
Photo // Mira Costello
On Sept. 19, faculty received guidance on the new classroom complaint system required by recent Indiana legislation.
By: Mira Costello
Editor-in-Chief
On Sept. 19, faculty met with Jill Pearon, executive vice chancellor for academic affairs, to discuss the new classroom complaint system mandated by Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 202, which became effective July 1.
Pearon started by reviewing faculty requirements under SEA 202, including “fostering a culture of free inquiry, free expression and intellectual diversity.” Her presentation emphasized that faculty are still recognized as experts and have control over their course content, but must be able to articulate their expertise, present a “variety of political and ideological frameworks” and “provide clear rationale for the material that was covered and how it aligns with existing scholarship in that specific discipline.”
Under the bill, students are required to be aware of and have access to a complaint system to submit grievances about professors violating any of the bill’s provisions. This looks different at every university, faculty explained; Purdue and Indiana State Universities require written complaints, Ivy Tech requires in-person complaints and the University of Southern Indiana uses an online form behind a student login.
At IU, complaints will be submitted through an online form; however, it will not be protected by an IU login. EthicsPoint, the third-party software used for the system, has been at IU since 2007 as a whistleblowing platform. Now, it has an additional button called “classroom complaint.” On EthicsPoint, all reports can be made anonymously.
Complaints will first be reviewed by Mike Jenson, chief compliance and policy officer, to decide whether they need to be investigated and into which category they fall. Discrimination-related complaints will be sent to the Office of Institutional Equity. Other complaints, both SEA 202-related and not, will be sent to the office of Jill Pearon. SEA 202 complaints will have a special designation to differentiate them from others.
Pearon said that this year, she, college deans and the Academic Senate executive committee are also reviewing complaints to ensure they concur with the designations. After a designation is made, Pearon and the college’s dean will determine whether a complaint can be solved with an “informal resolution” by meeting with the complainant and faculty member.
Professor Jay VanderVeen expressed concern about fairness in the complaint review process, as in the case of a dean having a personal issue with a faculty member that could lead to bias. Doug McMillen, interim dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, said that this has happened before, and that complaints will be elevated above the dean if a conflict of interest is identified.
If an investigation is required, it will involve the faculty member in question and will prompt research into the complaint and the professor’s syllabus and classroom practices. McMillen clarified that EthicsPoint allows administrators to request additional information from a complainant even if they filled out the form anonymously.
Faculty also expressed concern that since reporting requires no university credentials and can be done anonymously, it may be difficult to investigate complaints or determine their validity.
Regarding worries about abuse or bombardment of the complaint system, McMillen said, “There will be telltale signs when that happens.” However, he did contend that the anonymous complaint system will “come to the forefront” in the next year and may need to be reworked, and that IU will likely see a greater number of complaints due to the nature of the process.
If a faculty member disagrees with the outcome of a complaint investigation, they are able to file a grievance with the Faculty Board of Review. Carolyn Schult, former Academic Senate president, added that complaints found to be “invalid” would not be counted against faculty during their annual review.
Much of this complaint process is similar to existing systems at IU South Bend, which Pearon emphasized.
“IU continues to say, already, we have robust processes. We are going to continue to use the existing processes as much as possible,” she said.
Although the complaint process may be more clear now, faculty are still concerned about the implications of SEA 202 and what might put them at risk. In previous guidance, they have been advised to be mindful of which campus groups and events they promote, lest they appear to favor a certain belief system.
Stacie Merken and other faculty wondered whether having a student group visit their class to promote an event could put them at risk of a complaint, if they happen not to allow all student groups.
“Is that considered not sharing intellectual diversity because [only] one group is coming in? I’m so concerned that I’ll get reported,” she said. “Control your content and have academic freedom – that’s an oxymoron.”
Betsy Lucal agreed, concerned about provisions requiring faculty to avoid “irrelevant” content.
“Who decides what’s irrelevant?” she said. “You’re not treating me like an expert if you’re asking me to justify every decision I make about my class.”
Pearon sympathized with the faculty, offering the option for them to record their classes as a way to “maintain an independent evidence base” and feel more secure in their ability to field a complaint.
“This is concerning to everyone,” she said. “We all have pause about this, because we’re still trying to understand what all of it means, so if (recording your classes) helps in the moment, then by all means, the tools are out there.”
For more information about SEA 202 and IU’s policies, visit ufc.iu.edu/policies/sea-202-questions.html.