Wednesday, Aug. 12, 2020 | 2 a.m.
View more of the Sun's opinion section
Editor’s note: As he does every August, Brian Greenspun is turning over his Where I Stand column to others. Today’s guest is Lisa Levine, who was appointed to the Nevada Board of Regents in June. In her column, Levine addresses the situation at last week’s regents meeting that led to the board’s chief of staff, Dean Gould, attempting to silence her by saying, “I don’t want to man-speak but I will have to if you continue to child-speak, so please stop.” The Sun has supported Levine on our editorial page as a voice of reason and accountability on the board, and we’re proud to offer her column today. We believe it is a lesson in civics that was either never taught to some individuals or has been conveniently forgotten by them.
Public meetings follow established procedures designed to ensure that all parties are able to speak their minds, discuss sometimes controversial issues and respect each other’s opinions and views.
Procedures ensure meetings run smoothly. Decorum promotes the respectful treatment of others. All of this allows facts to be presented and public policy debates to proceed in a respectful, orderly fashion.
Procedures and decorum matter, as every student of public administration or business understands. Together they are the engine that drives transparency and accountability of government. For good governance and sound policy to be achieved, facts are prioritized so that the best decisions are made. But when facts are rejected, dissenting views are dismissed, discrimination based on gender is apparent and procedure becomes a shield for power to hide behind, then there is an inherent problem.
Ultimately, truth has been silenced.
Look no further than the most recent Nevada Board of Regents meeting as Exhibit A. Friday’s meeting had two key topics: the overall budget for public higher education and sexual assault and harassment policies. Initially, my interest focused on the finances of the eight public institutions in Nevada and the administrative office known as the Nevada System of Higher Education. I studied the numbers, reviewing proposals staff sent, and received input from leadership of higher academia so that I could help mitigate the additional budget cuts. But Thursday, the day before the meeting, my attention quickly shifted to agenda Item 6.
That morning, regents received from NSHE staff supplemental materials for agenda Item 6 on Handbook and Code Revisions of NSHE’s Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures. I began reviewing the document and immediately had questions. I reached out to NSHE’s sizable legal department to obtain more information and to ensure that my interpretation of what I was reading was correct. A staff member alerted me to the dangerous and harmful Title IX policies the board would be considering. I was surprised no one from the public had reached out to me to express their concerns, and I feared that few might be aware that this controversial vote was happening in less than 24 hours.
I called faculty senate presidents, student body presidents, community leaders and public officials to obtain their feedback. Due to the open meetings law I could not call fellow regents to advocate for my position on an item scheduled for our meeting. Within a few hours the pattern was clear: No one knew because no one had been told. If faculty and students had been consulted, some said, the information presented to them was not reflective of the true nature of the changes that were being considered.
These changes are critical because physical and emotional safety are important for students to succeed. Violence against women and girls is still a major problem and that includes sexual violence on college campuses:
• 1 in 5 women and 1 in 16 men are sexually assaulted while in college.
• 1 in 10 rapes occur while the victim is at work.
• 90% of sexual assault victims on college campuses do not report.
This is why the Title IX policy changes that regents approved are so dangerous:
• Victims needed to prove the sexual act of violence committed was either severe, pervasive or objectively offensive. Now victims must successfully prove all three.
• Victims were provided protection on all college campuses, now it excludes study abroad programs by limiting protections to campuses in the United States.
• Victims had been encouraged to report incidents, but now victims will be discouraged from reporting because they will have to endure a live hearing, similar to a criminal trial, including cross-examination.
Understanding the grave impact this could have on all those whom NSHE represents, I felt compelled to sound the alarm and use my voice during the meeting so that regents understood the consequences of their vote. During the meeting, staff presented their argument on Item 6: The board has no choice but to put their stamp of approval on these bad policy changes. And if NSHE does not approve the changes by Friday of this week, millions of dollars in federal funding could be in jeopardy.
I urged regents to consider those who would be hurt by these changes and I asked questions in hopes of getting more facts. When I asked NSHE staff what colleges had not adopted the policies, they did not know. When I asked what colleges had signed onto litigation to prevent implementing the policies, they did not know. When I asked why they did not come to the board sooner, since they had the new regulations from the Department of Education in May, they did not have a clear answer.
When I asked why NSHE had yet to join a lawsuit, there was no reason given. When I asked if NSHE could seek a temporary injunction to delay the risk of losing federal funding, they were unsure. One thing was sure: We did not have all the facts.
The response from legal counsel and certain regents led Nevada Attorney General Aaron Ford to reach out to me by telephone during the meeting because he had important information that deserved to be heard before regents cast their vote. Ford was, and continues to be, open to joining litigation.
When I offered to bring him into our conversation, the board chair declined to hear from him. Regent John T. Moran also encouraged the board to hear what the attorney general had to say before the motion was made. When I tried to make the case for why more information needed to be heard, the chief of staff and general counsel to the board interrupted me by saying he would “man-speak” if I did not stop “child-speak.” He then muted me, the chair quickly made the motion for an immediate vote, and just like that the Board of Regents voted 10-3 to strip protections for victims of sex crimes without hearing all of the facts.
Since then, the support and encouraging words I received from people in Nevada and across the country inspires me beyond words. Young women and girls need to see women respected, know their voices matter, and believe they are worthy of leadership positions. That is the example NSHE should follow. As noted earlier, decorum is a pillar for voices to be heard equally and opinions to be shared. Being called a child by a senior staff person did not faze me, but it shocked tens of thousands because of the lack of decorum and respect he showed to one of his female supervisors.
Such behavior does not shock women. This behavior is not new to women or people from underserved communities. But if there is a silver lining to another sad episode of the regents and NSHE exhibiting bad behavior and poor judgment, I hope this will lead the Board of Regents to have an honest discussion about decorum and how all people have a right to be heard and treated with respect.
When the general counsel and chief of staff to the board shut me down, he did not just silence me. He silenced facts from being heard, and he carelessly dismissed the victims and survivors of sexual violence and harassment who bravely shared their stories with me; that is who I was fighting for.
The Board of Regents and NSHE should work to build protections for victims of sex crimes and tear down barriers that deter victims from seeking justice. Instead, adopting these dangerous policies make it easier for someone on a public college or university campus to be sexually assaulted or harassed. It is time the Board of Regents join me in standing with survivors and victims of sexual violence by immediately joining litigation to stop the implementation of these harmful policies.
In addition, the behavior on display by the senior NSHE staff member during Friday’s meeting revealed yet again why so many in the community have concerns over the governance structure of public higher education in Nevada. A senior member of the NSHE staff thought it acceptable to speak down to me, to belittle me with degrading language, and to intimidate me in a public forum. How many other women and underrepresented NSHE employees, who are not in positions of power and who are fearful of retaliation, are treated with this kind of contempt?
The need for systemic, cultural and transformative change at NSHE is clear. To improve our colleges and universities, and increase student achievement and academic success these changes are necessary. The opportunities for higher education in Nevada are unlimited and now is the time for change so NSHE becomes more reflective of the community it serves. Let us not be discouraged. We have more work to do. I am committed to continue working with the Board of Regents to strengthen NSHE policies and procedures, create a more inclusive and welcoming place where people are treated fairly, disagreeing views are acceptable, and where facts are the driving force behind policy decisions.
