Categories
Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

PR: SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 SAVE Calls on Lawmakers to Rein in the Campus Kangaroo

WASHINGTON / January 8, 2020 – After nine years of campus adjudications that triggered thousands of federal complaints and hundreds of lawsuits, SAVE — a national policy organization — is calling on lawmakers to take steps to reform campus sex tribunals, sometimes referred to derisively as “kangaroo courts.”

In 2011 the federal Department of Education issued a controversial policy directing campus disciplinary committees to handle all allegations of sexual assault, even incidents that fell within the definition of a criminal offense (1).

Serious problems with the new approach soon became obvious, as the number of complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights increased by more than five-fold. The number of Title IX complaints skyrocketed from 391 complaints in 2010 to over 2,000 complaints in 2013 and 2014 (2). In some cases, women complained the mistreatment at the hands of inept campus officials was more traumatic than the actual assault (3).

Likewise, the number of lawsuits by accused students against universities increased dramatically, with a majority of lawsuits decided in favor of the accused student.  From these many lawsuits, SAVE has identified the 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process (4). A CBS News documentary summed up the situation this way: “Students accused of sexual misconduct say Title IX isn’t working – and victims agree.” (5)

In 2018, the Dept. of Education issued a draft regulatory framework (6), which is expected to be finalized in early 2020. In support of this effort, SAVE is urging lawmakers to assure that three fundamental due process protections on college campuses are implemented in their state (7):

  1. Clearly stated presumption of innocence
  2. Timely and detailed written notice of the allegations
  3. Right to a meaningful hearing process. This includes having the case adjudicated by persons other than the person who conducted the investigation. This means the institution must not employ a “single-investigator model.”

More information is available on the SAVE website (8).

Citations:

  1. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
  2. https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget16/justifications/aa-ocr.pdf
  3. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/sampling-of-complaints-by-victims/
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/restore-fairness/25-worst-colleges-for-campus-due-process/
  5. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/title-ix-sexual-misconduct-on-campus-cbsn-documentary/
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/proposed-regulation/
  7. https://www.thefire.org/resources/spotlight/due-process-reports/due-process-report-2019-2020/
  8. http://www.saveservices.org/camp/rein-in-campus-kangaroo/

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is leading the national policy movement to restore due process, stop false allegations, and protect all victims.

Categories
Campus Press Release

PR: 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process

WASHINGTON / November 7, 2019 – Today SAVE, a leading campus due process organization, is releasing a list of the 25 worst colleges and university for campus fairness and due process. The colleges were selected based on a detailed review of dozens of lawsuits by students accused of sexual assault, and subsequently expelled or suspended by their university, in which the judge later issued a ruling at least partly favorable to the student (1).

The lawsuits feature a jarring range of due process violations such as a 7-hour hearing; judge-jury-executioner style investigations; exclusion of exculpatory evidence; public defamations; a made-up confession; failure to consider previous false allegations by the accuser; reliance on a flawed ‘affirmative consent’ standard; a fabricated tape recording; a victim treated as a perpetrator; and a case in which the supposed “victim” repeatedly insisted she was not a victim.

The lawsuits call to mind the guilt-presuming methods featured in Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial,  the corrupt show trials exposed in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, and recent satires in which campus disciplinary committees are derided as “Kangaroo Courts.”

Following are the 25 colleges identified with deficient campus procedures:

  • California: University of California-Santa Barbara and University of Southern California, Los Angeles
  • Colorado: Colorado State University, Pueblo
  • Connecticut: Quinnipiac University, Hamden and Yale University, New Haven
  • District of Columbia: George Washington University, Washington, DC
  • Florida: University of Miami
  • Georgia: Georgia Tech University, Atlanta
  • Indiana: Purdue University, West Lafayette
  • Massachusetts: Brandeis University, Waltham; Amherst College; and Boston College, Newton
  • Michigan: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • Mississippi: University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg
  • New York: Columbia University, New York
  • Ohio: University of Cincinnati
  • Oregon: University of Oregon, Eugene
  • Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, Centre County
  • Rhode Island: Brown University, Providence
  • South Dakota: Augustana University, Sioux Falls
  • Tennessee: Rhodes College, Memphis; University of Tennessee-Knoxville
  • Texas: University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas
  • Virginia: James Madison University, Harrisonburg
  • Vermont: Middlebury College

Descriptions of each of the lawsuits, including links to the judicial opinions, are available online (2).  SAVE urges students considering attendance at these colleges to identify other institutions with a record of respect for constitutionally rooted due process measures.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is expected to issue new Title IX regulations that will strengthen due process protections on college campuses (3).

Citations:

  1. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/
  2. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/restore-fairness/25-worst-colleges-for-campus-due-process/
  3. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=129772

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Campus Investigations Title IX

PR: To Minimize Liability Threat, SAVE Urges Immediate Discontinuation of Trauma-Informed Investigations

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

To Minimize Liability Threat, SAVE Urges Immediate Discontinuation of Trauma-Informed Investigations

WASHINGTON / November 4, 2019 – A scientific article published last week has strongly criticized the use of “trauma-informed’ investigations on college campuses. Trauma-informed methods attribute inconsistencies and contradictions in a complainant’s statements to the trauma she allegedly experienced (1). Titled “Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing” (2), the article provides a detailed analysis of the research basis for the use of trauma-informed methods by Title IX investigators.

Written by Iowa State University professors Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles, the article concludes:

— “We know of no scientific studies that support this contention of neurobiological response differences between perpetrators and victims.”

— “A search of the available research literature yielded no published, peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy or effectiveness of FETI.” Forensic Experiential Trauma Interviews, known as “FETI,” are a trauma-informed method widely used on college campuses.

The Meissner and Lyles analysis was the third article published in recent months that analyzed and refuted trauma-informed precepts. In September, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity issued a report on trauma-informed concepts that concluded, “The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories, impair memories, have no effect on memories, or increase the possibility of false memories.” (3)

A third article specifically warned of the liability risk of Title IX administrators attending such guilt-presuming training courses: “You will need to assess whether you can afford to have a non-empirical, biased training on your resume in this age of litigation,” according to the Association of Title IX Administrators (4).

The use of trauma-informed and other unproven investigative methods places universities at liability risk. A 2017 analysis of 130 lawsuits against universities found investigative failures were the most commonly listed allegation (5). A 2019 analysis of lawsuits in which the judge ruled against the university identified dozens of cases in which biased investigations were listed as significant allegations of fact (6).

Investigative journalist Emily Yoffee has written about trauma-informed philosophy, “The spread of an inaccurate science of trauma is an object lesson in how good intentions can overtake critical thinking, to potentially harmful effect….University professors and administrators should understand this. And they, of all people, should identify and call out junk science.” (7)

Citations:

  1. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/trauma-informed/
  2. Christian A. Meissner, Adrienne M. Lyles. Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2019.
  3. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx
  4. https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf
  5. https://www.proskauer.com/report/title-ix-report-the-accused-08-28-2017
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/

7. The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/

Categories
Campus Trauma Informed Violence Against Women Act

Highlights from the ATIXA Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Methods

On August 22, the Association of Title IX Administrators – ATIXA – issued a Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma that exposes the many fallacies of “trauma-informed” concepts and methods: https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf

The Statement begins by quoting a claim that is often cited in trauma-informed training materials:

“Trauma leaves tracks on its victims. It is very difficult to fake or ‘act’ the sorts of symptoms [of trauma]. When someone displays these symptoms, this alone is evidence that they have been victimized.”

ATIXA delivers a strong rebuke to this claim: “Proffered as truth that a mere claim of trauma is proof of assault, this quote should be troubling to any rational mind. To assert that trauma cannot be faked is as flagrantly false a claim as asserting that trauma is proof of assault.”

The eight-page Statement goes on to address many of the flaws of the claims of trauma-informed proponents:

  • “Using a study of lab rats to reach any conclusion about the story of a victim of sexual assault is troubling..Do rats tell stories? Do they experience sexual assault?..there is science behind these ideas, but they are not empirical conclusions.”
  • “The ‘Neurobiology of Trauma’ should not significantly influence the way that colleges and schools evaluate evidence… improper use of trauma-informed methods turns trauma into evidence, which IS junk science and goes way too far.”
  • “application [of trauma-informed theories].. has gotten way ahead of the actual science… is being misapplied, and…some purveyors of this knowledge are politically motivated to extrapolate well beyond any reasonable empirical conclusions…”
  • There’s an “important distinction between practices that help an impacted party retrieve memory and avoid gratuitous re-triggering…and those [relying] on neurobiological theories to influence the interpretation of evidence.” Only the former is correct.

The ATIXA Statement concludes with this unequivocal message:

“The truth is that we understand perhaps 1/100th of 1% of what we need to know and may someday understand about how the brain responds to trauma. With such a nascent body of knowledge, most conclusions are premature. It is irresponsible to attribute much about how we interpret evidence to existing neuroscientific understandings of trauma, except to correlate scrambled memory encoding and retrieval with life-threatening incidents, and to see that flight/fright/freeze may be common reactions to such incidents. That is about it. Anything more than that is really theory, thus far unsupported by conclusive evidence.”

The ATIXA report may turn out to be a game-changer.

 

Quotes compiled by Cynthia Garrett, Esq.

Categories
Campus

Letter to AG William Barr Regarding Campus Due Process

United States Attorney General William Barr

950 Pennsylvania Ave NW,

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Barr,

I am writing to you with a grave concern for our male college students. Universities across America have been denying young men their due process rights. There is a general bias against male students regarding Title IX and sexual harassment allegations. This bias is so strong and prevalent that universities have continued to wrongfully expel male students. It appears nothing is outside ethical boundaries, as universities have falsified evidence, denied due process and used their resources to punish students.

I am asking that the Department of Justice please look at the number of Court cases being brought by male students who have been wrongfully terminated since the Obama-era 2011 Dear Colleague letter was introduced. Even the police academy at Kent State University in Ohio falsified evidence to terminate me, a 55-year-old fully vetted volunteer Deputy with two-plus years of service and multiple awards.

Sadly, in the last five years, I have written several articles noting the damage to students and their families by the universities. I even traveled to Washington to lobby Congressional staff to make changes but with few results at the university level. The victim-centered investigations and kangaroo courts that universities utilize must stop.

I am advocating for a process to allow students, since the introduction of 2011 Dear Colleague Letter went into effect, to have their cases reviewed. This could be processed where these students submit their information and evidence for a task force to review.

Mr. Attorney General, just look at recent actions of high-level officials at the FBI and other governmental organizations against a presidential candidate and then a sitting president. If no one stands for the rule of law, then no one in America is safe.

Sincerely,

Don Corsaro

Chardon, Ohio

Categories
Campus Due Process E-lert

Has Donna Shalala ever heard of the Constitution?

This past Monday, Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL) appeared at the Education Summit that billed itself as “giving every child an equal chance to succeed.” http://educationsummit2019.theatlantic.com/

But instead of talking about a balanced approach that respects the rights of both complainants and the accused, she only found fault with the proposed Title IX regulations from the Department of Education. “Many of these things that are coming out of the secretary’s office reflect someone that really does not understand the institutions or their experience or the traditions,” she said.

Worse, Shalala predicted she didn’t think “any institutions in this country are going to follow” DeVos’s changes and that Democrats “will try to overturn them.”

Excuse me, Democrats will try to overturn regulations that are rooted in Constitutional due process protections? It’s a sad day when lawmakers who swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” turn around and vow to remove due process regulations.

Let’s all call Shalala’s office: 202-225-3931.

Today.

Categories
Campus Due Process

Rep. Shalala Tells Colleges Not To Change

When dreaded Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos withdrew the “Dear Colleague Letter” and its ensuing “guidance,” then issued new regs which were put through the rigors of Notice and Comment as required by law, heads exploded. Providing the accused with minimal due process on campus was tantamount to giving rapists a free ride, activists screamed.

But it begged the question, would any of this matter? Would colleges care what the regs provided, or would they ignore them, continue to apply rules that deprived  males any chance to defend themselves? Absent mandatory language in the regs, or court decisions like Doe v. Baum, who was going to make colleges change?

Appearing at The Atlantic Education Summit, Shalala — who served as president of the University of Miami from 2001 to 2015 — criticized DeVos for her department’s rollback of several Obama-era regulations and guidance documents, including those regarding Title IX.

“Many of these things that are coming out of the secretary’s office reflect someone that really does not understand the institutions or their experience or the traditions,” Shalala said, adding that “she’s a nice person, but boy she really is confused about what we’re doing out there.”

Donna Shalala, currently the congresswoman from Florida’s 27th district, and formerly Secretary of Health and Human Services, served as chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and president of the University of Miami. Her message to the summit was clear.

During the education summit, Shalala said she didn’t think “any institutions in this country are going to follow” DeVos’s changes and that Democrats “will try to overturn them.”

First, a representative in Congress calls for educational institutions to reject the regulations, despite court after court holding that they violate the constitutional rights of male students. Ironically, claiming “experience and tradition” as the piece DeVos is missing reflects the social engineering that was rammed down the throat of colleges at the behest of two bureaucrats during the Obama administration who circumvented law. Some tradition.

Second, she says what needs to be said, that should the Democrats regain the executive branch, they will “overturn” regulations that comport with the Constitution and return to unconstitutional process. So why bother to change? Or more to the point, hold out until 2020, when the Democrats will repeal the new regs and  restore the old guidance so you can return to depriving male students of due process.

What makes Shalala’s admonition to colleges that they should persist in denying male students due process—that they shouldn’t change despite the new regs, despite the voluminous judicial opinions holding the processes invented by OCR’s Russyn Ali and her successor, Catherine Lhamon, unconstitutional—shocking is that it’s a call for lawlessness. Hardly the only one, and hardly the only side doing so, but lawlessness nonetheless. And it comes as no surprise.

All of this is true, and yet, doesn’t quite address either the situation or mandate. The “arrogance” of the Dear Colleague letters doesn’t mean that colleges, their bureaucracies built around implementation of the letters and the indoctrinated students and faculty who have become adherents to Lhamon’s and Ali’s orthodoxy, will go away.

Even if this letter, issued lawlessly, is withdrawn, that does not mean colleges will change their tune. Sure, they won’t have the Dear Colleague letters to fall back on as an excuse, but that doesn’t mean academia doesn’t actually like, no love, what Lhamon rammed down their throats.

When the old guidance was withdrawn, and new regs proffered for comment, many took for granted that this would mean change, that colleges would end their war against male students for the sexual sanctity of believing their female students. Battles were huge, as activists geared up to perpetuate the lies that women never falsely accused, that there was an epidemic on campus, that women were being raped all the time, provided one left rape to the fertile imagination of empowered co-eds.

Shalala is right, of course. Should the Democrats prevail in 2020, the DeVos regs will be gone in a jiff. But it won’t mean much as long as colleges refuse to change in accordance with the new regs, court decisions or the Constitution. Many have raised the cost of lost Title IX actions percolating through the federal courts, but it’s a price colleges seem happy to pay to keep their female students from feeling uncomfortable. Well, colleges don’t actually pay it, since they pass along the cost to students in tuition.

The battle waged to end the Obama-era guidance was nasty and ugly, and cost a lot of young men their future, but to what end?

 It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

In a more rational world, perhaps a United States congresswoman would not call upon colleges to violate the Constitution, to act lawlessly for the sake of woman at the expense of men. In a more rational world, perhaps the discussions about why sex discrimination against male and deprivation of due process would make academics pause and think about the harm they are doing.

But there is little rational these days, and so there is no good reason why Donna Shalala shouldn’t take to the podium to implore that colleges ignore the regs, reject the law and persist in their discrimination. To explain why this is wrong seems to be a tale told by an idiot. They’ll fix it in 2020 anyway, when they regain control and petty constitutional concerns will no longer be an impediment to experience and tradition.

Source: https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/05/15/rep-shalala-tells-colleges-not-to-change/

Categories
Believe the Victim Campus False Allegations

I Was a Victim of a ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigation

I am a former cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. In July 2011, during summer training at Camp Buckner, I was taken to the military police station shortly after arriving back from a rigorous field training exercise. I was dehydrated, sleep deprived, and hadn’t eaten.

I was informed that I had been accused of sexual assault from an alleged incident that had occurred six months before. I then endured a two-year investigation that culminated in a general court martial where I essentially faced life in prison. Although I was found innocent of all the sexual charges, I was kicked out of the Academy in June 2013, the summer preceding my senior year.

While I do not know if West Point had formal victim-centered policies pertaining to sexual assault cases, I believe the Academy engaged in victim-centered practices throughout my investigation.

One of the hallmarks of victim-centered approaches is prioritizing the safety, privacy, and well-being of the “victim.”

Throughout the investigation, my accuser was treated with respect, while I was often treated with hostility. It became apparent early on that my personal well-being was not a priority. My accuser was assigned a victim advocate who escorted her around campus. She was afforded health and welfare checks to ensure that she was coping with the process.

I was never provided such support. In fact, my five-hour initial interrogation took place immediately after a multi-day field training exercise. The investigators essentially took advantage of my weakened state.

While I was afforded a full criminal investigation and trial, it was clear that there was a predetermination of guilt. During my initial interrogation, the interviewing agent was hostile, and used leading questions in an attempt to reshape my statements until they fit his preconceived narrative.

The agent’s questionable conduct was confirmed during the trial by witnesses. In her testimony, one cadet described her interview as a “frustrating and hostile environment.” She testified that “he would ask me what happened, but then he would tell me what to say. I would give an answer, and we would argue with me about my answer…I wanted to get out of there because it was so uncomfortable.” Another cadet stated that “the way [the agent] asked questions was really aggressive. He wouldn’t move on from a subject until he got what he wanted.”

Victim-centered practices often overlook the complainant’s inconsistent or untruthful statements, and attribute such inconsistencies to trauma.

At trial, my accuser committed perjury about the incident, but was later allowed to graduate without punishment. Testifying about the blood she claimed was left in the bedroom after our consensual sexual encounter, my accuser testified, “there were 4 or 5 streaks…24 inches wide, 6 inches deep blood streaks along the side of the bed.” She further testified that her roommates stated that they were “grossed out” by the blood. But all three of my accuser’s roommates denied seeing any blood in the room or making any such statements.

Sexual misconduct investigations are difficult for all parties involved and lives can be ruined if they are not handled properly. This is why it’s important for investigators and adjudicators to treat all parties impartially. Fundamental fairness is a cornerstone of our justice system. But victim-centered practices only focus on the well-being of one individual, the accuser.

The due process rights of accused students have fallen by the wayside because people fail to consider the impact these investigations have on accused individuals. Throughout my investigation I battled severe depression and even suicidal ideations, which continued for years after my investigation. I had to deal with the social stigma attached to my situation because people often presume guilt based on the seriousness of the allegations. I lost a lifelong dream of serving in the Army and the opportunity to finish my degree at a prestigious institution. My friends and family also suffered throughout my ordeal.

Sexual assault investigations should be approached impartially and fairly. While protecting alleged victims is important, it does not mean that we need to compromise the integrity of investigations by providing preferential treatment.

I was lucky to make it out alive. But many individuals don’t have the support network that I had or the resources to combat mishandled investigations. As a society, we should rely on the facts and maintain impartiality because lives are at stake.

Categories
Believe the Victim Campus

PR: ‘Start By Believing’ Investigations: Dishonest and Unethical

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 ‘Start By Believing’ Investigations: Dishonest and Unethical

WASHINGTON / March 4, 2019 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is today launching a national campaign designed to alert college administrators, public officials, attorneys, and the public to the perils of Start By Believing and other “victim-centered” investigative methods.

Ethics codes call for investigators to conduct their investigations in an impartial, unbiased, and honest manner (1).

In contrast, Start By Believing programs instruct investigators to start the probe with an “initial presumption” of guilt and engage in dishonest practices such as (2):

  1. Concealing inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and “minimize the risk of contradiction.”
  2. Making sure the sexual encounter does “not look like a consensual sexual experience”
  3. Slanting the investigative report to focus on evidence that serves to “corroborate the victim’s account.”

Such methods are an anathema to the principles of fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence.

Federal Title IX regulations require that college grievance procedures be “equitable” (3). Colleges that did not employ equitable investigative procedures in sexual assault cases have lost numerous lawsuits (4).

Over 150 professors and legal experts have signed an Open Letter criticizing the use of “victim-centered” methods such as Start By Believing (5). A formal complaint was filed with the Department of Justice in February 2018 regarding its funding of Start By Believing (6). One year later, a reply has not been received.

More information about SAVE’s #StartByListening or #StartByBelieving? campaign is available online (7).

Citations:

  1. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/ethics-codes/
  2. https://www.evawintl.org/library/Detail.aspx?ItemID=43
  3. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html#S8
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Victim-Centered-Investigations-and-Liability-Risk.pdf
  5. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/VCI-Open-Letter-7.20.18.pdf
  6. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/OIG-complaint-Start-by-Believing.pdf
  7. http://www.saveservices.org/camp/sbb/

SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is working for effective and fair solutions to sexual assault and domestic violence: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Campus

States Take the Lead in Making Campus Due Process the Law of the Land

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 

States Take the Lead in Making Campus Due Process the Law of the Land

WASHINGTON / February 19, 2019 – In response to growing public concern over the abuses of campus “Kangaroo Courts,” a growing number of states are working to establish policies designed to assure due process protections for both complainants of sexual assault and accused students.

Thus far in 2019, bills designed to promote campus due process have been introduced in four states:

  1. Missouri: SB 259 and HB 573 would implement a process for due process proceedings for Title IX complaints at institutions of higher education (1).
  2. South Carolina: HB 3303, the Disciplinary Due Process Act, would require notice, review of evidence, 20-day notice prior to the hearing, and notarization of written statements (2).
  3. Virginia: HB 1820, which applies to sexual violence cases, would require fair and impartial investigations, access to evidence, prompt and equitable hearing and timely notice; and permits representation by active counsel (3). HB 1831, which applies to proceedings not involving sexual violence, would require due process rights, permit active counsel, and allow for Alternate Dispute Resolution (4).
  4. West Virginia: SB 479 would require elements of due process, and create a subsidized program for attorney advisors (5).

In California, a working group appointed by former governor Jerry Brown issued recommendations regarding the need for written notice, investigator independence, role of “trauma-informed” investigations, hearings, right to counsel, and restorative justice (6).

Five states have previously enacted campus due process legislation: Arkansas, California, Maryland, North Carolina, and North Dakota (7). In addition, appellate judges have rendered decisions that require due process protections on campus in the following states: Connecticut, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington (8).

At the federal level, the Department of Education has issued proposed Title IX regulations aiming to assure due process on campus (9). The Comment period for these regulations concluded this past week.

As a result of the combined effect of state legislation, appellate court decisions, and proposed federal regulations, campus due process is now becoming the law of the land.

Citations:

  1. https://www.senate.mo.gov/19info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=1536359
  2. https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=hb3303
  3. http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+sum+HB1830
  4. http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?ses=191&typ=bil&val=HB1831
  5. http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=SB479%20INTR.htm&yr=2019&sesstype=RS&i=479
  6. http://www.ivc.edu/policies/titleix/Documents/Recommendations-from-Post-SB-169-Working-Group.pdf
  7. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/state-legislation/
  8. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/restore-fairness/
  9. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001