This came out a few weeks ago while the institution had an unwritten policy to believe respondents have no reason to lie:
A reason like “you’ve already been told what your issue is?
This literally makes me sick to my stomach to read.
But yes, Ombuds Office, it would have been incredibly helpful to have been given a reason and not an excuse as to why no public officer wanted to serve their duties to their office because they couldn’t imagine my complaint was a real. fucking. complaint:
Again, if I have to go through this paragraph by paragraph to point out the hypocrisy, I will:
But the Ombuds Office understands. When *provosts* ignore their duties to their office and lawyers edit documents to make sure that their unwritten procedural unfairness is now written procedural unfairness, that’s *fine.* How many times am I going to have to quote this language until no student can be silenced with it again:
I can’t even.
This must have been the latest buzzword. The institution pretended it cared about it too:
Why does any institution need to update the member of the public with a realistic response time? Just copy and paste this into an institutional documentat somewhere and it will be *fine*:
Ignoring it works too, I’m told, and it’s *far* less work. Boy, institutions that actually hold their officers to account are *suckers*:
This is why it’s important to have a way to dismiss complaints *before* the investigation. This all sounds like a hell of a lot of work:
See? If you take these “expectations”:
and ignore all policies, “legislative acts” and empathy, none of these have to be trained for. Overcoming unexamined biases is really hard to do, so don’t!
I’m too much of a completionist. Which pile of bullshit were we exploring? Oh, right. This one:
But we tell ourselves all our actions are in good faith, so none of his applies. It’s thousands of dollars to sue us, and the complainant has spent the past two years working full time in their attempt to file a complaint. We’re golden!
And if a lawyer says that policies don’t have to be just, believe them. A lawyer can write get-out-of-policy violations free cards.
Well, there’s no chance a broke artist on assistance can sue us, so it’s fair, right?
Like absolute dirt with zero rights! I mean, they were a student! There’s no legal reason not to!
Trauma-informed? What is that? I’m sure “because I said so” can be understood logically and clearly by anyone, neurotypical or not. If e’re giving them entirely new injustices to hyperfocus on, they should be thanking us:
Being accountable? Who wrote this? Was an institutional trainer involved? They know nothing about how real institutions are to be run.
No lawyer believes members of the public can sue just because institutions have violated their policies! All lawyers know policies are not legally applicable, so there are zero consequences for violating them:
*We* decide if we violate our own governing act and that’s that.
Wrong. Any officer may reach into the POWER of their GUT and decide what is or isn’t in violation of multiple administrative laws.
But if you follow the rule of law you have to do what “the man” says, (even if we are “the man.”)
And if you don’t abuse it, someone else will. Abuse it while you got it:
But we decide what’s fair. Checkmate, “natural justice”!
But only if you decide to investigate the complaint. Why is this so hard. You don’t have to be impartial in the early intake process. Every institution knows that:
‘When I asked the OMB executive director if she could be impartial for five minutes, she told me she could not.