Outcome of Campus Safety Hearing Prompts Criticism from Students and Faculty

Santa Clara community members demand action from university after a panel finds “no evidence” that Campus Safety officers acted with racial bias in Aug. 2020 incident

Updated Aug. 25.

A university panel found "no evidence" that four Campus Safety officers acted with "racial animus or bias" in a nationally publicized incident of alleged harassment toward Danielle Morgan, a Black faculty member, and her family, according to a campus-wide email sent by Acting President Lisa Kloppenberg on Tuesday.

The Equity Hearing Panel, made up of faculty and staff, did find that three of the officers behaved in a way that was “misdirected and unnecessary” and “violated University Policy with their actions.” Still, Kloppenberg wrote that the university will “welcome back” the officers, who have been on administrative leave since the incident occurred.

Kloppenberg’s email sparked disappointment and anger among some students and faculty who say that the message contradicts Santa Clara’s pledge to combat racism.

Incoming English Department Chair Julia Voss sent a statement on behalf of her department to all staff and faculty on Thursday, expressing outrage at the university’s message. Voss and her colleagues were particularly disappointed that Kloppenberg welcomed back the Morgans and Campus Safety Services (CSS) officers “in the same breath.”

“In emphasizing the cooperation of individual CSS members who were put on leave, while glossing over the disruptions to the Morgan family throughout this period, as ‘a particularly difficult time’ for ‘all parties,’ the message disregards the very real emotional and material consequences of this incident and investigation for the Morgans,” Voss wrote.

“Furthermore, it sends a chilling message to other faculty, staff, and students of color on campus about the university’s performative commitment to racial justice and discourages victims of racism from coming forward,” she continued.

Kloppenberg’s email did not indicate whether the officers would face consequences for violating university policy, nor is the Campus Safety Manual referenced in the email available on Santa Clara’s website.

Improving the transparency and accessibility of Campus Safety’s policies and procedures—including publishing the Campus Safety Manual—was one of the recommendations published in the CSS audit by Judge LaDoris Cordell in January.

According to Vice Provost for Student Life Jeanne Rosenberger, who has been closely involved in working through the audit recommendations with CSS, the first phase of the audit-informed reimagination involved information-gathering: learning the ins and outs of the department, relationship-building, and reviewing strategies that have worked for other schools.

As the university moves forward in its plan to reevaluate the role of CSS, progress updates on each of the audit recommendations can be found on a newly created feature on CSS’s website.

Philip Beltran, director of CSS, referred all questions to the Office of University Marketing and Communications. A representative from the office did not answer The Santa Clara’s questions directly, but forwarded the university’s statement explaining the confidentiality of the resolution proceedings: “We must respect the confidentiality of the parties and the process itself, and not share details beyond what was included in Acting President Kloppenberg’s letter to the community,” the statement reads.

The outcome of the investigation comes almost one year after Morgan, a professor in the English department and one of seven Black faculty members in the College of Arts and Sciences, initially made the allegations of racially motivated treatment.

Morgan’s brother was attending a virtual meeting on campus in August 2020 when he was instructed by a Campus Safety officer to grab his belongings and exit the campus immediately. According to Morgan, the officer followed her brother closely and continued to badger him even as he reached his sister’s home.

“The officer very aggressively demanded to see my campus ID ‘to prove you are who he says you are and that you actually live here,’” Morgan recounted in a viral Twitter thread posted shortly after the incident, which was covered extensively by the national media.

In a recent interview with The Santa Clara, Morgan expressed her disappointment about the outcome of the investigation.

“Many people like to think of racism as something that happened in the past, something that happened before the civil rights movement, and so unless it’s the use of overt racial slurs or physical violence it gets excused or ignored,” Morgan wrote in an email. “Sometimes even slurs and violence are ignored. It’s disappointing but not surprising, especially given that the panel identified so many indiscretions and a policy violation by Campus Safety during this process.”

Dan Roth, Morgan’s lawyer, said that Kloppenberg’s email “whitewashed the facts uncovered in the investigation,” as reported by The Mercury News.

A variety of student and faculty groups have echoed these concerns, calling for a stronger response from the university.

The Multicultural Center (MCC), the Inclusive Excellence Student Advisory Council (IESAC) and Student Body President and Vice President Abigail Alvarez and Angel Lin have called for the immediate termination of the Campus Safety officers involved in the incident.

“The refusal to address the explicitly racist nature of the incident and the experiences of Prof. Morgan demonstrate a blatant disregard for the so-called ‘anti-racist’ mission that Santa Clara has committed to,” Alvarez and Lin wrote in an infographic uploaded to their Instagram account, @asgscuprezvp.

At the time of publication, the post has accumulated over 300 likes and 27 shares.

The English department’s statement called upon the university to take a number of steps, including issuing a public apology statement from Kloppenberg, holding the involved CSS officers accountable for violating university policy, and regularly reporting the demographic information on participants in CSS interactions.

The statement also points out a discrepancy between the panel’s findings and those published in Cordell’s audit of CSS as a whole, which suggested a pattern of racial animus in interactions between CSS and students of color.

“Further, as Judge Cordell noted in her audit report, CSS does not collect demographic information on participants in CSS interactions. The absence of this data makes it impossible to disprove or establish any pattern of racial bias by CSS,” Voss wrote in the email.

According to MCC Director Joshua Raymundo, the center has taken a hard stance against Campus Safety in recent years after allegedly noticing repeated patterns of racist behavior from officers.

“That in and of itself warrants a bigger response from the university,” Raymundo said. “What we’ve seen so far is a pretty lackluster response from the administration. And that’s pretty disappointing because they have a supposed anti-racist mission. And those words ring more hollow than they do true.”

Morgan shared her appreciation for Santa Clara students’ advocacy.

“I think the broad university community, especially Santa Clara students, has been outspoken in its desire to see an outcome that leads to restoration and justice so that faculty, staff, and students are safe and feel welcome on this campus,” Morgan wrote in an email correspondence with The Santa Clara. “The community’s response has been one that is founded on the ideal of cura personalis. I hope the administration takes note.”

Photo credit: Rikesh Mehta

—

History Department Chair Amy Randall sent a statement on Aug. 23 to Santa Clara staff and faculty, expressing concerns about Kloppenberg’s letter. 

Randall’s message claims that the wording Kloppenberg used to describe the hearing outcome—specifically her quote from the panel that their conclusions were “consistent with the findings of the independent investigation”—may indicate a mishandling of the case in accordance with Santa Clara’s 2020 discrimination policy. 

The policy to which Randall refers outlines that “the Investigator(s) will synthesize and assess evidence, but make no conclusions, engage in no policy analysis, and render no recommendations as part of their report.” 

“Given this discrepancy, either the investigation was mishandled or there is a misunderstanding of the new (2020) policy by the Hearing Panel,” the statement reads. “Regardless of where the confusion lies, this announcement suggests that the independent investigation absolved CSS officers of any wrongdoing, which was clearly not within their purview to do.” 

The statement, which was signed by 11 members of the history department, also expressed dismay at Rosenberger’s email about the implementation of the CSS audit, which was sent to the entire campus community on Aug. 19. 

“Although we are pleased to see that some reforms suggested by the audit have been instituted or initiated, we are concerned that more of them have not been adopted, particularly those that are related to the reimagining of CSS and its mission and goals,” the statement reads.

“We must do more. The university leadership must take affirmative short-term steps to enact the changes recommended by the CSS audit as a way to begin rebuilding trust in the institution,” it continues.