Smoke & Mirrors
The UC Regent's Labyrinth: Behind the Smoke and Mirrors of University Accountability
In recent years, the echo of students demanding justice against institutionalized discrimination and harassment has grown louder. Yet, many higher-learning institutions, notably within the University of California system, deflect accountability through convoluted internal procedures. Central to this is the claim that students have not exhausted internal remediation options—even as these options are made elusive.
The expectation is that students engage with internal avenues before legal proceedings. Ideally, this would lead to swift resolutions. But in reality, universities often obscure these avenues, making them complex and demoralizing.
In too many instances, universities are either failing to provide clear information about these internal avenues or are purposefully making them complex and discouraging. Students, in their pursuit of justice, often face a labyrinthine bureaucracy replete with vague guidelines, shifting deadlines, and discouraging procedures. A student, already weighed down by academic pressures and the mental strain of facing discrimination or harassment, is then asked to navigate this system with little to no assistance. In such a setting, is it any wonder that many give up or choose to bypass this route altogether?
Delving into the procedures of the University of California, students seeking justice are often met with a maze of bureaucracy and processes that seem more punitive than supportive. Particularly concerning is the approach of offices dedicated to addressing sexual harassment and discrimination. Rather than offering clarity, they compound the confusion, frequently discouraging students with statements like "Nothing will come out of this," or "It's just an investigation with no guaranteed resolution." Such statements, whether intentional or not, have a chilling effect. Theses offices send a clear message: "Why bother?"
Furthermore, those brave souls who do press forward with internal complaints often find themselves facing retribution, further discrimination, or drawn-out processes that ed up in administrative “close file” letters into someone’s tenure file.This discouragement, whether intentional or not, risks silencing victims and emboldening perpetrators. When students, disillusioned with the internal system, turn to legal means, they're often rebuffed for not exhausting internal avenues—a hypocritical stance given the system's opacity.
This isn't just a legal defense; it's a calculated strategy used by the university repeatedly. By successfully arguing in court that students didn't utilize internal options, universities can often have cases dismissed or, at the very least, weaken the legal standing of the aggrieved party. The result? Institutions face no liability and are free to continue their harmful practices, unchecked.
The University of California must rise above this. Its offices should champion student welfare, providing clear guidance, genuine support, and unbiased investigations. In an era where transparency and accountability are paramount, it is incumbent upon universities to revamp and clarify their internal remediation processes. They must provide genuine, effective routes for students to address grievances. Anything less is a betrayal of the very principles of education and justice that these institutions purport to uphold.