Part 104: Behind the Cardinal and Gold Curtain – USC Responds with Limited Transparency

Published August 8, 2024

Aug 08, 2024

The custom graphic image from USC Communications designed for the “USC Responds: Fostering a Welcoming and Inclusive Environment” published in August 2024 showing a multitude of shaded figures (USC Website)

Please support my work with your subscription, or for direct support, use Venmo, CashApp, PayPal, or Zelle using zachary.b.ellison@gmail.com

By Zachary Ellison, Independent Journalist

I could tell that the University of Southern California might finally live up somewhat to a long-promised report on complaints regarding sexual misconduct, harassment, discrimination, and retaliation, as well as other so-called non-protected class complaints. The night before I had woken up at 3:00 am with yet another nightmare episode, I knew the time was close. With USC Senior Vice President of Human Resources Felicia Washington set to soon leave for another posting at the University of Pennsylvania, the long deferred release of any information on such matters to the USC community was of both public interest, and personal grave concern. So here we are at last more than half-way through 2024, with a data release from 2021-2022 as a final note on what might be the world’s greatest effort at public relations damage control.

To say USC has had problems in recent years is an understatement. After spending years of my life investigating what was actually going on behind the Cardinal and Gold Curtain, a euphemism I use only half-jokingly, LAist once headlined only a half-joking reference to the beleaguered school as acting “Like The Kremlin.” The report covers complaints made to two offices: USC’s Equity, Equal Opportunity and Title IX office established in 2020 to replace the embattled Office of Equity and Diversity (yes, a name change), and the Office of Professionalism and Ethics created in 2018 to conduct intake on so-called non-protected class complaints, a broader category of problems that ostensibly was supposed to stop conduct such as that by former USC Keck School of Medicine Dean Carmen Puliafito, who used hard drugs while consorting with young people, even as the increasingly well-regarded University had failed to stop deceased gynecologist George Tyndall from sexual abusing women under his care despite numerous complaints.

To be clear, USC has been obligated by its Resolution Agreement with the U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights, to release such a report on an annual basis since February 2020, when it was signed by USC President Carol Folt and former Chairman of the Board of Trustees, Rick Caruso, who stepped down during his 2022 mayoral campaign after the June primary. USC didn’t send out an email with the new report despite Washington, well-known as a close associate of Folt, promising it in the Daily Trojan last March. Washington’s key hire Catherine Spear recently left USC to head the University of California system’s new Office for Civil Rights, and so the report is issued with her former subordinate’s name, Linda Hoos, a former UC official name on it who now leads EEO-TIX, as well as that of Michael Blanton, an attorney hired to lead OPE as it’s acronymed. We now know that between the two offices, USC received during the period between “July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022” a grand total of “1,808 reports identifying students, staff, faculty, and other individuals as respondents gave rise to a total of 2,733 potential Policy violations, as a single report may involve more than one potential Policy violation.”

This came from 1,938 individuals, of whom 64.29% were students, 19.14% were staff, 4.39% were faculty, 9.18% were third parties, and 2.99% were unknown, presumably made anonymously. It was anonymous reports like this made the University’s Relationship and Sexual Violence Prevention Center (RSVP) that led to a major scandal in October 2021 over drug-facilitated sexual assaults on Fraternity Row, with a delay in issuing required warnings that President Folt would later characterize as troubling before holding a Zoom meeting after cancelling an in-person student-led meeting. As a result of these numerous reports, USC had “69 formal resolutions opened during 2021-2022.” Of these, 4 were resolved informally, and of those, “and one of the four [was] successfully resolved in 2021-2022.” The report does not provide information on the length of these investigations, 69.23% relating to Sexual Misconduct, and 30.77% relating to Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation. During the same period, USC had a “a total of 39 formal resolutions” closed, and moreover, “Of these, 16 cases resulted in a finding of responsible for Policy violation(s), six of which included a hearing; 12 cases resulted in a finding of not responsible for Policy violation(s), three of which included a hearing; and 11 formal resolutions were dismissed after initial fact gathering.”

So in short, the report doesn’t tell you what happened with the 69 investigations launched in the half-year periods of 2021-2022, but it does tell you that of the presumably prior cases received, that 3 involved students, resulting in 2 suspensions/expulsions, 1 Financial restitution, and 1 education/counseling/training, and for “Faculty or staff,” there was 1 Censure/written reprimand, 2 Education, counseling/training, and 10 Employment termination/ineligible for rehire as the story goes. From the cases closed during this period, we can only glean that “Twelve formal resolutions closed with a finding of not responsible for Policy violation.” This level of outcomes matches what I’ve previously found from interviewing 3 former RSVP counselors, that the rate of formal discipline in sexual misconduct cases is extremely low. Moreover, as journalist Teresa Watanabe wrote in the Los Angeles Times, these “delays and other deficiencies” led to a standoff between the newly formed graduate student workers union and USC’s administration in 2023, that was resolved only fully when USC finally agreed to a separate union process.

Watanabe wrote quoting one graduate student leader that USC had agreed to “’industry-leading transparency standards’” regarding reporting on the number of claims filed, their status and the duration of the investigation.” It’s unclear if this report is supposed to meet that obligation. The report contains no information on duration. Separately, I’ve found that in at least one Title IX sexual misconduct complaint that USC took more than 2 years to resolve the matter, only moving to hold a hearing after it was reported in this publication with case dates. The three RSVP counselors previously interviewed alleged a pervasive culture of indifference with intentional delay designed to suppress the bringing forward of legal claims against USC on the basis of race and wealth.

Separate from the protected-class process, which includes important statues like Title IX, the nation’s fundamental gender-equity law, as well as the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, that OPE was the recipient of 1,014 of the 1,808 reports, meaning that of those for the 1 year period accounted for between 2021-2022, that the majority concerned non-protected class complaints such as discrimination and sexual misconduct. From those, OPE launched only 15 formal investigations, 9 concerning staff, and 6 faculty, with 3 found “Not Responsible and 2 staff cases resulting in “Formal reprimand and written warning,” 4 in termination, and of the faculty cases, 1 for Counseling and no merit increase (an annual pay adjustment), 1 with formal reprimand and written warning, and 1 with Suspension without pay and performance monitoring.

In total, of the 1,808 reports, in regards to “Respondent Affiliation” 23.27% were directed against staff, 22.57% were against students, 21.33% against faculty, 12.41% against third parties, and in 20.42% the status of the respondent was unknown. Of the 2,733 total alleged “Potential Policy Violations” from the 1,808 reports.” There were 14 allegations of complicity, 87 for Dating and Domestic Violence, 57 for “Discrimination: Disparate Impact (Education), 53 for Disparate Impact (Employment), 463 for Discrimination: Disparate Treatment, 31 for Exposure, 553 for Harassment: Hostile Environment, 2 for Harassment: Quid Pro Quo, 28 for Nonconsensual Viewing, Recording, and Dissemination, 10 for Other Forms of Dating and Domestic Violence, 94 for Retaliation, 429 for Sexual and Gender Based Harassment – Hostile Environment, 9 for Sexual and Gender-Based Harassment Quid Pro Quo, 154 for Sexual Assault – Non-Consensual Sexual Penetration, 203 for Sexual Assault – Non-Consensual Sexual Touching, 97 for Stalking, 433 for Title IX Sexual Harassment – Hostile Environment, 4 for Title IX Sexual Harassment – Quid Pro Quo, 9 for “Unaffiliated Respondent Violation of State or Federal Law,) and 3 for Violation of a University Directive. If this is difficult to understand, know you’re not alone!

USC also has a breakdown on respondent for the basis on which the misconduct occurred, without repeating all, the highest percentages were on the basis of sexual misconduct, race, gender, and disability, but also encompassing things like military or veteran status, pregnancy and political belief. Without diving into full explanations of all legal terms involved, or what it might mean in regards to individual cases, quite a lot of this involves serious allegations of mistreatment and outright abuse. USC provided 1,425 supportive measures to all parties. “These are individualized support services designed to restore or preserve equal access to the university’s programs and activities without unduly burdening the other party,” according to the USC Responds Report.

Generally, these involved mitigation measures such as meetings, outreach, and “Check In (ad hoc outreach), but could also mean academic accommodation, referral to services, or “housing modifications.” The intention of the George Tyndall OCR Resolution Agreement was ostensibly to make things better. Section VIII B. requires USC to “on an annual basis in a written report” to USC leadership as well as “in an annual letter to the community” update “regarding the status of the implementation of the plan, including the actions taken and an assessment of their effectiveness as well as proposals for the next academic year.” Needless to say, this hasn’t happened, and USC is about to begin the 2024-2025 academic year.

So what will change at USC? Who can say? The USC Responds report provides only a sliver of information with no ability to tell whether reports have gone up in the 2020-2021 year period, much less down in 2022-2023, or 2023-2024. This report, “Commissioned” by SVP Washington, and formally titled “USC Responds: Fostering a Welcoming and Inclusive Environment,” and in claiming to reference this process, it claims that:

The university has provided consistent and candid information to the community through direct communications, updates to various campus committees, including committees of the Board of Trustees, and updates on the Commitment to Change webpage, which provides information about the OCR 2020 Findings and Resolution Agreement, our Continuous Efforts to Enhance University Responses, and the Culture Journey. Additionally, the comprehensive information in this report consolidates our prior communications and efforts over the past several years.(1)

The footnote refers to the appendix. USC’s webpage on Change hasn’t posed an update since July 18, 2023, when it sought to address the “Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaign (BDS),” and before that, the “Working Group on IFC Culture, Prevention, and Accountability Update” formed following the October 2021 fraternity scandal on January 18, 2022, which in turn led to many fraternities dissociating from USC following a widely mocked proposal to hire security guards to staff bedroom floors in fraternity houses on what’s called “The Row” along 28^th Street. Before that, the last two updates were about the “DPS Community Advisory Board” that preceded the hiring of USC DPS Chief Lauretta Hill by Associate Senior Vice President for Safety and Risk Assurance Dr. Erroll Southers, who now leads the Los Angeles Board of Police Commissioners, which is in turn conducting a search for the next LAPD Chief.

The report includes no specific next steps. Appendix 1 references the Tyndall class action settlement of $215 million, which required some changes in regards to the student health center. USC would later payout an additional $852 million as part of a “global settlement.” At the time, USC President Carol Folt said, “Working every day to earn and restore trust in the university has been, and will continue to be, my top priority, as it will be for the Board of Trustees and the leadership of USC.” The USC Responds report notes Spear’s departure to the UC System and references Washington’s “March 15 message from Senior Vice President Felicia A. Washington, Linda Hoos has since stepped into the role of USC’s Vice President for EEO-TIX and Title IX Coordinator.”

Yet this hasn’t made it on to USC’s change website, which it posits is critical to USC’s protected-class operations, including Title IX enforcement. The USC Responds report suggests that 90% of USC staff and faculty, complete mandatory harassment and discrimination training, yet once source with knowledge of USC’s compliance operations suggested that this did not always happen on a timely basis, describing a culture of “systemic unethical conduct, incompetence, and ineptitude.” The source similarly described situations during which “laptops with access to critical systems and information were unsecured.”

USC was the target of a prior whistleblower attempt in July 2020 describing a similar culture, one that I’ve seen and experienced personally. That claim included allegations that files related to Tyndall had been deliberately destroyed to shield them from OCR. USC, despite being legally obligated to report Tyndall, had not done so, and as a Federal contractor is obligated to meet certain standards by the “Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs.” USC denied the whistleblower allegations, and despite faculty outcry for further investigation, the OPE investigator’s lawsuit was defeated by the USC Office of General Counsel, and her case force into the unknowns of arbitration. USC Responds contains zero-information on settlements or any other legal outcomes from litigation, rather it’s designed to put a good face on what many have otherwise alleged is a trainwreck. That Washington now is heading for the exits and releasing information only now should be a clear warning to the UC System, where President Michael Drake has now announced his retirement after hiring USC’s Catherine Spear.

In his 2019 interview with LAist, USC OPE’s Michael Blanton published by journalist Austin Peay in conjunction with the Beacon Project at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, the following is summarized: “After a nearly 45-minute interview in which he cited personnel privacy laws, ongoing litigation and federal investigations, and a lack of knowledge as reasons for not answering 22 out of 28 questions, Blanton concluded by saying, “’All I can tell you is that one of the goals of myself and my office is to become an even more transparent entity.’" Well it’s 2024 now, and this is just the first step toward transparency!

USC Responds offers the following conclusion: “As presented in this report, the university has prioritized the needs of our community and building trust in the systems and processes put in place to respond to reports of discrimination, harassment, misconduct, and retaliation.” Moreover, it claims that, “All of the offices responsible for responding to concerns seek to do so with care, support, and respect.” USC says that the work remains "ongoing,” assuring that the responsible officials “review the available data to identify any trends or continuing areas for further development regularly each year” before noting that during the 2021-2022 period report, there was “an increase in the number of reports of sexual misconduct.” How truly re-assuring?

I went to USC, receiving my Masters in Public Administration in 2015, before beginning work in the Office of the Provost in service to academic operations, a technical term for running the joint, as well as the senior advisor to the Provost, the second highest official behind USC President Carol Folt. Her contract was recently “amended and extended” for a rumored additional year. The Provost is no longer Michael Quick, or Chip Zukoski, who, like former President Max Nikias, and Steven Sample before him, came to USC from the University of Buffalo, a strange nexus of hot and cold. If USC has more data than that included in the USC Responds report that can be released, they should cut the puffery and do so immediately. I’m sure that the USC community can handle digesting the numbers, with a great many faculty and staff members deeply interested in what this means, because we are the ones at night kept up by the troubling realities of higher education. They don’t hear the disheartened voices of Trojans.

Things will happen at colleges, at USC, there are more “approximately 28,000 faculty and staff and 49,500 students who contribute to a wonderfully diverse and engaged community.” Still new USC Provost Andrew Guzman, the former Dean of the Law School, should know this better than anyone, we can handle the truth. USC Responds says that “with this in mind, we have developed our first annual report where we highlight these issues, celebrate the significant strides the university has made to address them, and identify trends that inform and guide our ongoing efforts.” Well for 2021-2022 at least, and late is better than never, but clearly more transparency is needed behind the Cardinal and Gold curtain.

Upon his installation, Guzman said, “This ability to disagree intellectually, academically, is the single most important feature of our profession in our industry.” Meanwhile, for what it’s worth, USC Chairwoman Suzanne Nora Johnston still has yet to issue a single formal statement. Might this be a worthy occasion? Surely, USC deserves leadership, even as it now closes down it’s campus even more after canceling a student valedictorian’s speech over the Israel-Palestine protests, with one faculty member writing about the episode: “Your squirrelish refusals to offer any specifics about the security concerns showed a distinct lack of respect for the USC community.” The same is true here, but as they say, better late than never, and at least now we have some of the numbers that give some picture of what’s going on in the house of Troy.

Link: USC Responds: Fostering a welcoming and inclusive environment

Link: USC Promised Transparency, So Why Is It Acting 'Like The Kremlin'?

Link: EEO-TIX announces new leader

Link: USC president admits 'troubling delay' in acting on multiple sexual assault reports

Link: USC and graduate students union reach tentative pact with big pay boosts, bias protections

Link: OCR 2020 Findings and Resolution Agreement

Link: Commitment to Change: Change.USC.Edu Website

Link: Letter to the Trojan Community from President Carol L. Folt

Link: A message from SVP Washington

Link: Lawsuit Alleges USC Deleted Evidence, Maintained Negative Files Against Employees

Link: USC Faculty Pushes for Independent Investigation into Allegations of Shadow and Dirt Files on Colleagues

Link: UC President Drake to step down after managing pandemic, policing, protests, budget woes