4.61 Membership of Hearing Panels

A pool of faculty members and students is to be provided as a source of panels in order to reduce as far as possible the influence of a particular case on the process of selecting a panel to hear it. Selection of a subset of the pool as a panel cannot be completely random, for there must be some provision for exclusions on the grounds of conflict of interest and there should be some reasonable rotation in service. The following plan is proposed.

The chairperson of the AFTPE Committee, or the chairperson’s delegate, will be responsible for establishing and maintaining an ordering of the pool for selection purposes according to the following conditions.

(a) The numbers from 1 to n will be assigned at random to the n members of the pool to determine the order of consideration for panel duty, where “1” indicates first choice.

(b) When a panel of size k is chosen, the selection ordering changes as follows: the n-k persons not selected move up, retaining their relative order, while k panelists move to the bottom of the list, retaining their relative order.

(c) Replacements to the pool will be inserted at random into the order of the set of pool members not in an existing panel.

(d) It is the responsibility of the AFTPE Committee to determine the size of each panel, and of the chairperson to maintain the size of the pool at a level that will provide at least one panel in addition to all those committed to hearings. A hearing officer chosen by the AFTPE Committee from its membership will act as chairperson, without vote, of the hearing panel.

(e) Two random processes are involved in reordering:

• arranging a set of integers in a random order, and
• selecting at random one set of integers.

These processes will be carried out for the committee by Computing Services.

If a hearing is required in a matter involving charges of (1) a violation of academic freedom or (2) prejudice, the AFTPE Committee will select a hearing panel in accord with Senate-approved rules (See Section 4.61.) The chairperson of the AFTPE Committee will appoint a hearing officer who will serve as a nonvoting member of the panel, responsible for the procedural aspects of the hearing. Any objections to rulings made by the hearing officer in the course of the hearings will be made to the voting members of the panel, whose decision in the matter will be final.

The panel in consultation with both parties and the AFTPE Committee will exercise its judgment whether the hearings will be open to the academic community or closed.

The hearing officer will arrange for a record of the proceedings to be maintained. The faculty member will be provided with a typed copy of the record upon request and without cost to the individual.

The burden of proof of the faculty member’s allegations rests on the individual by a preponderance of all the evidence. It is incumbent on those who made the decision not to reappoint the individual to come forward in support of their decision.

If the hearing panel concludes by majority vote of its voting members that the faculty member has proved the allegations of violation of academic freedom or prejudice by the evidence admitted to the record, it will submit its report in writing to the Chancellor along with such recommendations it deems appropriate. Copies of this report will be furnished to both parties and to the AFTPE Committee.

If the Chancellor rejects the report, he or she will set forth in writing the findings that justify rejection. The Chancellor will submit the report to the hearing panel and to the faculty member and provide for their prompt responses. Following its response, if any, the hearing panel will have discharged its duties in the case. The AFTPE Committee will be provided with the Chancellor’s report and any responses to it, and will be responsible for monitoring the final disposition of the case.

The foregoing regulations apply to administrative personnel who hold academic rank, but only in their capacity as faculty members. Where administrators allege that considerations violative of academic freedom significantly contributed to decisions terminating appointments to their administrative posts or not to reappoint them, they are entitled to the procedures set forth in Section 4.6.

Updated April 17, 2024

If faculty members on probationary or other non-tenured appointments allege a decision not to reappoint was based significantly on considerations violative of academic freedom, or considerations violative of governing policies on making appointments without prejudice with respect to race, creed, color, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, age, disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status, the allegation will be given preliminary consideration by the AFTPE Committee, which will seek to settle the matter by informal methods.

The allegations will be submitted to the AFTPE Committee in writing and will include a statement that the individual agrees that the AFTPE Committee may examine all records and files of the University relevant to the decision not to reappoint and may consider such reasons and evidence as the University may produce in support of its decision.

If the matter is unresolved after informal negotiation, the AFTPE Committee may recommend that a hearing panel be formed, provided that by a vote of a simple majority of its members, it concludes that in the evidence before it there remains significant factual questions to be resolved. If the AFTPE Committee concludes that reasonable persons would not disagree and would come to a finding, it will report its findings and recommendations to the petitioner and to the appropriate administrative representative and faculty body.

Prior to forming a hearing panel, the AFTPE Committee will hold prehearing conferences with the individuals (and an advisor if desired) and representatives of those responsible for the nonrenewal decision to simplify the issues, effect stipulations of procedures and facts, provide for the exchange of documents or other information, establish a timetable for the hearings and subsequent proceedings, and achieve other appropriate prehearing objectives to make a hearing effective and expeditious.

Since in the case of nonrenewal, faculty members’ salaries are governed by Section 2.39, delays are to their disadvantage. The AFTPE Committee will make every effort to deal expeditiously with the informal and prehearing phases of these matters and will make prompt determination of the necessity for a hearing. If a hearing is necessary, it will be organized promptly and conducted as expeditiously as the academic calendar permits. Undue delay by either party will be taken into account by the committee or panel in making its recommendations, which might in some cases include recommendation of financial compensation or of censure by the University Senate for unethical conduct.

Where faculty members charge before the AFTPE Committee that a decision not to reappoint them was seriously flawed by inadequate or improper consideration, they will state their case in detail and in writing. The AFTPE Committee will have the right to decide whether the facts merit a detailed investigation. It may assign one or more of its members to seek a settlement satisfactory to both parties. If in the opinion of the AFTPE Committee such settlement is not possible or appropriate, it will report its findings and recommendations to the petitioner and to the appropriate administrator or faculty body.

Where both inadequate or improper consideration, and (1) a violation of academic freedom, or (2) prejudice have been charged, and if the AFTPE Committee recommends a hearing on the charge of violation of academic freedom or prejudice, it will be the right of the AFTPE Committee to decide whether to submit both issues to the hearing panel or resolve the procedural matter of inadequate or improper consideration itself.

Should the AFTPE Committee not submit the procedural matter to the hearing panel, it will set up a timetable for handling this matter, but will not make its report and recommendations until the panel has completed its deliberations and submitted its report.

It will be the right of all faculty members, when informed by the University of a denial of tenure or termination or nonrenewal of a position, to be advised in writing by the University of their right to challenge such decisions on relevant grounds before the AFTPE Committee.

Adequate cause for dismissal must be directly and substantially related to the fitness of faculty members in their professional capacity as teachers or scholars. Dismissal will not be used to restrain faculty members in their exercise of academic freedom or other rights under US law.

Dismissal of a faculty member with continuous tenure, or with a tenure-track appointment before the end of the specified term, must be preceded by:

1. discussions between the faculty member and appropriate administrative officers looking toward a mutual settlement;

2. a written statement of complaint, framed with reasonable particularity by the Chancellor or the Chancellor’s delegate, and a written statement of complaint from the individual or individuals who are parties to the complaint, having been submitted to the concerned faculty member and to the AFTPE Committee;

3. an informal inquiry by the AFTPE Committee which, failing to effect an adjustment, will determine whether, in its opinion, dismissal proceedings should be undertaken, without its opinion being binding upon the Chancellor.

A dismissal for cause meeting the requirements above will be preceded by a formal statement of charges, and the faculty member concerned will have the right to be heard initially by a hearing panel selected by the AFTPE Committee in accord with procedures approved by the Senate February 21, 1973 (Section 4.6).

Hearing panel members will remove themselves from the case, either at the request of a party or on their own initiative, if they deem themselves disqualified for bias or interest. Each party will have a maximum of two challenges without stated cause. Replacements for disqualified members will be selected by the remaining members of the hearing panel.

Service of notice of hearing with specific charges in writing must be made at least 20 days prior to the hearing. Faculty members may waive a hearing or may respond to the charges in writing at any time before the hearing. If faculty waive a hearing but deny the charges against them or assert that the charges do not support a finding of adequate cause, the hearing panel will evaluate all available evidence and rest its recommendation upon the evidence in the record.

The hearing panel will inquire of the individuals whether the hearing will be open or closed and must abide by their preference.

During the proceedings, the individuals will be permitted to have an academic advisor and counsel of their own choice.

At the request of either party or the hearing panel, a representative of a responsible educational association will be permitted to attend the proceedings as an observer.

A verbatim record of the hearing or hearings will be taken, and a transcribed copy will be made available to individuals without cost to them, at their request.

The burden of proof that adequate cause exists rests with the University by a preponderance of all relevant evidence.

The hearing panel will grant adjournments to enable either party to investigate evidence to which a valid claim of surprise is made.

The individuals will be afforded an opportunity to obtain necessary witnesses and documentary or other evidence, and the University administration will, insofar as it is possible for it to do so, secure the cooperation of such witnesses and make available necessary documents and other evidence within its control.

Faculty members and the University administration have the right to confront and cross-examine all witnesses. Where witnesses cannot or will not appear, but the hearing committee determines that the interests of justice require admission of their statements, the committee will identify these witnesses, disclose their statements, and, if possible, provide for interrogatories.

In the hearing of charges of incompetence, the testimony will include that of qualified faculty members.

The hearing panel will not be bound by strict rules of legal evidence and may admit any evidence which is of probative value in determining the issues involved. Every possible effort will be made to obtain the most reliable evidence available.

The findings of fact and the decision will be based solely on the hearing record.

Except for such simple announcements as may be required, covering the time of the hearing and similar matters, public statements and publicity about the case by either the faculty members or administrative officers will be avoided so far as possible until the proceedings, including consideration by the Board of Trustees, have been completed. The Chancellor and the faculty members will be notified of the decision in writing.

If the hearing panel concludes that adequate cause for dismissal has not been established by the evidence in the record, it will so report to the Chancellor. If the Chancellor rejects the report, the Chancellor’s statement of reasons for doing so and the findings which justify rejection will be set forth in writing. The Chancellor will submit this report to the hearing panel and to the faculty member and provide an opportunity for response before transmitting the case to the Board of Trustees. If the hearing panel concludes that adequate cause for dismissal has been established but that an academic penalty less than dismissal would be more appropriate, it will so recommend, with supporting reasons. A suspension which is intended to be final is a dismissal and will be dealt with as such.

If dismissal or other penalty is recommended, the faculty member may request the Chancellor to transmit the record of the case to the Board of Trustees. The Board’s review will be based on the record of the hearing panel and will provide opportunity for argument, oral, written, or both, by the principals at the hearing or by their representatives. Either the decision of the hearing panel will be sustained, or the proceeding will be returned to the hearing panel with specific objections. The hearing panel will then reconsider, taking into account the stated objections and receiving new evidence if necessary. The Board of Trustees will make the final decision only after study of the hearing panel’s reconsideration.

Until final decisions upon termination of appointments have been reached, faculty members may be suspended with salary or assigned to other duties in lieu of suspension pending a final disposition of the case only if immediate harm to themselves or others is threatened by their continuance. Before suspending faculty members, pending an ultimate determination of their status, the administration will consult with the AFTPE Committee.

If tenure-track appointments are terminated, faculty members will receive their salary to the termination date specified under Section 2.39. In the case of tenured faculty members, the salary will be paid to the specified termination date, which will not be less than one year from the date of notice. This provision for terminal salary need not apply if there has been a finding that the conduct which justified dismissal involved moral turpitude. The Board of Trustees, on the recommendation of the hearing panel and the Chancellor in determining what, if any, payments will be made beyond the effective date of dismissal, may take into account the length and quality of service of faculty members.

Updated April 17, 2024

Termination of continuous appointment with tenure, or of a probationary appointment before the end of the specified term, may be effected by the University only for adequate cause. If termination takes the form of a dismissal for cause, it will be pursuant to the procedure specified in Section 4.61.

Changes of University conditions
Where termination of appointment is based upon financial exigency on the part of the institution or bona fide discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, Section 4.51 does not apply. In this case, faculty members will have the issues reviewed by the faculty of the relevant unit or by the AFTPE Committee, with ultimate review of all controverted issues by the Board of Trustees. In every case of financial exigency or discontinuance of a program or department of instruction, the faculty members concerned will be given notice as soon as possible and never fewer than 12 months notice, or they will be given severance salary for 12 months in lieu of adequate notice. Before terminating an appointment because of the abandonment of a program or department of instruction, the University will make every effort to place the faculty members affected in other suitable positions.

If appointments are terminated before the end of the periods of appointment because of financial exigency or because of the discontinuance of a program of instruction, released faculty members’ places cannot be filled by a replacement for two years, unless the released faculty members have been offered reappointment and a reasonable time within which to accept or decline it.

Fitness to work
Termination for medical reason of tenured appointments or of non-tenured or special appointments before the end of the period of appointment must be based upon clear and convincing medical evidence which will be reviewed by the AFTPE Committee, at the faculty member’s request, before a final decision is made by the Board of Trustees on the recommendation of the Chancellor.

Misconduct in research, research training, scholarship, or creative activity is defined as the fabrication or falsification of data (such as deceptively selective reporting, including the purposeful omission of conflicting data with the intent to falsify results); plagiarism, (the misappropriation of the ideas or works of others, including the unauthorized use of privileged information, however obtained); or other unethical practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted in the scholarly community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research or other scholarly or creative activity. It does not include honest error or honest difference in interpretations or judgments of data. Material failure to comply with federal requirements for the protection of researchers, human subjects, or the public, or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals, is also considered misconduct under the federal regulations governing the conduct of research; offenses of this type may also be investigated using the procedures in this Section.

Allegations of misconduct should be made directly to the Vice President for Research. The vice president will have the responsibility for determining that the procedures utilized and the reports made are in compliance with state and federal regulations and with sponsor guidelines. If the vice president determines that the allegations fall with the definition of misconduct, the vice president will immediately initiate an enquiry in consultation with the committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Professional Ethics (hereafter referred to as the AFTPE Committee). The accused will be informed of the procedure and invited to respond. The chairperson of the department or unit where the member of the University community works, as well as the appropriate dean or responsible administrative officer, will be notified, in confidence, at the same time. If the complainant or the accused believe that the Vice President for Research has a conflict of interest in the matter to be adjudicated, either may make a request to the Vice Chancellor and Provost to appoint a substitute for the vice president’s role in the procedure. Upon hearing the request, the Vice Chancellor will determine whether the Vice President for Research should be replaced in this specific matter and, if so, by whom. Notwithstanding any other provision of the policy, if the accused at any time admits an offense and agrees to sanctions which are acceptable to the Vice President for Research or the designated replacement for the Vice President for Research, there will be no need for further proceedings.

A preliminary enquiry will be conducted by an ad hoc panel composed of three members appointed the Vice President for Research in consultation with the AFTPE Committee. The panel will elect its chair. The purpose of this enquiry is to establish where an allegation or apparent instance of misconduct warrants an investigation. The membership of the panel should include sufficient expertise to assure an understanding of the issues involved in the allegations. The panel may include one or more individuals from other institutions. Members of the panel will be appointed mindful of the need to avoid any real or apparent conflict of interest. The enquiry will be carried out in a manner that affords the accused notice of the charges and an opportunity to be heard, while at the same time seeking to preserve the confidentiality of the enquiry proceedings. The accused is expected to permit access to appropriate documents that are relevant to the proceedings. Within sixty (60) days after the date of the complaint, the panel will prepare a written report which details the evidence reviewed, summarizes relevant interviews, and presents the conclusions reached. The report will be given to the Vice President for Research, who will transmit it to AFTPE Committee The accused will also be given a copy of the report. The accused may make written comments on the report in a timeframe set forward by the Vice President for Research, and those comments will become part of the record.

If the enquiry panel concludes, by majority vote, that a full investigation is warranted, such an investigation will be initiated within 30 days of the completion of the enquiry and any sponsoring agency or agencies will be notified of the decision to proceed. A new panel of five members will be appointed by the AFTPE Committee in consultation with the Vice President for Research. The panel will elect its chair. The guidelines for membership of the new panel will be the same as for the enquiry committee, but there should be no overlap of membership. The investigation will normally include examination of all documentation, including, but not limited to, relevant research data and proposals, publications, correspondence, and electronic communication. Wherever possible, interviews should be conducted with all involved in making the allegation(s) or against whom allegation(s) are made, as well as with others who might have relevant information. All parties will have the right to be accompanied by an advisor or attorney. The investigation need not be limited to an examination of the particular research or scholarship alleged to have been fraudulent but, with prior notice to the accused and opportunity to be heard, can be broadened to include other research or scholarship. Within 120 days after initiation of the investigation, the panel will submit, to the Vice President for Research, detailed documentation to substantiate the findings of the investigation.

As soon as the alleged misconduct is either substantiated or judged to be not substantiated, any agency or agencies sponsoring the research or scholarly activity must be notified by the Vice President for Research. If the investigation determines that misconduct did not occur, efforts must be made to restore the reputation of the accused. If the investigation determines that misconduct did occur, the panel may make recommendations as to the disposition of the matter. The Vice President for Research will notify all journals in which fabricated, falsified, or misappropriated data have been published, or to which such data have been submitted. If disciplinary action is recommended, the Vice President for Research will forward these recommendations to the Vice Chancellor and Provost, who will determine the final disposition. Nothing in these regulations is to be construed as eliminating any of the procedures which should precede the termination for cause of the employment of a tenured faculty member.

Any members of the University found to have taken retaliatory action against any person making, in good faith, an allegation of misconduct, whether substantiated or not, may also be subject to disciplinary action. Should either the enquiry or the investigation show that the allegations of misconduct were not made in good faith, those making the allegations may be subject to disciplinary action.

This policy may be amended from time to time in accordance with applicable procedures.

Approved by the University Senate, subject to review by legal counsel March 14, 1990

Approved as amended by legal counsel March 15, 1990

Syracuse University regulations on campus disruptions apply to students, faculty, administrators, and staff for the maintenance of public order on its owned and controlled property and at its sponsored events.

Pursuant to the requirements of the New York Educational Law 6450 (Art. 129a, 1969), the following rules, regulations, and enforcement procedure are adopted for the maintenance of public order on Syracuse University-owned or Syracuse University-controlled premises.

1. Prohibited Conduct
Syracuse University is committed to the principle that freedom of discussion is essential to the search for truth and, consequently, welcomes and encourages the expression of dissent. Freedom of expression, however, ceases at that point at which its exercise infringes on the rights of either participants or nonparticipants. In order to preserve freedom of discussion and to protect the rights of all, the following conduct is prohibited:

• Obstruction or disruption of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary proceedings, pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or other University activities, including public service functions and other authorized activities on University-owned or University-controlled premises;
• Detention or physical abuse of any person on University-owned or University-controlled premises or conduct which threatens or endangers the health or safety of any such person;
• Destruction of or damage to University premises or the property of any person where such property is located on University-owned or University-controlled property;
• Illegal or unauthorized possession or use of firearms, explosives, dangerous chemicals, or other dangerous weapons or instruments on University-owned or University-controlled premises;
• Entry on or use of University facilities or property without authorization or violation of regulations governing the use of University facilities or property;
• Failure to comply with directives of University officials or law enforcement officers acting in performance of their duties;
• Acts which recklessly or intentionally endanger mental or physical health or involve the forced consumption of alcohol or drugs for the purpose of initiation into or affiliation with any organization;
• Aiding any other person to engage in any act or conduct herein proscribed.

Removal from premises
Any person while on University-owned or University-controlled premises who refuses the request or command of an authorized University official to desist in any prohibited conduct may be ejected from such premises where such conduct constitutes a substantial danger to public order on such premises.

Violations and sanctions
A student charged with violating the prohibitions listed above will be subject to the disciplinary sanctions and procedures outlined in the Student Handbook, under the heading of “Student Rights and Responsibilities.”

A member of the staff charged with violating the prohibitions listed above will be subject to the disciplinary procedures and sanctions described under “Conduct and Disciplinary Action,” in On the Staff.

A faculty member charged with violating the prohibitions listed above will be subject to the procedures described under Section 4.11 of The Faculty Manual, Edition 18, January 1995, as subsequently amended. A sanction need not in every case be imposed. Where appropriate, sanctions for a person found to have violated those prohibitions may range from a verbal or a written reprimand to suspension of faculty privileges and responsibilities, either with or without salary or benefits for a period not to exceed the remainder of the semester and the semester following hearing board action to termination of contract or tenured position. In extraordinary circumstances, the Chancellor or designated representatives may suspend the accused person pending hearing of the charges.

Approved by the Senate, December 14, 1994. Updated April 17, 2024

I. Scope
Faculty, staff, and students

Please see Syracuse University’s Sexual Harassment, Abuse, and Assault Prevention Policy (https://policies.syr.edu/policies/university-governance-ethics-integrity-and-legal-compliance/sexual-harassment-abuse-and-assault-prevention/), which is the binding policy concerning non-consensual sexual activity impacting faculty, staff, and students.

Updated April 17, 2024

 I. Introduction

This section of the faculty manual sets forth procedures for the investigation and resolution of certain complaints involving alleged inappropriate conduct by members of the Syracuse University faculty as defined in Section 4.1 of the Faculty Manual.

Any concerns regarding alleged misconduct by faculty for which there are separate and special procedures shall be resolved in accordance with those procedures. For example, complaints involving alleged violations of the University’s Sexual Harassment, Abuse, and Assault Prevention Policy are investigated via procedures available on the Syracuse University Policies website. Complaints involving alleged misconduct in research, scholarship, or creative activity are investigated via procedures detailed in sec. 4.4. Faculty complaints involving alleged violations of academic freedom or rights afforded by tenure are investigated via procedures detailed on the website of the Committee on Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Professional Ethics (AFTPE).

Any and all complaints involving alleged inappropriate conduct by faculty that are not covered by procedures detailed elsewhere will be addressed via the procedures detailed in this section. These procedures apply to complaints that are received by the University on or after May 13, 2024, regardless of when the conduct reportedly occurred. The term “Complainant” refers to an individual who is reported to have experienced Prohibited Conduct, regardless of whether the individual makes a report or seeks disciplinary action. Although the University reserves the right to initiate a Formal Complaint under this process, the term “Complainant” refers to the individual who is reported to have experienced the Prohibited Conduct. The term “Respondent” refers to an individual who has been accused of Prohibited Conduct. An individual may make a report to the University, to law enforcement, to neither, or to both. In particular, a Complainant has the right to report, or decline to report, potential criminal conduct to law enforcement.

The University is committed to providing a prompt, thorough, equitable, and impartial resolution of all reports and complaints. These procedures designate estimated time frames for major stages of the process and provide a framework for review of concerns that afford the Complainant and Respondent notice, along with equal opportunities to present witnesses and information, to be assisted by a non-attorney advisor, to review the information that will be used in determining whether a policy violation has occurred, and to appeal the finding and outcome. Where appropriate, these procedures include participation by AFTPE and the Office of Equal Opportunity, Inclusion, and Resolution Services (EOIRS).

    A. Interim Measures

While a complaint against a faculty member is being addressed, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs may implement interim measures in instances where any of the following conditions exist:

• There is immediate physical danger to persons or property;
• There is reasonable indication of serious criminal violation;
• There is an immediate threat to health and safety of members of the University community;
• There is immediate need to protect the safety or interests of the person(s) making the allegations, of witnesses, or of the subject(s) of the allegations or their collaborators and associates;
• There is a need to preserve evidence or to prevent improper influence of witness testimony;
• There is immediate need to protect essential equipment or funds, including federal funds or federal financial assistance; or
• There is a need to prevent ongoing and substantial unprofessional conduct that negatively impacts other members of the university community.

 Interim action may include, for example:

• Restrictions on contact or communication with person(s) involved in the complaint
• Limitation on access to certain areas of the campus
• Reassignment of duties
• Partial or total administrative leave with pay
• Directives to preserve or grant access to evidence or records related to the allegations
• Restrictions on university-related travel

The Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs shall adopt such interim measures only after due consideration of potential implications for academic freedom, shall where possible consult with the AFTPE Chair in advance of taking such actions, and shall notify the AFTPE Chair of any such interim measures in a timely manner.

  B.   Confidential Consultation

The University provides all faculty and staff with access to the following options for confidential consultation before choosing whether to report inappropriate conduct. Individuals acting as confidential resources cannot disclose the information (including information about whether an individual has received services) without the consent of the disclosing individual, except in instances where the confidential resource is required by ethical or legal obligations to reveal such information. This ethical obligation may exist, for example, if the reported behavior poses ongoing danger to the community. Individuals acting as confidential resources cannot initiate a complaint process or formally resolve a complaint; they serve as a supportive resource only.

Faculty and Staff Assistance Program

Faculty and staff can contact Carebridge at 800-437-0911. Carebridge counselors may be reached 24/7 for confidential consultation, assessment, referrals, and counseling.  (315) 443-1087 

Office of the University Ombuds

Provides University employees with an informal, confidential, impartial, and independent resource to address concerns or questions openly without fear of retaliation or judgment.
111 Waverly Ave, Suite 215
(315) 443.1087
ombuds@syr.edu 

    II.   Alleged Violations of Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies by University Faculty

The procedures in this section shall be applied to complaints involving alleged violations by faculty of the University’s Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policies, other than the Sexual Harassment, Abuse, and Assault Prevention Policy.

Prior to or in lieu of reporting discrimination or harassment to the Chief Equal Opportunity officer, the Complainant may communicate the allegation of inappropriate faculty conduct directly to the Faculty Member in question. The most useful communication will have three parts:

• a factual description of the inappropriate conduct, including date, time, place and specific action;
• a description of the Complainant’s reaction, including any consequences of the incident(s); and
• a request that the objectionable conduct cease.

Alternatively, the Complainant may communicate the allegation to someone in a relevant supervisory position (e.g., the Respondent’s Chair, Director, or Dean). The purpose of such a report is to communicate the specific conduct in question, request that the person in a supervisory position let the Faculty Member know that the conduct has been claimed to be inappropriate, and request that any such conduct cease. The Respondent’s Chair, Director, or Dean should document the conversation and share a record of it with the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs and the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff.

Such a communication may cause the alleged inappropriate conduct to stop, particularly where the Respondent may not be aware that the conduct is perceived as inappropriate. If the conduct in question continues, the Complainant may proceed by reporting the discrimination or harassment to the Chief Equal Opportunity officer as described below. 

    A.   Reporting Discrimination

Complaints may be submitted by current university faculty, staff, or students. In the case of former faculty, staff, and students alleging misconduct that occurred while they were members of the university community, complaints may be submitted on their behalf by current faculty, staff, or administrators. Likewise, in the case of complaints arising from persons unaffiliated with the university alleging misconduct by university faculty in the course of university-related activities or programs, the University reserves the right to act on behalf of others.

The University encourages all individuals to report discrimination and harassment to the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff in person, by telephone, or by email:

Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff
Office of Equal Opportunity, Inclusion and Resolution Services
005 Steele Hall, Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY 13244-1120
equalopp@syr.edu | (315) 443-0211

If the initial complaint is made to individuals outside of the Office of Equal Opportunity, Inclusion, or Resolution Services, the individual receiving the complaint will notify the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff.

Conduct that is potentially criminal in nature may also be reported to the Department of Public Safety:

Department of Public Safety, 005 Sims Hall, (315) 443-2224

Complainants and witnesses who make a good faith report of harassment or discrimination will be provided with written information about available support and resources, including interim support measures, and the University will take steps to prevent and respond to any retaliation or attempted retaliation.

The Office of Equal Opportunity, Inclusion, and Resolution Services will make available mechanisms for submitting complaints both anonymously and non-anonymously. While the University endeavors to address all complaints, the nature of anonymous complaints makes investigation, determination, and remediation more difficult, and at times, impossible.

When investigating non-anonymous complaints, the University will attempt to protect the identity of Complainants who do not wish to be identified, but this may not always be possible.

    B.   Preliminary Inquiry

Upon receipt of a complaint of discrimination or harassment based on a protected category, the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff (or designee) will conduct a preliminary inquiry of the allegations. This preliminary inquiry may require speaking with the reporting party (or parties) or witnesses to more fully understand the allegations.

The Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff (or designee) will then determine whether the allegations, if true, state a violation of any University policy. If an allegation involves a clear violation of University policy, the case may proceed to an investigation through a formal resolution process or be referred for informal resolution. If the allegation does not involve a violation of University policy, the case will be closed. However, even if a case is closed, the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff may elect to provide feedback, coaching, or advice to the faculty member, directly or with the assistance of others, in an effort to foster inclusion and/or equity in future behavior. 

    C.   Informal Resolution

Upon review of a complaint that more likely than not constitutes a violation of University policy, the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff (or designee) may seek to broker an informal resolution to which all parties can agree. A satisfactory informal resolution must adequately address the needs of the Complainant, Respondent, and the University and may include, for example, a recommendation of professional development or training among other activities. Any such informal resolution shall be communicated to both parties in writing, with copies to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs and the AFTPE Chair.

    D.   Formal Resolution

     1.   Summative Complaint

If the parties are unable to agree on informal resolution or if the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff concludes that informal resolution is inappropriate, the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff will assign an investigator from the Office of Equal Opportunity, Inclusion, and Resolution Services and, in consultation with the AFTPE Chair, a faculty liaison. Faculty liaisons may be AFTPE members or other faculty designated by the AFTPE Chair to serve in an ad hoc capacity. The liaison’s role is to ensure that an independent faculty voice is present throughout the process of investigations involving alleged faculty misconduct and to keep the AFTPE Chair apprised of any concerns regarding academic freedom that emerge in the course of investigation. Faculty liaisons should familiarize themselves    with the principles of academic freedom referenced in Section 3.51.

The EOIRS investigator(s), in consultation with the faculty liaison, will produce a summative version of the formal complaint, specifying the allegations of violations per Section 4.1. The Summative Complaint will be provided to the Complainant and Respondent. The Respondent will have the opportunity to respond to the Summative Complaint in a meeting with the Investigator and faculty liaison and may respond in writing. The Respondent also may identify witnesses who can provide relevant information regarding the complaint.

    2.   Investigation

Following the response to the summative complaint by both parties, the investigator will take steps to investigate the allegations including, without limitation, by conducting witness interviews, gathering documentary evidence, conducting site visits, and utilizing any other appropriate methods to obtain pertinent information. The investigator will summarize the facts in an investigative report. Where the facts warrant, the investigative report shall state conclusions as to any violations of university policy that have been established as more likely than not. The faculty liaison will participate in this process and offer feedback on the investigative report prior to its distribution to the parties.

For parties or witnesses wishing to submit evidence to the investigator, they must submit all known evidence in existence and in their possession prior to completion of the investigative report. If a party or witness fails to provide known evidence in their possession during the investigation, they may be precluded from offering it at a later date. In addition, if a witness chooses not to participate in an investigation interview, they may be precluded from testifying at a later date. No party or witness is required to speak with the investigator, but the investigator has the right to move forward with an investigation and may complete an investigative report without the party or witness’s statement or evidence. Although the University encourages all individuals involved in these processes to keep the matter private, the University cannot and will not restrict the Complainant’s and Respondent’s rights to speak about their experiences.

Both Complainant and Respondent will have an opportunity to review a draft investigative report and provide a written response to the report within ten business days. The investigator, in consultation with the faculty liaison, will review the written responses and determine whether any additional investigation is necessary or if the investigative report should be modified. If no additional investigation or modifications are necessary, or if no written responses are received, the investigator will conclude the investigation.

EOIRS will then provide the investigative report to the Chair of AFTPE. After reviewing the report, AFTPE may request additional information. Upon such request, EOIRS will revise the investigative report. This process may be repeated as necessary until AFTPE requires no additional information. Upon review of the final investigative report, AFTPE will submit its Advisory Report and Recommendations to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, indicating whether or not there is a finding of conduct in violation of University policy, and if so, recommended sanctions for review and determination by the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs. If the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs is the Respondent or otherwise has a conflict of interest, the AFTPE report shall be submitted to the Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer instead. Likewise, if the Vice Chancellor, Provost, and Chief Academic Officer has a conflict of interest or is the Respondent, the report will be provided to the Office of the Chancellor. The AFTPE’s Advisory Report and Recommendations  will be delivered or an update provided within four months of AFTPE’s receipt of the final investigative report.

    3.  Decisions and Sanctions

Within fifteen (15) business days of receipt of the Advisory Report and Recommendations from the AFTPE Chair, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs will issue an outcome to the Complainant and Respondent, and if the Respondent is found responsible for a policy violation, may also issue appropriate sanctions. In addition to the Vice Chancellor, Provost, and Chief Academic Officer, the Chief Equal Opportunity and Title IX Officer for Faculty and Staff, the Chair of AFTPE, and the Respondent’s Dean also will receive a copy of the outcome. If the recommended sanction impacts the Respondent’s status as an employee (for example, administrative leave without pay or termination), University Counsel will be notified.

Any recommended sanction and/or penalty should reflect the severity, duration, and/or frequency of the conduct. The recommended penalties may include, but are not limited to, any one or a combination of the following: written warning placed in the Respondent’s file, probation, suspension with or without pay, removal from administrative duties within a department, dismissal, or other action appropriate to the circumstances, such as restitution, professional development, or mental health assessment or counseling. If the outcome involves a recommendation for dismissal from the University, the Respondent will be afforded the procedures set forth at Section 4.51 of the Faculty Manual.

    4.   Appeals

Either party may, within ten (10) business days of the communication of the Decision and/or Sanction, file either an Appeal or a Notice of Intent to Appeal to the Office of the Vice Chancellor, Provost, and Chief Academic Officer, which will notify the other parties of the action. Appeals must be based on one or both of the following: 

• new evidence not reasonably available during consideration of the complaint, the absence of which can be shown to have had a material effect on the outcome; or
• errors in the interpretation of University policy that had a material effect on the outcome.

If the party files a Notice of Intent to Appeal, the party has an additional five (5) business days to submit the Appeal. The Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer may accept, reject, or modify the investigatory findings and conclusions. If necessary, they may take steps to further investigate or clarify any aspect of the report or allegations. Absent extenuating circumstances, the Vice Chancellor, Provost, and Chief Academic Officer will render a decision within twenty (20) business days of receipt of the Appeal. This answer to the Appeal is final.

If the respondent leaves the University while a complaint is pending, the University may close the case.

III. Other Alleged Misconduct by University Faculty

Alleged violations of the University Code of Ethical Conduct or any other university policy, including but not limited to harassment, bullying, or retaliation, that are not addressed under Section II shall be investigated as follows. If the same set of facts (alleged misconduct) implicates both the Code of Ethical Conduct and any of the University’s nondiscrimination policies, the procedures in Section II will be followed.

    A.   Complaints from students or staff

This section governs complaints submitted by university students or staff alleging unethical or otherwise prohibited conduct by university faculty that does not fall under Section II. Such complaints shall be resolved wherever possible at the lowest appropriate administrative level. Students or staff should direct such complaints to the relevant unit-level administrator, who may hold the title of department chair, director of the school, or in schools and colleges that are not structured by departments, associate dean. If the responsible administrators identified in these procedures are the targets of the complaint or otherwise have a conflict of interest, alternates will be identified to act in their place, as follows:

• If the unit-level administrator has a conflict of interest or is Respondent, complaint may be made to the Dean, who will identify an alternate unit-level administrator to review the complaint.
• If the Dean has a conflict of interest or is Respondent, complaint may be made to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, who will identify an alternate to fulfill the responsibilities of both the unit-level administrator and the Dean. This may be one or two persons.
• If the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs has a conflict of interest or is Respondent, the Provost will identify an alternate to review complaints forwarded by the Dean.
• If the Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer has a conflict of interest or is the Respondent, the Chancellor will substitute for the Vice Chancellor, Provost, and Chief Academic Officer and will determine the appropriate procedures. Such procedures will be communicated to all parties in writing.

The unit-level administrator who receives the complaint shall make reasonable effort to determine whether the alleged conduct implicates University policy or directives. Unit-level administrators should familiarize themselves with the University Code of Ethical Conduct, the principles of academic freedom referenced in Section 3.51, and other relevant policies and directives regarding faculty rights and responsibilities. In addition, they are encouraged to  consult with other relevant administrative personnel before proceeding. If they believe interim measures are warranted, they should promptly refer the matter to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs.

If the alleged conduct does not implicate University policy or directives, the allegation will be dismissed. The unit-level administrator shall notify the Complainant, the relevant Dean, and the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs of such dismissal. The unit-level administrator may notify the Respondent as well, if in their judgment the feedback would be beneficial to the Respondent.

If the unit-level administrator who receives the complaint determines that University policy or directives are implicated, they should, where possible, seek to broker an informal resolution to which all parties can agree. A satisfactory informal resolution must adequately address the needs of the Complainant, Respondent, and the University. Any such informal resolution shall be communicated to both parties in writing, with copies to the relevant dean, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, and the AFTPE Chair.

If the parties are unable to agree to an informal resolution, or if informal resolution is inappropriate, the unit-level administrator who receives the complaint shall make reasonable effort to establish the relevant facts. For example, the unit-level administrator may meet with and interview relevant parties and witnesses and review any evidence provided by those persons. The unit-level administrator may also review other records or documents relevant to the case, but should consult with the Dean before requesting access to records or documents not normally available to them or to the public.

If, after a review of the relevant facts, the unit-administrator determines that no violation occurred, they shall dismiss the complaint and communicate this decision to the parties, the Dean, and the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs. The Complainant may, within five (5) business days of the receipt of the decision, request reconsideration of the complaint one step up the administrative hierarchy.

If the unit-level administrator determines that it is more likely than not that the alleged conduct represents a violation of University policy, they shall report their findings in writing to the Dean. This report shall detail the investigative steps undertaken, document any relevant factual findings, and indicate which university policies or directives have been violated. Any named party may submit a written response to the report within five (5) business days to the relevant Dean.

After reviewing the report and any written responses, the Dean may consult with the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs together with the Chair of AFTPE, as needed. The Dean shall then either concur with or reject the unit-level administrator’s determination that a violation of University policy or directives has occurred. The Dean’s decision should be issued within ten (10) business days following the receipt of the report from the unit-level administrator or statements received by any named parties, whichever is later.

• If the Dean concurs with the finding of a violation, they may implement ameliorative steps to end the misconduct and prevent its recurrence. Such steps may include requiring professional development training or mandating any other actions otherwise within the Dean’s authority to require of all faculty.
• If the Dean concurs with the finding of violation and determines that the violation warrants sanctions that would materially impact the respondent’s employment, such as suspension, the Dean shall forward the case to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs with a recommendation as to what sanctions should be imposed.
• If the Dean rejects the unit-level administrator’s determination that a violation of University policy or directives has occurred, the Complainant may request reconsideration of the facts by the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs within ten (10) business days of receiving the outcome from the Dean. The Associate Provost’s decision will be final.
• In all cases, the Dean’s recommendation shall be provided in writing to the parties, the relevant unit-level administrator, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs and the Chair of AFTPE.

 Any recommended sanction and/or ameliorative steps issued by the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs should reflect the severity, duration, and/or frequency of the conduct. The recommended penalties may include any one or a combination of the following: written warning placed in the Respondent’s file, probation, suspension with or without pay, removal from administrative duties within a department, dismissal, or other action appropriate to the circumstances, such as restitution, professional development, or mental health assessment or counseling. If the recommended sanction involves dismissal from the University, the Respondent will be afforded the procedures set forth at Section 4.51 of the Faculty Manual. The Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs will issue a decision within fifteen (15) business days of receiving a report and recommendation from a Dean or a request for reconsideration from a complainant.

Either party may, within ten (10)  business days of the communication of the decision and/or sanction by the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs, file an appeal to the Office of the Vice Chancellor, Provost, and Chief Academic Officer, which will notify the other parties of the action. Appeals must be based on one or both of the following:

• new evidence not reasonably available during consideration of the complaint, the absence of which had a material effect on the outcome; or
• errors in the interpretation of University policy or directives that had a material effect on the outcome.

In addition, if the faculty Respondent believes that the Dean or Associate Provost’s decision and/or sanction impinges upon their academic freedom or tenure rights or represents a violation of professional ethics, they may file a written complaint with the Chair of AFTPE within ten (10) business days of receiving the Dean’s or Associate Provost’s decision. AFTPE shall immediately notify the Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer that the claim has been received and will review the complaint in accord with procedures posted on its website. Any such review shall result in an Advisory Report and Recommendation to the Vice Chancellor, Provost, and Chief Academic Officer.

Upon receipt of an appeal and/or an AFTPE Advisory Report and Recommendation, the Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer may accept, reject, or modify the investigatory findings and conclusions. If necessary, they may take steps to further investigate or clarify any aspect of the report or allegations. Absent extenuating circumstances, the Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer will render a decision within twenty (20) business days of receipt of the appeal or report from AFTPE, whichever is later. The Vice Chancellor, Provost and Chief Academic Officer’s decision is final.

If the respondent leaves the University while a complaint is pending, the University may close the case.

    B.  Complaints from faculty

Complaints by university faculty alleging violations of academic freedom or rights afforded by tenure may be submitted in writing to the Chair of AFTPE. AFTPE shall review the complaint(s) via procedures available on AFTPE’s website.

Complaints by university faculty alleging unethical or otherwise prohibited conduct by fellow faculty that does not fall under Section II and that does not implicate academic freedom or tenure rights shall be submitted to the relevant unit-level administrator, where they shall be resolved via the procedures detailed in Section III.A. If an allegation based on the same set of facts implicates both the Code of Ethical Conduct and any of the University’s non-discrimination policies, procedures in Section II will be followed. University faculty may consult with the Chair of AFTPE regarding the scope of academic freedom and tenure rights. If either faculty Complainant or Respondent believes that any resulting decision and/or sanction represents a violation of professional ethics, they may file a written complaint with the Chair of AFTPE.

    C.   Anonymous complaints

Complaints may be submitted through portals, reporting forms, or other mechanisms specifically designated by the University to enable anonymous reporting of alleged violations of University policy by University Faculty. While the University endeavors to address all complaints, the nature of anonymous complaints makes investigation, determination, and remediation more difficult, and at times, impossible.

Recipients of anonymous complaints will refer all information received to the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs who will determine if University policies are implicated. If so, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs will refer the report to the appropriate unit-level administrator for review as indicated in Section III.A., or may refer complaints to other appropriate administrators, for example, to the Vice President for Research as required by Section 4.4. If the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs determines that University policy is not implicated in the reported behavior, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs will provide the recipient of the anonymous complaint with the necessary response. Upon dismissal, the Associate Provost for Faculty Affairs may share information about the anonymous complaint with the Respondent if in their judgment the feedback would be beneficial to Respondent.

IV. Annual Reporting

Each academic year, AFTPE shall report to the University Senate regarding the frequency of complaints resolved formally or informally under the Section II or III procedures above. To the extent practical while maintaining privacy of relevant parties and witnesses in individual cases, AFTPE’s report shall provide summary indication of the procedures followed and outcomes reached in the aggregate set of cases reviewed over the preceding year.

Approved by the University Senate April 17, 2024