UW Gazette, November 1, 1995
     
     UW president Dr. James Downey has issued a statement
saying that a financial penalty has been imposed on a
faculty member after a complaint of sexual assault. Here is
the text of the president's statement, which is directed "to
the University of Waterloo community".
     
     A case has recently been concluded under the provisions
of University Policy 53, Part VII, termination of tenured
appointments. The case involved Professor Sehdev Kumar of
the Department of Environment and Resource Studies, Faculty
of Environmental Studies.
     Because I consider it important for the University
community to be informed of such matters it is my intention,
at the conclusion of a case under Policy 53, to publish
either a summary of my decision or, in the event of an
appeal, the decision of the external adjudicator, where such
a decision can be made public.
     A recommendation for Professor Kumar's dismissal was
made by Dean Jeanne Kay of Environmental Studies on the
grounds that he had sexually harassed and sexually assaulted
an undergraduate student in the Faculty of Environmental
Studies. In addition, it was alleged that Professor Kumar
had failed to take adequate measures on a field trip to
provide the help and protection that the students required;
that he had breached his obligations to adhere to reasonable
and proper directions from his Dean, in particular, how the
field trip was represented and whether or not University
credits would be granted for the trip; and that he had
committed unwanted touching of other participants. Professor
Kumar was fully apprised in writing of all the complaints
made against him and given an opportunity to respond to
them.
     Dean Kay's recommendation to initiate dismissal
procedures was communicated to Professor Kumar, in writing,
following consultation with the Vice-President, Academic &
Provost. Professor Kumar subsequently indicated his
intention to contest the dismissal and this was communicated
to the Board of Governors by the Vice-President, Academic &
Provost. As prescribed by Policy 53, the Board appointed me
as a committee of one to decide the case on the Board's
behalf.
     Professor Kumar was fully involved as the matter
proceeded and the requirements of Policy 53 were strictly
followed. I met with the complainants and later with the
respondent, and I considered each of the allegations against
Professor Kumar and his response to those allegations.
     Having weighed the evidence I found that there was
ample reason to conclude that Professor Kumar's planning and
leadership of the 1994 Himalayan Field Study Program was se
riously deficient and had resulted in disappointment,
distress, danger, and considerable bitterness for the
participants. More serious, however, as grounds for
dismissal, was Professor Kumar's sexual harassment of a
female student.
     The student recounted two incidents of sexual
harassment. The first involved fondling in a tent shared by
a number of the field trip participants; the second and
separate incident was his kissing her on the mouth when they
were alone.
     Since Professor Kumar denied all these allegations, for
me it became a matter of credibility, of whom to believe. It
was clear from my interviews with the complainants that the
student's story, when told to the group, was found credible
and believed by the others. I too found her to be credible
and accepted her recollection of the events.
     While Professor Kumar's unethical behaviour towards her
was reprehensible, the more so because of his position and
the circumstances in which his behaviour occurred, it did
not, in my judgment, constitute adequate grounds for his
dismissal. The first offence, fondling, was committed in a
setting where others were present and able to come to the
student's assistance had Professor Kumar not desisted. The
second, kissing on the mouth, occurred some days later when
Professor Kumar was alone with the student. When she made it
clear that his advances were unwelcome he did not persist
further. These offenses, though inexcusable and warranting a
severe penalty, did not, I felt, justify dismissal.
     Since Professor Kumar had been subject to a penalty of
suspension with pay since January 1, 1995, I did not believe
that a further period of suspension from teaching duties
would serve a useful purpose. After consultation with a
number of people, including Professor Sally Lerner, Chair of
Environment and Resource Studies, I was satisfied that
Professor Kumar posed no threat of further behaviour of this
sort towards students.
     It was therefore my decision to impose upon Professor
Kumar a penalty of six months' salary effective July 1,
1995. In setting this penalty, mindful of the hardship such
an action would cause to Professor Kumar's family, I
indicated that the University would be willing to pro-rate
his salary to 75% over a two-year period. Professor Kumar
was required to resume normal teaching duties in September
1995.
     Professor Kumar was also put on notice for the duration
of his employment at the University that any further
substantiated allegation of sexual harassment would result
in his dismissal. He was also prohibited from conducting any
University of Waterloo or non-University of Waterloo
sponsored field trip or tour without the written permission
of the Dean.
     Although not a consideration in rendering the decision,
I did comment on the matter of accounting of expenses since
it was a major cause of the rupture of relations that
occurred between Professor Kumar and the participants in the
Himalayan Field Study Program and an issue much discussed in
my meetings with the complainants. I concluded that while it
was reasonable for the complainants to request that
Professor Kumar provide a detailed accounting, and while
their concerns appeared to have substance, this was a matter
to be dealt with by the Canada-Commonwealth Human Ecology
Council (C-CHEC), the organization which sponsored the field
trip in which the complainants and others were participants.
In his submission, Professor Kumar stated that the accounts
and the report for the trip had been submitted to C-CHEC and
it would therefore appear that C-CHEC is in a position to
give such an accounting if it chooses to do so.
     Professor Kumar served notice of his intention to
appeal my decision to an external adjudicator. On October
18, 1995, he wrote to withdraw that appeal. While admitting
no wrongdoing, he writes in his letter as follows:
     I also wish to take this occasion to express my
profound regrets to you, Dean Kay, the students concerned
and the university at large, that I have been regarded as
an instrument of disruption in the life of the Campus, or
as the cause of emotional and other strain to several
members of the university community.I
     In future, I will undertake to serve my students and
colleagues at the university in the best ways possible to
enhance the reputation of the university in accordance with
the highest ethical standards.
     Some have expressed the view that Professor Kumar has
been dealt with rather harshly. The complainants, however,
feel that he has been dealt with too leniently. I can only
say that I felt at the time, and still feel, based on the
facts as I was able to establish them, that the penalty was
appropriate to the offence.
     This is the first time that Policy 53, Section VII, has
been used to conclusion and in the process a number of
concerns about its procedures have been raised. I am
supportive of a comprehensive review of Section VII in light
of the experience of this case and two others currently
underway.
     
     -------------------------------------------------------
     
     Dr. Sehdev Kumar - formerly Sami Gupta - has been a
professor at UW since 1969. His doctorate is in the
psychology of perception,and he has worked in such areas as
communications, the history and philosophy of science, and
myths. His summer field trips to the Himalayan region of
India have taken place from time to time since 1980.