Fresno State’s approach to harassment complaints plagued by incompetence, indifference

News about how Fresno State and the CSU handled Vice President Frank Lamas’ behavior continues to be reported. The latest, published by The Bee on March 8, includes attempts by the VP for Administration and Finance, Debbie Adishian-Astone, to exonerate herself, two Title IX coordinators, two VPs for human resources, and by implication, the general counsel assigned to Fresno State, Daryl Hamm.

In her recounting of events, Adishian-Astone maintains that the university handled the misconduct correctly. She maintains that the climate of fear in the Division of Student Affairs, caused by “the close personal relationship” between then-President Joseph Castro and Lamas, was something she and the rest of the legal apparatus at Fresno State and in the CSU “could not overcome.” Wow.

We vehemently disagree. Indeed, the “VP Lamas Affair” illustrates endemic bureaucratic failures at Fresno State. The reasons Fresno State failed so miserably are much more complicated than the story proffered by current CSU administration and Board of Trustees — a story undoubtedly crafted to shield the CSU system from liability in future litigation and, frankly, to save the jobs of middle managers and counsel involved in approving the university’s multiyear handling of Lamas’ misconduct. Former President Castro, though certainly not blameless, is being thrown under the bus by the very people who publicly praised him in an almost cult-like fashion and advocated for him to be chancellor.

Potential complainants rationally measured their odds of prevailing in a complaint against what they knew about the complaint system and decided that it just wasn’t worth it. Adishian-Astone’s own words in The Bee — “It was very well known that Lamas’ behavior during that time, while maybe not of a formal Title IX nature, was inappropriate” — illustrates the administrator’s unwillingness to address misconduct or even poor job performance.

To protect Lamas, or rather to protect their own positions in relation to the centers of institutional power, they were willing to dismiss their own direct, indirect, and observed knowledge about his behavior. Individuals, in fact, were coming forward with complaints, hence the idea that Lamas’ behavior was common knowledge. However, the laser focus on the appearance of institutional compliance by administrators and the CSU general counsel dismissed anything that was not deemed an official first-hand report.

Fresno State’s problem, we contend, is not the climate of fear that VP Adishian-Astone uses to absolve her lackluster managerial performance; instead, it is the poor job performance of the Title IX Office and the Human Resources Office who report directly to her. We implore the public, especially reporters, to go beyond the statements of self-interested administrators and evaluate their actual performance. We know this is difficult.

Fresno State and the CSU have crafted a symbolically rich but ineffectual system for dealing with workplace disputes. Indeed, the formality of dispute resolution procedures and anti-discrimination policies can easily lead us to think dispassionate reason guides employers’ devotion to workplace equity. Officious personas wielding bureaucratic language lull us into thinking elaborate procedures will purge the workplace of invidious behavior. Bureaucrats say what we need are additional procedures, accompanied by elaborate forms with lots of grids, overseen by more middle managers. They use a pretense of fairness sustained by the weighty symbolism of policies and procedures that they use with expert acumen to marginalize women across races, men of color, and LGBTQ+ campus community members. Here is what Title IX complainants and employees who are targets of discrimination say about the official processes used to attend to their concerns: they do not work. The Lamas affair illustrates this.

Fresno State’s approach to complaints is plagued by a legacy of incompetence and indifference. Administrators with limited or zero experience with Title IX law, sexual harassment and violence, and knowledge about victim behavior have been continuously put into positions where they were directly engaged in investigations or charged with overseeing those employees. Adishian-Astone and President Castro were personal recipients of multiple requests for additional and more experienced Title IX staff, all of which were ignored. What is more, the Title IX coordinators continue to engage the complaint process in ways that are disadvantageous to complainants and advantageous to the university, creating an environment wherein individuals do not want to come forward.

For instance, Title IX coordinators at Fresno State routinely draw out the complaint process. Complaints under consideration for an investigation may be in limbo for months before coordinators decide if there is enough evidence to proceed with an investigation. Yet, rarely can the coordinators articulate the evidentiary standards they are using to assess complaints.

Then, investigations can take years, thereby not bringing about resolutions, but instilling feelings of distrust and uncertainty among complainants. This discourages reporting. Additionally, there is a dearth of clear communication between the Title IX office and complainants. We know of several cases in which faculty believed there was investigation underway when there was not, only to find out later that the university had done nothing to address the discrimination they faced.

Additionally, there is little oversight of the Title IX coordinators’ job performance. The numbers in a recent USA Today article about how many complaints were received versus how many were actually investigated are astounding. Not only do the number of complaints show an obvious understaffing of Title IX employees, but the limited number of pursued investigations point to overwhelmed or inept employees.

The Lamas affair shows that the failure to protect students and staff was systemic. The trite attempt to place the blame on the friendship of two ousted administrators is tired. Yes, President Castro failed. But he relied on administrators, staff, and counsel — those charged with making sure the university was compliant with law and policy– to advise him. These individuals ignored and dismissed the concerns of staff and students. And they continue to refute their own responsibility. Our campus deserves better.