From: Jennifer Freyd
Sent: Thursday, December 17, 2020 2:49 PM
To: 'Mike Schill'
Subject: RE: From Jennifer Freyd to Mike Schill
Dear Mike,
Thank you for your reply to my email regarding the 2021
retirement incentive. You write that you would like me to "be
treated the same as any other faculty member who is eligible to participate in
the program."
I’m heartened by your wish. At the same time, I ask
you to appreciate that this stated wish rings hollow for me. I have been asking
for decades to be paid “the same as” male psychology faculty of my rank.
Now the UO defends itself in federal court for paying me less than the men by
claiming that I am not “the same” – that I have a “different” job. I am
curious how one would justify a stated desire to treat me “the same” on this
occasion, but not in regard to my salary.
Unfortunately, despite your wish that I be treated “the
same” regarding the retirement incentive, that is not at all what is occurring.
No other UO faculty member, as far as I know, is being forced to choose between
taking the retirement incentive and continuing a civil rights lawsuit that has
been in court for years.
I will return to the specific topic of how I am being
singled out, but first it is important to note that there is nothing “the same”
about offering each faculty member a different amount of money to retire. This
is precisely how the 2021 incentive works, given that a year’s salary varies
greatly among faculty. I understand you are applying “the same” formula
to each eligible faculty member but it is a formula that creates different
incentive packages for each faculty member and that increases compensation
inequalities and inequities. You could instead have offered each eligible
employee a flat amount that is “the same” across employees. Some other
universities are taking this approach with their retirement incentive packages.
Second, the civil rights release requirement is not
equitable. I trust you are aware of the difference between equality and
equity, because this is such an important distinction for leaders who care
about reducing discrimination and inequity. Ending discrimination requires both
meeting the specific needs of the disadvantaged (e.g. wheelchair ramps,
progressive taxation, reparations, and affirmative action) and ultimately
removing the barriers that create that disadvantage (concepts captured by this
meme: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Image:Equality-equity-justice-lores.png
). The civil rights release requirement has profoundly different
implications for people who are already discriminated against versus those who
are not. The victims of discrimination are being asked to choose between
their right to pursue justice in court versus take the incentive. Those
who are privileged are not forced to make such a choice. This is
inequitable. An equitable policy would, at a minimum, allow people to
pursue their civil rights without having to forego a benefit otherwise
available to them.
Returning to the impact of the program on me, the specific
requirement to release claims already in court is uniquely injurious to me. One
needs a comparator for something to be the "same as.” The fact that the
rules regarding on-going lawsuits only impact me means at a practical level
that any rule pertaining to on-going lawsuits is necessarily targeted at
me. There is no meaning to “the same” when you have an n of
1. But there is real meaning to be targeted.
Fortunately, as the releases are not to be signed by anyone
for some time, you can still fix this harmful stance. The release required by
the university can be revised to exclude civil rights claims, limited to new
cases, or revised to be specific to claims associated with the incentive
program itself. Such a change would still satisfy your stated desire that all
be treated “the same.”
In summary, the 2021 retirement incentive in fact violates
your stated desire of equality (given different employees are offered different
amounts of money) and even more egregiously violates equity (given the
differential meaning of the release for victims of discrimination).
Indeed the program increases inequality and inequity. This is not a move
toward a university sincerely attempting to reduce inequality, inequity, or
discrimination. In addition to these general problems with the policy, it
is particularly injurious to me. Due to my unique circumstance – my status as
an n of 1 – unless you revise the release requirement, it would require I drop
an ongoing civil rights lawsuit in order to get a retirement benefit to which I
would otherwise be eligible. This creates for me a harmful new experience
at the UO of inequity. It is a new injury. No other UO employee is
being injured or retaliated against in this way.
Changing the approach to the release requirements of the
retirement incentive to alleviate these problems is an opportunity available to
you now to promote equity at the University of Oregon, an opportunity which I
hope you will take. As you consider taking this opportunity to move
toward equity for the benefit of the University, I specifically ask you as our
university’s leader and a member of our faculty to let me know: If I do not
drop my lawsuit will the university — your university— deny me my right to
receive the 2021 retirement benefit?
Jennifer
Jennifer J. Freyd, PhD
Professor
of Psychology, University of Oregon
Editor, Journal of Trauma & Dissociation
Affiliated Faculty, Women's
Leadership Lab, Stanford University
Founder and President, Center for
Institutional Courage