The University concluded seven-month research into a scholar’s declaration of race-based discrimination perpetrated through the former executive director of the Center for Women in Law and found the executive director’s alleged conduct did not violate the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy.
In May, Ayana D’Aguilar, who graduated from UT, spoke out on social media in February about her revel in interning for then-executive director Linda Chanow, as suggested by The Daily Texan in March. D’Aguilar, who identifies as Jamaican-American, stated that Chanow, a white girl, made racist feedback to D’Aguilar, leading her to give up her internship at the Center. Chernow resigned from her position following the Texan’s authoritative coverage.
“Based on its investigation, OIE (Office for Inclusion and Equity) concluded that there was inadequate proof to find Respondent (Chanow) in violation of the University’s Nondiscrimination Policy,” the record says. “The proof failed to exhibit that Complainant (D’Aguilar) was subjected to remedy because of, or in part of, her race.”
In an assertion furnished to the Texan, Chanow stated she became “very pleased” with the investigation’s findings. “I fully condemn racial prejudice of all kinds,” Chernow wrote. “When I began my work at the Center for Women in Law nearly ten years ago, I vowed that the Center could represent all ladies attorneys and bridge gaps between girls of all races and ethnicities, backgrounds, and cultures, and I am extraordinarily pleased with our development on this area.”
According to the University investigation performed through OIE and acquired using the Texan, D’Aguilar said Chanow created an antagonistic painting environment and disparaged her on race. D’Aguilar cited ten comments Chanow made as evidence of the allegations, each of which OIE investigated.
According to the investigation, D’Aguilar said Chanow told her that she would “never experience at ease in the place of work because (she is) black,” that she might have to “suck it up” when it comes to racial issues, and that she should consciousness on commonalities that she has with white women.
In the investigation findings, OIE mentioned that Chanow “admitted making some of the feedback” and “denied making different remarks or introducing context to them.” However, Chernow is no longer specific to the Texan, which remarks she admitted to or denied.
“(Chanow’s) comments did no longer create a racially opposed work environment,” the research says. “The feedback (Chanow) is claimed to have made may be considered uncomfortable and beside the point. To display that (Chanow) created a hostile work environment, (D’Aguilar) should display that her conduct changed into ‘extreme, pervasive, or continual.’ The feedback proven in allegations 1-6 has been not located to rise to that level.”
According to the investigation, OIE spoke to over a dozen witnesses, such as those requested using D’Aguilar and Chernow and current and past interns at the Center. “Most of the witnesses believed that the CWIL may be a difficult place to work for diverse reasons, now and then, such as (Chanow’s) control fashion,” the investigation says. “Most of them did no longer consider that the CWIL changed into a racially antagonistic painting’s environment.”
In allegations 7-10, D’Aguilar alleged disparate treatment on the idea of race, saying that tasks she labored on have been not a priority to Chanow even as the ones of white interns have been, consistent with the investigation. “(Chernow) is alleged to have been dismissive of (D’Aguilar’s) ideas and issues and to have dealt with her in a manner that might be described as domineering,” the investigation says. “She claims that white employees or interns at the Center have been handled otherwise than this and that she consequently changed into the situation to discrimination resulting from her race.”
In interviews with witnesses, OIE found that some of the staff had advantageous impressions of Chanow’s control, even as others had poor impressions. “(Chernow) became defined with the aid of several witnesses of all races as capable of being a difficult character to paintings for,” the investigation says. “Staff of all backgrounds used phrases to explain (Chanow), which include ‘tough,’ ‘demanding,’ ‘abrasive,’ and ‘intimidating.’ They supplied examples that resembled the experiences defined by way of (D’Aguilar).”
