Editorial: New CSU chancellor must protect students from sexual harassment

A confluence of events in the past nine days highlights the urgent need for the California State University system to correct its dysfunctional process for reviewing claims of sexual harassment.

Last week, trustees for the nation’s largest four-year university system announced the hiring of a new chancellor to replace Joseph Castro, who resigned last year amid allegations that he failed to properly handle sexual misconduct complaints against a former Cal State Fresno administrator.

This week, the federal criminal trial of Scott Shaw, the former San Jose State University sports trainer accused of sexually assaulting more than two dozen female athletes, began. It comes more than a decade after original allegations by 17 swimmers were dismissed by the school following a deeply flawed investigation.

Also this week, parallel investigations triggered by the Castro and Shaw cases — one conducted by the California State Auditor’s Office, the other by an outside law firm hired by CSU — reached scathing conclusions about the state university system’s broken processes for investigating sexual harassment cases.

Six years after the #MeToo movement rose to national prominence the CSU system continues to fail at protecting its 460,000 students and 56,000 employees at 23 campuses from abuse.

That must change. And that change must come quickly from the top — from the new chancellor, Mildred García. She will need help from the state Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom in the form of money for more staff and changes to state law to expedite investigations and discipline proceedings that currently unduly delay resolution and justice.

Nothing less than the reputation and integrity of the CSU system is at stake. There’s a common perception that campus administrators act to protect the institution instead of protecting students, faculty and staff, investigators found. And there’s understandable skepticism that people in positions of power or authority will be held accountable.

Examples cited justify those perceptions: A faculty member who was responsible for sexual harassment, sexual violence and stalking faced no disciplinary or corrective action for five years.

In another case, a student detailed that a faculty member made inappropriate comments about her body and attractiveness, consistently walked her toward her residence after class, talked about his personal and romantic life, and compared her to women he had dated. But the campus, without documenting a rationale, declined to investigate.

That outcome was the general rule rather than the exception. At the chancellor’s office and the CSU campuses, there were 1,251 reports of sexual harassment from 2018-22. Of those, only 254 were investigated, and only 98 were substantiated.

The numbers are estimates because there isn’t even a reliable and centralized tracking system for sexual harassment reports. The collection of data at the campuses was erratic. And, the state auditor found, Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco state universities did not consistently maintain data or source documentation, such as case files, from 2018-22.

The two investigations found that there is no uniformity for how the cases were handled by overworked staff, nor how state and federal laws were applied. Rather than clear leadership and coordination from the system chancellor, each campus has been left to fend for itself.

Cases of sexual harassment are often not investigated when they should be. Investigations take longer than required. And discipline of employee offenders is hard to come by because review processes under state law and some collective bargaining agreements are protracted and complicated, while arbitrators, administrative law judges and faculty members who rule on the cases often lack sufficient training to serve as decisionmakers.

The disturbing examples in the reports are backed up by equally concerning data. The Legislature asked the state auditor to assess handling of sexual harassment complaints against employees at the chancellor’s office and San Jose State, Fresno State and Sonoma State universities. To do that, the auditor’s team reviewed 40 cases of alleged sexual harassment from 2016-22.

More than half the 40 case files were missing important documentation, the auditor found. Four of the 40 cases were resolved through an informal resolution agreement. Another 15 cases were closed following the intake and initial assessment. And 21 resulted in formal investigations.

Cases were dismissed that probably should have been investigated. Of the 15 cases closed at intake, the auditors found that 11 lacked clear rationale for closure. Of the 21 cases investigated, seven raised concerns about the reasonableness of the determinations that sexual harassment had not occurred.

And the process took too long. Of the 21 cases investigated, nearly two-thirds exceeded CSU’s 70-to-100-day time frame for completion.

The problems must be quickly corrected at the top. The chancellor must impose a uniform and effective system of case review, enforcement and recordkeeping — one that provides timely resolutions while protecting the victims and the rights of the accused.

García, who currently serves as president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and was formerly president of the CSU campuses at Fullerton and Dominguez Hills, will take over as chancellor on Oct. 1.

She has her work cut out for her.