Yesterday's Faculty Forum on the Grievance process was a dismal moment in University history. First, there was hardly anyone there, suggesting that faculty are not invested in this issue. But even more troubling was what seemed to be the majority view that "the Chancellor was the problem" with the old grievance system, in that he overturned, watered down, or erased remediation for EVERY winning grievance case. The new system was intended to "give teeth" to the old grievance process by having an administrator on the panel in the hopes that this administrator would be able to explain the case to the Chancellor and thus make it more likely that the Chancellor would uphold the findings of the grievance panel--or at least rule in a timely fashion. The positive side of the old system was that grievants at least had a chance of winning during the peer faculty review of their case, even if this decision was later overturned. But in the new system, with an administrator on the panel, NO cases have been won, not even at the review stage. One could say there is not enough data on the new system to be sure how if works, which is a legitimate argument. But our options, right now, are voting for an old system that doesn't work or a new system that hasn't been shown to work, either... There is no option to "wait and see" if the new system improves the problem. Of course, a third option is simply to believe that the grievants have always been wrong and so the system is fine as is. But because I find this hard to believe, I am voting for keeping the old system. At least under the old system, grievants were winning in a court of their peers, which is apparently useful when they do go to a court of law. It is an embarrassment to this University that faculty who have been injured by bad bosses (including being sexually harassed) have no options for justice or remediation outside of the court system. (Michael Middleton's note about a grievant, stating "just let him sue" seems to sum up this attitude.) Perhaps the University knows that they can out-pay any faculty in a court of law, so they want cases to end up there. But as the head of the Diversity Committee in English, this is extremely unsettling. Shouldn't the University at the very least be embarrassed that there are no real internal protections for women who are sexually harassed? It is an issue that women should care about, as well as minorities, who are more often targets of bad policy or bad bosses than others--and who often do not have the money for a prolonged lawsuit. Whether or not you actually file a grievance, I think it would help faculty moral to at least know that they have protection from abuse. If State court is the only place where faculty can find justice, for those few who can afford to fight the University, it seems important to maintain that right by keeping the old system. For those who cannot afford to fight the University, I agree with Eddie that we desperately need a legal fund, especially to fund egregious cases against women and minorities.