Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Colgate For Illegal Imprisonment, Fourth & Fourteenth Amendment Violations, and Discrimination

Note: The article below was submitted, anonymously, by a Colgate member and is not necessarily representative of Colgate's AAUP chapter's position. -ed

The AAUP has made it clear in its recent publication on campus sexual assault (found at: http://www.aaup.org/report/campus-sexual-assault-suggested-policies-and-procedures ) that faculty have a role to play in efforts to address the issue of sexual assault on campus and that our voice can help guide policies that address the issue issues of sexual violence on campus while respecting the rights of both victims and accused.

This is especially true here where a new, untried harassment policy and its associated disciplinary body with hearing power over students, staff, and faculty called the Equity Grievance Panel (EGP) has already led to controversy within the university and is now the at the center of a civil rights lawsuit against Colgate and sixteen individual administration, faculty and staff members involved with the Plaintiff’s EGP process.

We are bringing this lawsuit to the faculty’s attention because we believe that the allegations of civil rights abuses it contains require explanation and action on the part of those responsible for setting our policies, and because we need to insure that such behavior will never recur. By denying the appeal of the student on behalf of whom the lawsuit was filed, which detailed the violations to his civil rights, the administration asserted that these actions constitute acceptable behavior on the part of our institution; we believe this cannot stand unchallenged.

This lawsuit also puts faculty members on notice that we can be held individually liable even if we believe we are simply following policy and procedure, if those procedures are the cause of the violation of someone’s rights. It is therefore contingent on each of us to be aware of the policies we have in place as well as their implications. We need to make decisions based on our own professional and ethical understandings and actively resist any policy or action that has the potential to violate someone’s rights.

The Lawsuit

In order to understand our concern over these issues, it is necessary to share some details of what happened to result in a civil rights suit against Colgate by an international student who was expelled through the EGP process.

The suit alleges illegal, discriminatory, inconsistent, and disproportionate behavior on the part of Colgate and its employees, the sixteen individual named Defendants. Further, the Plaintiff was subjected to a “flawed disciplinary process, rotten with bias, that failed to comport with the most basic notions of fairness.”

Excerpts taken directly from the Complaint are below [n.b.: the complaint is nearly 50 pages long so the following is abridged and redacted to remove identifying details]:

The Allegations

In the spring of 2013, a Colgate student with whom [the Plaintiff] once had a brief relationship, alleged that he had once pushed her in 2012. She claimed to be reporting the incident—a year after it happened—because of an incident from 2011 involving [the Plaintif]f and another student, [the Plaintiff’s girlfriend]. Colgate already knew about the 2011 incident and had imposed a no-contact order at the time, which the girlfriend later asked be lifted. The student’s 2013 allegations, given their timing and nature, were inherently suspicious; indeed, they were made out of jealously because [the Plaintiff] had rekindled his relationship with his girlfriend.

Colgate waited more than a month after receiving the allegations before contacting the girlfriend, at which point she made clear that she had no complaint about the Plaintiff —in fact, they were still extremely close.

Before anyone had spoken to [the Plaintiff, an administrator decided] that [the Plaintiff] would be placed on interim suspension.

[This administrator] did not disclose the fact that s/he had a conflict of interest due to a close advising relationship with [the girlfriend].

The Department of Education’s Dear Colleague Letter provides: “any real or perceived conflicts of interest between the fact-finder or decision-maker and the parties should be disclosed.”

Coercive Interrogation

[The Plaintiff] and [the girlfriend] went to the Campus Safety Office together on March 22, 2013, arriving around 2:30 p.m.

Off and on for more than six hours, [Campus Safety] aggressively questioned [the Plaintiff]. [S/he] consistently accused him of wrongdoing, used sharp, leading questions, and twisted his words. It was clear that [Campus Safety] had already made up [their] mind about the facts and was not seeking the truth. At no time [was the Plaintiff] allow[ed] to freely tell his side of things.

[The Plaintiff] was never told that he had the option not to speak with [Campus Safety] or that he had the right to seek counsel or to have a representative of his choice with him. [The Plaintiff] was not told what the allegations against him were.

Upon information and belief, before [the Plaintiff]’s interrogation, a faculty member had alerted [Colgate administration] to his/her concern that [Campus Safety] had entrapped a student during an interrogation and misrepresented what the student had said. Upon information and belief, Colgate has taken no action to prevent this from happening to other students.

At approximately 7:30 p.m., [the Plaintiff stated] that he was feeling faint and dizzy from having not eaten all day. [The Plaintiff] was not permitted to leave the room to eat.

Following the interrogation, [Campus Safety] prepared a report which misconstrued and misstated many of the things that [the Plaintiff] had said.

[The Plaintiff was] provided a letter, evidently prepared earlier in the day and before [the Plaintiff]’s interrogation, stating that he had been placed on interim suspension. The letter misstated [the student who contacted Campus Safety]’s allegations by claiming that [the Plaintiff] had “choked” her when she had made no such allegation.

[A Colgate counselor] had been called to the Campus Safety Office. S/he asked to speak with [the Plaintiff] in private at which point, s/he asked him if he was feeling suicidal or like he may harm himself. He answered no.

[The counselor] then called [three administrators] back into the room and told [the Plaintiff] to tell them what he had told him/her alone in confidence.

The False Imprisonment

Absent legal authority or justification, Colgate imprisoned [the Plaintiff] against his will for more than thirty-six hours in a dirty, cramped, basement room secured by Campus Safety Officers.

On March 22, 2013, at the Campus Safety Office, [the Plaintiff was] told that he would be held in the basement of Curtis Hall until his disciplinary hearing [scheduled for 10 day later], and that he would not be allowed to go anywhere else.

[The Plaintiff was told] that if he wanted to forego staying in the basement of Curtis Hall, he could return [home and] the University would pay for the flight.

[Two Campus Safety Officers] then escorted [the Plaintiff] to Curtis Hall where they directed him to the deserted basement and to a cramped and dirty room, which had no linens or pillows. The basement had no cellular reception and no Wi-Fi, which prevented [the Plaintiff] from communicating his whereabouts to his family or friends.

The next day, March 23, 2013, after he awoke, [the Plaintiff] realized that there was no drinking water available in the room. [The Plaintiff] asked the Campus Safety Officer guarding the door for drinking water, but no water was provided at that time.

Around 3:00 p.m., [a Professor] called the Campus Safety Office and requested that [the Plaintiff] be allowed to leave Curtis Hall and stay with him/her off campus. [The Professor’s] request was denied. S/he was later told that the request would be sent to [an administrator and was eventually approved].

Upon information and belief, other students who have been placed on interim suspension have been housed off-campus in a hotel paid for by Colgate.

After the False Imprisonment

Colgate administrators contacted [the Plaintiff]’s family and warned that he would be criminally charged if he did not return home.

Upon information and belief, on March 25, 2013, [Campus Safety] called [the girlfriend] and intimidated and pressured her to provide a written statement as soon as possible.

During the meeting with [the girlfriend], [Campus Safety] made comments that [the Plaintiff] was violent towards women due to his cultural background and nationality and questioned whether [he] would be able to overcome twenty years of “cultural grooming.”

Upon information and belief, on March 26, 2013, [the girlfriend] met with [an administrator] to express her concerns of bias influencing the outcome of [the Plaintiff]’s disciplinary process.

Upon information and belief, on March 28, 2013, [the girlfriend] met with [another administrator] to express the same concerns.

Harassment by Campus Security Officers

On March 29, 2013, [the Plaintiff] went to the Campus Security Office to review the evidence that would be used against him at the hearing.

During that time, a Campus Safety Officer intimidated and aggressively questioned [him]. He harassed [the Plaintiff] for taking too long to review each page and about the notes that he was taking.

At some point, another Campus Safety Officer joined in harassing [the Plaintiff], and told him that his time was “over.” At some point, [the Plaintiff was] told that he was “done for tonight.”

Eventually, feeling too intimidated to remain at the Campus Safety Office, [the Plaintiff] sent a text message to [a professor] to ask him/her to pick him up. [One of the Campus Safety Officers] demanded to know who [the Plaintiff] was texting.

The Hearing

The use of the Equity Grievance Process in [the Plaintiff]’s case was improper as it is intended for “complaints of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or other forms of discriminatory and bias-related harassment,” yet none of the allegations in [the Plaintiff]’s case involved such conduct.

[Campus Safety] presented the case against [the Plaintiff] based on his/her biased and incomplete investigation.

Neither [the woman who contacted Campus Safety] nor [the girlfriend] testified at the hearing.

One of the panel members asked [the Plaintiff], in sum and substance, if he believed that his religion or culture was the reason for his actions.

Upon information and belief, after the hearing ended [an administrator] made several false statements to the hearing panel, including: (i) [the Plaintiff] had been confined at Curtis Hall for his own protection because he was suicidal; (ii) there was no relationship between [the woman who contacted Campus Safety] and [the girlfriend], when in fact they had been suitemates and [she] was clearly jealous of the fact that [the Plaintiff] had rekindled his relationship with [his girlfriend]; and (iii) there were no similar cases to compare appropriate sanctions.

The Appeal

On or about April 10, 2013, [the Plaintiff] submitted a thorough appeal statement, supported by a lengthy statement from [the girlfriend].

On May 1, 2013, [the Appeal Officer] denied [the Plaintiff]’s appeal [in a] letter [that] contained numerous inaccuracies and baseless conclusions.

For instance, [the Appeal Officer] dismissed the bias in [the] investigation because it occurred before the EGP hearing, and therefore, according to [the Appeal Officer], was not a proper basis for appeal since the University’s policy allowed for consideration only of procedural errors that occurred “during the EGP hearing.” [The Appeal Officer] apparently chose to ignore the facts that: (i) [Campus Safety] was the only person who testified against [the Plaintiff] at the EGP hearing; (ii) [Campus Safety]’s biased investigation was used against [the Plaintiff] at the EGP hearing; (iii) [Campus Safety]’s inaccurate report of [the] coercive interrogation of [the Plaintiff] was, upon information and belief, provided to the hearing panel; (iv) [the girlfriend]’s initial statement, which, upon information and belief, was provided to the hearing panel, was compelled by [Campus Safety], and [she] was never told that her statement would be used as evidence at a disciplinary hearing; and (v) the subsequent statement [the girlfriend] submitted in support of [the Plaintiff]’s appeal explained the serious and pervasive bias she experienced during her meetings with [Campus Safety].

[The Appeal Officer] also claimed that the bias and errors in [the] investigation, “even if they occurred in the manner you describe,” did not constitute violations of the University’s policies or procedures.

Regarding [the Plaintiff]’s false imprisonment, [the Appeal Officer] concluded that “it does not appear that the University acted unreasonably under the circumstances.”

Regarding the failure of [an administrator] to properly disclose the conflict of interest created by his/her relationship with [the girlfriend, the Appeal Officer] acknowledged that “the University would expect an official to recuse him or herself in cases of substantiated bias or potential conflict of interest.” Yet, [the Appeal Officer] concluded that [the administrator’s] failure to recuse him/herself from the disciplinary process was not error.

[The Appeal Officer] mentioned an expulsion case which [the Appeal Officer] said was comparable. Upon information and belief, that case involved a student who had been accused of sexual assault by two different women, and both women actively pursued the charges and participated in the hearing. Accordingly, that case is not comparable.

After the Appeal

The day that [the Appeal Officer] denied [the Plaintiff]’s appeal, [administrators] contacted [the Plaintiff] and told him, untruthfully, that he must leave the country immediately because his student visa was terminated when he was expelled.

Upon information and belief, several meetings were held with Colgate faculty and administrators to discuss what had transpired with [the Plaintiff].

Upon information and belief, at one of these meetings, the President was confronted with what had happened to [the Plaintiff], and he said that he was aware of the situation. Upon information and belief, the President said, in sum and substance, “when [Campus Safety] tells me someone has the profile of an abuser, I believe [them].”

Despite the fact that [the girlfriend] admitted in both of her statements that she was responsible for physical violence against [the Plaintiff], upon information and belief, she was never disciplined.

Upon information and belief, there is a disparity in the proportion of minority male students at Colgate who are subjected to disciplinary proceedings through the EGP.

The lawsuit thereby alleges violations of the IVth and XIVth amendments of the U.S. Constitution, discrimination prohibited by Title VI of the U.S. Civil Rights Act and Title IX of the U.S. Education Amendment, violations of New York State Human Rights law, illegal imprisonment in violation of New York State law, negligence and breach of contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among others.

Individually-named defendants either committed the above offenses or

are accused of being aware that the student’s right to equal protection under the law was violated and had “the power to prevent it but refuse[d] or neglect[ed] to do so” in violation of 42 USC 1986, Neglect to Prevent Interference with Civil Rights. Under this federal code, every Colgate employee who participated in the student’s disciplinary process is individually liable and has been named as a Defendant in the lawsuit.  This is why it is so important for faculty to be aware of their responsibilities and legal liabilities.

Finally, we want to inform the faculty that another international student was recently placed on interim suspension and also subsequently expelled through the EGP for allegations that did not include sexual violence, once again with no complainants or witnesses against him present at the EGP hearing. As of this writing, his case is under appeal.

On Dependent Verification

by R. M. Douglas
Professor of History

Professors Johnston, Regenspan and Moore have addressed the recent dependent verification initiative on the part of the Administration and/or an entity calling itself the "Bonadio Group." Prof. Johnston describes it as "an outrageous invasion of privacy and an insult to the entire Colgate community." Prof. Regenspan points out the contradiction between a workplace model that, on the one hand, depends upon the willingness of faculty members to do an enormous amount of uncompensated labour as an expression of their commitment to the institution—without which the University could hardly continue in its current form—and, on the other, feels itself entitled to demand that employees prove themselves innocent of workplace fraud to the satisfaction of whatever and whoever the Bonadio Group may be. Prof. Moore notes that, in addition to all the above, the Administration may be blundering into a legal minefield in its implicit assumption that the verification process confers rights alone upon the University while imposing obligations alone upon its workers.

Professors Johnston, Regenspan and Moore are entirely correct, and, I have no doubt, express the sense of the overwhelming majority of the Colgate faculty. Regardless of whatever commitments into which the Administration may have entered with the Bonadio Group, this ill-advised initiative needs to be withdrawn.

The Purging Process

by Nina Moore
Associate Professor of Political Science

I feel somewhat out of place entering this fray, because two enormously respected individuals have already brilliantly articulated the reaction and concerns that many of us quietly share—and they have done so on very principled grounds. As well, I don’t have a dog in this fight, so to speak, as my "dependent" will remain eligible under the ACA until age 26. Nonetheless, I offer here what is mostly a footnote to this discussion and in public support of Michael Johnston and Barbara Regenspan. In sum and substance, I wonder: why not simply require each employee to submit a form declaring dependents anew, signed and notarized?

As to Michael Johnston’s queries, I anticipate the following types of responses from Mr. Hutzley or from another in his stead, though I hope for more:

Anticipated Response One: The University/Mr. Hutzley has a fiduciary responsibility to minimize the cost of premiums for all Colgate employees, and the authority to make such a demand derives from this responsibility.

Indeed, I anticipate the argument (and implicit threat) will be that purging the dependent list will keep premiums down for us all. However, the best information I have (from the website of one of the larger dependent eligibility verification service providers) is that this process, on average, usually removes only 7% of dependents. It is unclear just how many of the 7% are subsequently re-enrolled due to having been mistakenly identified as ineligible, or how many were to be phased out naturally anyway, or how much of the "bragging" data are reliable, etc. Once Colgate completes its purging process, it will be interesting to review a department-by-department breakdown of those properly declared ineligible, the cost of the purging process to the University, and the net savings.

Anticipated Response Two: This move constitutes "best practices," meaning everybody else is doing it—so we should join the bandwagon.

When this explanation is (again) tendered, hopefully, as Michael Johnston urges, employees will also be provided with the names of institutions within our peer group that have adopted this "best practice," the details of the removal process utilized by the institution, the firm contracted to purge the rolls, the net benefit to the University/College, and the related costs. At least with the names of the small liberal arts colleges within our peer group in hand, faculty and other University employees will be in a position to learn, independently, the benefits and potential pitfalls of this initiative. It is increasingly a common practice here at Colgate University for new policy proposals to be justified under the guise of "best practices," with scarce information on how it is either "best" or a "practice." Some have said it is simply code for "lack of originality," and I tend to agree.

Anticipated Response Three: This decision was cleared by the Benefits Committee, in full accord with the University’s governance structure.

It is my understanding, albeit second-hand, that the committee was presented this plan about eight calendar days prior to the letter being sent to all employees. Furthermore, and again to my understanding, committee members were assured this was altogether routine, hardly anything worth probing at length. One or more members, I am told, questioned the timing of this roll-out, chiefly out of concern for faculty summer travel schedules, more so than permitting a full airing at a faculty meeting. It is entirely possible that the search for a consulting firm took place in the eight days to follow the meeting, along with a request for competitive bids, fine-tuning of the firm’s prospectus, a follow-up review by all University administrators, then drafting of the letter, and so on. The tell-tale sign of whether the Benefits Committee was fully informed and shared fully in the decision process that yielded this initiative may be reflected by the actual date on which the Bonadio Group was first contacted by phone or in writing.

Anticipated Response Four: This particular approach is the standard industry approach to dependent eligibility verification.

If "industry" includes Colgate’s peer group, then, it will be helpful to know the who’s, what’s, when’s, and why’s of the relevant industry, as Michael has already indicated.

Anticipated Response Five: Faculty and staff need not worry about the possible repercussions of this routine process, as it will be closely monitored by University administrators and, perhaps too, the Benefits Committee.

In my opinion, whether this is true is at least partly a function of the following types of issues. As I understand it, these are some of the very same issues raised by labor unions and subsequently addressed when New York City embarked on its own dependent eligibility verification process for its thousands of employees. Among the issues that will determine how harmless this process is and how little-worried faculty and staff should be are:


* Whether the documentation required for each category of dependents is appropriate and non-intrusive, whether the deadlines set for each category stretch over months as opposed to weeks, whether the documentation is the same for all in the category (versus being developed and applied on an ad hoc basis), and how much of the documentation must be government-issued, among other things. To ask a longtime faculty member to supply proof of his nearly 40 year marriage—proof that goes beyond a marriage license—strikes me as altogether unreasonable. Federal government tax laws, New York State tax laws, and IRS policy and procedures all accept a sworn, signed statement on income tax returns as proof of marriage and dependent status, unless particularized (i.e., identified) circumstances warrant more. I am not a lawyer, but to demand (with the threat of the loss of health benefits) that employees turn over to their employer individual tax returns, credit account information, and so on is a gross intrusion on the right of privacy. Perhaps the University’s grand plan of documentation requirements could be posted on the University website for all to see. Then again, that could have been provided with Hutzley’s initial letter.

* Whether there is an appeals process available to those deemed ineligible via this process. What is the structure of the appeals process? Deadlines? Criteria for adjudicating? Who will be the ultimate arbiter of appeals?

* Whether there are repercussions to faculty and staff whose dependent benefits—unbeknownst to them— exceeded their eligibility time-windows. Will they owe the University for back premiums or any other costs borne by the University on behalf of the ineligible beneficiaries? What assurances are there that there will be no retroactive application or penalties in connection with this process?

* Whether the University will exercise any right it may have to pursue fraud charges or to report individuals to government officials, such as the IRS or others? The New York City police union, as I understand it, pressed this issue and obtained a written guarantee this would not occur. Perhaps the University could provide the same written assurances to its employees.

* Whether the University will assume liability for any damages resulting from the loss or misuse of confidential information supplied to the Bonadio Group. One need only think of the recent Target data breach to appreciate the very real likelihood of such an occurrence. Target took steps to correct the impact of the massive breach, by providing consumer credit monitoring services, among other things. What has the University put in place to protect its employees in this process? What assurances will/can it offer should the Bonadio Group be as vulnerable to cyber attacks on personal credit information, as the multi-national corporation that is Target?Anticipated Response Six: The terms of the contract with the consulting firm are set in stone, and God himself could not change any of its terms at this point.

This, to me, would be the most worrisome response. It would signal, one, the University has already conceded or lost control of the purging process. And, two, it has turned over control to what I would deem an inflexible firm little interested in accommodating its approach to what is best for the Colgate community.

It is my hope that Mr. Hutzley responds to Michael Johnston’s queries or, at the very least, provide more concrete, helpful information to the University community at large as we embark on what has to be one of the most intrusive processes in Colgate University history. In addition, perhaps Mr. Hutzley and the administration will consider voluntarily staying the dependent eligibility verification process or extending the deadline for submissions to December 31, 2014. This would allow the decision makers to develop appropriate safeguards and offer reassurances to faculty and staff regarding the impending purging process.

Hutzley's Letter for the Next Two Posts

To Colgate Employees:

Colgate University will be engaging in a Dependent Eligibility Verification Review of our medical and dental insurance plans, as a measure to ensure only those eligible for coverage are on our plans.  In January 2014, the University moved to a self-insured model for our health plan, with dental having been self-insured for many years. Being self-insured means all claims are funded by the university. The funding source for claims includes premiums collected from employees, as well as Colgate’s designated contributions. Future premiums for these plans are determined based on the claims utilization of our employees and their dependents.  We have retained the services of The Bonadio Group, an independent CPA Consulting firm, to conduct this review.     

In the next two weeks, a letter will be sent to the home address of employees and retirees with dependents on the Colgate medical and/or dental plan. Employees with single coverage will not be contacted.  The letter will request documentation in support of each of the dependents listed on your policy.  Included will be a detailed description of the requirements to be an eligible dependent under our health/dental plan and the type of documentation required to support their eligibility.  Employees will submit all documentation in a confidential and secure manner.  All documents will be destroyed six months following the completion of the verification review.  Employees will be required to respond to the request for information with the appropriate documentation as outlined in the letter. 

This type of review is a common practice that helps an organization verify plan compliance regarding applicable regulations.  We are looking to identify situations where employees have dependents covered through their healthcare plans that may not be aware they are no longer eligible under our plan or did not realize they needed to contact Human Resources with the change of status.  The end goal is to contain costs for all employees and retirees on future healthcare premiums and coverage, something that is increasingly important, as healthcare costs continue to rise in today’s economy. 

We appreciate your cooperation in this important initiative.  Please feel free to contact Amy Ryan, Director of Benefits in the Human Resources Department, if you have any questions.

Brian Hutzley

Vice President for Finance and Administration

On Brian Hutzley's Letter to Colgate Employees

By Barbara Regenspan
Chair, Department of Educational Studies

I write to applaud Michael Johnston’s response to the recent letter by Brian Hutzley, which makes a cynically timed and outrageous demand of Colgate employees.  Those of us who wish to claim dependent benefits will be required to provide sensitive (and troubling) personal documentation to one of the new, and highly profitable corporations making money, literally, out of the erosion of the very qualities that make any community possible.  

Such a practice will damage our specific “Colgate community” through loss of feelings of mutual trust between faculty/staff and administrators.   This practice will also lower the bar related to the intellectual standards on which institutions of higher education win our credibility.  Mr. Hutzley tells us that we must comply because such practices are increasingly “common.”   My reply: So is the practice of living on quarter-pounders. 

As a faculty member whose second (and younger) child has already become ineligible for inclusion on our health insurance policy, and who has since found a good alternative for herself, I could take the attitude that this issue does not concern me.  But on account of the scholarship I do, and my feelings of loyalty to what I do continue to experience as a positive Colgate community, I cannot avoid voicing my concern.   

I have been asked on other occasions what I and other faculty mean by "the increasing corporatization and neo-liberalization of the university."  This letter from Mr. Hutzley represents an excellent example.  Market relations take the place of human relations.  Indeed, "human nature" becomes defined as the quality of taking what one can get away with in any circumstance.  From this newly defined “human nature”  comes the expectation of abuse of all hard-won provisions towards the public or community good, like health benefits, for instance.   Although the big banks can no longer be regulated (against amassing a greater and greater percentage of public wealth) because they are “too big to fail” we are little enough to regulate…we are little enough to be forced to waste increasing percentages of our time and energy accounting for everything we do…for everything we are. 

The procedure of requiring such new verifications is made normal, as Michael points out, in the same way that those politicians (typically on the political right who wish to discourage poor people and people of color from voting), enact onerous rules related to voter registration.  Related, and similarly more broadly significant, they shape a political reality in which our students, for instance, do not know that things can be otherwise.   A philosopher significant in my own research charges that they shape a “suffocating reality principle whose distillate is the economy.” 

Related, and again, back to intellectual standards:  Highly paid college administrators are supposed to be intelligent and informed people.  Surely they know that there is plenty of research on the subject of how eroded trust literally engenders fraud because it threatens respect for the unwritten social contract.   

Ramped up demands for verification are not unrelated to increasing numbers of students engaging in plagiarism, and even more commonly, not doing the readings.  These young people view their college education as a ticket to an ever narrower conception of getting what they want, supported by that suffocating reality principle in which knowledge primarily fuels cocktail party chatter for those who have been competitive enough to win entre to cocktail parties.  The social contract that morally binds our students to us is eroded.  Indeed the sickening increase in testing and standards, and related draconian teacher “accountability” mechanisms in the public schools, have already significantly eroded trust and belief in the enlivening possibilities of public education. 

Finally, and returning to the cynical nature of the timing of this letter from the administration, (with the community dispersed, and no faculty   meetings for three months):  Did our administrators not consider how it would feel to receive such an e-mail communication after having completed the extra-demanding work of ending the term, all of which calls up, for faculty and staff, issues of allegiance to others, community-building and trust between ourselves and our students, and personal self-reflection about the worth of our work?   

Like many of my colleagues, I experience the most meaningful aspect of graduation as the opportunity to express gratitude towards one another for making possible the integrity inherent in our highest conceptions of an educational community.  I participate in graduation and related events and host a party in my home for beloved students and their families.  Some of the meetings with parents represent the most touching moments of my academic career.  This year’s party was especially moving because my successful Challenges of Modernity FSEM of four years ago was graduating and because we currently have a wonderful group of both majors and certification students, including particularly gifted MAT’s, in my Department of Educational Studies. 

And a few days after these events, I find that had our Sarah been one year younger, I would have been required to provide a copy of my marriage license and more documentation to Colgate, in relation to which I have been a loyal worker for nine years, in order to prove that I had not committed fraud against it.   And wait…I would not even be providing the documentation to Colgate…I’d be providing it to The Bonadio Group, (which appears to need to disguise its corporate nature, including its ties to those same banks that are “too big to fail” in “Group-ness”), costing Colgate resources I want us to spend on achieving the goal of need-blind admissions.  

In my vision of funding need-blind admissions (and as important, a four-course teaching load) instead of the Bonadio Group, at future graduation parties I could express and experience gratitude in relation to more parents for whom a Colgate education for their child was once unimaginable.  And perhaps gradually, through these, and similar acts of community-building, we might reclaim the genuine struggle to face “The Challenges of Modernity” as the point of education. 

Thanks again to my colleague Michael Johnston for providing a wonderfully cogent response to the letter in question, a response uniquely situated in his scholarship, most recently made accessible in Corruption, Contention, and Reform: The Power of Deep Democratization. 

Senior faculty who have the slack to invest in this issue: It’s an important one because it is concrete and all the data is available to us, unlike neoliberal “reforms” on which it’s harder to get a handle.   Please air your views on the AAUP website and let’s demand a public answer to all of Michael’s questions and an end to this demeaning new requirement of Colgate employees.

A University, A Giant Corporation, or a Cheap Roadside Motel?

By Michael Johnston
Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science

Soon we will all receive a letter that, I am told, informs us we must produce documentation of all our dependents’ status. To prove you’re married — to cite the example that applies to me — you’ll need to supply a copy of a marriage license (huh??) and either a copy of the first page of your federal tax return or of some recent bill showing your names and current address. What they’ll require for other dependents, I do not yet know.

Speaking only for myself, for now – but hoping others share my outlook – I find those demands an outrageous invasion of privacy and an insult to the entire Colgate community.

Some will not share that view, and I will admit that the recent email announcement from someone named Brian Hutzley came at a time when I was feeling even more old and cranky than usual. But there are two big things that are wrong with this picture.

One is a principle that has stayed with me since the late 1960s, back when I was young and cranky: if you expect me to produce personal information and documents you had better have a damned good reason for doing so, and you had better have clear-cut authority to make such a demand. I haven’t seen evidence of either in this case.

My wife and I have been married thirty-eight years as of next month, raising a family and now enjoying four grandchildren (who seemingly are of uncertain ancestry in the eyes of our administrators). Neither Betsy nor I have ever been asked to produce a marriage license for any reason. Now, apparently, a consulting firm and some jumped-up bean-counters have decided that the benefits we have earned for twenty-eight years now might have been fraudulently claimed, and that the burden of proving the contrary rests upon us.

Really happy to know you trust us, folks.

In the wake of the announcement I sent the following questions to Mr. Hutzley and President Jeff Herbst, via a pair of emails:

What language in the University's Human Resources policies, Faculty Handbook, or other documents empowers you to request the verification data and documents you propose to collect from us?

How many cases of falsely-claimed benefits has the University experienced over the past one, five, and ten years?

With respect to change-of-status documents' not having been filed, have you sent out a general request and reminder that employees update that information? If not, why not?

When, and by whom, was the decision made to roll out this demand for documentation after the end of the academic year, after the final faculty meeting, and during the run-up to a long holiday weekend -- that is, after the time when community discussions might readily be held, and administrators subjected to questions?

My understanding is that Colgate already offers benefits to domestic partnerships. In that light, by what authority and with what justification do you propose to request a marriage license from anyone else?

With respect to those domestic partnerships, what documentation will be required of those people? What provisions have you made for those who have arrived here from jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is still illegal, or who have not lived in New York long enough to take advantage of our laws, or who for reasons of their own choosing have decided to remain at the domestic partnership stage?

What provisions have you made for people whose marriages, and whose dependents' births, have taken place in other countries where documentation practices may differ greatly from ours?

Can you please inform me of any financial ties the Bonadio Group (the consulting firm mentioned above) might have with Colgate Trustees or administrators? Are any of those people shareholders or otherwise invested in the Bonadio Group?

Will Colgate administrators, including yourself, be subject to the same requests for documentation of dependents?

Not long after, I sent an additional four questions to President Herbst:

Where, how, and with whom did the dependent validation exercise originate, and -- this is important -- on what precise date was the decision made to go ahead with the process?

Will you please identify some of the other institutions -- perhaps from our reference group -- that you say have implemented this "best practice"?

Will you be producing your own marriage license and other documentation of dependent relationships?

Will you undertake to ensure that Mr. Hutzley will answer the nine factual questions I have sent him, and will you tell me the date by which I can expect a full and truthful response?

Lots of questions there, and I understand that answering some of them might take time. And yes, as I write we are still in a long holiday weekend period (more on that point in a moment). Still, I am not encouraged by the fact that no one in the administration has acknowledged receiving these questions, which were submitted last week, much less responded to them in any way.

Ultimately, the reasoning here is precisely that of those who advocate making voters show photo identification at the polls: We are going to hassle you about your civil status, and shift the burden of proof of your right to vote/your bona fide qualification for dependent benefits, over to you — and we are doing that to prevent some sort of fraud that we have not even shown exists.

The second deeply objectionable aspect of these events is what they tell us about University governance. The documentation proposal was given a pro forma airing before the faculty Benefits Committee, but only during the White Eagle process — after the end of the term, when faculty and staff have begun to scatter, and (how convenient for the administration) after the last faculty meeting. Mr. Hutzley’s email came out during the runup to the long Memorial Day weekend, when many people are away from campus. As I understand it, the deadline for producing your papers will fall before the start of the Fall term, unless some exception is specifically requested.

As it happened I sent President Herbst another email, protesting the policy itself in pointed terms. He did respond to that one, with the punchline being "The direct answer to your question is that you will have to provide the documentation we requested". So much for collegial shared governance: your only choice is to obey, or risk losing basic dependent benefits. Why? Because we say so, that’s why.

Resistance is futile.

Well, maybe not yet: a member of the Benefits Committee has agreed to bring my questions to the attention of Human Resources; maybe some answers will be forthcoming. As for a more fundamental justification of the new policy, I doubt we will receive very much beyond vague claims that somehow we will be saving the University some money.

When I came to Colgate in 1986 after a decade at a public institution ten times as large, I found it refreshing to be part of a small academic community that seemed to do its business in an atmosphere of trust and mutual respect. Those days are long gone: we are now apparently subject to the whims of a gang in the Ministry of Truth who seem to enjoy pretending they are running a huge corporation (with, now, fantasies about being desk clerks at a cheap roadside motel). Our administration, by now, is considerably more cumbersome and less responsive than ever was the case  in my ten years at a megaversity. In place of shared governance and meaningful accountability we now have mountains of management, precious little leadership, and zero vision or institutional ambition. This is, after all, an administration that responded to faculty proposals to enhance our academic profile with…wait for it…zippy new typefaces and letterheads!

Set aside everything that bothers me about the documentation demand – I recognize not everyone will share my views. Those bigger and deeper governance issues remain, and seem (on the strength of recent events) to be becoming more acute. 

It didn’t have to be this way, and we are not becoming a stronger institution as a result.