Minutes #587

John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Attendance

Present (29):

Jacob Adler, Chevy (Schevaletta) Alford, Cristina Lozano Arguelles, Elton Beckett, Ned Benton, Bibi (Silvina) Calderaro, Kathleen Collins, Joy Dunkley, Jennifer Dysart, Jonathan Epstein, Sergio Gallegos, Sergio Grossi, Veronica Hendrick, Michelle Holder, Karen Kaplowitz, Allison Kavey, Kyoo Lee, Jamie Longazel, Joseph Maldonado, Brian Maule, David Munns, Raymond Patton, Kumar Ramansenthil, Macushla Robinson, Amada Santiago, Francis Sheehan, Todd Stambaugh, Charles Stone, Violet (Sung-Suk) Yu

Absent (8):

Artem Domashevskiy, Diana (DeeDee) Falkenbach, Heath Grant, Anru Lee, Alejandro Garcia Lozano, Joshua Mason, Marie Springer, Shilpa Viswanath

Invited Guests:

Myrna Forney, Esq., Chief Legal Counsel, Donald Gray, Labor Designee and Ethics Officer

Agenda

1. Adoption of the agenda
2. Approval of Minutes #586 of the October 7, 2025, meeting
3. Election of 5 faculty to the Faculty Senate Technology Committee
4. Report of the Chair

• a. Statement in responses to EVC Alicia Alvero’s recent posting on Academic Freedom

5. Review of the Trump Administration’s “Compact,” recently sent to all American colleges and universities, which can be found at “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”
6. Proposed Resolution regarding the Trump Administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”
7. Invited Guests: Chief Legal Counsel Myrna Forney, Esq. and Labor Designee/Ethics Officer Donald Gray
8. New business

1. Adoption of the Agenda

Adopted.

2. Approval of Minutes #586 of the October 7, 2025 Meeting

Approved.

3. Election of 5 Additional Faculty to the Faculty Senate Committee on Technology

An additional five (5) members of the faculty were elected to the Faculty Senate Committee on Technology, bringing the membership this year to 16:

• Meryem Abouali (Math & CS)
• Daniel Blake (Art & Music)
• Jennifer Page (Philosophy)
• Ray Rosas (English) [starting in the spring semester]
• Ignacio Sanchez (Library)

4. Report from the Chair

4a. Response to EVC Alicia Alvero’s Recent Statement on Academic Freedom [for text, see Appendix]

President Karen Kaplowitz reviewed the situation faced by Economics Professor Geert Dhondt, who, in support of a student club, reserved a classroom to show the film “Israelism” during community hour. He has since learned that several complaints have been filed against him that are very slowly being adjudicated: the process is now in its sixth month.

President Kaplowitz again shared the September 26th statement made by Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost Alicia Álvero with the Senate. The most salient point of the conversation focused on the AVC’s following sentence:

“Academic freedom is not absolute. In this context, faculty are expected to have classroom discussions that are both relevant to the course subject matter and do not have the effect of being discriminatory or creating a hostile environment for students” [emphasis added].

Senator Todd Stambaugh initiated a discussion about the legal use of the term “hostile environment,” and Senator Allison Kavey explored the reality that classroom dynamics necessarily shift when uncomfortable topics are discussed. She emphasized that, despite such discomfort, difficult topics arise through course materials and the subjects they contain. Senator Kavey noted that sometimes the very title of the course itself can be uncomfortable; nonetheless, all of these things are certainly covered by Academic Freedom.

President Kaplowitz reported that a group of 16 faculty from various CUNY campuses had formed a group in the spring to defend CUNY in particular and higher education in general. The group is called the CUNY Alliance to Defend Higher Education (CADHE). She is one of the members in her role as a member of the CUNY faculty but not in her role as president of our Faculty Senate. On October 16, CADHE issued a response to the recent posting on academic freedom by Alicia Alvero, CUNY’s Interim Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs and Provost.

Karen also explained that the Faculty Senate leadership has posted on its FacSen-Announce listserv only documents approved by the Faculty Senate (and other relevant items from the UFS and JJ and CUNY administrations). She asked if there is any objection to her posting this statement so as to provide information about this matter to our faculty. There was no objection. [See the Appendix, following the Minutes, for the text of the CADHE statement.]

5. Review of the Trump Administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”

Review of the Trump Administration’s “Compact,” recently sent to all American colleges and universities, which can be found at “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” Noted.

6. Proposed Resolution Regarding the Trump Administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education”

The Trump Administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” was emailed to the Senate in advance of the meeting and also, via Zoom sharing, reviewed during the meeting.

Senator Ned Benton noted as a member of the University Faculty Senate Executive Committee that that organization is also in the process of reviewing the “Compact.” He recommended that information such as links to other universities’ responses and other outside resources should be shared. Additionally, he said that the UFS has written an excellent response to the “Compact,” and he suggested that at our next meeting we consider endorsing that document. This was agreed to.

7. Invited Guests: Chief Legal Counsel Myrna Forney, Esq. and Labor Designee & Ethics Officer Donald Gray

Our Chief Legal Counsel, Myrna Forney, Esq., was thanked for accepting the Senate’s invitation. Also welcomed was our Labor Designee and Ethics Officer Donald Gray.

Asked why the new system for filing complaints about alleged harassment and creating a hostile work or learning environment had been created, Counsel Forney said the Lippman Report and other related matters led to CUNY creating its Center for Inclusion, the purpose of which is to oversee the reporting process and to assist CDOs [Chief Diversity Officers], and to unify the process. Every CUNY campus has a CDO, who is part of the Office of Compliance & Diversity, which in turn is part of the Office of Legal Counsel. The portal is a case management system for complaints of discrimination or sexual misconduct. If the complaint falls outside EO or sexual misconduct, then it goes to other routes, such as the Student Complaint Against Faculty process.

Chief Legal Counsel Forney noted that the new portal for reporting has been created but is not yet active; individuals can file a complaint but, as of yet, these complaints are not fully integrated into the portal and are not dispersed to the appropriate office for review. The old portal is still active. A person can still file a complaint through the old system which will be reviewed and then forwarded to the proper oversight office. She described various “baskets” to which these complaints would be assigned. For example, student and faculty complaints each have their own processes. The Dean of Students addresses complaints connected to grade appeals, DDO, and Students with Disabilities (OAS). Specific academic concerns are directed to the Chair of the Department receiving the complaint.

She explained what happens when a student files a complaint about a faculty member: the student talks to the professor; goes to the dean of students; the dean helps the student determine the type of process to follow: if it’s a claim of harassment, it goes to the CDO; if it’s a claim regarding a disability, it goes to the OAS [Office of Accessibility Services]; if it involves academic concerns and is perceived not to be about discrimination, the student is told to go to the chair of the department.

Asked the process if someone anonymously files a report through the portal, Counsel Forney said they look to see whether it falls under Title 6 and Title 9; even if anonymous, it must be investigated. If it is an Equal Opportunity concern or a sexual misconduct concern, it is handled by the CDO. They give notice to the person who is accused, who is given a summary or copy of the complaint. The CDO is the factfinder, which means a neutral gathering of information to make a report. If it is a student making the complaint, it goes to the provost; if the complaint involves Employment Opportunity or sexual misconduct it goes to the president; if it’s a Title 9 complaint it goes to CUNY’s Title 9 Office.

Senator Jonathan Epstein asked if all complaints are investigated. Counsel Forney said if it is a Title 9 complaint, they will investigate; if it is a Title 6 complaint, the new law requires CUNY to at least investigate far enough to see if there is a valid allegation. He asked what criteria are used to define an act as “egregious enough” to warrant investigation after a complaint is made. Counsel Forney explained that any complaint of sexual misconduct would be investigated even if the individual who filed the original report no longer wanted to pursue the case.

Senator Michelle Holder asked what precipitated establishing a CUNY-wide system for collection of complaints and also asked if there is a CUNY-wide record of every complaint filed anywhere. Counsel Forney said she cannot say what precipitated the original system. As for the new system, it allows every college to have a case management system; before there was only a reporting system. The new system provides full-blown case management, permitting and ensuring that processes dictated by policies are implemented and followed at every step throughout the university. Yes, this means there is a record across the university of every case and every complaint and every outcome. So if a student harasses at LAGCC, for example, and becomes a student at John Jay and is alleged to harass at John Jay, they can see the entire record.

Senator Holder followed up by asking whether this doesn’t exist now. Counsel Forney said it doesn’t exist across campuses now. It is not mechanized. She can telephone LAGCC and ask about the student but there’s not a system at this time.

Senator Todd Stambaugh said that President Mason had told the Senate that Grand River Solutions (GRS) had been hired because of a backlog of complaints. He asked for a further explanation. Counsel Forney explained that the Lippman Report was issued at the same time a US Department of Education Office of Civil Rights complaint was made against CUNY and both resulted in an awareness that cases were taking a long time to adjudicate and if a college did not have a CDO, a backlog developed. In response, GRS was hired to assist all CUNY colleges with certain types of cases.

Senator Ned Benton asked about the Federal Settlement Agreement with CUNY in April 2023 as a result of an ADA complaint by a blind John Jay student. He asked if, to her knowledge, the Settlement Agreement will sunset in Spring 2026, when it is scheduled to do so. Counsel Forney said to her knowledge we are complying with the reporting requirements and she does not have knowledge that it will not sunset when it is scheduled to.

President Kaplowitz asked if it were determined that a claim was made maliciously, for example that the complainant knew that the report is false, would there be a penalty brought against such a person. Counsel Forney said yes.

President Kaplowitz asked what kinds of penalties might be brought against someone found to have violated our policies. Mr. Gray said they try to resolve an issue informally before using a contractual approach; if that’s not successful, the union and faculty members have a 3-step due process.

President Kaplowitz asked what kind of penalty might a person receive who hypothetically scheduled a classroom so a student club could see a film called – let’s say – Zanzibar [a hypothetical film] and there was a complaint that was sustained. Counsel Forney said she cannot and will not address specific matters but in the case of a hypothetical movie called Zanzibar she would say that if the department is found to not have the correct procedures in place, then the department would be told to put those procedures in place; if an individual is found to have done something egregious, there would be a range of possible penalties.

Counsel Forney said even when they determine that no violations have taken place or that allegations can’t be substantiated, there may be lessons to be learned, or training that is needed across the board. If so, they make those changes or provide that training.

Counsel Forney said when her Office is fully staffed, she would love to be invited back. She invited questions and concerns to be sent to her. Both guests were thanked for meeting with the Senate and for being forthcoming with their answers.

8. New Business

President Kaplowitz reported that the Office of Academic Affairs is planning to change the way students are advised. Currently, 28 full-time professional advisors focus specifically on General Education matters. They review students’ transcripts and guide them through completion of their General Education requirements. And, currently, advisement for majors is provided by the faculty of the departments housing the majors. The planned change is to have the 28 professional advisors also advise students about their major, leaving the faculty to provide mentoring. The concern was raised that the new planned shift in the advising structure was made without input from the faculty and that this might not be a good change for all majors. It was agreed that this topic will be revisited at our next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 2:50 PM.

Provided by V. Hendrick & K. Kaplowitz

Appendix

The following is a statement issued by a group of faculty at CUNY, including Karen Kaplowitz in her capacity as a member of the John Jay faculty but not as President of JJ’s Faculty Senate. The group is called the CUNY Alliance to Defend Higher Education (CADHE).

Academic Freedom at CUNY: The Latest Challenge

A Response to EVC Alvero’s Statement on Academic Freedom by the CUNY Alliance to Defend Higher Education (CADHE)

October 16, 2025

Academic freedom at the City University of New York (CUNY) is again under pressure. A recent statement on academic freedom by Interim Executive Vice Chancellor and University Provost Alicia Alvero on September 26 (p. 7 of the statement) states that “Academic freedom is not absolute. In this context, faculty are expected to have classroom discussions that are both relevant to the course subject matter and do not have the effect of being discriminatory or creating a hostile environment for students” (emphasis added).

The CUNY Alliance to Defend Higher Education (CADHE) views EVC Alvero’s statement as a dangerous challenge to academic freedom, in that it places an emphasis on the response to academic instruction versus the right of academics to teach their discipline. It distorts the very meaning of academic freedom, as defined by the AAUP and CUNY’s own Manual of General Policy, by recasting academic freedom as negotiable whenever a student, colleague, political actor, or community member feels offended or upset by legitimate course content as defined by its discipline.

EVC Alvero’s statement on academic freedom further stands in direct opposition to the rights and protections of faculty as established by court cases involving constitutional law, such as Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) and Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957). These cases established “the four essential freedoms” of a university: to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.

We are further concerned with another aspect of EVC Alvero’s statement: its emphasis that “academic freedom is not absolute” (emphasis added).

Project 2025, a conservative playbook for the remaking of American society, also calls for school policies to “recognize that academic freedom is not absolute.” And, as the New York Times reports, advisors to the federal government on higher education are now “the backbone of a potentially far-reaching administration effort to tie campus policies to Mr. Trump’s agenda and the federal government’s financial might.” The resulting “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” makes the offer of substantial federal grants to higher education institutions in return for, among other things, adopting policies recognizing that “academic freedom is not absolute.”

With the recent statement by EVC Alvero on academic freedom, we fear that CUNY is capitulating in advance to the conservative attack on higher education.

Other statements refuting EVC Alvero’s statement on academic freedom have also been released by the Professional Staff Congress of CUNY and the Borough of Manhattan Community College academic freedom committee. We strongly endorse these responses.

Given the current political climate, representatives of the faculty must resist the politicization and curbing of academic freedom. Academic freedom is at risk around the world, and we call on CUNY to respect and actively protect these freedoms, not curtail them.

CADHE Organizing Committee

• Cristina Bruns, LaGuardia Community College
• Sarah E. Chinn, Hunter College
• Jonathan Cornick, Queensborough Community College
• Beth Evans, Brooklyn College
• Paul Fess, LaGuardia Community College
• Jean Halley, College of Staten Island
• Ernest Ialongo, Hostos Community College
• Karen Kaplowitz, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
• Joel Kuszai, Queensborough Community College
• Douglas A. Medina, Guttman Community College
• Hillary Miller, Queens College
• Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome, Brooklyn College
• Philip A. Pecorino, Queensborough Community College
• Larissa Swedell, Queens College
• Emily Sohmer Tai, Queensborough Community College
• Karen Weingarten, Queens College
• Michael W. Yarbrough, John Jay College of Criminal Justice