03 January 2021

Jennifer Freyd to President Schill on 17 December 2020

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

Prejudice, Discrimination, and Intentionality - December 2021 Update

On 15 March 2021 the Ninth Circuit revived my lawsuit, setting good precedent with their decision.  In July I accepted a $450,000 settlement...