A person who wishes to complain that a faculty member has committed academic or sexual misconduct or has engaged in other behavior that is addressed by specific University procedures must follow those procedures.
Other allegations that a faculty member has violated the Faculty Standards of Conduct normally will be resolved by the dean of the faculty member against whom the allegation is made, in keeping with the authority of deans to administer their schools. Deans may create and apply processes to resolve complaints of faculty misconduct, which may include the designation of a particular faculty member, such as a department chair, to receive and facilitate the resolution of complaints. Such processes may result in sanctions beyond the inherent administrative authority of the dean(3) only with the consent of the parties to the dispute. If a dean imposes a sanction or administrative leave that the affected faculty member believes exceeds the dean’s inherent administrative authority, the faculty member may write a letter of complaint to the Provost within seven days after being informed of the action. If the Provost concludes that the action exceeded the dean’s authority, including that the action was grossly disproportionate to the alleged behavior, the Provost will return the matter to the dean, who may impose a lesser sanction or interim remedy or request that the matter be referred for faculty review under the procedures described below.
If an alleged violation of the Faculty Standards of Conduct has not been resolved by the dean using the dean’s administrative authority or a decanal process, or if the dean was significantly involved in the matter under dispute(4), a complaint may be submitted by the Provost for review under the procedures described below.
1. The Faculty Standards Review Committee
The Faculty Standards Review Committee (“the Committee”) consists of faculty members elected for three-year terms. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) and the School of Medicine shall each elect five members, the School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS) shall elect two, and the other professional schools shall each elect two members. The FAS, SEAS, and each professional school shall determine how it wishes to elect its Committee members. The elected members shall elect a Committee Chair.
2. Jurisdiction of the Committee
The Provost(5) may submit a complaint to the Committee on the Provost’s own initiative or at the request of the cognizant dean(6) or the dean’s designee. The Provost will submit a complaint to the Committee only if the Provost and the Committee Chair determine that the complaint provides a reasonable basis to believe that (i) a faculty member’s actions were substantially inconsistent with the Faculty Standards of Conduct; (ii) the actions were reckless or intentional; (iii) the actions caused serious harm to the University(7) or to an identified member of the University community; and (iv) no other process or procedure is available to address the matter.(8) Complaints must be submitted to the Committee within one year after the most recent action complained of, unless the Provost and the Committee Chair agree that extenuating circumstances warrant a waiver of the time limit. The Provost and the Chair shall not submit a complaint to the Committee if the Committee has previously reviewed a complaint based substantially on the same set of facts or if the respondent faculty member is no longer employed by Yale.
3. Faculty Standards Review Panel Procedures
Once a complaint has been submitted to the Committee, the Committee Chair will appoint five members from the Committee to serve as a hearing panel and will designate one of those members as panel chair. Whenever possible, panels shall include a member of the FAS division, SEAS department, or the professional school in which respondents have their primary appointment. No faculty member who is directly involved in the complaint or who has any other significant conflict of interest may serve as a member of the panel hearing the complaint. In cases where the University has suffered an alleged harm, the Provost or the Dean who requested that the complaint be heard will appoint a representative to act as the complainant. In cases brought to address harm specific to an identified member of the University community, that person shall act as the complainant.(9) In order to protect the University or an individual complainant or other members of the Yale community, the Provost may impose interim measures while the matter is pending.
The Committee Chair will provide the names of the panel members to the respondent faculty member and the complainant (“the parties”). If a party objects to the participation of any panel member, the party must notify the Committee Chair and provide the basis for the objection within five business days after receiving the panel list. The Committee Chair, in the Committee Chair’s sole discretion, will decide whether an objection justifies the removal of a panel member. If the Committee Chair denies an objection, the Committee Chair will explain the decision to the parties. When a member is excused because of a conflict of interest or is otherwise unable to participate, the Committee Chair may designate a substitute.
During its inquiry, the panel may ask any office of the University to provide documents that are relevant to the underlying complaint and that were prepared prior to the most recent event complained of. However, the panel may not review documents covered by a legal privilege (for example, psychiatric patient records and attorney-client communications). It is expected that all members of the Yale community will cooperate fully with the panel in its inquiry.(10)
The parties must meet with the panel and each may be accompanied by an adviser when doing so. The parties will have the opportunity to present information and to propose that the panel interview relevant witnesses. The parties shall be permitted to inspect documents or parts of documents that the panel has identified as directly relevant to the specific complaint and that were not written under a presumption of confidentiality. As its inquiry proceeds, the panel may interview the witnesses proposed by the parties, and it may also interview any other person it believes may have relevant information. Both parties will have the opportunity to hear the testimony of all witnesses. The panel may not consult separately with a party’s adviser.
The panel, having conducted its inquiry, will deliberate in closed session to determine whether the respondent has violated the Faculty Standards of Conduct. In order to determine that a violation has occurred, the panel must find by clear and convincing evidence that (i) the respondent’s actions were substantially inconsistent with the Faculty Standards of Conduct; (ii) the actions were taken recklessly or intentionally; and (iii) the actions caused serious harm to the University or to an individual complainant.
The panel will present to the Provost a written report stating its findings of fact and its conclusions.(11) All of the panel’s findings of fact and conclusions must be based on clear and convincing evidence. If the panel concludes that the respondent has violated the Faculty Standards of Conduct, it will state its recommendations, if any, regarding further action by the University. The actions that a panel may recommend, alone or in combination, include, but are not limited to, loss of eligibility for leave for one leave cycle, temporary limitations on work with students or trainees, limitations on eligibility for grant funding, reduction in salary, financial restitution, and suspension without pay. If the panel believes that more severe penalties are justified, it may recommend that the Provost forward the matter to the President, who may convoke the University Tribunal.
The panel’s report, including its conclusions and recommendations, must be adopted by a majority vote of all panel members, and abstentions are not permitted. The Committee’s report will include the vote tally, but it will not identify the positions of individual panel members.
4. Decision by the Provost
The panel will submit its report within a reasonable period of time, normally within 90 days of its receipt of a complaint. The Provost will furnish copies of the report to the parties. If the complainant or the respondent wishes to provide a written response, this response must be submitted to the Provost within 14 days of the party’s receipt of the report.
On the basis of the Provost’s own concerns or concerns raised in response to the panel’s report, the Provost may ask the panel to re-examine or clarify findings of fact or conclusions. If necessary, the panel may submit a revised report to the Provost. The Provost will then accept the panel’s findings of fact. The Provost may accept, modify, or reject the conclusions of the panel or any of its recommendations. However, in any case where the Provost has reservations about the panel’s conclusions or recommendations, the Provost will explain those reservations to the panel in advance of a final decision. The Provost will then decide the matter and convey a written decision to the parties and the panel. The Provost’s decision ordinarily should be rendered within 14 days after receiving the responses of the parties.
5. Appeals
Either party may appeal the Provost’s decision by submitting a letter to the President(12) within seven days after receiving the decision. The only grounds for an appeal are (i) a procedural error that prevented the panel or the Provost from judging the matter fairly; (ii) the discovery of material facts that were reasonably unavailable to the appealing party prior to the Provost’s decision; or (iii) the imposition of a penalty grossly disproportionate to the behavior found by the panel. The President ordinarily will issue a written decision to the parties and the panel within 14 days after receiving an appeal. If the appeal is granted, the matter will be returned to the panel for reconsideration. In the appeal decision, the President may give the panel instructions regarding the nature and extent of its reconsideration. The panel will act promptly to reconsider the matter and will issue a revised report to the Provost. The Provost will promptly issue a new decision, which is not subject to appeal.
6. Retaliation
Retaliation against a person for participating in the process provided in this section is a violation of the Faculty Standards of Conduct. For the purposes of these procedures, “retaliation” shall mean an act that is intended to cause a person significant harm and to punish or deter participation in the Faculty Standards Review Committee process.
7. Time Periods
In instances where additional time may be required during the review process—for example, delays caused by the absence of faculty members over the summer months—the Provost may extend the time periods set out above. If a time period is extended, the parties will be informed.
3 If a complaint alleges discrimination on the basis of sex; sexual orientation, gender identity or expression; race; color, national or ethnic origin; religion; age; disability; or a status as a special disabled veteran, veteran of the Vietnam era, or other covered veteran, the Dean must notify the Office of Institutional Equity and Accessibility (OIEA), which will assess the complaint and may conduct an investigation. If OIEA declines to conduct an investigation, the Dean may initiate a decanal process to review the complaint. (Formal complaints of sexual misconduct must be addressed by the University-wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct.)
4 If the Dean was significantly involved in the matter under dispute, the Provost may designate a member of the Provost’s office to attempt to resolve the matter informally, before invoking these procedures.
5 If the Provost was significantly involved in the matter under dispute, the President will assume the Provost’s role in these review procedures.
6 For complaints against faculty members whose primary appointment is in FAS or SEAS, the cognizant dean is the Dean of the FAS or the Dean of SEAS, respectively. The deans of the professional schools are the cognizant deans for complaints against members of their faculties.
7For example, the University may suffer serious harm when funds are misappropriated, legally protected information is improperly disclosed, or essential teaching obligations are ignored.
8 If the Provost decides that a matter can be resolved by a responsible administrator or through another University process, the Provost may refer the matter for appropriate disposition. If the Provost believes that a faculty member’s conduct, if proven, might warrant the faculty member’s dismissal from the University or another sanction that is beyond those provided by Section III.N.3 of the Faculty Handbook, the Provost will refer the matter to the President, who will consider whether it should be heard by the University Tribunal, rather than through the process described here.
9 If a complaint is based on an allegation that a faculty member’s actions harmed a person, the complaint must name the person allegedly harmed.
10 Where a complaint alleges sex discrimination or discrimination on the basis of disability, the panel shall also inform, respectively, the Title IX Coordinator of the University or the Office of Institutional Equity and Accessibility. (Sex discrimination in the form of sexual misconduct must be addressed by the University-wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct, not the Faculty Standards Review Committee.)
11 A “finding of fact” is a relevant event, action, or statement that has been proven to the panel by clear and convincing evidence. A “conclusion” is the panel’s determination as to whether or not its findings of fact amount to a violation of the Faculty Standards of Conduct.
12 If the President has assumed the role of the Provost as discussed in Section III.N.2 of the Faculty Handbook, the General Counsel will appoint a person to hear the appeal.