Editorial Board: Students deserve a voice
Investigation written over span of three months to bring concerns to light
November 22, 2019
In late July, The Daily Evergreen published an investigative article detailing sexual harassment by professors in two different departments at WSU. One day later, we received two separate news tips concerning the WSU Department of Psychology.
“Your recent article ‘A Beautiful Setup for Predators’ was only released today, but has already spread like wildfire through the Psychology department,” the news tip began.
The writer continued to say that the stories published the day prior mirrored allegations within the psychology department that students had spoken about to the Office of Civil Rights Compliance & Investigation, then known as the Office for Equal Opportunity. The original accuser was not willing to go through the interview process they said, and the inquiry was then closed.
Another wrote the same day:
“OEO opened an investigation and numerous graduate students came forward to detail inappropriate or uncomfortable behavior they had experienced or witnessed,” they wrote. “Many of the graduate students subsequently received lectures from their major professors on professionalism and the spreading of rumors.”
The Daily Evergreen requested public records regarding issues outlined by the two news tips and waited. On Aug. 20, a third news tip arrived informing our staff of a department meeting scheduled by the chair.
“Students are concerned that this meeting is retaliation for speaking up,” they wrote. “If you can be there, or nearby, it would be appreciated to have outside accountability for what this meeting will entail.”
Two Daily Evergreen reporters attended this meeting originally planning to cover it the same day. After reaching out to several of the students that attended, however, they felt there was more to cover than could be done right in the span of a few hours.
And so, for the next three months, our reporters emailed, called, texted and talked to students in person within the department. They pored over a 374-page report by the then-OEO and attempted to contact as many people involved in the inquiry as possible, both students and faculty members.
In total, our reporters received four news tips, talked to six graduate students and three undergraduate students in a series of ongoing messages and interviews. They also reached out to over a dozen other sources within the department for comment.
They also heard from students who were not directly connected to the inquiry but worked with the faculty member in question. They included both positive and negative feedback regarding the involved professor from these students in their article.
Multiple graduate students the reporters talked to said they felt issues were being swept under the rug, that their experiences were being dismissed and silenced and that they were being discouraged from speaking to their support network on the premise of not “spreading rumors.”
Some expressed frustration that they felt the need to speak to the newspaper — they wanted to be heard, they said, but told our reporters they felt their concerns were not, and would not be addressed without external pressure.
Some students, although not all, said they felt the university had chosen to protect the administration, faculty and itself above the students it serves.
Because graduate students are often highly dependent on their faculty and mentors to be able to successfully finish their graduate program, some sources closest to the issue asked to remain anonymous because they feared retaliation.
It’s important to note that several other students expressed enthusiastic support of the involved professor. The Daily Evergreen recognizes our reporters’ coverage of allegations against him does not invalidate their experience.
Despite this, the individual faculty member’s alleged actions were only one part of our story.
The reason our writers wrote this article was not to drag one person through the mud, but to bring light to what multiple students described as a larger, systemic issue: Alleged attempts to bar students from expressing worries or criticism in an effort to maintain department credibility.
As the student newspaper, we felt it was our journalistic obligation to bring these concerns to light. Our tagline says, “The student voice of Washington State University since 1895.” We could not continue to make this claim if we ignored the voices of the students who reached out to us.
During the layout process for this article, our reporters specifically stressed that a photo of a professor involved in the story should not be included because allegations against that one person are not what the heart of the story was about.
The article also went through multiple revisions and scrutiny by our staff to try and eliminate possible bias, unfair language or factual errors. While no article is ever perfect, we as the editorial board feel our reporters and editing staff did their best to ensure a fair, clear and accurate article.
All allegations mentioned were backed up by public record inqury, and our reporters specifically did not make claims of any individual’s guilt — both because it would be unethical to do so and because we believe in our readers’ ability to read the article and draw their own conclusions.
The Daily Evergreen stands with our reporters and the students of this university. We will continue to work for public accountability and transparency. We will continue to seek and report the truth.
Editor’s note: This editorial board was amended to accurately label the OEO’s involvement in the case as an inquiry. A previous version referred to the inquiry as an investigation.
A student voice • Nov 25, 2019 at 5:39 pm
I cannot speak for others here- I personally though would not define any portion of what he did as intimidation nor retaliation. I think it was a wise decision to step down from the CTC- I would have too if I was him. I feel that the accurate word is self preservation- not intimidation. I think it was not him who was intimidating- the students were the ones who I think intimidated and bullied him- not the other way around. After watching that meeting I would have stepped down too. I felt bad and felt like that was not fair of us. Our response came across as unprofessional and antagonistic in my opinion.
I support freedom of the press but I also think it was shady and underhanded to alert the press of all this in this way. There is absolutely no hint this article would accomplish anything- all it does is make sure that nothing will be done. It would be ill advised to continue talking about this at the leadership level beyond just referring people to the office they all refer to in the article (Weiler) for fear of continued backlash. This article sank any chance for change to occur. The moment students went to the press it began to appear that our motivations are to shame and ridicule instead of promoting change in my opinion.
I would never speak to the Evergreen about this. I am silenced out of fear of retaliation too. Not fear from retaliation from the leadership but from other students like myself. I feel like there are a few students in our department who silence others because they speak their voices so loudly it drowns out others and they shame others who do not share their views. I have personally seen this many times from our most vocal students. Just look at all the emails, the Facebook posts, the conversations I have been overhearing, and the comments in this article. They are polite but imply dissenting views are bad and should not be posted in this article- this is why I would never speak out in defense of the department outside of this forum. It seems like the more vocal students just assume that we all think there is a climate issue when this is not true.
A student voice • Nov 25, 2019 at 9:52 am
I cannot speak for the other post here- I personally though would not define any aspect of what he did as intimidation nor retaliation. I think it was a wise decision to step down from the CTC- I would have too if I was him. I feel that it was not him who was intimidating- the students were the ones who I think intimidated and bullied him- not the other way around. After watching that meeting I would have stepped down too. I felt bad and felt like that was not fair of us.
I would never speak to the Evergreen about this. I am silenced out of fear of retaliation too. Not fear from retaliation from the leadership but from other students. I feel like there are a few students in our department who silence others because they speak their voices so loudly it drowns out others and they shame others who do not share their views. I have personally seen this many times from our most vocal students. Just look at all the emails students have been sending out, the Facebook posts, the conversations I have been overhearing, and the comments in this article. They are polite but imply dissenting views are bad and should not be posted in this article- this is why I would never speak out in defense of the department outside of this forum.
In defense of free speech and free press • Nov 24, 2019 at 10:51 am
I’d like to point out that the department chair resigned from our clinical training committee because he stated he could not work with a program that has students who would speak with the press. Our department chair is our boss. He determines our assistantships.
Our boss engaged in blatant intimidation – that may verge on retaliation – against students who have exercised their constitutional right to speak with reporters. Our boss engaged in blatant intimidation – that may have verged on threats of retaliation – against students who were – or are – considering exercising their constitutional right to speak with reporters.
I wonder how many other students were approached by the Evergreen. 12 individuals declined to comment. How many different perspectives were silenced out of fear?
To those who disagree with the voices represented in the article and editorial: If you were asked to speak to the reporters, would you have? If not, why? If you think you would have, what would you share? Would you use your name? Would you consider writing a guest column in response? A letter to the editor? Why? Why not?
Psych Graduate Student • Nov 22, 2019 at 6:51 pm
I am a graduate student in this department. I appreciate your attempts to clarify and state your intentions. Even in doing so though your article and this response you made has a number of statements that are incorrect. When I saw this I had hoped you attempted to correct the obvious biases of the initial report but instead you just state you support these incorrect statements.
You state that there was an OEO complaint and then we had lectures from our major professors after that. This is only partly true. Those meetings occurred after the investigation was complete, not after a report was made. As far as I am aware the leadership waited until the investigation was over so as to not influence the results. I was never asked to stop talking directly in my meeting but cannot speak for others, but instead was asked to direct comments and questions to the OEO. The reasoning was that they did not want all of the rumors going around to take away from what actually happened. I can state with certainty that there were rumors going around at this time that were influencing the results of the investigation. I am not stating that all of the stories were false, but some were. I heard stories about other graduate students and Chris, and these students later told me that these stories were entirely false.
The other statement you make that is false is that this was a fair and unbiased review of the information. All of the students approached by the reporter who were upset were graduate students. All of the individuals who you approached who did not support the allegations were undergraduate students. You state that your article was unbiased and that you approached individuals from both sides, but you did not include some of those comments and heavily redacted others. What truly makes this biased though is you only cited undergraduates as the opposing opinion. It appears that you made no attempts to talk to graduate students who did not agree that there is a climate issue in this department. I’m not invalidating those you did interview, but many of us were invalidated by the lack of journalistic integrity due to you not approaching any graduate student who had dissenting views. It is important to make sure both arguments are well balanced. Only asking undergraduates about a climate in the psychology department that they would have no knowledge of and not asking any graduate students for dissenting views nor trying to seek them out does not promote a fair and unbiased process.
You are correct that we did have a mandatory meeting to discuss rumors and it was asked that we stop. What you fail to mention is once we shared that our colleagues are our support network they then agreed with us and told us we are free to talk to our support network as we see fit
Many individuals in this department who are graduate students feel that this climate is good, and you do a deservice by only providing testimonies of graduate students who are upset and then stating that you are “fair” because you asked a few undergraduates who have no idea what is going on with the department climate or leadership
This department supports me. I am sorry for my colleagues who do not feel that this is the case for them. I am not stating that they are incorrect in feeling this way, but to not actually ask any graduate students (only undergraduates) for dissenting opinions causes a clear and obvious bias to all of us reading this article.
You try to state all of the hours of work done as being why you support the article. Just because someone spent lots of time and you reviewed it with them many times does not mean it’s unbiased. All it means is no one caught how biased it was.