Campus Peer Review Committee

Memorial Glade

Objective and Jurisdiction

The campus Peer Review Committee (PRC) provides guidance and advice to the Vice Provost for the Faculty when the Office for the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination (OPHD) has found a faculty member to have violated the UC Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment (SVSH).

The Vice Provost for the Faculty serves as the Chancellor’s designee for faculty discipline. The Peer Review Committee is to assist the Vice Provost for the Faculty and the Chancellor in SVSH cases to ensure that disciplinary measures are effective, fair, and consistent. The constitution and function of the Peer Review Committee conforms with UC Berkeley’s local implementation of systemwide UC procedures for the adjudication of SVSH cases involving faculty respondents.

Membership and Terms of Service

The campus Peer Review Committee is constituted as a six-member standing committee, chaired by the Special Faculty Advisor to the Chancellor on SVSH. The PRC is responsible for reviewing all cases in which OPHD has found a campus employee holding an academic title to have violated the UC Policy on SVSH, with two exceptions: Graduate Student Instructors, whose cases are handled by the Center for Student Conduct, and senior administrative leaders, whose cases are referred to the UC systemwide Peer Review Panel.

  • The Peer Review Committee is composed of Senate faculty. The selection of a six-member standing Peer Review Committee is made by the Chancellor from a slate of candidates recommended by the following entities: the Chancellor’s Cabinet, the Council of Deans, and the Berkeley Division of the Academic Senate. A pool of six standing members ensures the availability of members for any given case.

  • Members shall serve for terms of no less than two, and no more than three years, with a staggered rotation so that one-third of the Committee is renewed every two years.

  • Peer Review Committee members receive appropriate training, approved by the campus Title IX officer, prior to service.

  • The Peer Review Committee is a confidential committee. Members sign conflict of interest and confidentiality agreements.

  • View the current Peer Review Committee roster here.

Process

  • For each individual case reviewed by the Peer Review Committee, an ad hoc three-member subcommittee receives and reviews the OPHD report, which summarizes the investigation and states the finding of a SVSH policy violation. Subcommittee members may consult legal counsel, OPHD, and/or the PATH to Care Center for advice or to ask clarifying or informational questions, as needed. The Peer Review Committee is not an investigative body and does not interview witnesses; however, the Peer Review Committee may request more information from OPHD if needed.

  • The Peer Review Committee has ten business days after receipt of a report from OPHD in which to provide its recommendation. The subcommittee assigned to the case meets with the Vice Provost for the Faculty and the Peer Review Committee chair to offer an oral presentation of its non-binding, confidential views and advice regarding the proposed sanctions or resolution. The Peer Review Committee does not produce a written report.

  • As provided in APM-016, the UC Senate Bylaws, and UC Berkeley’s faculty adjudication procedures for SVSH cases, the two main options that the Peer Review Committee can consider recommending are (a) a negotiated Early Resolution agreement (APM-015, Senate Bylaw 336C) or (b) filing a formal disciplinary charge through the Privilege & Tenure process (APM-016).

  • If the Vice Provost for the Faculty disagrees with the recommendation of the subcommittee, the Vice Provost for the Faculty meets with the Peer Review Committee to explain the reason for the disagreement.

  • If the decision of the Vice Provost for the Faculty is to file formal disciplinary charges, the charge letter filed with the Committee on Privilege & Tenure will include the PRC’s recommendation and an explanation of the Vice Provost for the Faculty’s rationale for following or departing from that recommendation.