Media School SEA 202 Complaint Process
Adopted 01/23/025
1. Initial assessment of complaint. Upon receipt of an allegation that an instructor has not complied with SEA 202 (hereafter, complaint), the Dean shall conduct an initial assessment to determine whether the complainant has standing and thus merits review. The Dean may delegate this responsibility to the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs.
a. Establishment of standing. In accordance with SEA 202, only complaints initiated by a student attending the university, or by an employee of the university, shall have standing. Accordingly, an anonymous complaint whose origin cannot be determined shall not have standing.
b. Sufficient identifying information. A complaint must have sufficient identifying information to have standing. Sufficient identifying information shall include (1) the clear identification of a complainant who meets the statutory requirements referenced in 1.a.; (2) the clear identification of a specific instructor (hereafter, respondent); and (3) reference to an incident that took place while the respondent was functioning in an official instructorship role.
c. Lack of sufficient identifying information. If the initial assessment determines that the complaint lacks sufficient identifying information, then the complaint shall be closed. The respondent, and, upon consent of the respondent, the respondent’s unit director (hereafter, principal administrator), shall be informed that a complaint was received and closed due to lack of sufficient identifying information.
d. Sufficient objective evidence. The complaint must provide sufficient objective evidence. Sufficient objective evidence, as determined by the Dean or Associate Dean, is evidence that will enable a fact-based assessment of the incident.
i. Neither the topic nor the scope of a course constitutes sufficient objective evidence of a violation.
ii. A complainant's belief that instruction does not support intellectual diversity does not constitute sufficient objective evidence of a violation.
e. Lack of sufficient objective evidence. If the assessment determines that the complaint lacks sufficient objective evidence of a violation, then the complaint shall be closed. The respondent, and, upon consent of the respondent, the respondent’s principal administrator shall be informed that a complaint was received and closed due to lack of sufficient objective evidence.
f. Quantity of complaints. If the complaint includes both sufficient identifying information and sufficient objective evidence, and:
i. If the complaint is a single complaint about an alleged incident, then it shall be evaluated on its own.
ii. If the complaint is one of multiple complaints from different sources about the same alleged incident, then the related complaints shall be evaluated together.
iii. If the complaint is one of a batch of identical complaints, then the complaints shall be consolidated and reviewed as a single complaint.
2. Determination of reviewer. If the initial assessment determines that a complaint merits review as a potential violation, then the Dean or Associate Dean shall inform the respondent and the respondent’s principal administrator of the complaint and offer the option of review by the principal administrator or by the College of Arts and Sciences SEA 202 Complaint Review Committee (hereafter, CRC), as constituted here. Either the respondent or the principal administrator may request that the review be conducted by the CRC. The Media School Faculty Advisory Board shall cooperate with the College Policy Committee in ensuring adequate School representation on the CRC.
a. If the respondent holds an appointment in more than one unit, then the chair for complaint review shall be the chair of the unit of the respondent’s tenure home for TT faculty or promotion home for NTT faculty.
b. If the respondent is a student academic appointee or adjunct faculty member, then the chair for complaint review shall be the director of the unit most closely associated with the course in question.
3. Preliminary review process. Before initiating a formal investigation, the reviewer shall conduct a preliminary review of relevant objective facts and shall seek to confer with the respondent toward an informal resolution of the complaint. The respondent may involve a representative during any part of the preliminary review process.
a. If the reviewer is the CRC, then it will draw from its members a review panel consisting of three committee members, each from different disciplinary divisions and/or internal schools, in consultation with the respondent and their principal administrator. One empaneled reviewer shall be from the Media School, but not from the respondent’s home unit.