Board Policy causes concern over faculty freedom
BY: JACOB POLITTE
Managing Editor
In recent years, STLCC and the college’s Board of Trustees inserted a “civility clause” into their official policy manual.
This clause was added during the onset of the pandemic in May 2020, and was most recently revised on July 1, 2021.
While the policy appears to be straightforward on paper, some faculty have expressed concerns about its vague nature, and fear that as a result the policy may be “weaponized” to intimidate anyone who speaks out or disagrees with the college.
STLCC Chancellor Jeff Pittman strongly disagrees with that sentiment.
“The entire purpose of the policy is to add protections for all members of the College community so that they are free from the impact of uncivil behavior, as defined in the policy,” Pittman said. “So, no, I do not think that the policy takes any protections away from faculty or any other member of the community.”
The policy itself
In the original May 2020 addition, the Policy reads “In an effort to maintain a safe workplace free of harassment and to promote a positive learning environment for students and staff, respectful and civil behavior is required on College property, in College-sponsored transportation, and at College-sponsored activities and events. All persons having business with the College including, but not limited to students, faculty, staff, Board of Trustees members, volunteers, visitors, and patrons shall treat one another with civility, courtesy, and respect. Abusive conduct shall be prohibited.
Abusive conduct shall be defined as any behaviors that are physically or verbally threatening, either overtly or implicitly, as well as behaviors that are coercive, intimidating, violent, or harassing. This conduct can be verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct directed toward a College employee that, based on its severity, nature and frequency of occurrence, a reasonable person would determine is intended to cause intimidation, humiliation, or unwanted distress. A single act does not constitute abusive conduct.”
The college goes on to list several examples of what may constitute abusive conduct: “use of profanity; personally insulting remarks; attacks on a person’s race, gender, gender identity or expression, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability; and/or behaviors that are disruptive to the College and work environment, including College events.”
This “abusive conduct” could take place throughout a variety of mediums. The college lists those mediums as: telephone or text conversations; voice mail messages; face-to-face conversations; written letters; e-mail communications; or on College social media. STLCC Policy also stipulates, however, that investigation into this conduct may not necessarily be limited to these mediums.
In a revision from July 2021, the college once again revised the policy. While most of the text remained unchanged, there was one very notable difference.
While the college previously had said that “a single act does not constitute abusive conduct,” they revised it to now state that “a single act may constitute abusive conduct.”
The policy, while detailing some examples of what may constitute abusive and unprofessional conduct, remains rather vague on how determinations on said conduct may be reached on a case-by-case basis, according to concerned faculty members. Who will make those determinations?
And perhaps most importantly, is a “civility policy” even necessary? Why did the college feel the need to institute one? And why was the policy revised?
The view of STLCC Administration
Chancellor Pittman says that before 2020, many college policies had not been reviewed and revised for an extended period of time.
“The policies and procedures had not been reviewed in any comprehensive manner for many years,” Pittman said. “Many were out of date, and some issues commonly addressed in policy for colleges were not addressed in St. Louis Community College policies.”
Pittman says that there were no inciting incidents that led to the college’s adoption of the civility clause; instead, he says it came about as the result of a comprehensive review of Board Policies and Administrative Procedures initiated by the Board.
“Civility is a very common subject for policy statements in higher education, and the development of this policy was to align the College with best practices. I am not aware of specific incidents that led to the decision to include a civility policy as part of the College’s comprehensive policies, rather there was a desire to set a standard of expected civil discourse and absence of abusive behaviors or language,” said PIttman.
Pittman says that prior to this policy, conduct that constituted unlawful discrimination or harassment was addressed, and he says that it continues to be addressed in policies and procedures addressing non-discrimination and equity.
“Additionally,” he said, “Federal and state laws prohibiting discriminatory conduct and labor laws exist to protect employees from abusive and harassing behavior, which the College also continues to enforce.”
Regarding the policy’s 2021 revision, Pittman says it was a decision that was made to reinforce the significance of a civil environment at the College and to simply further define the intention of the original policy for employees and students.
“While board policy is typically written at a high level,” Pittman said, “the Trustees who reviewed this section most likely wanted to emphasize this point to assist employees and students with the understanding of how serious abusive conduct is.”
Pittman also said that a committee is appointed by the Board of Trustees to review and update board policy, and that the once again just recently formed the committee for this year to undergo a review of several board policy sections.
The role of the Board of Trustees
Kevin Martin is the chair of STLCC’s Board of Trustees, and has served on the Board since April of 2017. He confirmed Pittman’s remarks about policy not being updated for several years.
“Several years ago, the Board recognized that we had not reviewed our policies as frequently as we desired,” Martin said. “Some of our policies were decades old.”
Martin said that the Board of Trustees instituted a transparent process that allowed for all “stakeholders” to have a voice in the development, review, and editing of policies. He says that they now have a rotating schedule to review certain policy sections each year with a Board committee.
“Generally,” he said, “there is a Board meeting in between the initial reading and final approval of any policies.”
Martin says that it is critical that the Board operates at the governance level and that they do not “get in the weeds.”
“This is the exact reason we develop policies, a budget, and strategic plan to allow the administration to carry it all out,” Martin said. “It is not the role of the Board to get involved in day-to-day operations or such matters.”
Martin says that the Board can both come up with and approve policies, but that they have the final say about what is approved.
“The administration may recommend a policy for the Board to consider, however, it is at the sole discretion of the Board as to which policies are to be approved,” he said. “Policies provide the College with a framework or ‘boundaries’ in which they should operate. Administrative Procedures are then created that are more detailed in how said policies will be implemented.”
Martin said that from the point of view of the Board, the policy came out of several discussions, and that the Board desired to establish it.
“This specific policy, as I recall it, came out of suggestions from our stakeholders,” he said.
The view of the faculty
A concerned faculty member who requested anonymity said that they felt as if the clause was too vague and so broad that it could potentially be used as a sort of “weapon” against “anyone who disagrees with you.” They said it has the potential to be used capriciously, that it is not objectively defined and that it can be and is being used to divide employees.
This person also said that they have seen the clause weaponized already on campus, and that they feel as if the administration has created an environment over time where people have become afraid to ask questions and talk openly about various issues, and cited the situation surrounding then-adjunct professor Steve Taylor in fall 2017 at a STLCC Board of Trustees meeting as an example. In that situation, Taylor was tackled to the ground by a security officer as he approached the Board following a request, and then direct order to leave the meeting; Taylor was fired by the college a few days later. The incident made both local and national headlines.
The concerned faculty member also said that the policy may have something to do with Professor Emily Neal’s ongoing absence from the Meramec campus.
When asked about the Chancellors comments, they questioned if the implementation of the policy was necessary if the college already had policies in place to address the issues. They said they believe the civility policy goes against Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom protections as well. They say that there has been a history of a growing sense of fear, using claims of being uncivil and threatening and of attempted union busting.
They also say that the situation with Professor Neal, which this person says they were not a witness to, is being talked about on campus with fear, and that they and many others find the lack of transparency surrounding it to be “disturbing.” They questioned who would be willing to be a strong advocate next, and believed that there may be more attempts in the future to silence forms of protest from faculty using this policy.
Professor Neal was contacted for this piece, but did not reply to requests for comment. The Montage has been unable to officially verify any substantial information regarding her absence. Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs Andrew Langrehr also did not reply to a request for an interview.
When asked directly about Neal, Chancellor Pittman simply said “The college does not comment on any personnel actions.”
There were some faculty willing to go on the record, however. English Professor Shaun Reno is the chair of the Meramec Senate, and has been working at the Meramec campus for nearly two decades; he celebrates his twentieth anniversary at the campus next month.
“The Senate structure is such that we review any changes that go into administrative policy,” he said. “They come to us for review. Our goal is to make recommendations for any possible changes, and then that is sent onto the Chancellor.”
“Ultimately,” Reno said, “he can do what he wants in conjunction with the board.”
Reno says that he first became aware of the policy last year, but that the policy went through the normal Senate process and was viewed by members of the Senate.
“I would have seen it coming through as a Senate member last year specifically,” he said. “So I remember seeing it then.”
Reno continued, “I remember it being part of things that we had to look at to give feedback on [as a part of the Senate]. As to then it being laid out in terms of what it actually meant to an individual? No, I don’t remember there ever being an email or discussion at any level about it.”
Reno said that he wasn’t sure if the policy was a necessary addition to already existing STLCC policies.
“Truthfully, I didn’t understand what the purpose of it was, to a degree,” he said. “I know it was something that they wanted to institute. I never before had ever thought that it was necessary to have anything. So yeah, I wasn’t necessarily seeing it as a thing they needed to have. I don’t remember there being an issue with incivility at the college from my perspective.”
“It seems to me that [the policy] is going to be there, but it shouldn’t be a punitive process,” Reno continued. “My understanding is that it may be being used very punitively, which would be problematic, I think. It should be used more as a way of helping people understand what our expectations are, especially if the policy itself doesn’t lay out specifics. So, it seems to me that since it’s open to some degree of interpretation, having conversations about what some expectations are in certain work situations are probably important to have.”
Reno was also unsure about the policy’s overarching impact.
“I’m not certain that the policy itself is going to create a sense of civility. That’s going to be created through interactions with individuals anyway,” he said.
“The issue is, ‘How is it being implemented? And is it a fair system in terms of the way it’s being applied? I would always look at it [in terms of] how it actually affects people. And then, I think if it’s leading to problems instead of solving problems, if it’s creating incivility when it should be creating civility, I think that’s a problem. And then we might want to have a conversation about how we’re interpreting the policy and look at whether it needs to be changed,” said Reno.
Terms and conditions
When asked what he thinks constitutes a reasonable person, Pittman said, “Generally, the ‘reasonable person’ standard means ‘what would a prudent person think about this, considering the same circumstances and context?” He says that this is a common standard used to assess various types of policy violation and that it is considered to be an objective standard.
Pittman also says that the college may also assess the credibility of the person making the claim.
“[…] if you are asking whether the College would want to ensure that someone asserting a violation of the civility policy was credible,” he said, “yes, we would certainly want to assess credibility.”
He said that this may be accomplished in a number of ways. They include but are not limited to the witness’s level of involvement in the situation, and whether or not they may have a motive to misinterpret information. Pittman also says the point of view of the accused is taken into consideration.
“If the claim is about conduct of another,” he said, “does the other person admit to the conduct?”
Reno says that the terminology of the policy’s text doesn’t necessarily bother him, but says that the policy being misused would.
“Any procedure isn’t going to be able to list everything, so in that sense it doesn’t [bother him]. But of course, if it’s being used in a way that is impunitive…any policy I think should be there to help encourage people to make good decisions and to help people, when the wrong decisions might be made, to help give us guidance about the way forward.”
He continued, “I think the issue is whether people understood the implications of it and how it would be applied. If it’s being applied in a way that people find to be troubling, I think that’s what we need to focus on.”
Pittman’s final view
While the college doesn’t necessarily believe that faculty would be violating the policy, Chancellor Piitman affirmed that they want to be prepared for the possibility.
“The leadership of the College certainly hopes that employees and students do not violate the civility policy,” Chancellor Pittman said. “A primary reason for adopting a policy is to clarify for all members of our community the community standards for civility. However, as with all policies, there is the possibility that the policy will be violated, and we would make every effort to respond appropriately if an issue is brought to our attention.”
Questions about who makes the determinations of what specific actions may violate the policy, what happens when a false claim is found to have been made, and the overall necessity of the policy were also asked, but the Chancellor and other members of the college administration were unable to respond further as of press time.
