Case
Worksheet
An Example Case Analysis
Useful Resources

Case

Frank Taylor was a full professor in the Biology Department at Metropolitan University. In his earlier days, he had thought of himself as something of a rebel, but now he was basking in the comfortable role of elder statesman. Many faculty and students sought his advice. His classroom interactions were highly professional, and he encouraged students to visit him during office hours.
 
One day, two students, Audrey Blanton and Jenny O’Neill, stopped by Taylor’s office. After some casual conversation, Audrey began talking about a problem she was having with an assignment in Professor George Castor’s genetics class. She asked Taylor to help her with the assignment. Instead, he tried to guide her with some questions and suggested that she work on the problem by herself. If she was still stuck, he said, she should seek help from Professor Castor.

Audrey seemed uncomfortable with this suggestion. She said that she had recently gone to see Castor in his office about this homework problem. During their conversation, Castor had asked her for a date.

“He used those words, ‘a date’?” Taylor asked.

 “Well, he asked me if I would have dinner with him that evening,” Audrey replied. “And he implied that, if I did, there would be no more trouble with my grade in the course or in any other course I took with him.”

“What do you mean by implied? What exactly did he say?” Taylor’s enjoyment of the visit had quickly evaporated.

“I can’t remember his exact words. I was too shook up to think straight. I told him that I worked nights. I wanted to cut the conversation as short as possible and just get out of there. I didn’t want to make him mad … I need his grade and recommendation to go to grad school,” she continued despondently.

Before Taylor could respond, Jenny spoke up. She, too, had been ‘propositioned,’ as she called it, by Professor Castor.

“I turned him down flat,” she said, “and I made it clear that I wouldn’t be interested – ever! I must say, to give the beast his due, he never bothered me again after that. And I got my ‘A.’ I worked for it.”

The faculty member in question, George Castor, had an international reputation for stellar research. At the time that he had come up for tenure, one of his students had had charged him with sexual harassment. In spite of this, the department had decided to recommend the promising researcher with an understanding on Castor’s part that sexual harassment constituted unacceptable behavior. Taylor was polite to Castor but not particularly cordial with him.

Although Taylor felt he had a professional duty to respond, he understood the power structure at Metropolitan. His department chair, Thadwell Stevens II, had the motto: “To abstain from action is to acquire merit.” Stevens believed that faculty members were always right. Taylor was certain that, were he to tell Stevens of these accusations, Stevens would find a way to turn the situation against him. Stevens thought that women lacked the ability to succeed in science. And the provost and president would insist that the problem be addressed by the chair and dean.

Case
Worksheet
An Example Case Analysis
Useful Resources

Before you read the sample analysis for this case, you may want to consider the following questions.

Case
Worksheet
An Example Case Analysis
Useful Resources

An Example Case Analysis

Some Issues Raised By the Case:

This case brings forth diverse issues, ranging from the university chain of command to individually differing perceptions of events. Dynamics of power, confidentiality, and responsibility are important to consider here. Gender and departmental culture certainly played a role in the students’ responses and their comfort level with speaking up.

Alternatively, there may have been some misunderstanding between Castor and the students.

Possible Discussion Questions:

• What are the students’ responsibilities and best course of action?
• What is the responsibility and best course of action for the senior faculty member?
• Should official channels be followed, or should the perceived inaction and gender bias of the chair be considered in deciding on a course of action?
• What roles do institutional hierarchy and social status play in this case study?
• Why might Castor feel that he can get away with this behavior?
• What kinds of pressures do the women in this scenario face?
• What pressures does Frank Taylor face? Should he pursue the issue, with or without the students’ input?

A Possible Set of Responses and Their Consequences:

1. Response : Frank Taylor could do nothing. Perhaps the students were overstating the issue. However, given the repeated nature of the complaints, such exaggeration is unlikely.

Consequences : Castor will likely continue to behave inappropriately toward students. If the department is aware of his behavior, its silence constitutes complicity. This is why these issues need to be addressed.

2. Response : Frank Taylor could talk directly to Castor. Taylor is senior to Castor and therefore has some authority. Speaking to Castor directly would keep the issue off the radar screen of the department chair, who is the real authority (regardless of his position on harassment issues). Taylor could speak candidly to Castor about the inappropriateness of his behavior, and threaten further action if he hears any more complaints. Then Taylor, on his own initiative, could arrange for the department to receive general training on behavioral ethics, as part of faculty development through the university offices responsible for ethics and equity.

Consequences : The combined personal contact with Castor and the generalized training for everyone may improve the overall department climate and put an end to Castor’s harassing behavior.

3. Response : The student could ask Frank Taylor to take the case to appropriate authorities, but request anonymity and a delay in action until the course is completed. Frank could take the case to the chair, respecting the student’s requests. The chair would be told explicitly that the case will be taken to the Dean if the chair does not initiate an appropriate investigation.

Consequences : A significant amount of time may pass between the event and the action. A formal complaint takes considerable time and departmental resources. Castor may harass others during this time. Tension among the department faculty may increase, affecting the chair, Taylor, and the accused faculty member. Castor may lose his position or leave for another university, thus depriving the department of a star researcher. On the positive side, a clear departmental response may foster an environment that is more inclusive. Such an environment would be more attractive to students and faculty from underrepresented groups.

4. Response : The student and her friend could report the incident to the university affirmative action officer or ombudsman, and tell them that they have already told Taylor about the problem..

Consequences : The onus for action would be placed primarily on the victims of harassment. External pressure applied to a possibly reluctant Department Chair may be more effective and less divisive for the department.

5. Response : Frank Taylor could report the incident to the university affirmative action officer or ombudsman, as well as to his department chairperson and dean, against the wishes of the student.

Consequences : Due to lack of support from the student, the entire process may achieve nothing except the loss of political capital for Frank Taylor. Furthermore, the student may be very upset by this course of action. However, when the university addresses the issue, the department may undergo a shift in its power structure to the great benefit of the university in attracting undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty.

Case
Worksheet
An Example Case Analysis
Useful Resources

Useful Resources

Reaching All Students: A Resource Book for Teaching in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM)

• Importance of Knowing Your Students
• Getting to Know your Students
• Gender in Performance Evaluation

Diversity Institute Literature Review

• Burack, C. & Franks, S.E.  (2004). Telling stories about engineering: Group dynamics and resistance to diversity. NWSA Journal, 16 (1), 79.
• Cabrera, A., & Nora, A. (1994). College students' perceptions of prejudice and discrimination and their feelings of alienation: A construct validation approach. The Review of Education/Pedagogy/Cultural Studies, 16 (3-4), 387-409.
• Ferreira, M. M. (2002). The research lab: A chilly place for graduate women. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 8, 85-98.
• Henwood, F. (1998). Engineering difference: Discourses on gender, sexuality and work in a college of technology. Gender and Education, 10 (1), 35-49.

References

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1990). "Confronting sexism in the college classroom." In S. L. Gabriel and I. Smithson (Eds.), Gender in the Classroom: Power and Pedagogy. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Sandler, B. (n.d.). The chilly climate: How men and women are treated differently in classrooms and at work. Retrieved August 5, 2004, from http://www.bernicesandler.com/id4.htm

Note: Most universities have specific sexual harassment policies and procedures.