“As nightfall does not come all at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air — however slight — lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness.”

William O. Douglas, U.S. Supreme Court Justice 1939-1975, Whitman Class of 1920, and Debate Team Member

The removal of Jim Hanson as the Director of Forensics of the Whitman College debate team is cause for great concern for the countless people who value his extraordinary leadership since 1992. Over the past weeks, a myriad of students, alumni, and friends of Whitman debate have shared their positive personal experiences with Prof. Hanson. These stories illustrate his success in creating and maintaining a nationally successful debate team, but equally they reflect the inclusive and positive environment he fostered on the team, at the College generally, and in the national debate community.

In light of this tremendous outpouring of support and concern, we are genuinely perplexed that the College may have removed Prof. Hanson due to Title IX concerns, and we question whether the College appropriately handled the process that led to his removal. We share the College’s commitment to ensuring that Whitman is a nondiscriminatory educational environment, but we cannot countenance the scapegoating of an individual who has done so much to promote that goal.

Accordingly, the undersigned alumni, students, faculty, staff, parents of Whitman students, and friends of Whitman debate urge the College to promptly commence an investigation into the basis for and events leading up to the decision to remove Prof. Hanson. In light of his 21 years of dedicated service to Whitman, nothing less will be satisfactory. We acknowledge that privacy issues related to personnel matters and Title IX investigations prevent a public airing of every detail of the process, but reflexively citing “privacy concerns” is an insufficient response to serious questions regarding the adequacy of the College’s approach to Title IX complaints generally and Prof. Hanson’s removal specifically.

To that end, we expect that the College will honor the finest traditions of a liberal arts institution, which include the capacity for critical self-examination, undaunted in the face of scrutiny. Specifically, we ask the College to immediately engage an independent Title IX expert who is trained and experienced in conducting such investigations, consistent with Whitman’s strong tradition of employing independent review processes.  The scope of this investigation should include careful evaluation of the investigation and decision-making that resulted in Prof. Hanson’s removal, as well as a full review of Whitman’s policies and procedures concerning Title IX, including the College’s response to the recent “Dear Colleague” letter issued by the US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. We also request that the College offer an opportunity for review and comment of the investigation findings, so as to encourage the continued participation and confidence of the undersigned.

An independent investigation is necessary to answer important questions identified in the attached Exhibit A, such as: Does the College have reasonable expectations regarding faculty’s and staff’s ability to monitor and control the conduct of adult students, given the limitations on their resources, training and authority? and Do the College’s investigative standards guarantee fair treatment of all parties to a complaint and effectively promote a nondiscriminatory educational environment? It is incumbent on the Board of Trustees and the Board of Overseers to ensure the answer to each question is an unqualified “yes” – or else to take prompt corrective action. We trust that the College will answer this call, not only to ensure that Prof. Hanson is treated fairly, but to protect current and future members of the Whitman community.

Exhibit A

(1) Are the College’s expectations regarding how faculty and staff are to address discrimination and monitor and correct student behavior appropriately tailored to their resources, training, and authority?

• Has the College adequately trained faculty and staff to identify discrimination and respond to allegations of discrimination?

• Has the College adequately empowered faculty and staff to discipline students for off-campus misconduct?

• Has the College clearly identified the specific, practical means it expects faculty and staff to employ in controlling student behavior?

• When faculty or staff members are charged with overseeing the behavior of students, are they given the necessary training, authority, and resources to promptly correct the problem?

• In tailoring its expectations, does the College consider the unique aspects of programs like debate, that require faculty to engage in close, day-to-day working relationships with students?

• Has the College provided the debate program adequate resources to conduct outreach to, recruit, and retain a diverse group of debate students?

(2)  Are the fact-finding procedures used by the College to determine the validity of discrimination complaints and the sufficiency of faculty and staff response adequate, reliable, and impartial?

• Does the College utilize competent, experienced professionals to conduct these investigations?

• Are investigations sufficiently broad, including interviews of all people likely to have knowledge relevant to the investigation?

• Do interviewers ask open-ended questions of witnesses likely to lead to unbiased responses?

• Do investigations seek to develop all relevant evidence, rather than focusing only on developing evidence likely to comport with investigators’ preexisting beliefs?

• Do those accused of misconduct or failure to prevent the misconduct of others receive an adequate opportunity to present evidence to rebut accusations against them, including being confronted with the charges and the evidence against them?

• For non-tenured faculty and staff, does the College employ procedures sufficient to ensure the fairness and reliability of its disciplinary decisions?

(3) When the College identifies discrimination, is its response targeted to remedying the problem?

• Do College administrators take prompt, sufficient corrective measures to stop ongoing discriminatory conduct by students including appropriate disciplinary sanctions?

• Are corrective measures employed by the College focused primarily on the promotion of a nondiscriminatory educational environment rather than scapegoating individual employees or avoiding legal liability?

• Are all faculty and staff, including administrators, appropriately counseled, evaluated, and disciplined for failing to control student behavior?

• Does the College recognize and celebrate faculty and staff’s efforts and achievements in fostering a welcoming, diverse, nondiscriminatory environment?