 A long-awaited report released this month turned out to be extremely damning to those in positions of authority in our community. The report criticized how an important investigation was communicated to the public and showed how actions taken in secret were not in accord with ethical standards. I'm talking of course about the report from the Franklin College Faculty Senate Committee on Baldwin Hall. Maybe you've already seen the documentary Below Baldwin by filmmaker Jola Vine, but if not, I'll fill you in. This ongoing controversy began when UGA started on the recent expansion to Baldwin Hall in 2015. Baldwin Hall is next to the Jackson Street Cemetery, which used to be named Old Athens Cemetery and is literally the oldest cemetery in Athens, dating back to the 1790s. It was larger originally than its current official boundaries, and during construction of the Baldwin Hall expansion, UGA work crews unearthed human remains. When it became apparent that most of the remains were from people of African descent, the situation started to become tense. UGA's handling of those remains and poor communication with the public during the process of re-interment were sharply criticized by black community members and UGA faculty alike. Due to these and other concerns, the Faculty Senate of Franklin College, the largest college at UGA, created a committee to research the Baldwin Hall issue in September of 2018. This committee's report back to the full Senate was recently finalized and published on April 17th. It was presented at a meeting on April 23rd. So what's in the report? Let's break it down. The goal of this committee was, quote, to evaluate the concerns of Franklin faculty and determine their merit when possible. But I heard from UGA President Jerry Moorhead that the university handled the situation appropriately. So what concerns could they possibly have? Let's see. Concern number one, lack of input from archeologists. From the very beginning of the planning process, UGA made missteps. They failed to consult archeological experts who would have told them about the strong likelihood of finding grave sites outside the formal boundaries of the old Athens cemetery. So they should have known. And it shows that there were issues with UGA's construction procedures. On the plus side, the report notes that UGA has adopted new procedures that will solve this problem. But even with those changes, some faculty still don't seem to be comfortable with the lack of input from archeologists in this case. Why? I could understand if the adjacent property was a forest or a football field or just a parking lot, but it was a cemetery. If UGA had known about the graves in their construction area ahead of time, everything that happened after would have been illegal under state law. They would have had to get a permit to move the remains, which would have caused construction delays. They really should have known what they would find underneath that old parking lot. But since it was accidental, UGA was able to complete their construction with minimal delay. The report concludes that the discovery of human remains was most likely accidental. But if UGA was skirting state law to begin with, it would make their defensiveness seen later on make a bit more sense in context. Concern number two, secrecy and lack of community consultation. I recommend reading the report for yourself to get the full picture of what happened here. But really quickly, the concern is that UGA never consulted with the community about their plans in a meaningful way, and that failing to do so violated well-established ethical standards. UGA was certainly aware of these standards because they were told repeatedly by two experts in archaeology, Dr. Lori Reitzma, director of UGA's bioarchaeology and biochemistry lab, and Dr. Deborah Bullnick from the University of Texas. Interestingly, UGA may have also been told the same exact thing by the state archaeologists' office or OSA, according to Brian Tucker, the head of that office. UGA president Jerry Morehead had claimed in the red and black that they followed the guidance of OSA at every step of the process. So, huh, did they? Even worse, it seems more likely that OSA was following UGA's guidance and not the other way around. A letter that was mentioned earlier by president Morehead, once again, references the guidance of the state archaeologists. And so we have to take that question of guidance apart. Bolt by bolt. Riverial's already been decided as a Coney Hill. It's already been planned for early spring. And so email chains and other communications just go dead for weeks. And then March 6th happens. Early in the morning, the state archaeologists emails Dr. Reissma. Two minutes later, the state archaeologist has written back to his boss, there's no message just an attachment with the first draft of this March 6th letter that was displayed on March 8th, supposedly authorizing the university's decisions. We know that the document was created on March 6th, one day after at least reburial fit had already been dug. This is 10 21 a.m. About half an hour later, David Crass kicks the letter upstairs to his bosses. The letter is now longer. Now, reburial instructions are in the letter. They've worked at 10 21. And now the letter is no longer addressed to Vice President Darden. Now it's addressed to Jeremorehead. David Crass writes back to the state archaeologists to his subordinate, Brian Tucker. West said the letter looked good. It's sent to Jeremorehead just before noon. These are the typical interactions for a year. Then no more instructions are given. And then on March 6th, this goes away and we suddenly find Brian Tucker in a hierarchy passing the letter up to his boss, who passes a letter up to his bosses, who approved the letter and sent it back to David Crass, who then sends it to President Darden. Did anyone who's sharp-eyed note what the first draft of the letter is called? Is there anyone who rationally believes that this is an instruction and order from an institution that has never given UGA any orders for well over a year? To summarize, UGA had long since made their plans to reinter the remains at Oconee Hill Cemetery. The reburial pit had already been dug when this letter was written, supposedly giving instructions on how to do it. It seems as if UGA was using the state archaeologists' office to legitimize plans they had already made and not so much to receive any actual guidance. Concern number three, concerns regarding reburial. Instead of working with the community, UGA's plans for the reburial were finalized before the public found out anything was happening. To add insult to injury, UGA had chosen a cemetery that was offensive to many black community members. Concern number four, intimidation and policing of faculty teaching activities. This concern focuses on two faculty members who were singled out and intimidated by UGA for pushing back against the official narrative. Remember Dr. Lori Reitzma from concern number two, who is pushing for a community consultation? While she was targeted by UGA spokesman Greg Trevor in an op-ed. The Franklin College Committee feels that this was inappropriate because Dr. Reitzma gave the advice for a community consultation in an official capacity according to the ethics of her discipline. Dr. Scott Nespot, assistant professor in history, was also intimidated just for doing his job. There are also two other concerns the committee had that I unfortunately don't have time to get into. Again, go ahead and read the full report if you have time. I'll link it in the description. The report also gave recommendations for how UGA should move forward from here. First, the faculty Senate feels that UGA should apologize to presumed descendants and do a real community consultation on what to do with their remaining graves outside the boundaries of the old Athens cemetery. Because the report makes clear that there are probably more out there that we haven't found yet. Next, they need to give a full apology to Dr. Reitzma and condemn her mistreatment. Finally, UGA should address the history and legacy of slavery at UGA. You know, that all sounds pretty reasonable. In conclusion, the report states that instead of elevating itself as a national exemplar, UGA has damaged its reputation in ways that were eminently preventable and will likely continue if a new direction is not taken. The faculty Senate voted 30-0 to accept the report. They'll have to decide what to do with the report later. All this vote did was recognize that the committee did its job. But it definitely doesn't look good for the university when your own faculty are basically accusing you of acting unethically and lying to the public. The greater Athens community is also taking action and demanding the university address their history of slavery. A coalition of community groups, including the Athens NAACP and Athens Anti-Discrimination Movement, held a recognition and redress town hall on Wednesday and issued three demands. They want reparational scholarships, a center on slavery funded by the university, and wages of $15 an hour for all full and part-time workers, especially descendants of slaves who are underpaid at UGA. I'm hopeful that all this pressure, both from the community and from faculty, will lead to lasting change in the attitudes and behaviors of UGA administration. We'll see what happens and I'll try to keep you informed. Thanks for watching.