Prohibition of Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation - posted 6/9/2025

Public Comment 1 re Authority

In the proposed revision of Policy P-13.10, Section I (“Purpose”) includes the following:

“The University of West Florida (the ‘University’) is dedicated to providing an inclusive and welcoming environment for all who interact in our community. In continuing to build and maintain a diverse environment, the University strives to attract students, faculty, and staff from a variety of cultures, backgrounds, and life experiences.”

While these phrases reflect long-held values within higher education, it may be worth considering whether this wording remains the best fit for our current institutional, state, and national context. The recent update to the University’s Strategic Plan, which replaced the term “inclusion” with “respect,” is one example of a broader trend in which institutions are rethinking how they express shared commitments to fairness, belonging, and access.

Given this shift, we might consider whether alternate language—such as “respectful and welcoming environment” or “pluralist,” or “representative, in place of “diverse”—could better align with the University's evolving priorities while still honoring the purpose of the policy.

This comment is about ensuring that the terms we use are well-aligned with the University’s current priorities and broader policy environment—so that our core commitments can be communicated clearly and carried out effectively. A small change here could go a long way toward reinforcing the policy’s impact and protecting it from potential misinterpretation down the line.

Thank you for the thoughtful work that has gone into these revisions and for the opportunity to offer input in the spirit of shared governance.

Public Comment 2 re Responsibility to Report

The proposed revisions to Policy P-13.10 thoughtfully reinforce the duty of supervisory employees to report observed or disclosed instances of discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. This clarification supports institutional accountability and is an important step forward.

That said, we may want to consider adding language that acknowledges the distinct role of designated confidential resources—such as ombuds personnel, Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS), and the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). These roles are governed by well-established professional norms that prioritize confidentiality, neutrality, and informality. For example, the International Ombuds Association's Code of Ethics and Standards of Practice explicitly define the ombuds role as informal, independent, impartial, and confidential—not a formal reporting channel. Similarly, Board of Governors Regulation 6.011 affirms these principles for university ombuds.

UWF’s own evolving policy landscape reflects this distinction. The forthcoming revisions to Policy P-14 (Title IX) are expected to clarify that these confidential roles fall outside the scope of mandatory reporters in that context. Maintaining consistency across policies is key to avoiding conflicting expectations and preserving the integrity of these support functions.

In light of this, it may be helpful for Policy P-13 to include an explicit acknowledgment that designated confidential employees—such as ombuds personnel, CAPS, and EAP—are not required to report under this policy. This would ensure internal coherence, reflect current best practices, and protect the trusted status of these resources within our university community.

Public Comment 3 re Authority

The current draft of Policy P-13.10 lists several legal authorities underpinning the policy, including Title VII and Title IX. However, it does not reference Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funding—a category that includes public institutions like UWF.

This may be worth revisiting. Title VI is a foundational federal statute that supports the enforcement of equitable access in educational settings. It extends to a range of identities and experiences, including those rooted in shared ancestry, ethnic background, linguistic heritage, and perceived national origin. In recent years, federal guidance has emphasized the importance of Title VI in addressing forms of exclusion or harassment that may not meet the threshold for other types of legal violations but still create a hostile environment for affected students and employees.

Importantly, institutions have a responsibility under Title VI to take affirmative, non-disciplinary action to address and remedy such environments, even when the underlying conduct is protected speech. In this way, Title VI helps balance legal compliance with the preservation of an open, respectful campus climate.

Given these factors—and the rising incidence of campus-based bias related to immigration status, geopolitical identity, and ancestral heritage—explicitly including Title VI (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.) in the “Authority” section would not only improve legal accuracy, but also reinforce our institutional commitment to equal access and nondiscrimination.

This small addition could go a long way in strengthening the clarity and credibility of the policy.