Tag Archives: sex discrimination

May 01 2014
14 Comments
General

ASU faces a Federal investigation over complaints of mishandling sexual abuse cases

We initially wrote about how easy it was for ASUPD to skew its crime statistics in October 2013, just after ASUPD released its 2012 crime statistics (here and here).

In February 2014, we did a lengthy article explaining what the Clery Act is, the reporting requirements under the law, and how it is applicable to ASUPD. In March 2014, we followed up this article with a second part which analyzed ASUPD’s crime data and illustrated exactly how ASUPD misrepresented its crime statistics and violated the Clery Act. Shortly thereafter, we wrote an article explaining what Title IX is, and how ASU is also violating provisions of it.

After months of reporting about ASU has failed to meet the requirements of the Clery Act, as well as Title IX, a formal complaint has finally been filed against ASU. This complaint has now launched ASU into the national media spotlight (as well as ASUPD, for their role in under reporting/reclassifying of statistics).

Hopefully, the pressure of a looming Federal investigation is what will help ASUPD clean house, and get on track to establishing itself as a legitimate police department.

Stand by.

Here are a few articles on the situation at ASU:

http://www.abc15.com/news/region-southeast-valley/tempe/asu-among-schools-in-us-federal-sex-assault-investigation

http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/01/us/colleges-sex-complaint-investigations/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/tempe/2014/05/01/arizona-state-universities-sex-assault-inquiry/8565811/

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 26 2014
11 Comments
General

ASUPD nearly botches a missing student case!

 On 04-03-14, ASUPD botched yet another major call–this time a potentially missing international ASU student.

The student was last seen on the ASU Tempe campus, and this time it’s the job of ASUPD to search for and locate this student instead of the Tempe Police Department. The student’s apartment was filled with personal items someone typically wouldn’t leave behind if they were going somewhere–credit cards, money, purse, phone, and items that would have been of evidentiary value if a crime was involved. Due to this student’s status as an international student,  there were not many local contacts available to interview for further information. Additionally, the student’s Facebook and email was being used by someone admitting to be a third party and leaving cryptic messages about the status of the student without giving a location

The direct supervisor of detectives, ASUPD Sergeant Lewis was under the impression a crime had to already be committed to apply for a search warrant in this missing person case. Over the next five days this must have been believed to be true by the commander, assistant chief, and chief closely following this case and overseeing its lack of progress. All the ASUPD Commanders (who are hardly ever at their respective campuses) were running around the Tempe station in a panic, clueless about how to proceed.

What was ASUPD’s solution to finding this missing female student over the next five days? Have patrol Sergeant Macias and Detective Bryner knock on the door of the residence on three separate occasions with negative contact. A brief interview was done with the boyfriend (usually a person of interest in missing persons cases), but nothing was discovered. There was NO extensive search of the jails or hospitals, and no search warrants issued for her residence, phone, email…nothing! After five days with no leads, the case looked increasingly bleak. Instead of searching for more information, ASUPD stopped looking for more leads in this case.

As this investigation grinded to a halt, Chief Pickens (clueless has how to proceed), delegated the responsibility for handling the situation to his two assistant chiefs.  Assistant Chief Hardina reacted with a typical ASUPD response: let’s not enter it into NCIC…let’s give it to Tempe PD! His counterpart, Assistant Chief Thompson (with experience from a legitimate police agency) decided to enter it into NCIC and work the case like a responsible, capable, police department would. There was an internal debate raging on the third floor; should ASUPD continue to work this stagnant missing persons case, or should ASUPD hand it over to Tempe (where the student resided)? This was a last ditch attempt to avoid any more negative press about ASU.

When Tempe PD was notified of the missing person case (and how ASUPD failed to make any headway in the case), they immediately demanded a meeting with ASUPD’s Command Staff. Commander Michele Rourke was given the task of meeting Tempe PD to answer for ASUPD’s incompetence. However, at the last minute, a search of the local jails was done and the student was located; the meeting with Tempe PD was subsequently canceled.

This is further proof that ASUPD is incapable of handling a major incident on campus, due solely to incompetent leadership and an understaffed (and undertrained!) police department.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 13 2014
13 Comments
General

Tempe named one of the most dangerous suburbs in America!

From the Phoenix New Times Blog:

Of the 10 most-dangerous suburbs in America, two of them are suburbs of Phoenix.

That’s according to the real estate website Movoto, which ranked Glendale as the seventh-most dangerous, and Tempe the eighth-most, based on FBI crime data.

The people who put the ranking together took into account murders, other violent crimes, property crimes, and total crimes, all per 100,000 people, to compare the suburbs to one another.

In Glendale, there were 6,410 property crimes per 100,000 people in 2012, the worst of any suburb. Total crime, at 6,901 per 100,000 was the sixth-highest. Glendale also ranked 18th for murders, and 18th for other violent crimes.

The odds of being a victim of a crime in Glendale in 2012 were 1 in 14.

Meanwhile, Tempe ranked 14th for property crimes and 12th for total crime.

The violent crimes are what put Tempe on the list: with seven murders per 100,000 people, the 11th-most, and 519 other violent crimes per 100,000 people, ranking 16th.

That put your odds of being a crime victim in Tempe 1 in 19 in 2012.

The six most-dangerous suburbs, beating out Glendale and Tempe, were East Point, Georgia; Camden, New Jersey; Miami Beach, Florida; Midwest City, Oklahoma; Miami Gardens, Florida; and Clarksville, Indiana.

We’re speculating the high property crime rate stems from ASU’s Tempe campus, which reported nearly 1,000 theft related crimes from it’s 2012 Clery Report. Violent crimes statistics on ASU’s Tempe Campus (forcible sex offenses, robbery, and burglary) also showed significant increases in 2012, as compared to the previous year.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 09 2014
25 Comments
General

How The Integrity Report has changed ASUPD

We have received a few emails and comments from critics of The Integrity Report who like to categorize us as a  small group of “disgruntled ASUPD employees” whose issues aren’t important or legitimate. We also know ASUPD Command Staff and university officials have a similiar perception of the blog–complaints from one or two department members who don’t represent the majority opinion of the department.

The issues discussed here are very relevant to the majority of the department, and have been previously or are currently being discussed by members of ASUPD. Also, the reaction from ASUPD Command staff and university higher-ups have in regard to the blog supports the assertion that the issues discussed here ARE relevant, because many of them have elicited a knee-jerk response on behalf of ASU. Here’s our list of changes at ASUPD brought about as a direct/indirect result of the issues discussed at The Integrity Report:

The Indeed.com Pay Raises:During the Summer of 2013, an ASUPD employee posted a negative job review on the job searching site indeed.com. Soon after, a giant discussion began to brew on indeed’s employer forums area about how miserable people were working at ASUPD (the majority of the posts were subsequently removed by indeed.com, thanks to a call from a member from Command staff to the site’s administrators). Following in the footsteps of indeed.com for The Integrity Report was created for the purpose of continuing the open discussion about ASUPD’s problems.

After the slew of negative publicity about ASUPD continued (and was not able to be stopped), ASUPD decided to give its officers a “pay update” after 5+ years of pay freezes. The timing of the pay raise was very coincidental, especially considering that employees had broached the issues of a pay raise since 2009, only to be dismissed by Chief Pickens.

Resurrection of the Chief’s Advisory Board: The Chief’s Advisory Board is a tool where a select group of people chosen by the Chief go to voice their concerns over departmental issues , in hopes of some resolution. The Board has been around for years, but essentially went defunct in 2009. However, in September of 2013–directly following the indeed.com and blog scandals–the Chief’s Advisory Board sprang back to life. Pickens’ sent out a department wide email promising to use the board to resolve issues and move the department in a positive direction. Since the advisory board has come back, it has only met a handful of times, and none of the suggestions on improving the department have been implemented (other than getting rid of the mosquito problem in Tempe 103).

ASUPD’s involvement with HR: In an effort to straighten out ASUPD’s problems (and perhaps quash the flow of information to the blog), the head of ASU’s Human Resources, Kevin Salcido, began to look into the situation at the PD. Many felt (us included) that Salcido was genuinely interested in helping the PD; he listened to the concerns of at least 10 previous and current employees and stated that he would “look into”problems that were reoccurring. However, after plainly stating he was not formally investigating anyone in the PD, it became apparent Salcido was only interested in intel gathering from these “disgruntled employees”, mentioning the blog to several employees.

Employees can’t access their email on days off, post old schedules: One of our posts (where we released an old schedule to show how dangerously low staffing levels are) prompted an email to be sent to all PD employees from Kevin Salcido. This email first discussed all the things the department is doing to turn itself around (none of which have made a positive impact), and went on to state that posting an old schedule was a “security” concern and could result in termination. Shortly after this email, another email was sent to department employees forbidding them from accessing their email on their days off.

ASUPD tried several tactics to bolster staffing numbers: Following the slew of posts made about ASU’s low staffing numbers, as well as the discussion in the Chief’s Advisory Board, ASU posted a job opening for a PD recruiter position on indeed.com, as well as started an employee referral program., and created a recruiting video and brochure.

ASUPD kicked off it’s “2014 Apology Tour”: Chief Pickens held mandatory meetings at each of the satellite campuses in his first even “Apology Tour”. He felt the need to tell all of his supposed disgruntled employees personally how hard he was working to improve the department, and how much he cares about each of his employees in an effort to preserve his job. Prior to the blog, Pickens would rarely go to any of the satellite campuses, especially not for a positive reason.

 ASUPD starts taking training seriously: We have emphasized the important of training a lot here, especially in regards how poorly training your employees opens up your department for civil liability. After years of arbitrarily assigning officers/PAs to train new employees (without any formal training on how to properly do so), ASUPD has been actually sending their sworn and civilian employees to the appropriate training.

Recently, all of ASUPD’s supervisors also had some legal training from ASUPD’s legal advisers, Ginn and Edwards. The topic of discussion was none other than civil liability for supervisors! After year and years of improper training and supervision, it seems quite odd that ASUPD finally broached the issue now?

ASUPD’s “Start By Believing”: Again, the sudden emphasis on sexual violence victims comes on the heels of an article we posted on the safety of students on campus under Title IX, as well as an article about how ASUPD omitted or incorrectly reported the number of sex offenses reported under the Clery Act.

This blog and its issues have helped to set the stage for change, but it has happened because of all of ASUPD’s employees who refuse to get treated poorly, who refuse to work in a hostile environment, and who don’t accept the status quo! Thanks all for disseminating this blog and its issues to the entire AZ LE community (and also the rest of the world); it has shamed ASUPD into slowly changing their ways. However, there are still more hard issues worth discussing and battles worth waging in the near future, so stay tuned.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Apr 03 2014
12 Comments
General

Editorial: “Start by Believing” ASUPD is part of the problem!

ASUPD has been in the media spotlight a great deal recently, and this time, it’s for a good reason; ASUPD, in partnership with university officials, have kicked off a campaign called “Start by Believing” to show support for victims of sexual violence. According to the campaign website, the theory behind the slogan is:

…to bring attention to victims of sexual assault, and not revictimize them through disbelief when they report the crime. Disbelief may come from friends, family, nurses, law enforcement or others whom the victim normally would expect to support them….There are many instances that aren’t reported because of fear of being told that someone brought it on themselves. This type of thinking needs to change. We need to start by believing victims of sexual assault when they come forward. It’s traumatic enough.

The article also mentions the “proclamation” signed by Chief Pickens and Michael Crow (which all department employees received a copy of) that shows how committed ASUPD is to serving victims of sexual violence.

While we think the attention given to the issue of sexual violence on campus is much deserved, we can’t help but be struck by the irony of the situation. The sudden emphasis on sexual violence victims comes on the heels of an article we posted on the safety of students on campus under Title IX, as well as an article about how ASUPD omitted or incorrectly reported the number of sex offenses reported under the Clery Act. Let’s also not forget the rash of sex offenses that occurred during ASU’s “Safe and Sober Campaign”, or the increase in ASU’s sex offense numbers that were actually reported to Clery.

If ASUPD is serious about supporting victims of sexual violence, they could start by appropriately reporting sex offenses in the Clery Report, as they are required to do, by law. Omitting or reclassifying sex crimes into lesser offenses (such as assault) not only revictimizes the victim, it is another way of telling the victim “we don’t really believe you”.

Next, to counter the recent increase in sex offenses, Chief Pickens could actually staff and maintain a fully-functioning police department that has the ability to proactively deter crime, instead of punting ASU’s problems to the City of Tempe. Actively participating in the campaigns you sponsor/are involved in such as “Safe and Sober”, DUI Task Force, or the Student Safety Taskforce would work to both deter crime and show the campus community how committed you are to making ASU a safer place.

Finally, if ASUPD is serious about supporting victims of sexual violence, they can give their officers the appropriate training they need to effectively do their jobs. The academy spends very little time on training officers on how to deal with sexual assault reports, and the little bit of training that is retained fades exponentially with time. Allocating resources to the people who will actually be HANDLING sexual violence cases ensure cases are appropriately handled, and is more cost-effective than dealing with civil lawsuits or wasting tax payer dollars by writing a fancy “proclamation”.

No amount of squishy emails or “proclamations” sent to ASU’s students/faculty/staff can make up for the fact that behind the glossy exterior of ASUPD’s new building, new uniforms, new badges is a top-heavy Command staff completely devoid of compassion and integrity. No amount of campaigns that ASUPD “participates” in can cover up the glaring irony that exists within its “proclamation”.

Chief Pickens, you need to “Start by Believing” ASUPD is part of the problem before you can commit to supporting victims of sexual violence.

 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 23 2013
63 Comments
General

The legal liabilities of ASUPD’s FTO program

Many comments have been made regarding the status of ASUPD’s FTO program–how it has been used as a tool to weed people out of the department, how different FTOs have different standards for each respective trainee–but none have discussed how poorly running an FTO program can have significant legal ramifications for ASUPD, as well as ASU.

The following excerpts were cited from J. Parkinson’s “The Cost of Inadequate Training“:

Title 42, U.S. Code, Section 1983 Claims states that all allegations of civil rights violations against the police are brought in Federal Court (Daane, D.M. and J.E. Hendricks, 1991).Section 1983 provides a remedy for the violation of an individual’s federally protected rights.

In order to file a Section 1983 claim, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under the color of state law, their conduct deprived the plaintiff of their rights secured by the Constitution, the training the officer received (regarding the injury suffered by the plaintiff) was inadequate, the inadequate training led to the injury, and there was deliberate indifference on the part of the municipality.  The Court ruled in Monell (1978) that a municipality could be sued if the plaintiff could prove the defendant violated their rights because the municipality failed to adequately train the defendant.  The Court ruled that liability for failure to train has to follow the strict standard of deliberate indifference.  The requirements to prove deliberate indifference include:  plaintiff must prove the municipality knew the officer would have to deal with the situation, there was training available that would have made the outcome of the situation different, and the municipality chose to not provide the officer with such training (McNamara, 2006).

Supervisors are also able to be held liable for an officer’s actions under Section 1983.  There are three elements, the court identified in Shaw v. Stroud (4th Cir. 1994), that must be present.  They are:

(1) that a supervisor had actual or constructive knowledge that his subordinate was engaged in conduct that posed ‘a pervasive and unreasonable risk’ of constitutional injury to citizens like the plaintiff; (2) that the supervisor’s response to that knowledge was so inadequate as to show ‘deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices,’ and (3) that there was an ‘affirmative causal link’ between the supervisor’s inaction and the particular injury suffered by the plaintiff.”

            It is not good enough to say a police department is properly trained, there has to be clear documentation that includes when the training was held, which officers attended, who was the instructor, and what material was covered (Dahlinger, 2001).  Documentation must be organized in a clear, concise manner so if an officer becomes a defendant in a failure to train lawsuit, or any other type, the training records can be submitted as evidence of training. Basically, if it is not documented, then it didn’t happen.   McNamara (2006, p.3) stated:  “Taking this proactive step will help reduce department liability by showing an ongoing commitment to proper training.”

  • Therefore, ASU’s piecemeal FTO program could cause the department to be held legally liable under U.S.C 1983 if they can articulate the officer was NOT adequately trained. Considering the fact that the FTO program has previously allowed FTOs and an FTO Supervisor to train rookie officers when they THEMSELVES were not certified to be field training officers, we believe this to be grounds for a pretty significant civil lawsuit against the department.
  • Additionally, an FTO Sergeant (ie, the “Supervisor” of the FTO program) could also be held legally liable by allowing non-certified FTOs to train rookies, and failing to intervene when there were allegations of wrongdoings by an FTO (ie, “tacit authorization of the alleged offensive practices”), Therefore, a certain FTO Sergeant who allowed several of her FTOs to terrorize a slew of rookies could be held legally liable in civil court.
  • Finally, as stated in this article, training records can be submitted as evidence of training…so what happens when those training records are altered from their original state to “prove” that a rookier officer isn’t qualified to pass field training? Beyond the possibility of a civil suit on behalf of a potential victim and the rookie themselves, this is a blatantly criminal act which has occurred several times at ASUPD.

The most disturbing part about the legal liability incurred as a result of ASUPD’s FTO program? Several members of Command staff, including the Chief have known about the situation at hand. Granted, these people have been removed from the FTO program, but they have all received NO punishment, and their actions have created a legal liability for the department that may linger for a long time.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 18 2013
18 Comments
General

Chief’s Advisory Board Meeting Minutes

Recently, there’s been a lot of discussion about the Chief’s Advisory board; what issues are being addressed with the Chief, and what steps command staff has taken to pull back its department from the brink of disaster.

Attached are the Chief’s Advisory Board meeting minutes from 10/17/13. We’re posting this primarily so the public can see that ASUPD’s employees have made EVERY effort to address the department’s problems with the Chief directly, and even posed possible solutions to each problem individually. Pickens STILL has yet to take ANY action to wrangle the department’s problems (despite the fact this meeting was TWO MONTHS AGO), and he has now actually removed himself from his own advisory board!!

Nearly everything stated on the Chief’s behalf is a half-truth: the clicks DO run the department; you’re NOT being personally attacked by the blog, Chief (you are professionally though!); you have NOT fixed the requisition process; you do NOT have magical ideas that will benefit the department that are so secret none of us can know; and the idea that you’re unaware of the problem, Chief, and thus you can’t address the issues at hand.

EVERY issue discussed in the advisory board meeting has been also mentioned on The Integrity Report in one form or another, (with the primary difference being the person discussing the problems/solutions in the advisory board is much more articulate and concise than we are). We count ourselves among the masses of people that have attempted to make you aware of the problems in YOUR department, Chief, but you still deny there are massive problems in the PD.

Chief, in your own words: “the communication lines are open”…you actually have to pick up the phone, though.

Chief Advisory Board Minutes of Meeting

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 12 2013
13 Comments
General

Are ASUPD’s problems morphing into a Penn State-sized scandal?

Before anyone asks, we are NOT asserting that Arizona State University has some sort of child sex abuse scandal in the making–ie, Pennsylvania State. We are just illustrating parallels between Penn State’s administrative nightmare (following the public revelation that the university admin KNEW what was going on, but did nothing), and Arizona State University’s current admin situation. This is an extremely long, but informative read.

In 2011, a HUGE child sex abuse scandal implicating (former) Penn State University assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky broke, and with it, there were several allegations the university had knowledge of the criminal acts in question and failed to act appropriately. For the purposes of this blog, we will be focusing specifically on the inappropriate or non-action on the part of Penn State University’s administration, and how these common denominators parallel the administrative problems currently transpiring at Arizona State University.

In 1998, an 11 year old victim told his mother he showered with Sandusky. The mother contacted Penn State University Police, and a subsequent investigation begins. Detectives in the case also discovered another victim in the case who has the same story as the initial victim. The case was closed after District Attorney Ray Gricar decided the case warranted no criminal charges. The investigating Detective tells the grand jury in this case that the head of PSUPD, told him to close the inquiry.

Prior to the Grand Jury investigation of the first victims’ allegations, in 2007, the then-vice president for student affairs, Vicky Triponey, resigned. She stated she had “philosophical differences with other leadership in student affairs and at the university in general“. Several weeks later, The Wall Street Journal reported that football coach Joe Paterno wanted to discipline his football players himself, effectively having his players not be subject to the student code of conduct. Paterno also threatened (former) Penn State University president Grahm Spanier that he wanted Triponey gone, and would stop fundraising for the school unless she was fired.

In 1999, Sandusky retires from PSU, but is still allowed access to campus facilities, including the locker room.

In 2002, an assistant coach, Mike McQueary, reported seeing Sandusky sexually assaulting a young boy to Paterno; Paterno subsequently reported the information to PSU athletic director, Tim Curley. 10 days later, McQueary, Curley, and Gary Schultz (PSU Vice-President of Finance, which oversees the management of PSUPD) meet to discuss the allegations. No reports are made to law enforcement, and Curley and Schultz instruct Sandusky not to bring any children from his charity to PSU’s football building. This decision was approved by PSU President Spanier.

In 2008, a Grand Jury investigation is initiated. In 2010, McQueary testifies that he reported what he believed to be sexual activity between Sandusky and a young boy, and the reactions of the university administration to the situation. Curley and Schutlz denied they were informed of a sexual assault, but stated they understood the situation as “horseplay”.

In 2011, Schutlz and Curley were found to not be credible by the Grand Jury.  Pennsylvania State Attorney General Kelly released a statement, saying, “…Those officials, to whom it was reported, did not report the incident to law enforcement or any child protective agency, and their inaction likely allowed a child predator to  continue to victimize children for many more years….If we are to enforce the law and protect our citizens, and in this case our children, we cannot condone under the law the actions of those who make false statements to a grand jury, regardless of the positions they hold, particularly when they involve serious matters of great importance.”

(In 2011, Spanier resigned as PSU President and later was formally charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and endangering the welfare of children; Both Schultz and Curley were later charged with perjury, child endangerment, obstruction of justice and conspiracy ).

After this scandal broke, in 2011 PSU was investigated by The Department of Education to assess the university’s compliance with crime reported as required by the Clery Act. If federal investigators determine PSU wasn’t following protocols, PSU could face severe financial sanctions. Although the initial results of the investigation were released to PSU, the findings have not yet become available to the public.

A subsequent investigation by former FBI Director Louis Freesh stated there were several points PSU officials could have stopped Sandusky’s abusive actions, and instead, did nothing. Freesh stated, “There were more red flags here than you could count over a long period of time”.

Parallels between PSU’s scandal and ASU’s plight

While not as horrific nor as publicized at the scandals at Penn State University, Arizona State University seems to have engaged in a similiar pattern of behavior that could send it down the same perverted path carved by PSU.

Alan Clark, ASUPD’s former Assistant Chief has had MULTIPLE sexual harassment complaints lodged against him by members of ASUPD, including an investigation conducted by DPS on Clark’s behavior. Instead of taking action to prevent Clark from further engaging in sexually harassing behavior, ASUPD Chief Pickens holds on to the results of the investigation for a year, then allows Clark to retire from his AC position for another position in the university. Clark STILL has access to the police department, much like Sandusky was allowed to have access to the very locker rooms at PSU where he perpetrated his crimes.

Multiple allegations of sexual harassment, sexual discrimination, records tampering, as well as hostile work environment claims committed by members of ASUPD (among others) were brought to the attention of either ASUPD command staff, and/or Chief Pickens, both in a formal and informal situation. It is so pervasive that these issues were addressed directly to Pickens at his employee Advisory Board. Even directly stating these specific issues to Pickens himself have resulted in NO ACTION; these allegations of wrongdoing have yet to be formally investigated by the department as of this writing.

In the situation at PSU, upper-level administrators were informed of the acts perpetrated by Sandusky, who elected to do nothing about the situation, as not to draw negative attention to the university. Similarly, several ASUPD employees and administrators have informed ASU’s Vice President of Finance, Morgan Olsen of the gravity of the situation that exists at ASUPD. Olsen’s eventual response (months after being informed) we postulate has little to do with caring about the concerns of his employees, and everything to do with the pressure Michael Crow, ASU’s President, has put on him to minimize negative attention to the university.

ASU’s Head of Human Resources Kevin Salcido was dispatched to investigate the merits of claims made against ASUPD by members of the department; however, it appears that Salcido has engaged in an “investigation” primarily to give the impression to those outside of the university that ASU is “taking care of the problem”. In reality, a full blown investigation would entail actually interviewing those who claim to be victims of systemic mistreatment at the hands of ASUPD. What this “investigation” has amounted to at this point is Salcido discussing some “issues” with upper-ranking members of ASUPD who have either no idea of the gravity of the situation, or know only one tiny iota of the problems the department is facing. Therefore, the seriousness with which Salcido’s office is handling this investigation has yet to be seen. Michael Crow has also been kept abreast of the situation at ASUPD by his people, but the degree to which he is informed is unknown.

Just like PSU, ASU’s upper-level administrators have been informed of the situation that is currently transpiring within ASUPD. However, here is where the stories of both Penn State and Arizona State are at a crossroads: will ASU go down the same path as PSU by letting the situation deteriorate further, only to feign ignorance when facing possible criminal charges? Or will ASU learn from the mistakes PSU made and decide to rectify the systemic failures of its police department, while there is still time?

We don’t know the answer to this question. The breadth of these problems go beyond what is happening at the PD level and are manifesting themselves into university wide problems; therefore, a significant and genuine undertaking by ASU’s administration must transpire, or else the issues discussed here will require the intervention of the state and federal government.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204443404577052073672561402

http://deadspin.com/5861716/former-psu-administrator-joe-paterno-wanted-his-own-code-of-justice-for-players-including-what-info-became-public

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/12/freeh-report-penn-state-coverup-joe-paterno-jerry-sandusky_n_1667727.html

http://news.psu.edu/story/281634/2013/07/15/administration/penn-state-receives-initial-clery-report

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/08/142111804/penn-state-abuse-scandal-a-guide-and-timeline

http://www.attorneygeneral.gov/press.aspx?id=6277

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/01/14852918-former-penn-state-president-graham-spanier-charged-in-child-sex-abuse-scandal

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 05 2013
4 Comments
General

What causes woman-on-woman bullying in the workplace?

Came across this article from workplacebullying.org about woman-on-woman bullying in the workplace; we feel it is extremely relevant to our sisters in blue (past and present) who have suffered because of bullying from a female supervisor. It’s a long but good read.

Six explanations from us for why women bully other women at work.

Solidarity of the sisterhood is a myth and stereotype. It doesn’t mean it does not exist, it’s just that not all women are nurturant and supportive to one another. Neither is every man macho and hyper-aggressive. Stereotypes are generalizations about sex-role-typed behavior, common acts associated with only one gender and not the other. Many behaviors are gender-typed.

Workplace Bullying is not gender-typed. Workplace environment factors are better predictors than gender. For example, a culture that carries no accountability or negative consequences, regardless of how harmful the behavior exhibited paves the way for bullies. A place where kissing-up (ingratiation) is the norm is fertile territory, where bullying and favoritism (and its converse, ostracism) thrive.

When we discuss the WBI Healthy Workplace Bill, we speak of “status-blind” harassment. Bullying crosses the boundaries drawn by gender, race, ethnicity, age, and disability. Thus bullying is truly “gender-free.”

What attracts the media to woman-on-woman (WOW) bullying is the fact that women are targeted at a higher rate by female bullies (71%) than by male bullies (46%). Yes, women are crueler to women than they are to men, and that must be explained. But don’t forget that 60% of all bullies are men. 31% of all bullying is men-on-men, 29% is WOW. Why is there so little interest in the more frequent variety of same-gender bullying? Because it’s discounted as routine, expected, predictable. WOW sounds mysterious, counterintuitive, and, I think, somewhat prurient.

So here are some explanations for WOW bullying that rarely make it into TV segments on bullying, print stories and the gabfest which is the blogosphere. We offer this because some readers might get the impression that we are misogynists. We are not! 57% of all bullied targets are women, and the majority of callers seeking help from us are women. We are women’s advocates in the fight against workplace bullying.

The WBI  starter list of explanations

A. It’s the workplace, not the people in it. Employers create work environments where aggression is rewarded. women see this (as well if not better than men) and learn to abuse others to get ahead. It’s the way things are done around here.

In male-dominated organizations, where men hold all the executive positions, women tend to adopt male-sex-typed behavior to survive and succeed. Only in female-run organizations (or those run by males who adopt a female-sex-typed style that values quality of interpersonal relationships as much as power and status differences) can there be hope for a less aggressive, more dignified and respectful way to operate. See the Women and Bullying articles in our Research section for relevant studies about this particular angle.

B. A double standard about women is alive and well and practiced by both men and women. If women are “nice” they are too soft. If they are tough, they are “bitchy.” There are two social psychological explanations for this.

First, it is gender bias in the causal attribution process. Causal attribution is simply showing a preference for explaining things that happen. Old research found that if a person is described succeeding at a task, the explanation depends on whether the person described is male or female. Success for men is typically explained by a trait, inherent skill, intelligence, ability. With exactly the same information, when it’s a woman, success is the result of the task being so easy anyone could have done it or luck. And both men and women elect those different explanations.

Second, the first person to break any barrier and be the lone representative of a group (and therefore, be in the statistical minority) is called a “token.” Tokens are subjected to disproportionate pressure. Errors, however tiny, are magnified. Successes can also be blown out of proportion. In practice, token individuals often break from the pressure. Look at what Jackie Robinson had to endure when he broke the race barrier in the white baseball league. Same for the first woman CEO or the first woman to attain a high rank in any organization. Women are natural tokens in male-dominated domains, like business. Men are rarely the only male in any role, but when they are, they, too are tokens and heavily scrutinized.

C. Women targets are less likely to confront in response to being bullied. But targets, of both genders, rarely react with aggression. That’s what makes them targets. Bullies sense who will be an easier mark. Targets are sorted into those who take no action because of a higher moral calling. It could be their religion that tells them to turn the other cheek or to never lower oneself to the level of a tyrant. Other targets walk away in fear, stunned at the surprise attack. Getting away is the only reaction they have. Once away, they hope time will heal the wound or prevent it from happening again. Regardless of motive, targets do not defend themselves because either they are unable (it’s not their worldview and never acquired the skill of self-defense because it’s a fair world, no one will hurt you) or unwilling to do so. Targets are all “easy marks.” It’s not just women.

D. Most bullies are bosses (in the US, 72% of bullies are bosses). All bullies prefer to bully subordinates. It’s a permitted prerogative that makes being a boss attractive to many people. So, bullying flows downhill.

Women are bosses, too. But they are lower-ranking than men bosses (only 15% of executives are women, only 3% of CEOs). So they are more likely managing other women and not other men executives. They bully whoever they can. So, WOW may be nothing more than proximity at work. You bully those within reach.

E. Though I’m not a woman, I’ve had a great deal to do with them during my lifetime (and Ruth educates me constantly). (She says that) women are socialized to judge other girls while growing up. They pay attention to how others look and dress all the time. Self-identity can be almost entirely dependent on how others appear and how they are judged by others. Without comparisons to others, some would not know how to make decisions.

Two factors emerge. First, modeling one’s personal behavior on the actions of others gives a great deal of power to the other person. Clearly in WOW relationships where apparent friendship preceded bullying, the bully may have been respected by the future target. When she is betrayed, the target ruminates (for way too long) about the inexplicable turnaround, searching for a rational explanation. It doesn’t matter, it just happened because the bully wanted it to. Wanting to be like someone else gives away too much personal control over one’s own life and choices made.

Second, the skill of paying attention since childhood determines the adult woman’s perceptual field. Other women are salient in the social world. More information is gleaned from cultivating relationships with women. Abusive, exploitative relationships with one person dominating the other is simply a twisted, sick reliance upon getting information from another woman (to then be used against her). Targets fall into the trap easily.

F. Feminist writers claim that women grow up accustomed to having their personal boundaries invaded and thus learn to treat other women that same way. A girl’s opinions are treated as irrelevant by the father compared to her brother’s. A girl’s ambitions are tamped down, expectations made more “realistic,” dreams treated as impossible. This is denial of her very psychological integrity, a discounting of her humanity. If this is how she is raised, she grows accustomed to being treated rudely or denigrated as not deserving equal status with others. So, when bullied at work, the immediate reaction is rarely outrage and righteous indignation that a fool would dare lie so readily or be so unapologetically cruel. It is more likely a timid turing away, starting immediately to blame herself, buying into the lies (as if some “kernel of truth” is buried in all the manure), and spiraling into a psychologically compromised state.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Dec 04 2013
3 Comments
General

Campus Police: The Feds are watching

…according to an article courtesy of one of our readers, thanks! This article presents several interesting points which ASUPD should take note of.

Questions emerge from DOJ’s investigation into University of Montana police

The blistering findings, though not always supported with documentation, serve as a warning shot for all campus police: the feds are watching.

Shar

In May, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), through the Special Litigation Section, released a public letter of findings in their investigation into the Office of Public Safety response to sexual assaults at the University of Montana. The DOJ looked at a three-year timeframe in which the campus police department allegedly inappropriately handled / investigated 30+ sexual crimes.

This appears to be the first time that the DOJ has conducted an investigation into a campus law enforcement agency. I also believe this is the first time that an agency of fewer than 20 officers has been thusly investigated.

With regard to the investigation, based on my review of the report and additional documentation, it is hard to determine the veracity of all the claims by the DOJ relating to sexually based crimes. But that’s not the only question mark.

Does the DOJ Have the Standing to Investigate?
The DOJ specifically conducted an investigation because the agency determined there was a pattern or practice of violating citizens’ Constitutional rights — that women were unfairly treated and discriminated against because of the failed investigations, practices, policies and procedures of the Department of Public Safety.

A question comes to mind. Is the federal government attempting to control and interfere with the rights of police officers to act in a professional manner, or are they attempting to increase police professionalism within higher education?

There is some discussion on that question now taking place among higher education law enforcement professionals.

While it should be the goal of every police department to run its operations based on the Constitution, it is apparent that not every agency is following those standards to the DOJ’s satisfaction — otherwise, we wouldn’t have DOJ investigations into local police agencies.

The fact is, DOJ has the power to civilly investigate organizations that have demonstrated a pattern and practice that violates the Constitution of the United States.

Furthermore, the May 9 letter to the university from Gary Jackson (DOE) and Anurima Bhargava (DOJ) specifically states that “[t]he (MOU) Agreement will serve as a blueprint for colleges, and universities throughout the country to protect students from sexual harassment and assault.”

To the lay person, this should serve notice that the federal government is coming after higher education law enforcement to ensure that they are conducting Constitutional policing, and not using any discriminatory practices. The DOE and DOJ are requiring remediation in regard to this civil investigation against the University of Montana, as well as the City of Missoula Police Department and the county.

Where did the University of Montana DPS Fall Short?
The Department of Public Safety (law enforcement) appeared in the report as completely incompetent when conducting investigations of sex-based crime — specifically when women are victims. But facts are sometimes not cited to back up the assertions.

Page 12 of the findings letter said, “We found that OPS response to reports of sexual assault is often marked by confusion, repetition, and poor investigative practices.” The DOJ does not provide examples to support their statement.

The DOJ also stated on page 11, “[w]omen who are intoxicated are at increased risk of sexual assault, and more than half of all non-stranger sexual assault involves alcohol use by the victim, assailant, or both.” This statement creates problems because it doesn’t present a way for the police department to address the alcohol factor.

The police department needs to patrol the campus community 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Additionally, the department needs to conduct regular police business, calls for service, crime prevention, and order maintenance activities. Addressing alcohol consumption, especially if done by legal adults behind closed doors, might be beyond the call.

How Can Campus Cops Prepare?
Change is knocking at the door of higher education. To address the base issue of sexual assaults, one solution is to form collaborative partnerships with community services organizations who serve victims on the campus and in the community.

To stay out of the government crosshairs it is important to keep a proactive, professional, and well-trained police agency. Keep a watch on the DOJ website and review laws, policies, and procedures that protect both the citizens and employees of the schools. Keep accurate records.

Review the Police Executive Research Forum policy meeting on consent decrees. If your organization falls subject to a DOJ investigation, contact a litigation group that specializes in dealing with consent decrees and federal monitoring to help prepare for the inevitable.

What Does it All Mean?
The lessons for campus law enforcement are not easily parsed from this report. But one is that campus law enforcement officers need to keep up on training so that they can avoid claims of failure to train, much like federal lawsuits that can be filled as set forth by the precedents of Monell v. Department of Social Services (1978) and Canton v. Ohio (1989). If campus police officers are unaware of these two federal cases, it is clearly in incumbent on organizational leadership to make their officers aware of the principles and holdings of these cases.

The second implication may be more important. The federal government is watching, and will be more than likely conducting investigations into campus law enforcement. So these agencies need to keep up with best practices and data relating to crime that occurs on the campus.

To summarize: a university PD should properly train its officers to absolve the department from legal liability; failure to do so is the result of poor leadership. Also, the federal government is watching and will be investigating more campus PDs. Interesting…sounds like the DoJ would have a field day at ASUPD.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
← Older posts
Newer posts →