Caffera, who became the Ole Miss University Ombuds in 2017, has been conveying feedback from hundreds of visitors with complaints about racism, including concerns about a confederate monument on campus. Numerous e-mails between UM administrators and donors containing racist commentary, and others between UM officials, including a handful sent to administrators by the Ombuds, were obtained through a series of public records act requests and leaked by two public interest whistleblower groups (“Ole Miss Information” and “Ole Miss Transparency”) throughout the spring of 2020. In August 2020, the Mississippi Free Press published a three-part investigation that exposing the relationships between university officials and wealthy donors with sexist and racist views. About that time, the university began investigating claims that visitors to the Ombuds Office, including the two whistleblower groups were creating a hostile work environment on the basis of race and national origin. University investigators sought access to Caffera's email and other files, and said that he was a target of the investigation.
Caffera retained his own attorney and filed suit in state chancery court, seeking an injunction to protect his confidential communications, discovery of the allegations against him, and declaratory relief upholding the Ombuds' Charter and awarding attorney's fees.
For his part, Caffera has never commented publicly about the various campus controversies or his involvement. His only statement to Mississippi Free Press has been to describe the role of a University Ombuds in general terms. (Mississippi Free Press; Caffera v. Univ. of Miss. Complaint; Ole Miss Information.)
This is extraordinary and Ombuds should follow this story closely. I do not recall another time when an Ombuds took legal action against their own organization. Clearly the stakes are high here.
ReplyDeleteSuggested correction: Paul joined Ole Miss in Feb 2017, according to the Ole Miss Office of the Ombuds website. https://ombuds.olemiss.edu/the-ombuds/
ReplyDeleteCorrected. Thank you. The office opened in 2015 and Caffera became the second Ombuds in 2017.
DeleteInteresting read:
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/winstonsmithomi?lang=en
He is cataloging the dysfunction.
DeleteThis is indeed monumental. On its face, it pertains to privilege and confidentiality of the ombuds office/position which is, of course, of the utmost importance to us all. However, in reading through the complaint I am concerned that underneath it all, it actually pertains to an institution's ability to raise questions about job performance and/or actions of an ombudsperson. It sounds like the initial inquiry from the institution was whether Caffera had been responsible for hostile communications. Shouldn't an institution have a right to ask that question if someone makes such a complaint? The challenge, of course, is that trying to answer that question by means of compelling disclosure of emails/communication with visitors would violate our principles and cause irreparable harm.
ReplyDeleteI worry that we have not done enough in the ombuds field to set specific standards for how we operate and perform our jobs, leaving us wide open to performance-related scrutiny. I know many of us have faced criticism due to misperceptions about our role. And yet, what about ombuds who really are failing to perform well or practice according to standards? What if an ombuds were to actually send harassing emails or create a hostile environment or worse? What does the ombuds community suggest for how this should be handled by an institution without destroying the tenet of confidentiality?
We should have guidelines for institutions on what ombuds can/can't do and how to handle issues of job performance. We should have more specific standards pertaining to ombuds practice, and eligibility guidelines including required educational components and continuing education, and a system for reporting misconduct and handling discipline. I don't believe we will ever have the stability or credibility we seek as a profession if we don't work to solve these issues.
I suppose I just think this case raises more than the issue of privilege and confidentiality.
If an ombuds sends someone harassing e-mails, the prima facia case of harassment would be based on the recipient's copy of the e-mail.
ReplyDeleteWhy are there even records to seek is what I would want to know. Shred shred shred!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis petition includes names and it clearly states that the signatories "do not endorse its release to the public."
DeleteI encourage the blog to consider removing this petition since it does not seem that its release is authorized by the institution's policy nor the signatories. I am concerned that posting this could cause further damage to visitors/supporters of the ombuds program.
A fair point. I removed the link to the petition. People interested in this will no doubt be able to find it on their own. For anyone else, it is probably sufficient to note that there is a petition with several dozen UM faculty signatories.
DeleteThe place sounds like a mess from top to bottom.
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/ariellehudson_/status/1339204452784484352
Details on the flaming dumpster fire in Oxford, Miss.
ReplyDeletehttps://mobile.twitter.com/ashtonpittman/status/1339187668861718530
Thank you very much, Ombudsblog, for your following this matter for all of us.
ReplyDelete