Discrimination and Harassment Adviser #1 - March 2021

“Actions speak louder than words. Let your words teach and your actions speak.”

 St. Anthony of Padua

I made contact in March 2021.

At that point, I was already experiencing serious workplace harm. I did what institutions tell staff to do: I contacted a campus Discrimination and Harassment Adviser through the internal pathway designed to provide guidance, information, and early intervention.

I left a voicemail.

I followed up with a message in writing via my academia.edu account. 

There was no response.

No acknowledgment.

No referral.

No information about options, protections, or process.

Just silence.

⸻

Silence Is Not a Neutral Outcome

A discrimination and harassment adviser is not required to investigate or determine outcomes. Their role is far more basic — and far more important.

It is to interrupt risk, provide procedural guidance, and ensure a person is not left exposed to foreseeable harm.

Silence does the opposite.

Silence leaves the individual exactly where the risk already exists — isolated, unsupported, and without information that could reduce harm.

This was not a missed email.

It was a failure of function.

⸻

When Silence Is Followed by Promotion

In January 2024, that same adviser was promoted to Campus Dean.

This raises an important governance question.

How does an institution progress individuals into senior leadership roles while unresolved failures in internal safety or advisory pathways remain unaddressed?

How does silence in a discrimination and harassment advisory role sit alongside advancement into positions of greater authority, without any visible process of review, learning, or remediation?

Promotion does not resolve earlier silence.

It changes the level of responsibility attached to it.

⸻

When Knowledge Enters the Picture

In January 2024, this person viewed my LinkedIn profile.

This is not conjecture. It is a factual record.

At that point, they were on notice of my identity and professional history. The situation was no longer abstract or anonymous.

And yet, there was still no contact.

No acknowledgment of the earlier outreach.

No attempt to close the loop.

Silence continued — now from a position of greater institutional authority.

⸻

This Is a Governance Question, Not a Personal One

I am not speculating about motive or intent.

I am asking about structure, accountability, and decision-making.

What governance considerations inform the promotion of individuals into senior campus leadership roles when prior failures in internal advisory pathways remain unresolved?

What due diligence occurs before such appointments?

And how are leaders supported — or directed — to act when doing so may place them in tension with WHS statutory obligations, the responsibilities inherent in discrimination and harassment advisory roles, and the institution’s stated Identity and Mission?

At what point does procedural compliance override the duty to intervene in known risk?

⸻

Silence Creates Foreseeable Risk

Under WHS frameworks, known risk that is not addressed remains a live issue.

When risk is foreseeable, inaction is itself a decision — one that carries consequences for individuals and for institutions.

A system that allows silence to persist, and then advances individuals into more senior roles without visible accountability, sends an internal signal:

That safety is negotiable.

That unresolved harm can be absorbed.

That speaking up does not guarantee response.

⸻

Why I Am Writing This

I am writing this because silence thrives when it remains private.

I am writing this because internal advisory pathways lose credibility when their failure carries no consequence.

And I am writing this because leadership without accountability is not leadership — it is institutional drift.

This account focuses on process, governance, and documented chronology, not personal intent or character.

This is not about one individual.

It is about what the system rewards —

and what it quietly permits to continue.

Source: contemporaneous record of events - Document 162

—-

Further reading

Shaw, S.M. (2022, 26 July). ‘Institutional betrayal, institutional courage and the church.’ Baptist News Global. [Online]: https://baptistnews.com/article/institutional-betrayal-institutional-courage-and-the-church/#.Y38fayXZXDv