OMG UPDATE: Like us on Facebook or follow us on Twitter to get updates on updates!

Updated on Wednesday, February 5

#18476

OMG: Any candidates care or dare to give their view on the unsafe environment in Counselling Services? A lot of us will vote for who will speak out for our women's right to safety on campus on this specific issue, where many women are unknowingly most vulnerable. With the Feds Mental Health Committee re-forming let's talk about this now. Search, read up and tell us.

213 comments

  1. OP, do you have a link to a news article or some sort of credible source regarding your allegations? Because this is the first I'm hearing of an incident regarding Counselling Services, and I know the Associate Provosts for HR and Students pretty well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Haven't there been like 10 posts about this already?

      Delete
    2. http://www.ask.omguw.com/2014/01/5802.html
      Read 2

      Delete
    3. This omg 5754 has a link to quite a credible looking Canadian Legal Information Institute page, about the UW Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario case.

      Delete
    4. Here’s another link about the UW Counselling Services human rights HRTO case with Citation 2013 HRTO 1644, also on CanLII.

      Delete
    5. @1 Maybe you can ask him/her the questions someone posted in posts 6 and 7 here. We want straight answers from UW admin and Fed candidates' action plans on this.

      Delete
    6. 1a just slide over these if they're not your thing. We love this whole site. But for this ... until the problem goes away, we're not going away.

      Delete
    7. 1g - UHHHHHHH .... so where did I ask anyone to stop posting? I was pointing out to 1 that there are MANY posts about the counseling ordeal on here, so their request for more information shows that they put no effort in to searching. I read every post about counseling for your information, so keep your mindless assumptions to yourself.

      Delete
    8. 1h sorry on 1g's behalf for the frustration. Maybe they wrongly thought you responded to OP, not @1.

      Delete
    9. 1h it's 1g - so sorry I misunderstood. It's impressive that you read so many posts about counselling services. More than I have. To displace my admittedly mindless assumptions, what are your thoughts? I owe you that at least.

      Delete
  2. Yes, please elaborate on how it is an unsafe environment. Staff and counselors are bound to confidentiality clauses.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ehashman here---member of the newly formed committee. We haven't met yet but I'm sure this will come up. I imagine our first task is going to be trying to coordinate all interested parties on campus to pool our ideas/manpower. Keep in mind we're subject to the limitations of FEDS... there's no direct control over Counselling Services.

    Ideally candidates going forward will be cooperative with/supportive of the committee. I would say the majority of candidates have expressed this sentiment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Big kudos for posting e#. Just curious was this the first you heard of this issue or were you aware of it already? Do you think UW should take action against a mental health counsellor on staff found guilty of sexual harassment by a human rights tribunal, or is it debatable? Even if you don't control Counselling Services maybe you can wield your influence for them to do the right thing finally. Thanks.

      Delete
    2. 3a, I'm not e#, but I think these things always come in shades of grey. I wouldn't be comfortable with any blanket statement regarding what the university should/should not do in these sorts of situations. If both parties remain employed, there are probably good reasons for it, that we aren't privy to (nor should we be).

      Delete
    3. 3b omg "there are probably good reasons for it, that we aren't privy to (nor should we be)" - what kind of paternalistic bull is that? Appeals for ignorance don't go over too well at a university, at least among students.

      And what's that "if both parties remain employed" nonsense? I have no problem with the victim staying. She's stood up and spoke out for the safety of all women on campus. She should get a medal. I find it insulting that you'd say there somehow must be an unknown reason why she still gets the privilege of working here.

      Delete
    4. 3c, you missed my point. What I mean is, it's unlikely any HR department worth its salt would let two employees continue working in the same department if one felt justifiably unsafe working with the other. All I am saying is, everyone here seems to be rushing to one particular judgement, but there's probably much more to it than meets the eye. What do you want the university to do, disclose all of the private details concerning their employees? What right do we have to ask for that info?

      Delete
    5. 3d The HRTO found he was guilty. It isn't our rush to judgment, *they* already ruled against him. Some people pick unsafe jobs. But she shouldn't have to. And she shouldn't be forced to leave UW. The insinuation sucks that if she stays it must not be that bad, and I don't accept that. Working with an unpunished but judged sexual perpetrator should not be a term of employment for anyone. Not for a garbage bin dumper, not for a PhD psychologist trying to do her job counselling us through *our* troubles. I doubt she was told this tolerance for perpetrators at her hiring interview.

      Delete
    6. Lots of questions...

      > Just curious was this the first you heard of this issue or were you aware of it already?

      Aware of it already and know Dr. Morgan and Dr. Ruttan. Don't know the third party.


      > Do you think UW should take action against a mental health counsellor on staff found guilty of sexual harassment by a human rights tribunal, or is it debatable?

      I don't know. I guess that implies "it's debatable..."

      I'm not attempting to weasel out of the question---it's just that I don't think a general answer exists. We can consider this case I guess, though I am approaching it very cautiously.

      We don't have access to any of the primary evidence/testimonies, just a case summary. Let me emphasize this, because it is absolutely critical: WE DO NOT HAVE ALL THE DETAILS. While we do know the tribunal ruled in favor of some of the accusations, that ruling and its summary are the only facts we have, and they indicate that the University was not found negligent (i.e. failed in its duties). Yes, it's frustrating. However, it's a case being decided on hearsay and thus I really don't feel comfortable coming to a conclusion about it based purely on a case summary. There is a plethora of other evidence I have no access to that could affect my opinion. I would also like to point out that "not doing enough" (opinion) != "negligence," (legal obligation) so frustration is very understandable. But I think making a judgment on the case based on information this limited is irresponsible. For what it's worth, I read the judgment as very conservative, which is not necessarily a good or bad thing. I imagine setting some radical legal precedent based on a case that was fully decided on hearsay would be pretty dangerous.

      I do think that Counseling Services should address the incident publicly given the student outcry. I'm not sure whether or not that's possible due to possible confidentiality restrictions. I've had my own issues with Counseling Services in the past but I have the highest respect for Dr. Ruttan (and Dr. Morgan for that matter).

      I'll bring it up at the committee meeting, but the committee can only make recommendations to Council, so it wouldn't have much power over this. I'd rather see effort go into something constructive, like a peer support FEDS service *fingers crossed*. I think it will help students much more, and much more directly, than getting into a political fight over something like this.

      Delete
    7. ^ err, as someone else pointed out later in the thread, s/hearsay/personal testimony/

      attempting to be legally consistent but IANAL

      Delete
  4. How are Counselling Services considered unsafe, generally-speaking?

    ReplyDelete
  5. i really don't know if you're being serious or what you mean by this question but counselling services is considered an unsafe space because obviously there have been many incidents where people went in to talk to someone and felt either they were being judged or had someone harass them or didn't feel like they could talk to someone about what was going on because of the environment within that department.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s really serious from what my contacts have said. The alliance in that department’s management and senior admin staff is poisonous, causing continual conflicts of interest and abuse of power. It’s known that if you’re onside you get perks and don’t have to follow stated departmental rules. It leads to inefficiencies, poor service for student clients. Some favoured staff get booked for easy and low-stress non-client meetings for months, and have nothing to show for it but a pat on the back. My contacts didn’t know until recently that this was happening. The most direct way to get favoured is to be on Team Perpetrator.

      Delete
    2. Where are you getting these facts?

      Delete
    3. As if they'd say. Can you say reprisals? I'm sure it's not from the CS department's newsletter.

      Delete
  6. This surprises me. Every interaction I've ever had with the Director, Tom Ruttan, has been a very positive one, and he seems like a very reasonable, intelligent guy. So these allegations about his department seem rather out-of-character....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Things aren't always as they seem. Some people treat others really differently depending on who you are.

      Delete
  7. lol'd. I think it's time for OMGUW to have a standalone site instead of using Blogger shit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OMGUW gets massive credit for allowing this important issue to be discussed among the UW community. So what if it's difficult, it's good enough that it's here. Wish we could donate to OMGUW anonymously (better than that UW alumni charity drive).

      Delete
  8. @6 They aren't just allegations. There was a finding by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario that a councellor in his department sexually harassed a psychologist in his department. This conflicted with his own decision from the UW investigation (read the CanLII links up top for confirmation). After getting this verdict he didn't fire or suspend the man. Ask him yourself the next time you interact with him.

    Does that seem rather out of character, or in character to you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You seem to be oversimplifying how complicated this kind of thing is. Trying to fire someone from a university job is basically impossible. The person likely had a lot of support in the dept. and it would have contributed to a tense working environment. These kinds of things *can* get worked out, firing is kinda a last option and really difficult. Fwiw, the tribunal didn't find the University negligent...

      Delete
    2. ^ yeah it's too complicated to make women on campus safe. It's simply impossible.

      Delete
    3. In the private sector they find a way. Sexual harassment is simply not tolerated at large private institutions, and it's shameful that it is here on campus.

      Delete
    4. 8c, this isn't the private sector.
      Short of being found guilty of an actual crime under provincial or federal law, it's very, very difficult to fire a permanent staff here for anything. There is almost certainly more to this that only staff in UW HR are fully privy to, and that is probably why both parties are still gainfully employed here.

      Delete
    5. It's still Canada and women have the right to be safety here on the public sector campus too, at least on paper.

      Delete
    6. 8a,8d What about a statement from UW's Director of Equity saying what he did was wrong, against the principles of the University, and suspend him? Is that impossible?

      Delete
    7. 8f, maybe, maybe not. There could quite potentially then be grounds for the suspended employee to file a grievance, even to the point of legal action against the university. Treading carefully is a necessity.

      Besides, this isn't the sort of thing the Director of Equity should be directly involved in - it's an issue for the Associate Provost of Human Resources and UW HR to handle, in conjunction with both parties and the Director of Counselling Services. Only once those people are working with ALL the facts can a balanced and reasonable decision be reached.

      Delete
    8. 8g Okay you've arrived late to this discussion that's been going on for weeks. Read the links. She already did that and they did nothing. That's when she went to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. She's done her part. Now it's up to the rest of us.

      Delete
    9. @8b:"yeah it's too complicated to make women on campus safe. It's simply impossible."

      because your uninformed opinion on counselling services HR practices is the only way to "make women on campus safe"? remember, we're talking about an ass-grab at an alcohol-fuelled social, not a rape...

      Delete
    10. 8i Nice try at the minimizing language for the sexual harassment. Waterloo Regional Police Services did a sexual assault investigation. You neglected the intimidations and reprisals for her reporting, and lack of any safeguards put in place since by UW. The original incident was "at the annual conference of the Canadian Association of College and University Student Services (CACUSS)". Yes the harasser and one of his targets also from CS were reportedly "alcohol-fuelled". But it likely overstates how other people were, and are you implying alcohol is an excuse? Oh, and congratulations to the perpetrator for not raping anyone. That was great discretion, I'm glad he knew where to draw the line - at simulated oral sex (from CanLII).

      About 8b's uninformed opinion on counselling services, we ask staff in counselling services to come forward with their views of CS practices. 8b's voice doesn't make women safe, but it helps - a pebble on the path.

      Yes most of us are more uninformed than we want to be, but we're far more concerned than you. And we want answers. And we'll get action.

      Delete
    11. 8j: did YOU read it? The tribunal specifically found that the letter was not a reprisal nor was intended to be.

      You're also making a false equivalence of alcohol being an excuse for $major_offense vs. alcohol being an excuse for $minor_offense. There was a fucking police investigation... you said so yourself. And? The worst they were going to do was give the dude a reprisal. A slap on the wrist. Big fucking whoop. Or now are you going to claim the police didn't do enough either?

      You're acting like this woman was systemically, intentionally oppressed by the university or something. In reality, it sounds like she was jumpy after the incident and read too much into things, and it appears both the university and tribunal saw it that way based on their decisions. Could the university have separated them? Sure. The tribunal assessed that this injustice wasn't even worth relief. So the tribunal shoulda done more too, amirite??

      8b isn't doing anything but making snarky, fallacious comments on omguw. That's not a pebble... it's not even a grain of sand. unless you think twitter activism actually accomplishes anything beyond a verbal circlejerk. On the other hand, there are others on the thread actually organizing and taking action as opposed to making baseless accusations from assumptions. Why don't you take a page out of their book?

      Delete
    12. ps: you're a lot more likely to "get action" if you bother to tell people what you want rather than crying about how discriminated against you feel

      Delete
    13. @8k "This woman"? That's Dr Morgan to you, fella.

      Delete
    14. 8k Yes, show some respect.

      Delete
  9. 8d I'm not understanding you. Are you suggesting maybe the perpetrator has some redeeming qualities that the Human Rights Tribunal failed to consider, that UW HR is taking into account in not dealing with him? Can you give an example of what the kind of thing that could possibly be? I don't get it yet.

    I also don't get why the person who was sexually harassed and asserts her rights should not be gainfully employed here. It sounds like you're equating the perpetrator and the victim. Can you clarify?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 9, it is good that the victim is still employed. That said, the fact she didn't choose to leave when the perpetrator was not fired, seems to suggest that perhaps it was a one-off incident, that she felt she'd been adequately compensated, and did not feel particularly unsafe continuing to work with said individual.

      The Human Rights Tribunal will only decide whether, according to Ontario Laws, sexual harrassment of some degree did in fact happen in the workplace. UW HR and the Director of Counselling Services are the only groups/individuals, however, who truly have all the facts, and can make a balanced and reasonable decision regarding the individual's continued employment. I'm not saying I know what the full extent of those facts were, just that I trust our administrators to handle them appropriately.
      We don't know that HR has done nothing to deal with said individual, seeing as most of what HR does is confidential to begin with. We just know that they haven't publicly reprimanded or dismissed him.

      Delete
    2. 9a Her staying suggests SFA. The backstory and documents quoted elsewhere say clearly there were many incidents of retaliation against her for reporting the original incident, by the individual perpetrator in her department and UW by the hand of the Counselling Services director. The documents say she spoke strongly that it was an unsafe environment for her, and that she asked for many remedies to make the department safe for her and other women on campus.

      I don't share your trust in UW administrators to make her safe. They've repeatedly failed to already.

      Delete
    3. We have a legal system that assumes "innocent until proven guilty". The case was decided on hearsay. Can you calm down your witchhunt?

      Delete
    4. 9c Did you read the CanLII decisions? She gave her first-hand testimony to the HRTO. The police did a separate investigation interviewing people who were at the site of the original incident. The HRTO decision on CanLII said
      "Constable Ranta of the WRPS conducted an investigation that included interviews with Dr. Morgan, Dr. W and two other Counselling Services counsellors who had been present at the CACUSS social event on June 16. ... The WRPS investigation took approximately five weeks. At the conclusion of the investigation Constable Ranta informed Dr. Morgan that she had two options; she could pursue criminal charges or choose to have Mr. M cautioned by the police. Dr. Morgan chose for Mr. M to be cautioned. Mr. M, on the advice of his criminal counsel, chose not to meet with Constable Ranta and as a result was not cautioned."

      The police did not rely on hearsay and neither did the HRTO. Do you even know what hearsay means?

      Delete
    5. ^ You prefer "he-said-she-said"? You cannot *prove* something based on what someone says, regardless of whether they are there or not. Even a lot of physical evidence is circumstantial.

      I don't get wtf you are going on about. The tribunal came to a decision, chose a specific penalty, and that was the end of that. It didn't direct the university to do more. what do you want, other than bitching, as is demonstrated clearly here?

      Delete
    6. 9b: correction: the TESTIMONY claims that she received letters of Reprisal/retaliation.

      The TRIBUNAL found that these claims were unsubstantiated. If you're going to quote a document to support your case, you should probably read it to ensure it does first...

      Delete
  10. The HRTO said "Dr. Morgan’s testimony before the Tribunal was remarkably detailed, forthrightly given, occasionally emotional and absolutely consistent."

    So they admit she's honest and forthright. How do they go from that to not believing her human rights claims of reprisal by the large institution for reporting the abuse? It's the same honest, courageous woman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't forget remarkably detailed. That's important.

      Delete
    2. So you trust the HRTO to make the right decision when it's in the victim's favour, but when they find reason not to support her, you stop trusting them? That seems wrong, somehow. There are two sides to every story, and the people on this site seem content pushing only one but never the other.

      Delete
    3. ... and absolutely consistent. Her story hung together, even with all that detail. Note to self: take notes.

      Delete
  11. It's clear from the 8a-h subthread that the UW administration is incapable of policing itself or its staff. Or unwilling to, same. The gelding process lack balls, teeth, whatever. People sit in committees and come up with nothing useful to self-discipline. Enough. We don't trust you with our safety.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This has nothing to do with the Feds election, obviously Feds can advocate and lobby the administration but this situation began years ago and it is certainly not under Feds portfolio.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you even read OP's post and link? It has everything to do with the Feds election. The Mental Health Committee reports to the Feds president. Providing Counseling Services to students is a key part of this. Last I checked there still women walking around campus and maybe needing counselling. Nice try at passing the buck buddy. Now grow a pair like ehashman (@3). Advocating, lobbying, taking a stand on behalf of students is certainly under the Feds portfolio. The issue is unresolved. The Human Rights Tribunal decision just came out this winter. And the problems at Counselling Services have, if anything, gotten worse.

      It's on our watch.
      If you want to step aside, go ahead.

      Delete
    2. SWEET I HAVE A PAIR

      ...don't read my second post then, I suspect you'll find it disappointing... >.>

      Delete
    3. Yes and they're rare. Well *I* read your second 3f post. Though I don't agree with some of it I'm impressed you read up and gave your view, as a person on the committee. Not necessarily for you to answer, but an application could be made through the Freedom of Information Act for the HRTO and police primary testimonies. The decision says "the parties provided their final submissions in writing", so those could be requested as well. People may have attended the hearings who could provide more information on the testimonies given.

      Delete
    4. I can't speak for (or on behalf of) the committee as a whole but I'm glad you read it. I actually read the entirety of the case summary when it first came out and made the papers. I think it's really complicated.

      These are definitely possibilities that you raise but I'm not necessarily sure that kind of investigation work would be appropriate for the committee. Have you thought about bringing this to WPIRG? This kind of thing seems right up their alley. (I can bring it to their attention if not...)

      Delete
    5. 12d yes please ask WPIRG for everything 12c asked for

      Delete
    6. To WPIRG, I searched CanLII. This has the HRTO process to get Waterloo Regional Police Services interview videos and notes. It has "A general report of investigation prepared by Detective Constable Ranta". I want to read the police report.

      12b yes you have big brass balls

      Delete
    7. 12e: request delivered.

      12f: I'd prefer you use less gendered language in describing my chutzpah.. ;)

      Delete
    8. ^ Oh oops, didn't sign my name! The horror! I'm too used to anonymous posting..

      - e#

      Delete
    9. 12g/h about less gendered language for compliments - I just learned something. thx

      Delete
    10. ^ can't tell if sarcastic, but I think the point was saying e# has brass balls when she's very much a woman might feel a bit awkward.

      Delete
    11. wasn't sarcastic - no I really am that ignorant (and awkward). Didn't know e#'s gender or think it mattered. The type of balls were meant more in spirit and not at all physically descriptive. Sorry - thought it'd be okay given 12b response. OK I'll stop now.

      Delete
  13. There's a lot of really serious allegations in this thread beyond the tribunal case... anyone wanna enlighten me?

    ReplyDelete
  14. A lot of people here seem to be equating "There are certain obstructions to firing the offending counsellor" with "I think what the counsellor did is perfectly okay and I approve of any and all policies that prevent him from being fired". Stating and acknowledging the current state of affairs is not the same thing as approving of them.

    Have any students made any complaints about their treatment by counselling services? If not I suspect this is not relevant to students experience, and therefore not really something FEDS (An organization devoted (in principle, anyways) to students) should be handling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 14 Yes students have complained on this site about their treatment, but you can look yourself. Others have said they and their friends refuse to go to CS due to the current state of affairs. Many may just not know and may take real issue if they knew. If they give consent after being told the situation, that's their choice.

      If I was a victim of institutional or personal abuse who do I want guiding me? A psychologist who can stand up to both publicly, or the counsellor who sexually harrassed her? Who do I want my hard-earned (by my parents) tuition money going to? So I want to know before I get put in a room with him by UW.

      Delete
  15. Some people know about this and are doing their research. Perhaps even some heavy hitters may get involved. I need to take some stimulants and read this over this weekend and see what can be done.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Replies
    1. if you meant that @15 it's "A New Hope", as in "Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope."

      Delete
  17. Nova spoke about both mental health, safety and women's rights at the services debate this week. I'd ask them a question on their facebook page if you really want to know what they think of the topic, but they're the only ones who seemed to want to advocate on those issues!

    ReplyDelete
  18. It reads like many reprisal claims were against the person (CS head) who got to determine the merit of the allegations. Guess what? No investigation or remedies needed, move along. Great process, thanks UW, that's reassuring for us. Sheesh no wonder nothing got fixed.

    ReplyDelete
  19. In a link people talked about the CS Associate Director job posting and asked many unanswered questions about issues with that. Are there any other important open job postings where the holder could worsen her work environment if the wrong person got it? We now know how tough it is to remove someone once they're in.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Director, Campus Wellness is a powerful role posted. The CS Director will report to this person. So they will be her boss's boss.

      Delete
    2. Go Team Perp!

      Delete
    3. We want the same answers to questions from 1e's linked post 7 for this job process.

      Delete
    4. Counselling Services powerful open roles job posting index - Associate Director:
      Follow 1c's link to omg5754 has talks at posts 6 and 14.
      Follow 1e's link to omg18340 has many questions at posting 7.

      Delete
    5. Team Perp will fill these two roles through back-channel meetings. There will be the surface appearance of impartial committees. Some committee members will be impartial. These will be lobbied, worn down. Any initial agreed-upon timetable will be dragged-out until they have their votes. No actionable decision will made until Team Perp gets its way.

      Any policy-oriented process will be end-run. Standard playbook. They're too good at running these plays.

      Delete
    6. e: wtf you sound like a conspiracy theorist. wtf are you getting this shit?! you're seriously coming up with this from this single isolated case?

      Delete
    7. 19/19a At this point both roles should be people from outside UW.

      Delete
  20. He grabbed her ass while drunk at a social function. This quite clearly translates to him abusing female students who come to him for counselling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. [33] It was not disputed that while the events of June 16, 2009, took place during a social occasion at a conference held away from the respondent’s workplace that these are events “with respect to employment” pursuant to section 5 of the Code. I agree that this is the case. The Tribunal has found that the Code can apply to events involving employees and employers that transpire away from a place of employment and outside of normal working hours. See Sutton v. Jarvis Ryan Associates, 2010 HRTO 2421 (CanLII), 2010 HRTO 2421.

      Delete
    2. wait someone snuck in a comment. you've quoted something that claims the incident is relevant to the workplace between the 2 people, not that a drunken ass grab at a party constitutes an unsafe environment for women.. the other female coworker had no issues with his behavior. you can still appreciate this kind of thing being traumatizing to a single individual while noting that it normally wouldn't be considered nearly sio problematic for others (e.g the female coworkers testimony, women posting all the time about unsolicited ass grabs at night clubs... they aren't going to the police...) or equates somehow to abusing female students... I'm not saying it's right but surely you've done something you regretted while drunk, and surely you understand that for the average person this wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal? As someone pointed out, an ass grab isn't rape. Someone else responded something along the lines of "oh so that makes it okay because at least he didn't rape her??" no, not at all, however, the point is that they are totally different violations abd would be treated totally differently by the police, legal system, etc. because an ass grab is generally recognized to not be nearly as violating as other kinds of assault.

      AGAIN, I am sorry that this lady was so traumatized by it (there may be extenuating circumstances that make it so) but in general, this kind of offense is very minor... under the law, it's a very, very mild form of assault...

      Delete
    3. Regrets while drunk? Come to think of it ... why yes. I was just recently getting a wasted coworker off with my nose. It was at an off-site departmental privacy workshop after we sat down for a fine meal so it was all good. She didn't remember much so that worked out. Then we got rudely interrupted by her DD. My hunger wasn't quite sated - never really is - from dinner and the wasted PhD chick's box lunch. So I got up and sampled some of the interrupting cunt's buffet. Squeeze it for freshness, am I right? She seemed pissed but she's stuck up, so her problem. Good times.

      What time's our appointment? Never mind, just drop by my office, I'm sure I can squeeze you in. I know all about privacy now so your problem's safe with me.

      Delete
    4. Fucking buzzkill stuckup witchhunt bitch witches.

      Delete
  21. I think 20a means they were all still at work

    ReplyDelete
  22. After reading through what's available I choose to believe Dr Morgan.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Start to finish. My take is she remained forthright, absolutely consistent, and remarkably detailed for all of her testimony about all of the incidents. At some point I think the adjudicator Whist decided that didn't support the conclusion he wanted to deny all intimidations and reprisals. So he contrived to undercut what he'd already strongly established. That's where he took a hard left turn and never looked back.

      Delete
    2. Or perhaps the actual evidence that the tribunal considered (which we don't have access to) led to a reasonable conclusion. These things are rarely absolutely black or white in nature.

      Delete
    3. The HRTO said Dr Morgan was absolutely consistent. So yes, she is rare. I believe she told the whole truth in remarkable detail, including that UW and the counsellor retaliated against her.

      If hidden evidence existed to the contrary, he would have at least referred to it.

      Delete
    4. 22c, I said nothing about 'hidden' evidence. The fact is that a case summary is not the same as having all of the facts laid out in front of you. These things always have varying degrees of severity, and that's something the tribunal would have had to take into account in making its decision.

      Delete
    5. I believe her too. No other witness assessment came close in the decision. Yes "absolutely consistent" gave the credibility degree sufficiently. The case summary was long enough to get the gist of it and sense the arguments the parties including the adjudicator were trying to make at each stage.

      See 9e's you can't prove argument. Some people will never have enough facts to choose to do the right thing.

      Delete
    6. 9e here. You're willing to fire someone from their job based on testimony alone? And not just fire them, but claim some kund of moral high ground for doing so? You're disgusting. Put the fucking pitchfork away.

      What if the roles were reversed and it was a guy wrongly accused by a coworker who didn't like him? Say the guy *was* drunk, it was just the two of them, and because she wanted to get him in trouble a consistent story waa fabricated. I know Dr. Morgan and know she would never do that, but just work with me hypothetically here. You are asking to set a precedent to get anyone fired based on "because I said this happened". If all I have to do is make up some bullshit story to remove people I don't like from work, works for me... and then no one will believe the real victims anymore. Can't you see that what you're asking for works to kill the credibility of real accusations by insisting on going too far?

      Delete
    7. 22e: and just for the record, I was sexually assaulted. This problem is something that has significant personal meaning to me. I've been severely clinically depressed now for two years. I think the university could do more in this case but that doesn't seem to be what people are calling for.

      I would much rather have my assaulter go free with a slap on the wrist and a lesson learned, than for some innocent guy to get thrown under the bus for something he didn't do. If the guy is a repeat offender, then you apply appropriate measures. But, and the ruling alluded to this... you cannot convict someone for something you think they may do. only their actions. Don't lose track of the big picture.

      Delete
    8. 22f/9e You know Dr Morgan, huh ... coworker or client? Since you know she'd never do that, have you told her you believe her?

      Delete
  23. WTF. So some guy got drunk and then a little too handsy with his coworker at a social function one night, the bitch freaks out and gets all melodramatic, and that's supposed to be any of our fucking business?
    Stop with the witch hunt, and just back off.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your portrayal's wrong, you don't get it and are entirely unconvincing.

      Delete
    2. 23 You left out stuckup buzzkill but you still owe 20e a royalty cheque for use of fucking, witch hunt, and bitch. His (her??) version was way catchier. Reminds me of the Wesley twins' "Babbling, bumbling band of baboons". Like the original, try saying both 5 times. I find 20e's builds better on repetition than Rowling's.

      Delete
    3. Don't feed the trolls.

      Delete
  24. @22g That's awful and I'm sorry that happened. I hope you recover fully and quickly. What did you do about the sexual assault? What happened to the perpetrator? Was it outside of work or work-related?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @24 Sexual assault anywhere on @8k's specturm is not cool and not to be tolerated in any civil and just society.

      @22g It's a false choice between letting your assaulter go free versus some innocent guy getting thrown under a bus (unless ..it's ..the same ..guy?) Was your assaulter guilty or innocent? I'd imagine you'd know, or were you drunk/unconscious and not sure what was done to you or by whom?

      Separately from that, should some innocent guy who didn't sexually assault you be punished? Of course not, unless he sexually assaulted someone else.

      You jumbled a bunch of things together and I'm having difficulty following how each relates to the next, sorry.

      Delete
    2. 24: left it unreported. Trust me, it was better that way. Would have torn apart my friends circle and left me far more alone than the alternative. After all, even if I felt like trying to press charges, a first time offense is going to get an extremely light wrist-slapping, because it's your words against theirs. It wouldn't have been worth it for anyone. Remember, in most cases, you have some relationship with the perpetrator, and we were close friends. I really don't think police action would have reduced the risk of a repeat offense, because I don't think one's likely. Just trying to prosecute the thing probably would have been as traumatic as the incident.

      a: you tell me a method of determining guilt based on testimony alone without physical evidence that doesn't throw false positives and I'm on board. As is, there is no way to prove allegations unless is was physical evidence, which wasn't true in my case. Yeah, you can evaluate the resulting trauma on the person for evidence, but you can't know the psychological impact immediately. And that assumes you can identify it immediately. Most women blame themselves, particularly when it's not violent. Took me a year to even come to terms with it not being my fault. And you think anyone's going to prosecute a year-old non-violent assault?

      These things aren't black and white :/ I don't believe in letting my feelings get in the way of that judgment.

      Delete
    3. 24b If you report the repeat offence it will look like a first. By your thinking, you'll never report. You already know most SA victims know their perps and don't report. Perps choose victims they see as powerless. You can file an incident report with WRPS without pressing charges. It's important for community safety.

      Delete
    4. 24b Would have torn apart your circle of friends? You would have found out who your real friends are and gotten real support from them. What if he does this to other women in the same or a different circle? Do you still hang out with him in the group and how's that going for you?

      Delete
    5. Do you think the perpetrator is more or less likely to reoffend - against anyone - because Dr Morgan reported?

      Do you think the perpetrator is more or less likely to reoffend because UW's senior administration - and this goes straight up to UW's president Dr. Hamdullahpur - has done nothing to stop him?

      Delete
    6. 24c. I'd like to correct a misconception of yours. You seem to have the idea that sexual assaults are not about sex at all. That's false. The situation I was in was one of coercion... person had some material they could have blackmailed me with if I tried to face him head on. It turns out he really wanted to be with me and felt cheated because I started going out with another guy. I don't want to sound cliche but did you ever watch single and sexy...?

      24d: oh, yeah, that's all I want. Find out who my real friends are by exposing myself to a bunch of people who would inevitably take sides, probably call me a liar and bully me for trying to sully my good friend's reputation... he's such a nice guy, you know? No one could ever imagine him doing that!

      I knew who my real friends were and stuck with them for support. I'd rather not open myself up to additional bullying while I'm still suffering from the trauma. CS is misogynistic enough as is.

      Delete
    7. Oh, and frankly... it's no woman's responsibility to destroy her life because someone thinks reporting this kind of thing is the "right thing". you may accuse me of perpetuating the lack of report of assaults... but frankly, I didn't feel safe doing so and would far rather let life go on as usual and make small changes behind the scenes than open myself up to being called a tease, liar, trap, etc. How many 18 year olds do you think can deal with that kind of thing level-headedly, let alone be willing to throw themselves to the wind in some martyristic fashion? No, fuck you. If you actually cared about my wellbeing you'd be supportive of me putting myself first.

      Delete
    8. 24f all your comments in your response to 24d sounds so right on the button for the case we're talking about here, except the psychologist chose to stand up for her rights. I think your crystal ball saw the path not taken, into her future work environment rather than your social and school environment.

      It's ironic that you referred to "CS" at the end because you may not have meant "Counselling Services" but that fits too.

      Delete
    9. @24g Don't feel bad or singled out. 7 in 10 sexual assaults go unreported. It's a really hard thing to do for anybody. Your mentioning your situation was brave, welcome and useful for our discussion. I'm sorry that it's difficult for you. If we succeed here, it may make the campus safer for other women in vulnerable positions like you've faced. Please stay with us.

      Delete
    10. 24g Your response and reasoning are completely understandable for someone in your difficult position and I sympathize with you.

      Yes defending you and your peers looks like part of what her public remedies - that were all denied by the HRTO - were aimed to accomplish.

      On that note, thanks Dr. Hamdullahpur for funding UW's lawyers - with OUR tuition money - to quash all Dr Morgan's public safety remedies that would have made the campus environment safer for all of us. If they were in place, maybe this wouldn't have happened to 24g.

      Delete
    11. @24g Damn him for attacking you. The fallout and your feelings of guilt are not your fault, whether you reported or not. It's also not Dr Morgan's fault that she was sexually harassed and intimidated.

      Delete
  25. 22f Your comment 22e is a little much. All they said was they believed Dr Morgan and that's enough for you to find them disgusting?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @22f/@9e You saying "I know Dr Morgan and know she wouldn't do that, but" is reminiscent of the "I'm not a racist, but" construct that kicks around this site each week. Ah comforting familiarity.

      Delete
    2. I think you're missing the point of the post. It's "I believe this person in this instance. However, please consider another instance where the truth is different. If you pick a super penalizing approach in this case, you will fuck over the innocent person in the other case. Therefore, you cannot allow your feelings about Dr. Morgan to affect your evaluation of the judgement."

      Delete
    3. 25a Yes clever, I see what they did there.

      Delete
    4. 25b Um, just read your post twice - okay now three, no four times. It's fraught with too many leaps off a cliff of logic to annotate.

      Well maybe just one, the "If you pick a super ...". A person practising discernment could assess each case on its own merits.

      Similarly, a person practising discernment could regard each person of any race based on their individual behaviour.

      I'm afraid I'm going along with 25a on this one.

      Delete
  26. The point is not about this incident, it's about the legal precedent a different judgement would have set on the same circumstances but with different guilty parties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? Where did your post branch from? HRTO adjudicators aren't bound by precedents, and this case is about many incidents.

      Delete
  27. Has a Canadian University administration ever been found at fault by internal/external investigations or taken responsibility for any of the sexual misconduct against women scandals on their campuses since and including the SMU rape chants this past fall? I think students were exclusively blamed in all of them. I find that puzzling.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Has a Canadian University administration ever been found at fault by internal/external investigations or taken responsibility for any of the sexual misconduct against women scandals on their campuses since and including the SMU rape chants this past fall? I think students were exclusively blamed in all of them. I find that puzzling.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. weird I only posted this once. Sorry for the duplicate.

      Delete
  29. @ several posters above, If testimony doesn't matter, why is there a witness box in most every court, right up by the judge? Seems like a waste of prime real estate then.

    ReplyDelete
  30. If I can wade in, this is not a moral morass. Sorry if that "ass" end of the prior sentence turned anyone here on by the way. Some people seem to have issues checking their urges when confronted.

    At any private company the size of UW, the person would have been called in, given exit papers, and be escorted out of the building for a long suspension without pay, if they were lucky. The behaviour described would not be tolerated by senior management.

    ReplyDelete
  31. How can you tell if someone's acting for Team Perp though?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. People in Counselling Services who shun her?

      Delete
    2. Describes shunning, its effects, and has an interesting section on stealth shunning. Hadn't thought of most of this.

      Delete
    3. This is not a fucking sports game. This is not a question of "for" or "against". Stop trivializing and oversimplifying the situation.

      Delete
    4. 31c Uh, yes the *trivia* about stealth shunning s/he pointed to:

      "Stealth shunning is a practice where a person or an action is silently banned. When a person is silently banned, the group they have been banned from doesn't interact with them. This can be done by secretly announcing the policy to all except the banned individual, or it can happen informally when all people in a group or email list each conclude that they do not want to interact with the person. ..."

      Thanks 31b for the link. Looks like something CS should read.

      Delete
    5. 31, See omg18476(here) post5a, omg18340 post 7, omg 18314 post 14d, but got interesting from post 14b-h.

      Delete
  32. 31c because overcomplicating matters of principle works so well. Enough with the smokescreens to hide retaliations that crushed and suppressed her. We're all watching now.

    ReplyDelete
  33. It looks like UW senior administration under UW's president Dr. Hamdullahpur arranged and fully paid for the perpetrator's legal team but not the victim Dr Morgan's. It also looks like Dr Morgan represented herself, maybe due to the prohibitive fees for hundreds of hours of lawyers' time.

    UW hasn't released the tuition cost to students of siding legally with the perpetrator from the start of the HRTO process and possibly before.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 33, your language is so misleading.
      UW didn't 'legally side with the perpetrator,' it did what it is expected to do as an employer. One of its employees was facing a legal challenge due to something workplace related (it doesn't matter who the challenge is from), so UW provided legal defence resources, as current policies demand. If you have a problem with that, contact the University Secretariat, who oversees all UW's legal matters.

      Delete
    2. That's*two* of its employees who were facing a legal challenge. UW admin decided to recognize one. Action speaks louder than weasel words. Paying for one employee's legal fees says it all.
      It must have been exhausting for her. I don't know what would have been involved. From the decision,
      [162] Dr. Morgan requests compensation for the time she needed to prepare her Application and prepare for her Tribunal hearing. She calculates this to be 317 hours in 2011 ($14,202) and 418 hours in 2012 ($18,825).

      That's a total of 735 hours, working out to $45/hour. Guessing about the same time for the perpetrator, but at maybe 5 times the rate depending on the lawyer, UW paid around $165,375 for the perpetrator's defence, straight out of our tuition. We'll try to find out who their lawyers were and their actual rates.

      Your wording is telling and you're right: from UW senior admin's perspective, the victim and the challenges she faced didn't matter.

      Ask who? Riight, the University Secretariat is going to come clean. Very funny.

      Delete
    3. 33b, that's not how it works. The University provides legal DEFENSE to its staff, it doesn't provide resources for staff to take legal action against other staff. That kind of compensation can only be awarded by the tribunal/court/adjudicating body.

      It's pretty much the same in most Ontario workplaces - if legal action is taken against you for something related to your job, you're protected by your employer (because we live in a world that assumes you're INNOCENT until the adjudicating body says otherwise, and employers honour that notion). But if you choose to take legal action against your employer, or a fellow employee, or someone you encountered during your job, your employer will not compensate you for that. That is the world we live in, and it's got nothing to do with bias in our administration.

      Delete
    4. 33c I think you just proved 33's and 33b's points, well done. You're right, it doesn't work and cannot work since it's a broken design at UW. You've spelled out clearly how UW approach biases towards supporting sexual harassers on staff.

      UW senior admin views supporting sexual harassers on staff as legal defense (that UW pays for), while viewing an employee's claiming the Ontario Human Rights Code to a workplace free of sexual harassment as "taking legal action against" (that UW doesn't pay for).

      You can rationalize it but the effect of this bias is a forgone conclusion: a sexual harassment occured and UW admin did everything in its power to repudiate it - and still will not act.

      The proof of a pudding is in the eating.

      Delete
    5. 33d, what kind of workplace says 'if you want to take legal action against one of your fellow employees here, we'll compensate you for it!'?
      ...none ever, that's what.
      UW simply applied the commonly held practice of saying 'if you come under fire by any other party for legal issues related to your employment, that arise over the course of your employment, then we will provide you with resources to defend yourself.' That's a logical practice, covering liabilities.

      Also, don't forget that the HRTO determined that the University did NOT repudiate Dr. M for taking action in this case.

      Delete
    6. 33e "for legal issues related to your employment"
      That's to protect employees who get sued for doing something in their job description, that they're being paid to do.

      Delete
    7. 33f, yes, the complaint brought against him was regarding something that happened at a work-related function, and whose outcome could directly impact his continued ability to do his job. Sounds like the exact sort of thing the University should provide a defense for.

      Delete
    8. 33g Was his act in question one he performs in the normal course of fulfilling his work duties? For instance a parking valet who dents a car he was being paid to drive to a parking spot.

      Delete
    9. H: you unintentionally gave an example that proves the other point. If a valet dents a car, the employer must pay the cost, not the employee.

      Delete
    10. 33i I get 33h saying the valet's employer pays legal costs since they pay the employee to drive customers' cars. I'd get it if the counsellor was being paid to give drunk psychologists orgasms with his nose.

      I don't get what point you think 33h made, though.

      Delete
  34. As a girl who has been harrassed in her workplace environment, I strongly support safety at workplace, for both employees & students. Good for you, OP!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for speaking out - letting us know you're watching and participating. Another important student's voice added ...

      Delete
  35. Jesus, all of this just seems like one giant overreaction by a few high-strung people, to something that took place years ago and has been resolved through the appropriate channels. Chill out, it was a minor incident anyway!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is this Team Perp's group counselling session for the entire UW student body? Thanks for the free diagnosis.

      Delete
    2. Not the entire student body, I think, just the small handful of witch hunters who don't seem to understand the concept of 'innocent until proven otherwise,' and can't accept the fact that the final decision has already been made regarding this incident.

      Delete
    3. 35a I didn't know Counselling Services offered group counselling online. But isn't 35 a conflict of interest, can they do that?

      Delete
    4. 33g Was his act in question one he performs in the normal course of fulfilling his work duties? For instance a parking valet who dents a car he was being paid to drive to a parking spot.

      Delete
    5. ^reposted under 33.

      Delete
    6. 35 - already refuted by 12a and several other posts.

      Delete
  36. @33e/f I can just imagine the harasser/intimidator's job description if those acts were related to his employment (taken from CS' AD role now posted)

    Primary Purpose:

    Reporting to the Director of Counselling Services (CS), the position of Associate Director (AD) encompasses both administrative, clinical, and sexual field investigation responsibilities for the department which interfere in the operations of the Service.

    The primary focus of operations management of the AD is delivering clinical programs and intimidation services in a manner that:

    1. Samples sexual body parts of departmental female psychologists at both ends of the of the inebriation spectrum, posterior and anterior.

    2. monitors ongoing sexual access and availability (best practice!) of female psychologists, interns, supervisees, and students.

    3. a focus upon prevention and early/ongoing intimidation regarding the human rights claims of female uWaterloo staff and students

    4. the satiety, well-hung firmness and the career and priapic success of uWaterloo staff complicit/complicated (oh it's all so complicated!) in the above

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Then promotions for Team Perp all around for enabling him. How submissive/blind are the female counsellors who put up/out with his behaviour without complaint?

      Delete
    2. Its obvious from 36 he should be legally protected by UW and not her as his actions were related to his employment. Her claiming her rights were not part of her job description so she should not get reimbursed.

      Delete
    3. You people are fucking batshit insane. Jesus.

      Delete
  37. 36 Looks like truth in advertising consistent with what's being actually defended and rewarded in Counselling Services.
    @36c are you 20e?

    ReplyDelete
  38. I agree with 22a. See other omg's for how the HRTO adjudicator's train went off the rails while trying his U-turn on Dr Morgan: "she's remarkably, absolutely credible ... no wait". Once he was off the rails, it was impossible for him to jump back on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There are two separate incidents to consider, and one had no physical evidence. I don't see how he went off the rails, they're separate.

      Delete
    2. 38a I don't think sexual harassment and intimidation cases are like say weapons offenses where there's physical gunshot evidence to examine. It's not CSI. And wasn't it the same the people continuing the abuse against the same victim throughout? I don't get why the HRTO guy bailed.

      Delete
    3. 38b He bailed since the ruling was a train wreck.

      Delete
    4. 38b: he "bailed" because there was no other evidence of it. No witnesses, nothing.

      a person can be absolutely consistent and tell the truth while still not perceiving reality correctly. sounds like the ruling accepted the first incident as truth, since there was documentation, witnesses, counseling evidence, etc. but the assertions that the guy was intimidating her by passing her in the hallway even though he wasn't doing anything was thrown out under scrutiny.

      this "team perp" bullshit is ridiculous. can a guy not make a mistake (ass grab) and then learn from that and back off? the guy is still human, so why are you demonizing and objectifying him into an instrument of sexual oppression? why do you people think he is evil forever and eternally harassing women from drunkenly grabbing someone's ass? how do you know he doesn't feel terrible about the whole thing? (while the case summary leaves out these details, they almost certainly would have been covered at the tribunal. which is why I appreciate the people above repeatedly pointing out that we don't have all the evidence available to make a decision.) I mean, look at the testimony. what did she want him to do, duck into an office if he saw her in the hallway? the fuck, guys?

      you people have seriously prematurely judged someone by selectively reading a case summary and I think it's awful. you're doing exactly what you accuse the guy of doing: objectifying him to the point you can't see humanity anymore. to those who keep bitching about the HRCO not granting Dr. Morgan's request for 25k for public interest, thousands of dollars for self-representation: do you really think she *actually* thought she was going to get all that? you have to ask for about twice the amount of what you really want in order for the range of decisions and a compromise to fall where you want it. it makes people feel more reasonable in granting your request.

      Delete
    5. 38d In most sexual harassment/retaliation cases the only witness supporting the claim is the victim herself, and that's all the evidence of the act itself. That looks like the case here.

      A harasser learn and back off? There's nothing that he's ever fessed up that he did wrong. So he's learned he can do them again and walk, with the blessing of UW and the HRTO. Chances are remote this was the first time in his work he did this. The retailating? sure - she's the first to report him, so the first to face reprisal. It sounds like he was on a spree that night. And there's nothing to stop him from it being his last (recidivism risk). You think that satisfied his urges for good? You think he's got them under control? If anything he'd go further.

      [195] Dr. Morgan proposes that Mr. Mackay be required to have a psychological or psychiatric assessment regarding his acts of harassment and reprisal to determine his risk of recidivism.

      Her non-monetary remedies and public interest remedies from [191]-[203] are the ones that matter to UW students and Counseling Services clients for our safety.

      We don't know if his intimidation's ever stopped. All we know is that the HRTO said they won't believe her, despite their glowing view of her credibility.

      That's where we the concerned students come in. As 8a said the person likely has a lot of support in the department. The victim stood against this on her own, until now. Her part's done. Ours is just starting.

      Delete
  39. In keeping with the UW community's concerns this is towards establishing crowd-administered human rights protections at UW to fill the prevailing vacuum.

    The senior administration at UW and the HRTO have abdicated their fiduciary responsibilities as employers and adjudicators. As the Ontario Human Rights Policy on Preventing sexual and gender-based harassment 2013 states in section 8.1:

    "Employers have a duty to ensure a poison-free work environment and to take steps to make sure that sexual harassment is not taking place in their workplace. Once they learn of sexual harassment, employers must take immediate action to remedy the situation. If the employer is satisfied the harassment has happened, they must consider both disciplinary action and further prevention steps, such as training or education. "

    Sexual harassment is against the law. The HRTO has through its cynical, crushing decisions against Dr Morgan permanently eroded and denied the ability for all women at UW, across Canadian universities and others harmed by these precedents to successfully claim their human rights under the Code against powerful institutional employers such as UW.

    Reprisal for claiming rights under the Code is against the law.

    Other links from the Ontario Human Rights Commission website are:

    Ontario Human Rights Code
    Ontario Human Rights Policy on Preventing sexual and gender-based harassment 2011
    OHRC Guide to your rights and responsibilities under the Human Rights Code 2013

    At present there is no one at an involved powerful institution willing to enforce the employer MUSTs quoted above, and rights enforcement is in name only. That's where we the UW community will step in.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I heard third hand that staff at Counselling Services have been afraid of voicing any criticism of about the Director's actions out of fear of reprisals from him. The Director's response, maybe due to backlashes on this type of thread, has been to announce an "anonymous suggestion box". It's supposedly a Microsoft Word file on the Sharepoint. For the benefit of Counselling Services staff who may want to maintain their anonymity, what's wrong with this picture? Any suggestions for a better suggestion box. Please excuse the recursion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's totally not anonymous. A staff person making a complaint this way about the CS director would get their username shown in the "last saved by" field of the document, and their name would be saved in Sharepoint too. Owners of the Sharpoint site would see more field information than users.

      Delete
  41. A call to action: What we as students can do:

    1. Talk about it. Let our friends know about this issue on OMGUW and ask them to read it. This will take numbers. Let's go for UW student-wide saturation. It's meme-spreading time.
    2. For CS clients. When booking your appointment, give your preference on who you don't want as your counsellor. Voice whatever your level of discomfort is at being counselled by a perpetrator. If you want to switch, say so.
    4. If you do this, let us know your experience.
    5. Give your ideas on other actions we can take as students to aid female counselling client safety in our UW community.

    ReplyDelete
  42. So I just wasted way too much time reading everything online on this case. As I started this thread 40 mins ago, I was quite angry and surprised this was going on at our University and this guy wasn't fired yet.
    Given, what Mr. M (accused) did, I think he his not the best person to do his job just because of the nature of his job. Sensitive clients etc. He should be let go or moved just based on whether you want to have a more efficient Counselling Services.
    However, I think Dr. M is also to blame a bit for blowing this out of proportion. Reading the Human Rights Tribunal report was so tough just due to how repetitive the Tribunal adjudicator had to be, and its safe to assume he is unbiased.
    Plus it seems like Dr. M had a bad reaction to an a minor advance and is trying to exact revenge on him. I mean what's with all the financial compensation requests?
    This article on The Record I think kind of swayed my opinion too as it shines a new way of looking at the case:
    http://www.therecord.com/news-story/4201421-one-grab-at-dance-spawned-four-years-of-turmoil-at-work/
    Keep in mind, initially I was furious at our Counselling Services and the accused. I have actually met Dr. M (the victim) years ago and I think she is a great and well educated woman.
    But in this situation, I think she might be a little out of line. I mean, I go to Phils, Beta etc, I have had my ass randomly grabbed before. I am not going to launch a 4 year lawsuit over it. I am sure it is happened to a lot of you guys too.
    Its not right but he met with police, lost his dignity in the press. Its enough. I belief Dr. M that she is probably going through PTSD. But that could also be a cause of other issues in her life, and just triggered by this minor incident. She obviously absorbed a lot of her life into this case and researching as she was referencing off old cases at the tribunal to seek more monetary compensation, which made me question her motives. Is her motive to get him fired or make a few grand?
    I say they should fire him because he is not the best man for the job. But lets stop labelling this man as a "perp". He got drunk one night and grabbed a woman's ass. People have made much worse mistakes. I think he has paid more than his fair share of debt to society for his mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Maybe you should read slower. You're rehashing stuff refuted days ago.

    ReplyDelete
  44. 42 here. You are right. Browsed through some of those posts now. Ambiguous on what to think now. I am definitely taking away the money argument.

    Now, I feel like we don't have enough info. Too much heresay. Too many differently possibilities as to what could be going on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah we're trying to find out more about the cases, what happened, and what's happening now in and about CS.

      Delete
  45. The court of public opinion has spoken! With naught but a case summary, and no evidence for the accused to defend himself with, it has ruled: guilty, guilty, guilty. Presumption of innocence until proven guilty? Never. Despite a court ruling in the University's favor, the tribunal too must be wrong. At fault. The conspiracy comes to light, you see--it is no less than the systemic oppression of women on campus. Heark! Even the Human Rights Board is perpetuating the patriarchy, the male judge flying "off the rails" when it comes to defending women's safety on campus. A single drunken ass grab is equivalent to violent rape, screams the crowd. Alcohol is no excuse, the superficiality of the crime no defense. A range of values is unwelcome in a case so simple, so black and white, with or against, protector or attacker, perpetrator or victim.

    No one is safe from the crowd's judgment. Watch as the Director of Counseling Services is implicated as a member of "Team Perp" for taking a balanced and cautioned approach and--god forbid--sends a letter requesting that the same complaint is not made over and over without actionable testimony, requiring actions, and not simply the possibility of abuse from the lips of our fair maiden, to be swayed. This must constitute a reprisal! Yes! Very reliable anonymous sources, indistinguishable from one another, claim this is the case; the environment is obviously toxic. Why provide evidence when it's *just so clear*?

    Who could be next? e# perhaps? After all, your student representative did not immediately jump to the conclusion that The Man is guilty, and avoided a personal investigation by deferring to another party! We must send our letters of support to WPIRG regarding the cause. Only those who can successfully leverage the mob mentality are worthy of taking up the cause, anyhow.

    To the pitchforks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the longest you've gone without swearing, so that's an improvement.

      Delete
    2. e#'s action-oriented, shows courage, informs herself, has integrity. Rare. For her to function effectively and stay in her new role it's understood that she has political restrictions on what she can say.

      Delete
    3. If we're just a mob with pitchforks, then why have people been sending all the informative links above? We're empowering and educating ourselves about our rights and UW's and the government's duties. Is that concerning to you? The UW crowd is bootstrapping itself on these issues. Talking down to us isn't helping you. 8j said it well in his/her last paragraph.

      Delete
    4. I thought 8j had their ass handed to them by 8k/l. Calls for action without bothering to specify what action is desired. Claims of raising awareness while spreading misinformation.

      The reason 8j didn't specify specific desired action is unclear to me, and the whole "AND WE'LL GET IT" thing was frankly freaky and cultish sounding.

      Delete
    5. 45d 8k's contempt for "this woman" was palpable. 8l mixed up targets. 8j did fine. They asked for info from CS staff and overall.

      btw your "ass hand" term in this thread is awkward.

      Delete
    6. @e, I don't think it was intended as disrespectful... it read more like an aspergers math student trying to be precise without referring to Dr. Morgan by name. (at that point, names weren't being dropped in the thread) In that case, "this woman" is completely accurate and people are reading into it to see contempt. But I've already seen people reading into things selectively the whole thread, nothing new.

      You too haven't said what action your demanding. I think a lot of people reading this thread would take you a lot more seriously if you had specific demands as opposed to calling for the crucifixion of "team perp" with no evidence to suggest such a team exists. Besides hearsay, ofc. Which makes you look witch hunty and irrational.

      Delete
  46. 45 just won the thread.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 45/46 Each of us can think and decide for ourselves, thank you very much.

      Delete
    2. a: fwiw, 45 and 31c are the same person (me). But since anger at the oversimplification happening here didn't make me any friends, I thought perhaps something farcical, misleadingly sardonic might be more effective...

      Delete
  47. Here's an interesting article with examples and benchmarks on Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: How Arbitrators Decide by Mollie H. Bowers and E. Patrick McDermott

    It gives surveys and examples of third party employers and arbitrators unrelated to UW and the HRTO.

    ReplyDelete
  48. 41 I have a suggestion (#6?). Any visitors or staff who have access to Counselling Services keep an eye out for shunning. This may be the most long-term retaliation with the biggest negative effect on Dr Morgan. Though I sure hope it isn't, if what some people have been saying is true, this may still be going on after 4 years. She could be a pariah in her own department due to her reporting the harassment. See 31a/b/d including links.

    Whether it's going on or not should be evident with difficulty at get-togethers by looking at people's behaviours: how people relate, how people group together. How many people chat with her, where they sit and what they do relating to her.

    It's hard to imagine fellow counsellors being so cruel but let's get info over the next long time. They may be as susceptible to social pressure as the rest of us non-counsellors/non-psychologists.

    "With enough eyes all bugs are shallow." - Linus's Law

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good idea. Another way in case it's too tough to spot stealth shunning since it may only happen when no one's looking, is to

      (suggestion #7) just give her your support by asking her how she's doing, with or without reference to the issues. You know, basic human kindness and decency kind of stuff. The utility value to her could be huge if it's in scarce supply.

      Delete
    2. Unless anything's changed, Dr. Morgan hasn't even been working in the same building as the rest of Counselling Services for over a year. She moved to Health Services from Needles Hall. I'm not sure exactly what you're expecting to find.

      Delete
    3. 48b We're expecting to find the truth. Just not from you though. Honest mistake was it?

      Delete
  49. 48 Yes it goes on in Counselling Services. It's most noticeable during department staff meetings, at Needles Hall, though it's stealthy. She works at least 3 locations.

    ReplyDelete
  50. 49 It's ironic if it's entrenched in a department of counsellors and psychologists. I know that's been said already. Barbara Coloroso wrote a book called "The Bully, the Bullied, and the Bystander", highly summarized for children and their guardians here I hope with her permission. People may want to become aware of these antisocial dynamics and their antidotes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 50, And that they may go home and warn their kids off the same acts they did that day at work. None of us is immune. It's humbling that each us is capable of glossing over or justifying that we participate actively or passively in our own social circle's shunning, while at the same time abhoring the concept outside of our own social context.

      Delete
  51. Consider this: what if the guy didn't work in Counselling Services. What if he worked at another dept, lets say in Tatham Centre. Just happened to be at that bar that night, got drunk and grabbed Dr. M's ass. She hits his hand off. She goes home.

    What do you think happens in the next four years?

    ReplyDelete