Who made the reports?

The unsubstantiated initial intake reports (not complaints) were provided by staff members (not the potential complainants) to the Title IX office. Under CSU policy, certain employees who become aware of possible violations of the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy have an obligation to make a report as responsible employees, even if they have not personally observed what they are reporting.

What happens after a report is filed?

After receiving an initial intake report, the Title IX officer follows CSU’s procedure and reaches out to the person identified as the potential complainant to offer services and resources, invites the individual to discuss the allegations and advises them of their right to file a complaint. This is the process that was followed with the reports mentioned in the article.

Why didn’t an investigation take place?

Complaints against a campus president are made to the Chancellor’s Office. If the Chancellor’s Office received a complaint against a campus president, it would be up to the appropriate official at the Chancellor’s Office to determine whether an investigation is warranted, and to investigate the complaint. Here, in each case, the Title IX officer reached out to the potential complainant, alerted them to the process, and offered to assist them in preparing the complaint to the Chancellor’s Office. None accepted her offer of assistance, and no complaint was ever filed.

Was the president notified of the reports?

No, the president was not notified of the reports or their content at any time before they were provided to the LA Times years later. It is important to note that, to encourage reporting and privacy, the actual reports are kept confidential until such time as a formal investigation is commenced.

What does President Virjee say about the situation?

“The CSU has insisted, correctly, that all matters were handled pursuant to CSU systemwide policy and practice. Specifically, and consistent with policy, I was not made aware of the third-party intial intake reports described by the Times, or their content, at the time they were received. Instead, the intake reports were reviewed, evaluated, and closed without my knowledge or consultation.

I did not learn of the reports or their content until they were shared with the Times years later.

Had I been made aware of the reports and their inaccurate content at the time they were received, my primary concern would have been to make sure all involved were okay and then provide clarification of the misleading descriptions in the reports. To do that, I would have insisted on two things.

First, more fulsome outreach to the students involved to assure they received any services needed, and to assure they did not wish to pursue the matter. And second, to assure investigation and clarification of the exaggerated and inaccurate descriptions in the reports and correct any inaccurate records. That never happened because the reports were not shared with me. Instead, years later, I am being asked to explain and clarify on a cold record, what I view as exaggerated and inaccurate third-party descriptions.

Simply put, pursuant to CSU policy, the reports were not shared with me, preventing me from taking any action to address them.

For fairness to all parties involved, any reported claims of misconduct received should be subject to a thorough review, including sharing of what has been reported with all concerned so that the record can be made clear. That did not happen here. I hope that the Board will address this now-obvious inconsistency in the CSU’s Title IX policies, so that a similar fate does not befall someone else.”

Did the president violate CSU policy?

No, there have been no substantiated violations of the CSU Nondiscrimination Policy by the president.