I am one of the staff members of the women's center whose employment was terminated the day that the new leadership was effective. I wanted to give some additional information and clarify a couple of things.

1) Merging Directorship: Spencer's qualifications should not be questioned or at issue. I have no opinion about whether she can or should be the director over both centers. She did not go through the vetting process of the search committee of which she was a member. This can be seen as questionable. But in the end, the real question here is that two important centers have been marginalized by having one leader where there were two. An additional concern was that the women's center director was also adjunct faculty in the women and gender studies department. This is an important link to academia. Spencer is not currently a member of faculty.

It is true that the centers were not merged. However the directorship of the two centers was merged. And as members of the search committee indicated,

"The value placed on women has been damaged by combining the 2 director positions. And this merge is inconsistent with the advice and assessment of academic evaluators of other top universities on the needs of the women’s center."

2) Search Committee for Director of Women's Center: The search committee for the director of the women's search asked that a national search be conducted when they began their work. They were unable to do this. The women's center director position was only posted on the Vanderbilt website and indicated that only middle Tennessee applicants would be considered. After turning down two candidates from the local search, the search committee then sent a letter to the Provost recommending that a national search be conducted. Spencer was a member of this search committee. The same week that the letter was sent from the search committee, the Provost appointed Spencer as the director.

3) Provost McCarty and National Searches: Provost McCarty indicated that the rationale for not continuing with a national search for the director was due to challenging economic times and that there was talent on campus to be engaged. However, a national search was conducted for the newly created associate director position at the women's center.

4) Resources: Sandy Stahl indicates in the article that the resources of the women’s center were not diminished. However, the women's center has a net loss of staff through this process. The director of the women's center resigned in October 2008. The librarian, who had been with the women's center for 19 years, was laid off in May 2009. On July 1st, the day that Spencer's appointment was effective, 1 staff person from Project Safe and 1 staff person from Gender Matters were terminated. Both were alumni of Vanderbilt. On July 8th, the administrative assistant, who had been with the university fro more than 10 years, was terminated. On July 17th, the second staff person of Project Safe resigned. In October 2008, the women's center had a staff of 6 full time and one part time. Currently, the women's center has a staff consisting of one shared director, one newly created associate director, one program staff person, one administrative assistant and one part time editorial staff person. So that is 3 full time staff positions, one shared director and one part time person. That is a net loss of staff resources. And even if another program staff person is hired, it still results in an overall net loss-- with a concentrated staff loss in the Project Safe program.

In addition, the women’s center role was not primarily a programming unit. While the center provided programming as means to create awareness, its primary mission and role was as an agent of change within the institution. The Dean of Students is comprised of units and departments that are responsible primarily for programming. It is not in this area that the women’s center needed additional resources. The women’s center has a long and robust history of collaborating with the various dean of students’ offices for programming purposes.

5) External Review of Women's Center: An external review of the women's center was conducted at the request of then director, Linda Manning. It was about a one year process which concluded in May 2008. The final report was submitted to the Provost in September 2008.

This report was conducted by directors of other highly acclaimed women’s centers around the country. The process was compiled from data gathered from a random survey on campus, focus groups with stakeholders of the women’s center, interviews with staff of the women’s center as well as university officials. The results of the review gave the women’s center some helpful constructive criticism including the perception that a majority of the focus was on violence against women prevention work. But it also highlights some important, and unreleased, commentary about the climate at Vanderbilt. The report indicated that a repetitive theme in all of their data collection was that the climate at Vanderbilt for women was hostile. And that in order for the women’s center to be successful, the administration needed to ensure that the women’s center was able to offer a critical lens to processes and policies which contributed to this climate. Unfortunately this external review was never made public. And now the women’s center has been moved under layers of hierarchy, weakening its ability to provide true advocacy and/or a critical voice.

6) Support network for students: In the article, Spencer is quoted: “The Dean of Students Office is familiar with programming and with incident response, which will benefit the 24-hour support line that we have for Project SAFE,” Spencer said. “The Dean of Students Office really runs the support network for students’ health and well-being and does programming across campus, so I’m excited to share resources and strengthen that relationship.”

The crisis line (now called support line) was apparently accidently forwarded to one of the former project safe staff who was terminated. The 24-hour Project Safe crisis line was forwarded to the personal cell phone of Kacy Silverstein from July 2009 to September 9, 2009. Though Silverstein reported this to the University immediately, the line remained forwarded to her cell phone until 9-09-09. The Orbis staff verified this by calling the support line and getting Silverstein's private voicemail.

It should also be known-- especially to students-- that the confidentiality policy has changed now that the women's center reports into the Dean of Students structure. Before this move, the women's center was able to maintain complete confidentiality for students affected by violence. So when a student came to the women' center to received support, advocacy and resources, no one outside of Project Safe staff would know unless the student signed a release. With the exception of the Counseling Center, the Dean of Students cannot provide this same degree of confidentiality.

7) Unilateral Decision: The changes made to the women's center were made unilaterally without input from the search committee, students or other stakeholders of the center. While, of course, the administration has every right and power to do so, it can be debated whether they should. Student groups with whom the women's center worked have every right to be upset that they were not consulted or involved. To quote from members of the search committee: 

"The process by which this transition occurred has eroded trust among stakeholders and comprised the ability to form alliances across campuses. The unilateral move of one unit to another without the input of stakeholders is cause for grave concern and confirms the conclusion made by outside evaluators that the climate at Vanderbilt is unfavorable to women."

8) History and Success of the Women's Center: In the articles and letter responses to a virtual campaign, it seems the administration is implying that the women's center has not been successful or effective prior to these changes. While this is subjective, we can look at the women's center's rich history and see its effect in the creation of the childcare centers on campus, the parental leave policy for faculty upon the birth or adoption of a child, the revisions to the sexual assault policy on campus, the creation and compilation of resources on campus, the creation of the women's faculty organization, the outreach to women in STEM, the increased numbers of women receiving support and advocacy as survivors of violence against women, etc. The women's center has been a voice for women and men on campus. It has provided a critical lens to the policies and structures at Vanderbilt that may adversely affect the women on campus since 1978. In the 2007-08 academic year, the women's center served over 60 students, staff and faculty directly by being advocates and providing resources to those affected by violence. The Center provided over 40 trainings and workshops on topics such as violence against women, sexual harassment, sex education, women in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), advised 6 student groups and 9 staff/faculty/community groups, provided research to various community groups, served as liaisons to campus and community task forces, sponsored and co-sponsored over 100 programs and so much more. Perhaps the assessors of the external review say it best in their report to the Provost:

"Regardless of the actual wording, embedded in the mission of the Women’s Center is its primary role as a catalyst for and advocate of gender equity within the University.  It is important to understand and acknowledge the complex relationship a Women’s Center has with the larger institution because of its role as an internal change agent. 

This balance of individual and institutional advocacy and the role of change agent on a campus suggest three other issues as important context for any Women’s Center on any campus.  First, no Center fully meets, nor should be expected to meet, the needs of everyone on campus.  It is important that the Center’s work be focused on institutional change, which means not every individual’s specific agenda can take priority.  Second, given the role of a Women’s Center and the resultant complex relationship within the institution, conflict is a normal and expected outcome of its advocacy work, and Women’s Center staff members are, therefore, put in the role of being risk-takers.  If a Center is “doing its job” it is working to change the status quo.  Those invested in the status quo are often uncomfortably challenged by such work. 

 The people with whom we spoke were supportive of the mission, work, and staff of the MCWC.  Even among those who disagreed with specific activities or approaches undertaken by the Center, no one remarked that the mission was irrelevant or unnecessary."

It is important to understand and acknowledge the complex relationship a Women’s Center has with the larger institution because of its role as an internal change agent.