Faculty Handbook
XIII. Protecting Participants in Misconduct ProceedingsLast updated: 6/19/2009
PROCEDURES CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT
IN RESEARCH AND CREATIVE ACTIVITIES (Cont.)
These Procedures were approved by the Board of Trustees on April 11, 1997 and revised June 28, 2002 and June 19, 2009.
XIII. Protecting Participants in Misconduct Proceedings
a. Protection of Position and Reputation. The University shall make diligent efforts to protect the position and reputation of each individual who has, in Good Faith, participated in a Misconduct Proceeding as a Complainant, witness, Review Panel member, Inquiry Panel member, Investigative Committee member, Counsel, Advisor, Responsible Administrator, or RIO, or who has otherwise cooperated in the review of an Allegation under these Procedures. These efforts shall be: (1) reasonable and practical under the circumstances; (2) proportionate to the risk to the individual's position and reputation; and (3) consistent with applicable funder expectations, if the Research or Creative Activity which was the subject of the Allegation was supported by a federal funding source.
b. Retaliation.
(1) Prohibition. University employees and students shall not engage in or threaten Retaliation.
(2) Referral for Action. If the RIO receives a complaint or report of Retaliation or threatened Retaliation by a University employee or student, the RIO shall refer the matter to the appropriate administrator for review and such action, if any, as the administrator may deem appropriate, including disciplinary action.
(3) Discipline. The University views Retaliation by a University employee or student as grounds for disciplinary action pursuant to applicable University policies, procedures, and contracts, including procedures for challenging or grieving disciplinary action.
(4) Protection against Retaliation. The University shall make diligent efforts to provide protection against Retaliation by individuals who are not University employees or students. These efforts shall be reasonable and practical under the circumstances and, if the Research or Creative Activity which was the subject of the Allegation whose review led to the Retaliation was supported by a federal funding source, shall be consistent with applicable funder expectations.