An editorial in the Sunday edition of the daily student newspaper decried the mistreatment of an staff member because of his ethnicity. According to the opinion piece, Ravi Raj was subjected to racial slurs and anti-union threats. The editors were especially galled that Raj was unable find resolution through "official avenues for employees to voice complaints of discrimination," including the University Ombuds. Raj has pursued conflict resolution with management at HMDC, HR, and even the office of the University Ombudsman without success. When contacted, HR and the office of the Ombudsman declined to comment, citing employee confidentiality. While this may be simply their policy, someone needs to step in and speak up on Raj’s behalf. One of the mechanisms in place must be broken—if not the whole system—as it appears Raj’s case has been lost without resolution. Even if there is a reason that Raj’s superiors, HR and the office of the Ombudsman have not pursued his complaints, their official silence has not allowed for resolution of Raj’s unfortunate situation.(Harvard Crimson.)
The criticism of the Harvard Ombuds is unjustified and reflects a failure to appreciate the mandate of an Organizational Ombuds. The professional standards preclude Ombuds from revealing the identities of their visitors. The fact that the Ombuds would not discuss the case with a reporter is evidence only that the Ombuds was practicing ethically.
Related posts: FGCU Follow Up; New Ombuds at York University Defends Impartiality; Washington Post Conflates Ombuds Reporting Line With Neutrality.
No comments:
Post a Comment