CONFIDENTIAL OFFICE FOR THE PREVENTION OF HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION FORMAL INVESTIGATION REPORT i Respondent Dr. Bske Date of Incidents): I Reported to OPHD: February 7, 2015, Investigator: ‘Andrea LaCampagne, Complaint Resolution Officer, PHD Date of Report: October 2,2015 Finding: Violation ofthe sexual harassment provision ofthe UC Policy on Sexual Horassment and Sexual Violence (225/14 version) 1. Background and Allegations The Complainant re I thse Complainants brought forh different issues under the UC Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence (“the Policy”) aginst the Respondent, The INI idenied as Complains tend thoughout this report. ‘Complainant Tent Tatas Complainant 1 (Complainant 2 “The Respondent is Dr, Blake Wentworth s faculty member ofthe Departent of South South East Asian Studies "DSSEAS.") Over 2014 and 2015, reported to thatthe Respondent's sexu commentfinnuendo, andor physical contact was unwelcome and made uncomfortable ‘efered Complainant 1's sve to OPHD on February 7, 2015 ‘After Complainant I's complaint was reeived by OPHD, OPHD then presented asexual harassment prevention taining on Apelff2015, On Apri 2015 follow-up session was bel Wwho had questions for PHD. fer he trainings, other BRIE carve forward OPH to share concerns about the Respondents behavior, neuding ‘Complainant 2. OF the oa II who came forward afer the OPH tnings only those who had eoncems that could potently ise tothe evel ofa violation ofthe UC Policy onSexual Harassment and Sexual Violence willbe analyzed in this report. This report wil focus ‘on the potential sexual harassment issues ofthe two Complainants as thse are under OPHD's jurisdiction and subject matter expertise Interim RemediesD. Complainant 2 requested thatthe Respondent not enter int] unless he had official business there. The Respondent agreed not enter throughout the investigation period. MI, Jurisdiction “The Office forthe Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD) has eampus- ‘wide responsibilty for stopping, preventing and remedying sexual harassment and sexual violence. The OPHD responds to and investigates potential violations of the UC Policy on ‘Sexual Harassment and Sexuol Violence, including, reports of sexval harassment, sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault brought forward by students, sal, and faculty IV. Applicable Poly The conduct complained of occured in I 2014 and I 2015, therefore, the applicable policy fr this investigation isthe University of California Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence, elective February 25, 2014 (hereinafter, “the Poicy.”)' The Policy stats: “Sexual Harassment is defined as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favers, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physicel conduct of asexual nature ‘Sexual harassment is cenduet that explicitly or implicitly affects a person's employment or education o interferes with a person’s work or educational performance or creates an environment such that «reasonable person would find the conduct intimidating, hostile oF offensive.” “Sexual Harassment may include incidents between any members of the University ‘community, including faculty and other academic appointees, staf, student employees, students... Sexual harassment may occur in hierarchical relationships between peers, o between individuals ofthe same sex or opposite sex. To determine whether the reported conduct constitutes sexual harassment, consideration shall be given tothe reord ofthe conduct as a ‘whole and the totality of the circumstances, including the context in which the conduct occurred V. Summary of Findings ‘Based upon a preponderance ofthe evidence, the Respondent violated the sexual ‘harassment provision othe UC Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence due to his ‘behavior with Complaisant 2. A detailed diseussion ofthis Finding is included in the Fact Finding and Analysis section ofthis report, December 31,2015, : .Investigation of Sexual Harassment Complaints A. Complainant 1 Issues: Summary and Response 1. ComplainantHUComplainant 2 Issues: Summary and Response 1. Complainant 2Complainant 2 ig (Compltnant 2 reported that 2014, the Respondent talked to her sbout his personal struggles with ‘Complainant noted she talked about her persotal relationships with the Respondent, as wel 2 noid thatthe Respondent's ome ‘Complainant 2 reported thatthe Respondent ia fequctVstor at for social purposes, even when MIM reno present. Compnant 2 noted that compiained o her abou the Respondents non-business presee in Decase he makes inappropriate statements that they ae uncomfortable wih and haar sometimes sid when MMI ae present (sich a, thesexusl practice of isting, and taking drugs tte Buming Man even.) (On February 17,2015, Complainant 2 wn “The Respondent bought Wis og 0 and asked Complainant 2 by name, "Why don’t you take a walk with me?” Complainan 2 was uncomforiable at being singled out by the equest as hee wee reser attha tne. She went downstairs withthe Respondent i roto Ouside of the Respondent ook the hardin hs own and sane talk about his Te, The Respondent then walked away afew fet, and tld he could ose my job over his. Ydtlk w you more abou this bum so avacted 0 30,” ST Complainant 2 immediately told the Respondent that they needed talk about what he ust said, She reports the Respondent stated, “We should go out to dinnet” She reiterated shave a conversation about this." Complainant 2 fl that he was trying to make a dinner date rather than havea discussion about what he jut said to her. She reported thatthe Respondent then told her that she had 10 initiate the conversation via email to him. They then walked back to ‘This was very awkward for Complainant 2 who then “ducked sree one! ee A few days later, the Respondent came into III aod in front of to WEBI s5:cdComplsnan 2, “Come into my ice?” Complanar 2 a andi not want tobe alone withthe Respondent in his office. Complainant 2 did ng 10 Instead, Complainant 2 sent the Respondent an email ashe request and sed to meet for coffec to discuss te incident. The Respondent noted at he wanted Yo eet ata coffee shop in Rockridge MIT” They met ta coffee shop in Rockridge. Complainant reported that she cand with he Respondent what er oundares wer, ahe was nt intersted in a romand or xual relationship wih him, He asked her qustions about sexual boundaries and ol he tht i wascfferent t Yate, woukdn’ have ex with ust ‘office,old cand nd cup ca* Compliant nterted the Resanen's commen about Yale 0 meen tat RI cre ore commonplace at Yale than a Beviccy. They stayed at he coffer sop and talked abo “ie queens” Sheed hate hinted gently hat he could be “helpful wit A” Compiainant 2 reported that at that time she was this inceraction withthe Respondent. Complainant i and avoids hin,” which i difficult todo because he comes ito afer around [the Respondent] ‘Complainant 2 came forward after] in 2015 10 Complsinan2 met with I or I 2015. Complainant 2 tt about ber nteracton withthe Respondent on Februay 17,2015. I ska ‘ot to eport the fssue to OPHD or anyone else because she was too embarassed about the cident. III reached ou to OPHD ar the April 15,2015, OPH Sexual Harassment Prevention taining was completed. then confimed that Complainant 2 tad discussed he February 17° interaction with bi fe] 2015 Aer Complainant | and Complainant 2 came forward wih thei concerns on Apel 7, 2015 IN ne withthe Respondent. On Api 12s rien summary of ie points we covered [atthe meeting} Inthe leer, ‘wrote, “Concems aout your bekavir have arisen in two broad ares: cancers about cond tha i subject o review unde the Faculty Code of Condct, and concems abou aspect of academic performance that are subject to academic review.” Referenced inthe letters the Faculty Code of Conduct section O15 regarding harassment and discrimination, and OPHD. (I wrote that he has tad complain fom women abou his conduct. MIMI wrote hate lend spoke withthe Respondent io boundaries in your interacton HE ccestng on eeveral occasions” recent conversation, have egin cautioned you agaist touching close proximity I ad closing your office door asked you notte dseuss your intimate 2014 about “the importance of observing appropriate ‘noted that observed youl roted that “in ourmost positioning yourself in Thave aso emake commen on a ‘and must comport yourself personal ives or atributs... accordingly.”2. Respondent's Siatement and Response to Com ant? {interviewed the Respondent on June 62015. The Respondent reported that on November 29,2014, he hada conversation with ‘od im that there were sultple complains against him, ag complained of haressment tnled to the Respondent about Keeping stronger personal ——— ‘The Respondent stated that e asked Complainant 2 in II. "Can 1 speak to you cuside?” They walked ouside, He di not ouch her hand, and tated," most I pated her shoulder.” They hed an abstract conversation about whether mariage as social construct was ‘workable, Then Complainant 2 sted to talk about “intimate detallsof er personal lif” The Respondent old Complainant 2, tcan’t ak to you about this because you'r an atactive ‘The Respondent stated that he and Complainant 2 often discussed personal mates cach other. He sted she wanted o meet with im to talk, and he told he “Ifyou want o meet ‘with ne II you would have to initit.” He aide od her she's have wii the resting Because of his previous ak with II who ha old him about having stronger esonal boundaries “The Respondent dened there was any auid pro quo conversation. He stated that he ‘hou EE does co ch I ot ply ol er“ you seed help, Lean hep.” “The Respondent expressed that he has had a tumultuous year. He stated that since spoke with ‘him in 2014 and in Apel of 2015, he goes to his office, deals with only leaves. He is staying out of and will now only take| VIL. Witness Information “Te Respondent provided me withthe names of re wer women) hat could speak 0 he I sins he had with hem, None ofthe witnesses ‘were direct witnesses fo the Complainants’ concerns nor were they indict wines, ie people he discussed the allegations wih clos in time, 1 declined to interview them because they were not leva othe investigation, Jus because other people may sate tha the Respondent never engaged in any behavior that coud be construed a innpropit, unprofessional or ofa sexual nature, doesnot end o show whether or othe particular allegations wit th two Complainants ar tre ort Complainants expressed tht other II would key be wling to talk to me. However, rather than breach the privacy of he pate, spoke ony to ho came 0forvard afer he OPHD ‘ining. EI confined that Complaian 2 spoke with her ater the incident with he Respondent. This indict witness reported that Complainant’ tld her ta the Respondent el er hand outside o cxpessd a romantic interedtin er and expressed an interes inVIX. Documentary Evidence Reviewed ‘A. Poiitive Character and Academic Reference LeuersNoes for the Respondent &1. Positve character reference eter from Profesor] Dane 2.20155 ad seadene eve from Prefer June 2, 2015; 2 Positive chara 3. Positive teaching evaluation 1 Fro Profesor December 10,2014; 4. Thankyou conapprecining Respondents “conse ep” and“pasin forthe ‘obj or RM Scere 820: 5. Thankyou curd or I inspion (oda) 6 Thakoon I ont 7. tevin joa “der of he olen 3 om 2014 2015 (00 date) B. Miscellaneous Submissions fom the Respondent |. Information from “Ratemyprofessors.com” where Respondent received an At ‘rade From participating stadnts June 8, 2015; 2 Email Fom Respondent to student explaining history of “house music,” October 16.2014 5, Respondent's syllabus for SSEAS 2015, Spring 2015. “PrePostEr(s)structralism” class that was cancelled, The syllabus reflects that ‘ere will be “close analyses of violence, defense, resistance, th, decay, sexual ‘obsession, excess, and manifestations of uminous Sacred cn kindle bright a Eee X. Factual Findings and Analysis ‘A. Standard of Evidence: Preponderance ofthe Evidence Findings inthis investigation report are based on a “preponderance ofthe evidence’ standard. In other words, after reviewing all the evidence. including the relative credibility of the parties and their statements during interviews, whether i is more likely (or probable) than notthatthe conduct occured, Ifthe conduct did occur a alleged, then an analysis is completed to determine wheter the conduct violated University policy. Please note: the repo’ findings do not reach conclusions whether eonduet violated state or federal laws, but instead address whether the University’s polices were violated, B. FaetFinding AnalysisWaConclusion 2 The Respondent made an unweleome, sexual advance and/or made a verbal comment ofa sexual nature towards Complainant 2, Analysis “There i some Aserepancy between Complainant? andthe Respondent's reprting of he evens of February 17,2015. Both agree that the Respondent asked Complainant 2 to leave and go ouside oF MMIII on that dy. Complainant 2 reported thatthe ‘Respondent held her hand outside, The Respondent repored that he dd ot hod er hand, but at ‘most pated the Complinant’s shoulder. The Complainant reported thatthe Respondent tld her ouside oI“ could tose my job over his. talk to you more about this but I'm so atracted a you" The Respondent reported that e tld Complainant 2, 1 cat talk to you Abou this because you're an stractive woman AMer this interaction when they etrned ‘peas to scoring to Complainant 2, the Respondent came up bend her and placed his hand to her Fad and cupped her er CComplsinant2's version ofthe incident i more credible than the Respondents ve First there i witness who generally corroborates Complainant's version of the evens. ll The witness reported tht the Respondent eld Complainant 2's hand cutie expressed a romantic intrest in er, and expressed an interest in being an academic reference or her. Second, the Respondent sated that he had spoken with Complainant 2 on namerous occasions about very personal and intimate subject. Ifthe Respondent simply gave Complainant 2 compliment that she was “an atiractive wom do not believe that Complainant 2 would be I Complainant 2 ditferentiated his conversation fom al othe conversations she had withthe Respondent. She also would nothave ben “embarassed and would nt have reported the Respondents commen (oN MINI MEI 1c, se Respondents comment were act oa sexual nature, henthe Respondent Would not ave prefaced the comment by stating, “I then | voul lose my job over his.” Fourth, the Respondent's esotng for ling Complainant 2 that she had ota contact wih him o discuss hs commen des not make sense if the comment ‘were truly inmocuous and not sexual in nature. Complainant insisted that they had oak about the comments he just made, The Respondent recalled that admonished him to keep ‘ener boundaries II The Respondent old Complainant 2 that she had to inte contact with hrm ve emal to dscss the mater. Ths twisted procedie requiring Complainant 2 ointate an email invitation would be unnecessary if here Was no sexual innendo (othe Respondents commento fhe fel he did nt erssa boundary with Complasant2. tis more kel thatthe Respondent was trying to create a documenatio trail torefet that he was simply responding toa invitation for coffe, i the I eves brought complain forward, Finally, Complainant 2 tld the Respondent over coffe tha she was not interested ina sexual or romantic relationship with hrs, The Respondent dd ot cect her that she misinterpreted his words oF intentions at this ine In summary, 2 more credible interpretation of the incident between the Respondent and ‘Complenan is that he Respondew made an unwelcome, seual advance 1 Conplinant 2 by stating, “I could lose my job ove thi. talk to you mare. bu I'S atracted to you.” He invited Complainant 2 ou I engage wih alone outside, he made pss at ter, and hoped that she would posvely respond. Moreover, eer te Respondent and Complainant 2 returned inside II he Respondent came up behind Complainant 2 and placiag hs hand to her head and eupped her ear. This wasan Inmate phyla! touch, and thee was no cational fortis physical touch [BBs cosjonction with his prior statement, twas resonable for Complainant Believe that Responden’s wat making an unveleome, sexual vance. “The Responden’s comment 9 Complainant 2 meet the frst wo requirements ofthe etnition of sexual haraemen. The Respondent comment ian.velcome, sexual ances. and oher verbal condi ofa sexual nature.” Complainant 2 revealed the incident to She didnot come orvad at that time to repo the Taller forall bcauce she was loo embarased and because of te ‘The Complainant’ reaction eflects tha the Respondent's comment was unwelcome to Complsinan: 2, a she ejected a sen or romantie relationship with him when they me or coffee Complainant 2 described how the Respondents behavior impacted her. Complin 2 noted that she was oh redo acid I becouse the Respondent's she efased ore wih hin when be xd her 12 come it his office “The impact on Complainant 2 reflects a“Therefore, the evidence reflects that bya preponderance ofthe evidence the Respondent rade an unwveleome, sexual advance (or ateratvely a verbal cone), sufficiently severe constiue behavior ofa “sexual nature" that affected and inerered wih Complainant 2 sl WBBM 2 esrebyvitated she sexual harassment provision ofthe UC Policy on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. XL Conclusion ;Bya preponderance ofthe evidence, the Respondent violated the sexual harassment provision ofthe UC Poliey on Sexual Harassment and Sexual Violence. ‘Therefore, this formal investigation report is being referred tothe Vice Provost for the Faculty for review. 9