To provide a non-discriminatory workplace and equal employment opportunity regardless race, religion, sex, age, national origin, sexual orientation, veteran status, marital status or disability. This policy extends to all education, service, and employment programs of the College.
Albright College is committed to providing Equal Employment Opportunities to ensure nondiscriminatory employment practices in all phases of the employment relationship.
III. Practices and Procedures
Albright College is committed to maintaining a work environment free of discrimination and/or intimidation and shall endeavor to provide management training to promote a harmonious environment.
Personnel and applicants are encouraged to report any practices or behaviors that are in conflict with this policy to any or all of the following: Supervisor(s), the Director of Human Resources, and/or the Affirmative Action Coordinator.*
*A copy of the Albright College Affirmative Action Policy is available from the Office of Human Resources.
If an individual is terminated for violation of the Harassment and Abuse Policy, the termination procedures followed will be those defined in this Handbook.
I. Summary and Definitions
A. Definition of Teaching Faculty for the Purposes of this Policy
For the purposes of the Albright College Faculty Policy on Harassment and Abuse, the phrase “Teaching Faculty” shall include any person in the full or part-time employ of the College who is responsible for teaching one or more courses carrying academic credit notwithstanding the course units and credit hours constraints used to define this phrase for Part-time Faculty in IV.C.2. of the Albright College Faculty Handbook.
B. Definition of Harassment
Intimidation and harassment in any form are inconsistent with the maintenance of academic freedom at Albright. As a place of work and learning for staff, Faculty, students, and their guests, Albright College nurtures respect for the individual within a communal environment that encourages each of its members to develop her or his full potential. To preserve this environment, the College shall not tolerate harassment or abuse of any kind. Abuse is defined as verbal or physical conduct which has the intent or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s or group’s educational and/or work performance at Albright, or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive educational and work environment on or off campus. Harassment is defined as a pattern of such behavior over a period of time. Harassment on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, or disability includes abuse of an individual in terms of a stereotyped group characteristic, or because of that person’s identification with a particular group. Such behavior undermines the atmosphere of trust essential to the academic enterprise and represents a failure of professional ethics.
Harassment or generally abusive behavior includes the following:
3. A pattern of proven false accusations or insulting expressions;
4. A pattern of unprofessional statements and conduct, in opposition to the AAUP standards of professional responsibility as quoted in the Handbook under Academic Freedom and Responsibility (“When he/she speaks, he/she should at all times be accurate, should exercise proper restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others and should make every effort to indicate that he/she is not a College spokesperson”);
5. A pattern of insulting and intimidating remarks which interfere with the academic freedom of others;
Coercive behavior (items 7, 8, 9), including suggestions that academic or employment reprisals or rewards will follow the refusal or granting of sexual favors, constitutes gross misconduct. Such behavior, if proven, is quite serious, and a single incident may be grounds for Termination or Dismissal for Adequate Cause as described in Section IX.B.7. of the Faculty Handbook.
Any member of the Albright community who believes that he or she has been harassed or abused is encouraged to pursue the matter through the informal and formal procedures. Generally, the informal procedures afford an opportunity to explore a problem and consider alternative means for its resolution.
In cases where a Teaching Faculty member is not involved, the procedures provided for in the appropriate College Handbooks shall be followed. In cases where a Teaching Faculty member is involved, the policies under section II, General Policies, shall be followed.
II. General Policies
A. Make-up of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee
1. In a case where the complaint is between two Teaching Faculty members, the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall consist of any 2 tenured members of the Professional Council, and 3 additional tenured Faculty members, one appointed each by the Chief Academic Officer, by the Chair of the Committee on Rank and Tenure and by the Chair of the Faculty. The Chief Academic Officer shall also appoint an administrative representative to serve on the committee. Tenured members of the Professional Council may likewise be consulted as a complaint is being resolved informally.
2. In a case where the complaint is between a Teaching Faculty member and an administrative or staff person, the appointment process and membership of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee are described in section II.A. 2.a. immediately below, except that, if the circumstances described in sections II.A.2.b., II.A.2.c., and/or II.A.2.d. apply, the appointment process and/or membership of the Harassment and Abuse Committee shall be modified as stated in sections II.A.2.b., II.A.2.c., and/or II.A.2.d.
a. The Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall consist of three tenured Faculty members appointed by the Chair of the Faculty, one of which must be a member of the PC, three administrators appointed by the Director of Human Resources, and the Chief Academic Officer. The Chief Academic Officer shall be the Chair of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee.
b. If the Chair of the Faculty is a complainant or defendant in the matter, the Chair of the Professional Council shall appoint the Faculty members of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee.
c. If the Director of Human Resources is a complainant or defendant in the matter, the Vice President for Student Affairs shall appoint the administrator members of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee.
d. If the Chief Academic Officer is a complainant or defendant in the matter, the Chair of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall be the Chair of the Professional Council unless the Chair of the Faculty is a complainant or defendant in the matter, in which case the Chair of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall be the Chair of the Educational Policy Council.
3. In cases where the complaint is between a member of the Teaching Faculty and a student, the Committee shall consist of two tenured Faculty members appointed by the Faculty Chair, two administrators appointed by the Director of Human Resources, and the Chief Academic Officer, as Chair. At the request of the student who is a party to the matter, the President of SGA shall select two students to serve on the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee. If the Faculty Chair is a complainant or defendant in the matter, section II.A.2.b. directly above shall apply.
4. Two tenured members of the Professional Council and three additional tenured Faculty members and an administrative representative as designated in section II.A.1. above shall serve as the standing Faculty Harassment and Abuse Committee to receive complaints of harassment or abuse made by or against Faculty members.
B. Principles in the Treatment of Complaints
1. The Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall emphasize mediation and conciliation and shall rely on discreet inquiry, persuasion, confidentiality and trust in dealing with complaints that are brought for its consideration. When it cannot resolve a complaint to the satisfaction of those concerned, the Faculty Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall refer the matter in an advisory capacity with recommendations to the President. Full cooperation with the Committee will be needed from all members of the Albright community.
2. In cases where there is sufficient evidence and ongoing harassment is a possible concern, the appropriate officer of the College may need to take immediate action to remedy the situation by working directly with all those involved and imposing sanctions. In such cases the accused party shall always have eventual recourse of a full hearing before the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee, and an appeal to the Faculty Appeals Committee. (See the procedures of the Faculty Appeals Committee in section V.E. of this Faculty Handbook.)
3. All proceedings shall be kept in confidence by the Committee. The Committee shall respect the wishes of the person making the complaint regarding further investigation and shall not carry a specific complaint forward without the complainant’s explicit permission or instruction.
4. No written records shall be kept of informal discussions between persons bringing a complaint and members of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee. Any written records of a formal complaint in the possession of the Faculty Harassment and Abuse Committee or the President shall be destroyed five years after the initiation of the complaint.
5. Those immediately and directly involved shall be kept informed of the status of the complaint. An attempt to penalize a person for initiating an inquiry or a complaint or any other form of retaliation is prohibited and shall be treated as a separate incident that calls for review by the Faculty Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee.
6. In dealing with a complaint in which the person making the complaint asks not to be identified until a later date (for example, until the end of a course or after an examination), the following shall apply:
In general, the request of such a person making a complaint shall be honored. The complaint shall be held without action until the date requested by the complainant. At that time, the complaint shall be acted on as though it were a formal complaint. If the person making the complaint withdraws it before the designated date, no further action shall be taken and no record shall be kept.
III. Outline of Procedures
A. Informal Mediation Procedures
1. Oral or written complaint made to the Chaplain, the Director of Human Resources, the Chief Academic Officer or Academic Dean, the Dean of Students or any other officer of the College whom the complainant feels comfortable approaching. The person approached by a complainant shall convey the complaint to the Chief Academic Officer who shall designate an appropriate informal mediation panel to attempt to resolve the matter.
2. Informal consultation/investigation of the complaint. In cases where there is sufficient evidence and where ongoing harassment is a possible concern, the appropriate officer of the College may need to take immediate action to remedy the situation by working directly with all those involved and imposing sanctions. In such cases the accused party shall always have the eventual recourse of a full hearing before the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee and an appeal to the Faculty Appeals Committee, or of a direct appeal to the President of the College.
3. Informal consultation may resolve the matter to the satisfaction of all concerned.
B. Formal Mediation Procedures
1. If the matter is not resolved to the satisfaction of all parties through informal mediation, either the complainant or the accused may request a formal hearing.
2. The Chief Academic Officer shall oversee the appointment and convening of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee. If the Chief Academic Officer is a complainant or defendant in the matter, the person functioning as Chair of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall fulfill this function.
3. One member of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee, the Designated Harassment and Abuse Committee Contact Person, shall be in communication with the individual making the complaint until it is resolved. The complainant shall be informed of general actions taken, although not of the specific conversations held with the person named in the complaint.
4. The complainant and the person named in the complaint shall have the right to challenge the participation of the individual members of the Hearing Committee when the challenge is based on cause (e.g., close personal contact with one of the parties). The Committee, excluding that person being challenged, shall decide the disputed issues concerning the challenge.
5. The Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall interview those persons directly involved and conduct such investigation or inquiry as they deem appropriate.
6. If appropriate, one or more members of the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee shall facilitate a meeting between the complainant and the person against whom the complaint has been filed.
7. The entire Harassment and Abuse Committee shall meet to review and resolve the complaint or to make a recommendation to the President of the College.
a. The Committee shall resolve or hear complaints as expeditiously as possible. To the extent possible, the Committee shall complete its investigation and make its recommendations within sixty days from the time the complaint is brought to the full Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee.
b. After review, the Faculty Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee may decide there is no basis on which to pursue the complaint, may resolve the complaint between the people involved, or may refer the complaint, with recommendations, to the President.
8. In cases where the President believes sanctions are appropriate, the President may issue a warning, a reprimand, or decide to take formal disciplinary action against the person named in the complaint. Proven charges of abuse or harassment may, in the judgment of the President and the Harassment and Abuse Hearing Committee, be grounds for Termination or Dismissal for Adequate Cause as described in Section IX.B.7. of the Faculty Handbook.
9. If the President decides not to follow the Committee’s recommendation, the President shall give her/his reasons in writing to the Hearing Committee.
APPENDIX C: Human Subjects Research Policy
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB)
Policies and Procedures
To protect the rights and welfare of human participants of research conducted by members of the Albright College community, including Faculty, and students. This purpose shall be fulfilled by the review of proposals for such research by members of the IRB. IRB members shall determine whether such research meets the standards for ethical conduct of research using human participants, as found in The Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 – Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects.
The IRB shall consist of five Faculty, administrative or staff members of Albright College, two Faculty members who shall serve as alternates, and two current Albright students.
Members shall serve indefinite terms, left to the discretion of the individual member.
The Chair of the IRB shall appoint members.
To the greatest extent possible, members of the IRB should represent divergent disciplines, community attitudes, and demographic backgrounds. The IRB shall include at least one member whose primary concerns and expertise are in scientific areas and at least one member whose primary concerns and expertise are in nonscientific areas.
If a member of the IRB has an interest in a project under review, an alternate member of the IRB shall serve in that member’s place for review of that particular project.
POLICIES AND PROCEDURES:
Any person who is under the IRB’s jurisdiction and wishes to conduct research using human participants (herein called a “PI” for principal investigator) must seek approval for such research from the IRB prior to the conduct of said research.
PIs should begin the review process by submitting a completed “Research Review Form,” with all necessary materials and signatures, to the Chair of the IRB.
The Chair of the IRB shall determine whether the form is complete. If necessary information or supplemental materials are not included; the form shall be returned to the PI for revision and completion.
The Chair shall make a determination, based on the Research Review Form, whether the research falls under EXPEDITED or FULL review. Research projects eligible for EXPEDITED review are those which involve no more than minimal risk to the participants or are minor revisions of research previously approved by the IRB within the past three years. All other research is subject to FULL review by the IRB.
Those projects designated as eligible for EXPEDITED review shall be reviewed by two members of the IRB (or an alternate in cases of conflict of interest). Other members of the IRB shall be notified on a yearly basis of the approved projects to ensure that all members are informed of all research projects approved by the IRB.
All members of the IRB shall review those research projects determined to be subject to FULL review of the IRB. A meeting of the IRB shall be held to discuss these research projects and make a decision on whether to approve, disapprove or request modifications to these research projects.
In order to approve research projects covered by this policy, the IRB shall determine that all of the following requirements are satisfied (for a full description, see section 46.111 of The Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 – Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects):
Risks to participants are minimized.
Risks to participants are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits of the research project.
Selection of participants is equitable, especially for vulnerable populations and for which there appears to be a clear benefit to the participants.
Informed consent, when necessary, is sought from the participants or their legal representatives. The requirements for informed consent are listed in section 46.116 of The Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 – Part 46: Protection of Human Subjects.
Provisions have been made to monitor and ensure the safety of the participants during the conduct of the research.
Provisions have been made to protect the privacy of the participants and maintain the confidentiality of the data.
The IRB shall notify the PI in writing of the review decision. The IRB may approve, disapprove or require modifications to secure approval. The IRB shall include in its written notification a statement of the reasons for its decision. If the research project is not approved, the IRB shall give the PI an opportunity to respond in person or in writing to the IRB’s decision.
The IRB shall have the authority to suspend or terminate approval of research that is not being conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to participants. Any suspension or termination of approval shall include a written statement of the reasons for the IRB’s actions and shall be reported promptly to the PI, the PI’s supervisor if the PI is a student, and the appropriate Albright officials.
Approved document changes by faculty vote on April 12, 2017 and ratified by Board of Trustees on October 26, 2017.