Author: saveadmin

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Do Activists Want Domestic Violence To Increase During the Pandemic?

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/do-activists-want-domestic-violence-to-increase-during-the-pandemic/

Do Activists Want Domestic Violence To Increase During the Pandemic?

by  | Jun 8, 2020

Coronavirus News On Screen 3970332

A contradiction is grabbing the narrative on domestic violence (DV) during the coronavirus lockdown: a decline in police reports on DV means the rate is increasing and more government is needed. A cynic might wonder if DV experts want to stoke the panic that drives funding and legislation. DV is too important, however, to allow either cynicism or opportunism to dominate the discussion. Reality should fill this role.

DV may tend to increase during times of stress, but this cannot be assumed. A May 8 headline in The Atlantic ventures, “The Worst Situation Imaginable for Family Violence. All over the United States, adults and children have been quarantined for weeks with people who hurt them.” Assuming that “the worst situation imaginable” is upon us quickly transforms into statements of ‘fact,’ such as the claim of increasing DV. Even so, the headline is more realistic than most others because it refers to “adult” survivors, which gives a nod to the many men who are abused. A 2015 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control found that more men than women had been physically attacked by an intimate partner: 4.2 million male victims, and 3.5 million female victims. There is a burning need for media to deal with what is real about DV.

The data on current and changing rates often rely on two sources: hotlines and police reports. The latter is far more accurate, for several reasons. People access DV hotlines and services for help on many non-DV issues, including housing, immigration, and medical problems, but they report crime to the police. The same person may phone a hotline many times, but a police report is almost always ‘one person, one case’. The funding of a DV service often depends on its volume, which encourages overstatement. Police accounts also ground DV in reality, with real names and verifiable details rather than anonymous reports. When police statistics are available, they should be preferred to anecdotal accounts by advocates.

Yet media often uses more political and less reliable reports over crime ones, perhaps because they are more attention grabbing. An article in the Marshall Project is an example; “Is Domestic Violence Rising During the Coronavirus Shutdown? Here’s What the Data Shows.” It notes that police reports in three cities, including Chicago, DV appear to have declined during COVID-19. After mentioning the drop, the article states, “but police and experts say that may be a problem…News outlets across the country have written about advocates’ concerns that crime statistics are masking an uncounted rise in domestic violence.”

It is always valid to question discrepancies in information from different sources, but news stories should not work to dismiss hard evidence that casts doubt on whether there is a DV crisis. They should not turn hard data of a decline in DV into an alarm bell about an increase.

An ABC headline declares, “Fewer domestic violence calls during COVID-19 outbreak has California officials concerned.” A Los Angeles Police Chief warns “that’s going in the wrong direction with what we believe is actually happening” without adding evidence of why the direction is “wrong.”  A City Attorney declares, “I am very alarmed by what appears to be a dramatic decrease in reported crimes involving our most vulnerable.” Both men presume that trapped victims are unable to reach out even though email, texting, and cell phones make communication easier than ever before.

The Denver Channel states, “In March, Denver Police reports show a decrease in calls for domestic violence compared to last year during the same month but in Aurora, Gateway Domestic Violence Services saw an increase in calls from March 19-25, 2020 compared to the previous week.” Why would it be easier for a victim to call Gateway than a police line? People know 911; how many have memorized the Gateway number? The report merely highlights conflicting accounts, both of which may be accurate.

The Chicago Tribune weighs in with an article entitled, “Why a drop in domestic violence reports might not be a good sign.” NewportRI runs the headline “Newport County hasn’t seen uptick in reported domestic violence incidents during coronavirus pandemic,” and it follows with the statement “but it’s important to note the data doesn’t tell the whole story.” The Iowa Capital Dispatch declares, “The Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence has not seen a huge growth in calls to its statewide hotline, according to spokeswoman Lindsay Pingel. But it is anticipating an increase.”

News stories are becoming opinion and advocacy pieces. Typically, they present a truly wrenching story of DV; police and other statistics are mentioned; even data that shows a decrease, however, is construed as proof of an increase and is used to call for more government support, more intervention. Sometimes unsubstantiated “data” is thrown into the mix. On April 5, for example, the New Mexico Political Report asserted: “Last week, domestic violence incidents in Bernalillo County reportedly jumped 78 percent.” When the EndtoDV organization attempted to verify this alarming statistic, County Undersheriff Larry Koren could not “confirm anything resembling these numbers.”

No one knows the real rate of DV under COVID-19, and some indications point to a definite rise. Rates of DV naturally fluctuate over time and geography, however, with peaks generally occurring in Spring when the preceding figures were collected.

As a woman who has experienced severe DV, it is difficult not to react viscerally and urgently to cries for help. But people need to pause and assess whether the call is justified before rushing toward solutions that impact the lives of others; false solutions harm real victims and those accused, as well as their families. The first priority must be a respect for evidence over assumptions, for truth over advocacy. All approaches to this sensitive, explosive issue must start with what is real.

About Wendy McElroy
Wendy McElroy is an individualist anarchist and individualist feminist who has written or edited over a dozen books, scripted dozens of produced documentaries, worked as a writer for FOX News for 5 years and published in periodicals ranging from Penthouse to The Hill.
Categories
Title IX

I’m a Democrat; Secretary DeVos Is Right on Title IX Reform

By Buddy Ullman
June 17, 2020
I am a progressive Democrat and enthusiastic supporter of the new Title IX Rule that was recently issued by Education Secretary Betsy DeVos.

The DeVos Rule provides colleges and universities with a detailed and uniform modus operandi on how they must handle gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and sexual assault disputes.  The new regulations emphasize fairness, equitability, due process protections, and extensive supportive measures for all parties, all of which have been missing from the rescinded Obama-era guidance that the new Rule supersedes.  In contrast, the well-intentioned Obama-era guidance was conspicuously undetailed, constitutionally and legally dubious, and decidedly unfair toward the accused.

I experienced the Obama-era guidance shortcomings in a 2014 Title IX debacle, and the DeVos rule addresses all of them.

Even before release of the DeVos Rule, letters were mailed to Secretary DeVos from 18 Attorneys General, 49 House members, and three U.S. senators (all Democrats), exhorting that the Rule be suspended for the disingenuous excuse that its implementation by campuses closed by the COVID-19 pandemic might be excessively burdensome, although campuses have been expecting the new Rule already since November 2018.

This excuse was clearly a pretext aimed to undercut the DeVos Rule, but their entreaties were rendered obsolescent when it was released in early May. On May 22nd, a letter cosigned by 105 members of the House of Representatives was sent to Secretary DeVos demanding revocation of the DeVos Title IX rule.

The May 22nd letter is profoundly disappointing and warrants debunking. The letter fails to grasp that the purpose of Title IX is to grant students equal access to their educations, not to protect “survivors” or to provide a platform for restorative justice.  The House letter also fails to appreciate, or even acknowledge, that the new Rule restores the constitutional safeguards of due process and free speech to the conflict resolution process, protections that have been commanded by recent court decisions.

The letter also contains a litany of hyperbole, unsubstantiated statements, misstatements, and inaccuracies and even revisits the COVID-19 ploy.  Statements such the Title IX rule “will gut protection for student survivors of sexual assault,” “effectively turn Title IX on its head,” “jeopardizes the civil rights of students,” “reinforces the false and toxic stereotype that survivors, particularly women and girls, tend to lie about sexual assault,” “makes it harder for victims to come forward,” or “unduly hinders many schools from responding effectively to many incidents of sexual violence” are unsupported by argument or evidence, inexplicit to the point of being essentially meaningless, inflammatory, and inaccurate.

Finally, several statements in the House letter to Secretary DeVos, also unsubstantiated by any line of reasoning or evidence, actually warrant refutation. For example, the new rule is not “needlessly complex and burdensome.” It is a carefully thought-out constitutional and legal primer for how schools should conduct a Title IX investigations fairly and how it should support all its students if an allegation of an infraction is made.

The melodramatic assertion that the new Rule “flies in the face of common decency to require survivors to endure live hearings with live cross-examination by the perpetrator’s advisor of choice,” ignores the fact that cross-examination in a live hearing setting is a Constitutional requirement to which 150,000,000 other women in this country must abide when making a sexual assault allegation and ignores the fact that cross-examination has long been considered the greatest single legal engine that we have to truth-finding—the aim of any dispute resolution.

Meanwhile, the statement that “it is simply unjustifiable for the Department to require schools to dismiss many complaints of sexual harassment” is absurd.  In fact, the new Rule mandates that a school must robustly address every complaint of sexual harassment but asserts that a school cannot formally investigate a complaint that does not rise to the level of sexual harassment. This is reasonable.

Finally, the use of the term “survivors” or “perpetrators” in context of approaching an investigation is prejudicial and has no place in any system of jurisprudence. It’s just wrong.

Overall, the House Letter to Secretary DeVos does not make a compelling case for Secretary DeVos to rescind the new Title IX rule, and she will be justified to ignore it.

Buddy Ullman is a retired Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from The Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) in Portland, Oregon.

Categories
Uncategorized Victims

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

by  | Jun 3, 2020

Pow Wow 4384973 1920

A recent study by the Nebraska State Patrol and the Commission on Indian Affairs should change how the media and lawmakers view violence against Native Americans. They should look carefully at male victims, but it is far from clear that they will.

The Omaha World-Herald offers a surprising statistic, “The greatest percentage of Native American missing persons are boys age 17 or younger, accounting for 73.3% of all Native American missing persons in Nebraska.” In fact, they account for 59.6% of missing people in the state. The data is even the more remarkable because it resulted from LB 154, a state bill to “require a report on missing Native American women in Nebraska.” The 21-line bill that authorizes the study mentions “Native American women” six times; men and boys are not mentioned at all.

At long last, male victims of violence may receive the same attention as female ones. Or will they?

Some telling comments conclude the study. Under “Important Related Information,” it states, “During the period of this investigation…there have been several tragic events involving young Native women in Nebraska: the cases of Ashlea Aldrich and Esther Wolfe. These alleged crimes against Native women make plain” why the study and “its ongoing follow through are vitally important.” State Senator Tom Brewer, who co-sponsored LB 154, is quoted: “We need all law enforcement to communicate and work together to address the exploitation and victimization of Native women.” The concluding words of Judi M. Gaiashkibos, Executive Director, Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs, speaks only of “women and children” and laments “actions and policies” that “have displaced women from their traditional roles in communities and governance and diminished their status…leaving them vulnerable to violence.”

Men and boys are nowhere. Nor does the media seemingly note even the possibility of male victims. A Lincoln Journal Star article that anticipated LB 154 was entitled “Senators want to step up investigations of missing or abused Native women.” And a word commonly applied to violence against Native American women is “epidemic.” These women deserve every bit of attention and compassion they receive, but so do males.

Lawmakers also ignore male victims. The latest Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which awaits reauthorization, is an example. It sets the national standard on how sexual abuse is handled, including “Standardized protocols for…missing and murdered Indians.” (Sec. 904) Native American women is one of the Act’s core issues with TITLE IX—Safety for Indian Women addressing the problem. Title IX opens, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime”—a statistic drawn from a National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey entitled “Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men.”

The statistic is appalling, but VAWA makes a curious omission in quoting it. Immediately after the 84.3 percent figure, the Survey cited reads, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native men (81.6 percent) have experienced violence in their lifetime.” In other words, Native American men experience only 2.7 percent less violence than women. A few lines later, the  Survey states “55.5 percent” of women and “43.2 percent” of men “have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner,” figures that differ by 12.3 percent. And, yet, this data does not make it into VAWA.

It is difficult to avoid concluding that VAWA slants important evidence in order to champion female victims and dismiss male ones. In theory, the programs VAWA administers are available to both sexes even though the language is gendered for females. In practice, VAWA is widely accused of making only a tiny portion of its considerable resources available to men.

The plight of male victims must be well known to lawmakers who appear to be passionate about issues like domestic violence (DV). A 2019 article in Indian Country Today, “Breaking the silence on violence against Native American men” cites “a recent study by the National Institute of Justice”; it reported that “more than 1.4 million American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced violence in their lifetime.” The total may be an understatement. Males victims of DV ”are often reluctant to seek help or tell friends or family out of embarrassment and/or fear of not being believed. They may worry that they—and not their partner—will be blamed for the abuse.”

The blind eye to male victims is not limited to Native Americans, however, but pervades most discussions of DV. Consider the VAWA provision that allows battered immigrants to petition for legal status. In 2016, Attorney Gerald Nowotny called out the provision’s unfairness to men. Nowotny wrote, “The irony is that when it comes to the perception of domestic abuse, the focus is almost exclusively on men as the perpetrators of violence and abuse. The statistical reality is that more men than women are victims of intimate partner physical violence and psychological aggression.” Nowotny’s assessment derived from a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice that found more men than women experienced physical violence from an intimate partner and over 40% of severe physical violence.

But the assumption of mainstream media and lawmakers seems unshakable: men commit violence against women; men are not victims. What if this gender bias were a racial one? What if VAWA was the Violence Against Whites Act? There would be and there should be outrage. The same people should be as outraged as by the suffering of men who too often remain silent for fear of being ridiculed or not believed. In this regard, male victims today resemble female ones from decades ago; they are revictimized by a system that does want to hear their voices.

Categories
Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Secretary DeVos Right to Restore Due Process on Campus

By L. Douglas Wilder

June 3, 2020

 

Wilder is the former governor of Virginia. He currently serves as a distinguished professor at Virginia Commonwealth University’s Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs.

 

As colleges and universities across the country plan what higher education will look like on the post-pandemic campus, the Department of Education has taken a major step toward improving one area with a longtime culture of injustice.

 

Of course, our top priority is clamping down on sexual misconduct. Every year, thousands of students are exposed to unwanted sexual activity on campus, most of them being women. This ruins their college experience and can leave them traumatized long after they graduate.

 

Sexual misconduct is simply unacceptable. Campus officials must do their best to hold the perpetrators accountable and keep our students safe.

 

What they cannot do, however, is ignore due process — the bedrock of our judicial system. Too often, those accused of sexual misconduct are publicly vilified before their side of the story is ever heard. Too often, the accused are presumed to be guilty before the facts of their case are even known. This is just as unacceptable.

 

In America, people are always innocent until they’re proven guilty. “Guilty until proven innocent” is a perversion of our judicial system. The system relies on due process to keep both the accusers and the accused on a level playing field. Only then can we assess the validity of the allegations at hand and draw the right conclusions from them.

 

Unfortunately, I’ve experienced the presumption of guilt firsthand. For over a year now, I have undergone an unimaginable nightmare at Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU), where I lecture at the Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs. In December 2018, a complaint was filed against me by a 20-year-old student, alleging that I had touched her leg and kissed her without consent. The complainant was directed to file criminal charges with the Richmond Police Department. However, the charge was determined to be “unfounded.”

 

Nevertheless, VCU’s Title IX office carried on behind my back. Although the office notified the complainant that her complaint would be investigated thoroughly within two days of receiving it, I wasn’t notified of anything relative to any complaint until almost two months later.

 

At the end of January 2019, I finally received a “Notice of Investigation” letter, which detailed four specific allegations: Non-consensual Sexual Contact, Sexual Exploitation, Sex-Gender-based Discrimination, and Retaliation. The matter was assigned to an external investigator by Laura Walsh Rugless, the Executive Director of Equity Access Services and Title IX Coordinator, who has subsequently resigned her position at VCU.

 

Weeks later, I was notified that the initial external investigator was removed and replaced by Jody Shipper, co-founder and managing director of Grand River Solutions. This is the same Jody Shipper who conducted a Title IX investigation at the University of Southern California, an investigation whose determination was overturned by the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District Court in December 2018.

 

Why? Because the accused was denied a fair and transparent Title IX proceeding. Yet VCU recruited Shipper anyway, and she subsequently concluded that the “unfounded” charge against me was true (while determining the three other allegations were not true).

 

To the hearing panel’s credit, they rejected Shipper’s findings, ruling that I was not in fact responsible for non-consensual sexual contact. But it was too late: Shipper’s reckless pursuit of guilt — emboldened by VCU’s Title IX office — was the most unsettling experience of my life. Becoming the first elected African American governor in U.S. history was a walk in the park compared to this ordeal. And it has permanently damaged my reputation, regardless of my innocence.

 

Hopefully, campus officials can learn from the mistakes of the past. I came to learn that VCU was already under a voluntary resolution agreement signed by President Michael Rao in 2014, due to issues with its mishandling of previous Title IX cases. It is imperative that VCU and all institutions of higher education ensure fairness for both parties in situations such as these.

 

I hope that my experience will inform future Title IX proceedings, as we continue to clamp down on sexual misconduct. I pray that we can protect accusers and the accused by upholding due process.

 

Fortunately, the Department of Education is doing its part to guarantee due process for all parties, while recognizing the tragedy of sexual misconduct on campus. Following Secretary DeVos’ lead, administrators, faculty, staff, and students can rest assured that their voices will be heard.

 

With due process, we can all rest assured that the presumption of innocence will prevail—followed by the truth.

 

Source: https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/wilder-secretary-devos-right-to-restore-due-process-on-campus/article_dfac7ff4-7d4d-5109-9657-2532a0816f1d.html

Categories
Sexual Assault

Media Coverage of New Title IX Regulation

Following is a partial listing of media accounts about the new Title IX regulation, published through May 20, 2020. The articles represent a broad range of perspectives, both pro and con:

DATE OUTLET REPORTER/EDITORIALIST URL
5/20/20 Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed: Jordan Draper
5/19/20 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Editorial
5/19/20 Washington Post Editorial
5/17/20 The Oklahoman Editorial https://oklahoman.com/article/5662439/a-needed-change-to-campus-assault-protocols
5/15/20 Washington Examiner op-ed: Brad Polumbo
5/15/20 Reason Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/05/15/aclu-betsy-devos-title-ix-rule-due-process/
5/15/20 NBC News Erik Ortiz https://news.yahoo.com/aclu-sues-betsy-devos-over-194951672.html
5/13/20 Wall Street Journal Letter to the  Editor https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-title-ix-and-rights-of-the-accused-11589391121
5/11/20 New York Daily News Editorial
5/9/20 Detroit News Editorial
5/8/20 Newsweek op-ed: Shiwali Patel https://www.newsweek.com/even-crisis-trump-devos-are-determined-fail-students-opinion-1502688
5/8/20 Ms. Magazine op-ed: Carrie N. Baker https://msmagazine.com/2020/05/08/devoss-campus-sexual-assault-regulations-are-an-abomination/
5/8/20 Houston Chronicle Brittany Britto
5/8/20 City Journal op-ed: KC Johnson https://www.city-journal.org/joe-biden-title-ix-regulations
5/8/20 FoxNews.com op-ed: Curt Levey
5/8/20 National Review Rich Lowry
5/8/20 Wisconsin Public Radio Dean Knetter https://www.wpr.org/changes-title-ix-rules-will-impact-sexual-assault-cases-college-campuses
5/7/20 ABA Journal Debra Cassens Weiss
5/7/20 AEI Blog Frederick Hess https://www.aei.org/education/devos-gets-title-ix-right/
5/7/20 Associated Press Collin Binkley
5/7/20 Breitbart Dr. Susan Berry
5/7/20 BuzzFeed Ellie Hall https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ellievhall/betsy-devos-title-ix-campus-sexual-assault
5/7/20 CBS News Associated Press https://www.cbsnews.com/news/sexual-assault-rules-college-campuses-student-rights-betsy-devos/
5/7/20 Cornell Daily Sun Kathryn Stamm
5/7/20 Daily Wire Ashe Schow
5/7/20 Fox News Channel Tucker Carlson https://video.foxnews.com/v/6154828829001?playlist_id=5198073478001#sp=show-clips
5/7/20 National Association of Scholars Statement https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/statement-on-the-new-title-ix-regulations
5/7/20 FoxNews.com Greg Re https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-pelosi-devos-schools-sexual-misconduct
5/7/20 Inside Higher Education Greta Anderson https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/05/07/education-department-releases-final-title-ix-regulations
5/7/20 National Review Mairead McArdle
5/7/20 National Review NR Staff https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/fixing-title-ix/
5/7/20 NBC New York
5/7/20 Newsweek Katherine Fung https://www.newsweek.com/what-new-title-ix-rules-will-mean-campus-sexual-assault-cases-1502439
5/7/20 Reason Samantha Harris https://reason.com/2020/05/07/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-new-title-ix-regulations/
5/7/20 Refinery 29 Erin Corbett https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/2020/05/9788732/title-ix-changes-betsy-devos-college-sexual-assault
5/7/20 Salon.com Roger Sollenberger https://www.salon.com/2020/05/07/betsy-devos-unveils-new-title-ix-rules-are-they-aimed-at-silencing-survivors/
5/7/20 Teen Vogue Clarissa Brooks https://www.teenvogue.com/story/betsy-devos-title-ix-hurt-marginalized-survivors-most
5/7/20 The College Fix Greg Piper
5/7/20 The Conversation Editors
5/7/20 The Harvard Crimson Isabel Isselbacher https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2020/5/8/experts-on-new-title-ix-rules/
5/7/20 The Independent Danielle Zoellner
5/7/20 Yahoo Sports Cassandra Negley
5/6/20 ABC News Sophie Tatum
5/6/20 Atlanta Journal Constitution/Get Schooled Blog Maureen Downey
5/6/20 Berkeley Beacon Stephanie Purifoy https://berkeleybeacon.com/devos-releases-new-federal-title-ix-regulations-amid-internal-review-at-emerson/
5/6/20 Chronicle of Higher Education Sarah Brown
5/6/20 Chronicle of Higher Education Sarah Brown https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-Colleges-Need-to-Know/248717
5/6/20 Click on Detroit Cassidy Johncox
5/6/20 CNN.com Annie Grayer/Veronica Stracqualursi https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/06/politics/education-secretary-betsy-devos-title-ix-regulations/index.html
5/6/20 Daily Beast Blake Montgomery
5/6/20 Daily Bruin Julia Shapero/Genesis Qu
5/6/20 Daily Princetonian Zachary Shevin/Rooya Rahin
5/6/20 Detroit Free Press David Jessee
5/6/20 Detroit News Ingrid Jacques
5/6/20 Ed Week Evie Blad https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/campaign-k-12/2020/05/title-ix-rule-final-devos-sexual-harassment.html
5/6/20 Education Dive Jeremy Bauer-Wolf https://www.educationdive.com/news/title-ix-regulations-released/566248/
5/6/20 ESPN.com Paula Lavigne
5/6/20 Forbes Evan Gerstmann
5/6/20 Fox News Channel Martha McCallum https://video.foxnews.com/v/6154815461001#sp=show-clips
5/6/20 HuffPost Alanna Vagianos
5/6/20 IWF Blog Jennifer C. Braceras https://www.iwf.org/2020/05/06/does-due-process-silence-survivors/
5/6/20 KPIX TV Len Ramirez
5/6/20 Los Angeles Times Teresa Watanabe
5/6/20 Louisville Courier-Journal Mandy McLaren
5/6/20 MotherJones Madison Pauly https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/05/devos-title-ix-campus-sexual-misconduct/
5/6/20 NBC News Erik Ortiz/Tyler Kingkade
5/6/20 NBC News Tyler Kingkade https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/betsy-devos-new-title-ix-rules-will-shake-how-k-n1201616
5/6/20 New York Times Erica Green https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/06/us/politics/campus-sexual-misconduct-betsy-devos.html
5/6/20 NPR Tovia Smith
5/6/20 PBS News Hour
5/6/20 Politico Bianca Quilantan
5/6/20 Politico Bianca Quilantan/Juan Perez/Michael Stratford https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-sexual-misconduct-rule-schools-240131
5/6/20 Reason Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/05/06/betsy-devos-title-ix-due-process-college-sexual-misconduct/
5/6/20 The Federalist Emily Jashinsky
5/6/20 The Guardian Adam Gabbatt https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/may/06/betsy-devos-sexual-assault-title-ix-rules
5/6/20 The Hill Jonathan Easley
5/6/20 The Lantern (Ohio State) Sarah Szilagy
5/6/20 The Michigan Daily Francesca Duong https://www.michigandaily.com/section/higher-education/betsy-devos-title-ix
5/6/20 University of Wisconsin-Madison Chancellor Rebecca Blank https://news.wisc.edu/message-from-chancellor-blank-on-new-title-ix-rules/
5/6/20 UPI Clyde Hughes
5/6/20 US News & World Report Lauren Camera
5/6/20 Vanderbilt University Princine Lewis
5/6/20 Vox Anna North https://www.vox.com/2020/5/6/21203255/new-title-ix-rules-campus-sexual-assault-betsy-devos
5/6/20 Wall Street Journal Robert Shibley https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-victory-for-campus-justice-11588806738
5/6/20 Washington Examiner Tiana Lowe
5/6/20 Washington Times Valerie Richardson https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/may/6/betsy-devos-moves-end-obama-era-kangaroo-courts-pr/
5/6/20 WILX TV Rachel Sweet https://www.wilx.com/content/news/-New-Title-IX-regulations–570261591.html
5/6/20 Trump-Pence Campaign
5/5/20 Reason Robby Soave https://reason.com/2020/05/05/joe-biden-tara-reade-title-ix-rape-accusation/
5/5/20 Washington Post Laura Meckler
Categories
Title IX Uncategorized

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

SAVE

May 29, 2020

The new Title IX regulation, recently released by the Department of Education, contains several provisions designed to assure impartial and fair investigations on campus: http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/new-title-ix-regulatory-text-34-cfr-106/  The relevant provisions, with key words in bold, are listed below:

Section 106.45 (b)(1): A recipient’s grievance process must—

(i) Treat complainants and respondents equitably….

(ii) Require an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence—including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence—and provide that credibility determinations may not be based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness;

(iii) Require that any individual designated by a recipient as a Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker, or any person designated by a recipient to facilitate an informal resolution process, not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent. A recipient must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process, receive training on….. how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias… recipient also must ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence….Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment;

These regulatory provisions represent an important step in restoring impartiality and fairness to campus investigations.

Categories
Uncategorized

Nebraska State Patrol study: Boys make up majority of missing Native Americans

https://www.omaha.com/news/state_and_regional/nebraska-state-patrol-study-boys-make-up-majority-of-missing-native-americans/article_827cc5cb-d819-5cc1-ae30-adbb7c1f7d17.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share#1

Nebraska State Patrol study: Boys make up majority of missing Native Americans

A study from the Nebraska State Patrol and others found that the majority of Native American missing persons are boys age 17 or younger.

That’s just one of the findings in a 42-page study the State Patrol released Saturday. The study was done in collaboration with the Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs.

Last year, the Nebraska Legislature passed a bill that required the State Patrol to study the issue of missing Native American women and children in Nebraska.

State Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, introduced the bill.

The State Patrol and others looked at missing persons databases and policies from 51 law enforcement agencies and conducted listening sessions with four Native communities.

Among the findings, a disproportionate number of the state’s reported missing persons were black or Native American. The greatest percentage of Native American missing persons are boys age 17 or younger, accounting for 73.3% of all Native American missing persons in Nebraska.

Among all racial demographics, 59.6% of Nebraska missing persons are boys age 17 or younger, the report found.

In the listening sessions, domestic violence, substance use, mental health challenges, lack of affordable housing and poverty were all underlying factors in missing persons cases involving Native American women and children.

The challenges of reporting and investigating cases may be exacerbated by jurisdictional issues between tribal and nontribal law enforcement agencies, lack of relationships between the agencies and racial classification when entering the cases into databases, the study found.

Judi gaiashkibos, executive director of the Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs, said Saturday that the study was a step in the right direction, but it is just the beginning.

“This study reveals that persistent and deliberate human and Indigenous rights abuses are significant factors in Nebraska’s staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women and children,” gaiashkibos wrote in the report. “There is a need for transformative legal and social change to resolve the crisis that has devastated Indigenous communities in this state.”

Col. John Bolduc, superintendent of the State Patrol, said in a press release that his agency has been able to develop new partnerships through the study that are already benefiting the state’s Native American citizens.

“The most common points raised during the listening sessions illustrated a need to revitalize connections between tribal residents and law enforcement,” Bolduc said. “That work can have a substantial impact on multiple facets of public safety, including missing persons cases.”

The State Patrol found that many law enforcement agencies across the state do not currently have a policy for reporting missing persons to centralized databases. The patrol said it will work with the Nebraska Crime Commission to develop a standard operating procedure for handling missing persons cases and provide it to agencies throughout the state.

Brewer said Saturday he hadn’t had an opportunity to review the report in its entirety.

If conducting the study broke down some of the barriers between law enforcement and the state’s Native American citizens, then it’s a step forward, Brewer said.

Categories
Title IX Title IX Equity Project Uncategorized

145 Universities Under Federal Investigation for Sex Discrimination Against Male Students

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

145 Universities Under Federal Investigation for Sex Discrimination Against Male Students

WASHINGTON / May 27, 2020 – A total of 145 colleges and universities around the country are currently under investigation by the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for allegations of sex discrimination against male students. The investigations are targeting some of the most prestigious and largest institutions of higher education around the country.

On January 7, 2020, OCR opened an investigation against Harvard University for its support of seven sex-discriminatory programs. These programs include the Harvard College Women’s Leadership Awards, Graduate Women in Science and Engineering, and the Women in Global Health LEAD Fellowship. The LEAD Fellowship advertises its program with this uncommon description, “Learn, Engage, Advance, Disrupt.” (1)  (OCR Complaint No. 01-19-2203)

Ohio State University boasts a total enrollment of 68,262 students, with female students outnumbering males. Despite this fact, OSU offers zero male-specific scholarships and 10 scholarships for female students (2). OCR initiated this case on May 18, 2020. (OCR Complaint No. 15-20-2074)

Community colleges are being investigated, as well. On April 22, the OCR launched a probe of Portland Community College. The Complaint by the SAVE Title IX Equity Project identified 11 scholarships designated for female students, and only one scholarship for male students. The College’s student demographics are 45.9% male and 54.1% female (3). (OCR Complaint No. 10-20-2081).

Disparities in the numbers of sex-specific scholarships can be surprisingly large (4). Auburn University, for example, offers 67 female-only scholarships, and only one scholarship for male students.  (OCR Complaint No. 04-20-2092).

Title IX is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools. The Title IX implementing regulation states, “no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, or other education program or activity operated by a recipient which receives Federal financial assistance….” (5)

The listing of all 145 institutions is available online (6). The number of universities under investigation is expected to climb as OCR considers dozens of other Title IX complaints that have been filed in recent weeks.

Allegations of sex discrimination have garnered widespread media attention (7). SAVE urges college legal counsel to provide stronger oversight to Title IX Coordinators, who are responsible for assuring compliance with Title IX requirements and minimizing the institutional burdens of responding to a federal Title IX investigation.

Links:

  1. https://globalhealth.harvard.edu/women-gh-lead-fellowship/womenleadgh
  2. http://enrollmentservices.osu.edu/report.pdf
  3. https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/209746/portland-community-college/enrollment/#gender-block
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  5. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html#S8
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/ocr-investigations/
  7. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/145

 

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is leading the national policy movement for fairness and due process on campus: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Uncategorized

The Tale of ATIXA

SAVE

May 22, 2020

A dramatic tale includes the elements of conflict, controversy, unexpected character behavior, and resolution. Here’s how the Tale of ATIXA recently unfolded….

On Monday, May 11, the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) sponsored a webinar titled, Ten Things to Know About the New Title IX Regulations. Brett Sokolow, President of ATIXA, instructed over 4,200 webinar attendees that they were not to follow the Department of Education regulation to post all training materials on university websites.

Instead, they were to follow ATIXA’s guidance to post only the training material titles. Inquirers could request to look at the training material in person, but could not photocopy or make a copy.

An audio recording of the webinar was then posted on the ATIXA website [1].

SAVE then wrote a commentary regarding Sokolow’s instruction to the ATIXA membership. The article, ATIXA Puts Members into Legal Jeopardy Regarding Requirement to Publicly Post Training Materials, posed this question: “So what part of ‘A recipient must make these training materials publicly available on its website’ does the Association for Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) not understand?” [2]

SAVE’s commentary was posted on May 13 at 12:19pm. That’s when the elements of conflict, controversy, and unexpected character behavior came into play.

Within hours, Sokolow posted a series of critical remarks directed at SAVE. Sokolow deleted the posts several days later, but not before they were captured by screenshot: [3]

5/13/20 @BrettSokolow

3:54pm

“I suppose I should respond with a tweet “SAVE Advocates Colleges and Schools Engage in Violation of Federal Copyright Laws.” Somehow you seem to think OCR has the authority to abrogate other federal laws. Interesting.”

“How embarrassed are you that you worked this hard, transcribed our content (sharing of which likely violates fair use), and never even bothered to read the regs, which explicitly protect our copyright. Egg on your face much? Going off half-cocked much? You’re a hack.”

“Ed. Take this crap down. Immediately.”

Sokolow then quoted a passage from the new Title IX regulation [4]:

1/2 “Read ‘em and weep. To the extent that commenters’ concerns that a recipient may be unable to publicize its training materials because some recipients hire outside consultants to provide training, the materials for which may be owned by the outside consultant and not by the….

2/2…recipient itself, the Department acknowledges that a recipient in that situation would need to secure permission from the consultant to publish the training materials…Rescind your garbage communication, now, Ed. It violates our copyright, too.”

SAVE did not respond to these inaccurate posts, because the truth is its own witness.

The plot thickens.

On Monday, May 18, just one week after the ATIXA webinar, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Blog cleared up any misunderstanding. The Department issued a clarification for posting (1) Contact information for the school’s Title IX Coordinators; (2) A school’s non-discrimination policy; and (3) Training Materials used to train the school’s Title IX personnel.

The blog post reads in part [5]:

  • Section 106.45(b)(10)(i)(D) does not permit a school to choose whether to post the training materials or offer a public inspection option.
  • If a school’s current training materials are copyrighted or otherwise protected as proprietary business information (for example, by an outside consultant), the school still must comply with the Title IX Rule.
    • If a school is unable to secure permission from a third party to post copyrighted training materials, then the school must create or obtain training materials  that can lawfully be  posted on the school’s website.

This clarification soon led to the tale’s resolution…

5/19/20 @BrettSokolow to another Twitter user:

“We have withdrawn and are revising this guidance based on the most recent OCR clarification of its expectations.”

Conflict, controversy, unexpected character behavior, and resolution.

This cautionary Tale represents a victory for students and faculty members who are facing a Title IX investigation; and for universities who will not have to face legal battles for ignoring federal Title IX law.

Citations:

[1] https://atixa.org/r3/#Webinars

[2]http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/atixa-puts-members-into-legal-jeopardy-regarding-requirement-to-publicly-post-training-materials/

[3] Available upon request at info@saveservices.org

[4] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf

[5] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/blog/20200518.html

Categories
Uncategorized

It’s On Us and End Rape On Campus Virtual Town Hall on Title IX Rule Changes

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that was enacted in 1972 and states that discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal in the United States of America. This law has since been amended and expanded to include crimes in the Clery Act and the Violence Against Women Act. Past administrations also released guidance to ensure schools are providing students and survivors of sexual violence with proper support and response options that ensure they continue to have access to educational programs. On December 21, 2018, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos released new guidelines for Title IX. The proposed rules gutted previous guidance from the Obama administration and included new guidelines that could make it even harder for survivors to report or receive supportive services. Unfortunately, two weeks ago today, these damaging new rules were officially published on the federal register and schools have just a few months to change their policies to abide by these new rules.

On Friday May 8, 2020, It’s On Us and End Rape On Campus held a virtual town hall with over 1,200 students from around the country, national organizations, and direct service providers, and we have put the top 10 most frequently asked questions from that town hall here with our answers and any information we have. We will continue to provide information to you as we receive it and are working to announce a virtual action in response to these dangerous new rules.

Top 10 Questions and Answers

Q: Can we see the entire 2000 page document? How do we access it?

A: Yes, HERE is a link to the document itself. For any visual learners, THIS is also a helpful webinar on the new rules.

Q: Will the new rules apply retroactively to cases opened before August 14, 2020?

A: Legally, cases that have already begun should not be affected by these new rules; however, whether the Department of Education will hold schools accountable for these new rules before August 14, 2020 is still unclear. Our assumption, based only on our policy analysis of the newly published rules, is that cases that were open prior to the August 14 deadline may essentially be affected by the new rules, but for cases that have been closed and with no pending appeals, the Title IX regs will not be retroactively applied to these cases. (Page 1869, Paragraph 2)

Q: Who would conduct cross examinations?

A: Cross examination is conducted by the opposing party’s advisor of choice. This means that a survivor cannot be questioned by the person who harmed them, but they can be questioned by that person’s best friend, coach, or parent. (Page 996, Paragraph 1)

Q: How does this affect students studying abroad? Are schools considered responsible for addressing these cases? If not responsible, are schools allowed to choose to address reports from study abroad?

A: The new rules specify that Title IX ONLY requires a school to respond to an assault that happens “in the United States”. This does not include study abroad programs, even if it is through an official school program, such as an international campus of a U.S. based school.

According to the Department of Education, sexual assault that occurs during a study abroad program doesn’t apply to Title IX specifically because it happened outside of the United States and they do not want to create a conflict with another country’s laws. However, according to the Department, “there is no prohibition of a school deciding to include more robust policies against sexual harassment for study abroad programs.” If schools decide to do this, it will be legally outside the realm of Title IX, and have no oversight by the Department of Education. (Page 1575, Paragraph 2)

Q: With the narrowed definition of sexual harassment in the new rules, are schools obligated to investigate instances of sexual harassment that occur online?

A: The new rules do not specifically mention online harassment. The circumstances of online harassment must be analyzed to determine if the event where the respondent exercised “substantial control” over the victim/survivor occurred “in a school program or activity.” For example, online harassment would qualify if a student was harassing another student during a class, but not if they did it on their personal device in their off campus apartment. (Page 644, Paragraph 1)

Q: How will schools determine if harassment is “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive”?

A: All crimes in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) are included in the Title IX rules as they are defined in the VAWA statute (sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, stalking). The new Title IX rules define “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” as any crimes on the basis of sex that a “reasonable person” would find to “effectively deny a person equal access to an educational program or activity.” The rules do not define who a “reasonable person” is. (Page 488, Paragraph 2)

Q: Lots of questions about reporting / mandating reporter/ing / top official / responsible employee / responsibility of title ix coordinator

A: All schools are responsible for hiring at least one Title IX coordinator. A Title IX Coordinator is defined as at least one employee that is designated to coordinate the efforts to comply with a school’s responsibilities under Title IX. All Title IX Coordinators have the authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of a school (Page 2009, Paragraph 7). All schools must display the Title IX coordinator’s information on their website and in employee/student handbooks. This must include an option for both verbal and written reports. The Title IX Coordinator is responsible for responding to a report once the school has “actual knowledge” of the assault. Actual knowledge is defined in the rule as any information given to or attained by a Title IX Coordinator. Once there is actual knowledge, the school is responsible for a “prompt” response. This includes reaching out to the person alleging sexual harassment and confidentially discussing available resources and options for support. Options include receiving supportive measures from school or choosing to file a formal complaint. (Page 1605, Paragraph 1)

Q: Does the new rule change how campus public safety responds to incidents?

A: Based on our review, there are no specific changes to how campus safety responds; however, the narrowed definition of sexual harassment and the increased responsibility of the Title IX coordinator, may affect the way campus safety handles reports.

Q: Do schools have the right to define consent?

A: Yes they do. According to the new rules, each school can define consent so that it is in line with their state laws; however, it must also follow definitions listed in the Jean Clery Act, which defines sexual assault as, “Any sexual act directed against another person, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent.” (Page 363, Paragraph 1)

Q: Do the new rules change prevention education requirements?

A: They do not provide any specifications on prevention requirements or instruction on sexual consent. They do however, require ALL persons who are involved in responding to these crimes to receive training. See Violence Against Women Act Amendments to Clery Act for more specific prevention language.

Q: What can states do and how can state policies mitigate loopholes to the new Title IX changes?

A: We can encourage our state legislators to write and sign into law, policies that provide robust and comprehensive definitions of consent and requirements for prevention education or response to these crimes. For example, on June 28, 2019, Governor Tom Wolf signed into law Act 16 of 2019 (Act 16) which added Article XX-J to the Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949. Building on the It’s On Us PA initiative, this law includes statutory requirements for addressing sexual assault at postsecondary institutions in Pennsylvania that award an associate degree or higher. Learn more about the sexual violence policy, PDE’s model policy, and the anonymous online reporting system here.

Q: Can colleges and universities choose to take stricter action?

A: Yes, as long as their policies do not interfere with the language of the new Title IX rules, they can institute more detailed policies.

1 | United States, Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiveing Federal Financial Assistance,” 34 C.F.R. Part 106, 2020. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf

Source: https://medium.com/@ItsOnUs/its-on-us-and-end-rape-on-campus-virtual-town-hall-on-title-ix-rule-changes-questions-answers-dc66a1d6cecc