations. In other words, in the vast majority of cases, reporting parties are able to choose whether they want to move forward with an investigation or not. Many reporting parties have complex and valid reasons as to why they do not want to move forward with an investigation (fear of retaliation, for example), and many reporting parties simply want a member of the Bias Response Team to have a conversation with the responding party about the impact of the situation. Maintaining reporting party autonomy in our process is a key aspect to diminishing barriers to reporting. More information about this topic is covered in the Webinar linked on our website.
This is up to you and your supervisory style. Either approach is ok as long as the referral is made. Adding the step of notifying you as the supervisor prior to a referral may be helpful to the student who might want the opportunity to discuss the disclosure with you first.
Correct. There are laws focused on both employee and student privacy that prohibit institutions from sharing personal information with anyone. We understand how frustrating this can feel and how much it would help to be able to share more information, but that is something we are legally unable to do. However, parties involved in an investigation will be updated on a weekly basis during the investigation and will know once the investigation is complete.
When we receive multiple reports about the same person, we will consider the necessity of initiating an investigation even if the reporting parties indicated they were not interested in an investigation. As stated above, we attempt to honor a reporting party’s wishes about how they want to proceed after making a report; however, there are some situations when the Bias Response Team determines that we must move forward with an investigation given the frequency and/or severity of what’s been reported and the risk to the community if we were not to investigate. Once an investigation does move forward, regardless of whether that’s a decision made by the Bias Response Team or the reporting party/parties, sanctions are determined on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, though, if a responding party is under investigation for multiple incidents of bias, harassment, and/or discrimination and is also found responsible for multiple incidents, then that individual would likely receive more severe sanctions than someone who was found responsible for only one incident. However, bias incidents vary in severety themselves, meaning it’s possible that a responding party who was found responsible for one very egregious incident could be sanctioned more severely than someone who was found responsible for multiple, less severe incidents.
Depending on the circumstances, the Bias Response Team can move forward with an investigation even when a specific reporting party has not been identified OR when the incidents are experienced by the entire community as opposed to one specific individual (i.e., offensive signs posted around campus). If we have access to other types of evidence such as video footage, photos, screenshots, witness accounts, etc., then we could likely move forward with an investigation. If those types of evidence don’t exist, we might still be able to move forward with an investigation but it could be much more difficult to come to any sort of meaningful conclusion.
During the spring semester, we will be hosting more events and conducting more trainings for student groups regarding our Bias Reporting Process and Policy. We are also incorporating this information into Week One so that first-years and transfer students are quickly introduced to our process. Our aim is to continue educating students, faculty, and staff about this information throughout each academic year so that it is well understood by all community members and thoroughly embedded within our campus culture.
Yes, incidents that occur off campus are still reportable and reporting parties have options and resources available to them.
In the vast majority of cases, reporting parties are able to determine how they’d like to proceed after making a report (including the option to simply document what’s been reported and not move forward with any next steps). The importance of maintaining this autonomy is covered in our recent webinar. In rare instances when the Bias Response Team determines that we must move forward with an investigation against the reporting party’s wishes, we would always consult with the reporting party prior to taking any next steps. We would request their participation in the process but would respect their decision not to be involved in the investigation if they felt that’s what was best for them. We would also talk through various supportive and protective measures for the reporting party so that they felt as comfortable as possible. We work very hard to ensure that the reporting party’s voice is included in the process from beginning to end.
If a reporting party has been identified, then we attempt to honor that individual’s choice about how to proceed. However, if something is reported anonymously, then the Bias Response Team will idependently determine how to proceed given the information reported to us.
Decisions about how to proceed after making a bias report are typically left up to the reporting party. If the reporting party wants to proceed with an investigation, a restorative justice process, or having a Bias Response Team member talk with the accused individual about the impact of their behavior, then the accused individual would be notified that a report has been made about them. In most investigations, reporting parties are unable to remain anonymous. Reporting parties also cannot remain anonymous during the restorative justice process. However, in many instances, a reporting party may remain anonymous if our next step is to meet with the accused individual to have a conversation. These conversations are always more productive when we can share more details, but we are oftentimes able to maintain anonymity if that’s what the reporting party wants.
Yes, required referrals need to include both the name of the person who experienced the bias incident and your name.
This typically depends on what the individual was found responsible for, but sanctions short of expulsion and termination of employment typically include, but may not be limited to, sanctions such as required training or education programs.
If you are a non-confidential employee and you know the name of the individual who disclosed to you and/or experienced the misconduct, you must share that information in your referral. However, if someone who experiences an incident or bias, harassment, or discrimination wants to report anonymously, or if someone who is not obligated to make a required referral wants to report on behalf of a friend without naming the specific person, they can do so via our online reporting form.
The possible sanctions that may be imposed are addressed in Section C. 11 of the Policy. For students, sanctions can include disciplinary action up to and including suspension and expulsion. For employees of St. Olaf, sanctions can include termination of employment. When a sanction does not involve removal of an individual from our community, it may not be apparent whether or what disciplinary action has been taken. We appreciate why this is concerning and frustrating; however, when addressing issues under this policy the College is obligated to comply with student and employee privacy laws. Some examples of sanctions short of suspension, expulsion, and termination of employment may include suspension of co-curricular activities or loss of on-campus housing for students and loss of privileges or an unpaid suspension for employees.
Yes. All students, faculty, and staff are held accountable to our Bias Policy and are eligible to report an incident they experienced under our Bias Policy.
We are in the process of comparing our response and resources to other institutions’ responses and resources and are open to suggestions about how to make our process more transparent while also abiding by parties’ privacy and confidentiality rights. That being said, we recently added our current bias reporting numbers to our website and will be updating those numbers on a monthly basis. The Interim Vice President for Equity and Inclusion will also be emailing out our updated reporting numbers each month.
We are working to better educate our community about the importance of required referrals and how to make a required referral so that incidents of bias, harassment, and discrimination are appropriately addressed. Ensuring we have one overarching system for this, as opposed to multiple reporting systems across departments, will provide better consistency, will provide our Team the ability to notice and detect patterns across campus, and will help protect against conflicts of interest. Our Team will be providing additional trainings and programs this spring and every year going forward so that the entire community remains up to date about our required referral process and our Bias Policy. Any group of students, faculty, or staff is able to request training from the Bias Response Team and we will be happy to attend a future meeting to help answer questions and ensure deep understanding of our reporting process. Regarding Ellen Ogihara’s resignation letter and the concern that various campus entities didn’t share information with the Bias Response Team that they should have, we hired an external investigator to review this case and have tasked the investigator with looking into that particular concern as well.
Yes it is, and we will continue to evaluate whether updates or modifications need to be made to those trainings.
Confidential Resources would be great to speak with if you are considering reporting but are unsure what to do next. Since they do not have the same obligation as other employees to make required referrals, you are able to speak freely with them about what happened and what your questions are. They can even communicate with members of the Bias Response Team if you have questions that you’d like answers to prior to initiating a report. Additionally, community members can always inquire about hypothetical situations with the Bias Response Team to get a better understanding of what the response would be to a potential situation.
We had a total of 200 participants in the webinar.