Unclear

There is a saying among lawyers that goes something like "bad cases make bad law." And there is an item pending review at the systemwide Senate level that I suspect comes from a particular situation that arose somewhere in the UC system, leading someone to say that there ought to be a law. And now there is.

There is a proposal to add a step in the usually-mundane process of providing a letter of recommendation for an former employee:

Any academic appointee who elects to provide an Official Letter of Recommendation to a current or former employee, which includes academic appointees, staff employees, as well as student employees, of the University of California is required to first consult with the appropriate entities to determine if the employee is a respondent in a sexual harassment complaint filed with the University.

An academic appointee is prohibited from providing an Official Letter of Recommendation, if it is determined the employee is a respondent in a sexual harassment complaint filed with the University, and any of the following has occurred:

1. The employee is determined in a final administrative decision to have committed sexual harassment.

2. Before a final administrative decision is made, and while an investigation is pending, the employee resigns from their current position.

3. The employee enters into a settlement with the University based on the allegations of the sexual harassment complaint.

Note that this would apply to any faculty member who had a TA or RA, faculty members with grants who employed someone for any purpose under the grant, etc. It would also cover - as employees seeking letters of recommendation - students whose privacy is protected by law. So the former employer would be asking for information about a student that might arguably be seen as an invasion of privacy.

The author of the bill that seems to be the source of this proposal apparently realized that there are free speech issues involved in telling those in supervisory positions what they can or cannot say. So the proposal continues:

Academic appointees, including emeriti faculty, may provide references or letters in a personal capacity, and the academic appointee is not required to consult with the appropriate entities to determine if the employee is a respondent in a sexual harassment complaint filed with the University. Personal references or letters of recommendation (that are not an Official Letter of Recommendation) written by current Administrators and Supervisors, as defined previously, are often perceived as being Official Letters of Recommendation by virtue of their position. It is essential that Administrators and Supervisors include the language for Personal Letters of Recommendation in APM - 036-0 f. so that it is clear their letter represents their own personal perspective of the employee who is requesting the reference. References or letters of recommendation written by former Administrators and Supervisors may be written in an Official or a personal capacity (APM - 036-0 f.)

The distinction between official and personal seems (to yours truly) to be a rather ephemeral concept. If you were an outside employer asking for a reference, and you received a letter from a past supervisor at UC, would you really think that the letter was "official." What does that mean? Does it mean that the campus chancellor or the UC president or the Regents have somehow reviewed the case? 

Former governor Jerry Brown once said something to the effect that every problem does not need a law. Undoubtedly, something egregious happened that triggered this issue. And the "solution" got written into law requiring UC to add something to its procedures.

Anyway, for better or worse, all of this can be found at:

https://senate.universityofcalifornia.edu/_files/underreview/apm-036-review-january-2025.pdf.