Category: Campus

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
Campus Sexual Assault

Victim-Centered Investigations in Title IX Disciplinary Proceedings: A Litigator’s Perspective

Since 2011, I have represented upwards of 100 falsely accused students in Title IX disciplinary procedures at universities across America. I also have filed over 20 lawsuits against Universities that erroneously suspended or expelled students who were alleged to have engaged in sexual misconduct.

These lawsuits have a common thread shared by hundreds of other lawsuits, including two by parents of students who committed suicide. That common thread is the denial of basic due process protections that any person accused of sexual misconduct in America would expect. These lawsuits document how basic due process protections have been removed by University investigators and adjudicators who stack the deck in favor of accusing students.

This favoritism towards accusing students often springs from Title IX training materials provided to investigators and adjudicators. I know because I see these training materials in my clients’ lawsuits. The training materials teach Title IX staff that from the very beginning of the process, they should favor accusing students over accused students by implanting concepts such as:

  • Start by Believing
  • Victims Don’t Lie
  • How to conduct ‘victim-centered’ investigations

It is important to note that I am a reluctant advocate for accused students. I spent five years as the executive director of a Christian non-profit organization bringing micro-finance and fair-trade programs to sex trafficked women and at-risk women and girls in Asia, Africa, and North America. My experience working with the women, some in their early teens, caused me to have zero tolerance for sexual exploitation of females.

My experiences in some of these countries also caused me to observe the adverse impacts these women experienced as a result of the powerful forces that worked against them.

The Start by Believing training materials that I’ve seen trigger harmful, predetermined outcomes of a different sort. This is because University policies promise fair and impartial proceedings with cross-examination and the ability to present exculpatory evidence. But in reality, these rights are routinely denied.

I want to provide two examples how Start By Believing training  programs have caused college investigators and adjudicators to violate our most fundamental  ideas of due process, by excluding evidence  that proves the accusing students’ allegations are false.

In the first case, a hearing panel of university employees rejected every one of the 264 cross-examination questions that the accused student sought to ask his accuser and the university’s witnesses, even though the university’s handbook allowed for such questions.

When asked why the panel didn’t ask any of the 264 questions, the hearing panel admitted, The questions didn’t matter because the answers would not change their mind that the accused student was guilty.

How did the hearing panel know that none of the yet-to-be-given answers to the 264 questions would have changed their minds? As detailed in the lawsuit that followed, the reason was a belief that the university must favor the accusing students regardless of whether the accused student was innocent.

In a second case, a student was accused of engaging in sexual misconduct. During the course of the investigation he presented:

  • Polygraph expert testimony that he never engaged in the sexual misconduct alleged.
  • Toxicologist expert testimony that proved it was impossible for the accusing student to have been in the incapacitated state she claimed was in when she engaged sexually with the accused student.

Nonetheless, the university panel refused to ask any of the cross-examination questions that the accused student proposed. The hearing panel later found him “responsible” and suspended him.

Why did a hearing panel that was charged with administering justice in a fair and impartial way reject facts proving the accused student was innocent?  My experience pointed to one very clear conclusion: that no amount of evidence was going to change their predetermined position that they must believe the accusing student.

Unfortunately, these two cases are not isolated instances of how Start by Believing training has caused college investigators and adjudicators to violate our most fundamental ideas of fairness.

I know this because on multiple occasions, my clients have asked hearing panel members if they received Start by Believing training on how to conduct hearings that will not “re-traumatize” the accusing student. And on far too many occasions, hearing panel members admit they have been trained in ways that protect accusing students from having to respond to questions or evidence that prove he or she is lying.

And until these practices are reversed, there will more suicides, destroyed lives, and needless lawsuits. I hope others will join me in looking for solutions that treat both accusing students and accused students in a fair and impartial manner.

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
Campus Due Process

Tell Sen. Patty Murray: ‘Due process IS America’

Tomorrow  morning, the Senate HELP Committee will hold a hearing on ” Addressing Campus Sexual Assault and Ensuring Student Safety and Rights.” https://www.help.senate.gov/hearings/reauthorizing-hea-addressing-campus-sexual-assault-and-ensuring-student-safety-and-rights

In the past, Sen. Patty Murray, who is the highest ranking Democrat on the Committee, has pushed the “one in five” fake statistic in order to justify the existence of the campus Kangaroo Courts.

Somehow, Murray has forgotten that all Americans, including college students, are guaranteed due process by the Constitution.

So please telephone Murray’s office at (202) 224-2621. Tell her, “Due process IS America!”

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
Categories
Campus Sexual Assault

New Title IX Rules Enjoy Widespread Popular and Legal Support

February 4, 2019

Numerous public opinion polls show a strong bipartisan majority of American voters support due process on college campuses.[1]

Last November, the Department of Education released proposed Title IX regulations to address campus sexual misconduct. The proposed rule is designed to support both accused students and complainants.[2] These regulations are grounded in a milestone Supreme Court decision, Davis v. Monroe, and are supported by 14 appellate judicial decisions.[3]

In addition, over 50 editorials have been published that support the proposed regulations. These editorials, published both in liberal and conservative media outlets, are listed in reverse chronological order, below:

  1. David French (National Review): Just How Easy Should It Be to Destroy a Young Man’s Life?– 1/30/19
  2. Meg Mott (New England Public Radio): New Title IX Rules Would Empower Both the Accused and the Survivors– 1/16/19
  3. Scott Greenfield (Simple Justice): The “Survivors” Last Stand– 1/11/19
  4. Inez Stepman (The Hill): Changes to Title IX Enforcement Are Common Sense– 1/9/19
  5. Curt Levey (Fox News): Education Secretary DeVos’s New Rules for Title IX and Sexual Assault Will Restore Fairness Across the Board– 1/4/19
  6. Wendy McElroy (The Hill): The New Title IX Regulation Helps Women– 1/3/19
  7. Tom Ciccotta (Breitbart News): Feminist Professor Says Betsy DeVos Title IX Guidelines Benefit Survivors– 1/3/19
  8. KC Johnson (The Regulatory Review): Changes to Universities’ Sexual Assault Tribunals May Be Here to Stay– 1/2/19
  9. Nicole DeSmet (Burlington Free Press): Title IX College Sexual Assault Rule Changes; What You Need to Know; How to Act– 12/21/18
  10. Peter Wallison (Real Clear Politics): DeVos Rule on Sexual Harassment Restores Primacy of Law– 12/20/18
  11. Meg Mott (Inside Higher Ed): The New Title IX Guidelines Benefit Survivors– 12/17/18
  12. Robby Soave (The Times-News): Title IX Changes Are Needed– 12/16/18
  13. Courier Editorial Board (The Courier): Campus Sex Assault Rules Need Revisions– 12/16/18
  14. Editorial Board (The Washington Post): What Betsy DeVos’s New Title IX Changes Get Right – and Wrong– 12/14/18
  15. Wendy McElroy (The Hill): A Sea Change for Sexual Conduct on Campus– 12/13/18
  16. KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. (The Weekly Standard): It’s Time for Republicans to Show They Truly Care About Due Process– 12/12/18
  17. Greg Piper (The College Fix): Feminist Law Professor Supports DeVos on Title IX because of “Troubling Racial Dynamics” in the System– 12/6/18
  18. Stacey Lennox (The Resurgent): If You Care About Due Process for College Age Men, Click This Link– 12/6/18
  19. Shikha Dalmia (Reason): Betsy DeVos’ Title IX Campus Reforms Advance a Liberal Cause– 12/4/18
  20. Lara Bazelon (New York Times): I’m a Democrat and a Feminist. And I Support Betsy DeVos’s Title IX Reforms– 12/4/18
  21. Robby Soave (Inside Sources): Point: Title IX Reforms Are Contentious, but Necessary– 12/3/18
  22. Shikha Dalmia (The Week): In Defense of Betsy DeVos’ Title IX Plan– 11/29/18
  23. Lindsay Marchello (Higher Education): ACLU’s Opposition to Title IX Reform Betrays Their Claims to Defend Civil Rights– 11/27/18
  24. Andrew Kreighbaum (Inside Higher Ed): What the DeVos Title IX Rule Means for Misconduct Off Campus– 11/27/18
  25. Derek Newton (Forbes): Betsy DeVos is Making the Right Choice on Sexual Assault Rules– 11/25/18
  26. KC Johnson (Minding the Campus): Finally, Due Process Near for College Males– 11/23/18
  27. Heather MacDonald (City Journal): Feminists’ Undue Process– 11/23/18
  28. Erika Sanzi (The Hill): With Title IX Rewrite, DeVos Gets It Right for Accusers and Accused– 11/22/18
  29. Cathy Young (Arc Digital Media): Sex, Lies, and Campus Tribunals– 11/22/18
  30. Christine Flowers (Philadelphia Inquirer): Betsy DeVos’ New Rules for Handling Campus Sexual Assault Provide Much-Needed Balance– 11/21/18
  31. Franczek Radelet (JD Supra): Proposed Title IX Regulations Raise Many Questions, Particularly for K-12 Schools– 11/21/18
  32. Editorial Board (Wall Street Journal): Reviving Due Process on Campus– 11/20/18
  33. Greg Piper (The College Fix): Rape-Culture Activists Hate Cross-Examination. They May Have to Worry About the Supreme Court– 11/20/18
  34. Ramesh Ponnuru (Bloomberg): Betsy DeVos is Protecting Civil Liberties on Campus– 11/20/18
  35. Ashe Schow (Daily Wire): New Campus Sexual Assault Rules Will Help Stifle Current Moral Panic– 11/20/18
  36. Daily News Editorial Board (Daily News): Lesson Learned: Betsy DeVos (mostly) Gets Title IX Rules Right– 11/19/18
  37. Justin Dillon (Chronicle for Higher Education): New Title IX Proposal Would Restore Fairness in Sexual Misconduct Cases– 11/19/18
  38. Conor Friedersdorf (The Atlantic): The ACLU Declines to Defend Civil Rights– 11/19/18
  39. Lakshmi Singh (NPR): Education Secretary Proposes Enhanced Protections for Those Accused of Sexual Assault on Campus– 11/18/18
  40. KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. (Wall Street Journal): DeVos Keeps Her Promise on Campus Due Process– 11/18/18
  41. Tiana Lowe (Washington Examiner): The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of New Title IX Regulations– 11/17/18
  42. Anne Flaherty (ABC): Betsy DeVos Pitches New Protections for Students Accused of Sexual Assault– 11/17/18
  43. Adam Harris (The Atlantic): Betsy DeVos’s Sexual Assault Rules Would Let the Accused Cross-Examine Accusers– 11/17/18
  44. Alice Lloyd (The Weekly Standard): Will Colleges Actually Heed the New Title IX Regulations?– 11/17/18
  45. Laura Meckler (Washington Post): Betsy DeVos Releases Sexual Assault Rules She Hails as Balancing Rights of Victims, Accused– 11/16/18
  46. Collin Binkley (Associated Press): DeVos Proposes Overhaul to Campus Sexual Misconduct Rules– 11/16/18
  47. Erica Green (New York Times): Sex Assault Rules Under DeVos Bolster Defendants’ Rights and Ease College Liability– 11/16/18
  48. Teresa Watanabe (Los Angeles Times): Betsy DeVos Moves to Strengthen the Rights of the Accused in Campus Sexual Misconduct Cases– 11/16/18
  49. Sarah Brown and Katherine Mangan (Chronicle for Higher Education): What You Need to Know About the Proposed Title IX Regulations– 11/16/18
  50. Erica Green (New York Times): Sex Assault Under DeVos Bolster Defendants’ Rights and Ease College Liability– 11/16/18
  51. Kaitlyn Schallhorn (Fox News): Education Department Unveils New Title IX Guidance for Campus Sexual Assault: Here’s What Would Change– 11/16/18
  52. David French (National Review): Betsy DeVos Strikes a Blow for the Constitution– 11/16/18
  53. Robby Soave (Reason): ABC Makes Patently False Claim About New Title IX Rules– 11/16/18
  54. Robby Soave (Reason): Betsy DeVos Formally Unveils New Title IX Rules: 3 Ways They Will Strengthen Due Process on Campus– 11/16/18
  55. Richard Vedder (Forbes): Doing Things Right: Betsy DeVos, Title IX and Due Process– 11/16/18
  56. David French (National Review): ABC News Makes a Serious Mistake– 11/16/18

[1] http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/opinion-polls/

[2] http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/proposed-regulations-will-protect-and-empower-complainants/

[3] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Appellate-Court-Cases-Report.pdf

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault

Harvard Law School Professors Evaluate Department of Education’s Proposed Rule for Title IX Enforcement

January 30, 2019
Feminist Harvard Law School Professors Evaluate Department of Education’s Proposed Rule for Title IX Enforcement
Jeannie Suk Gersen, Nancy Gertner, and Janet Halley, professors at Harvard Law School, have issued a Comment on the Department of Education’s Proposed Rule on Title IX enforcement. The authors write: “We strongly support vigorous enforcement of Title IX to ensure that students enjoy educational programs and activities unburdened by sexual harassment.”
They argue that “sanctions for sexual harassment should apply only under a clear definition of wrongful conduct
and after a process that is fair to all parties.”
With these dual objectives in mind, the Comment reviews the Department of Education’s Proposed Rule and agrees with some aspects and disagrees with others. The authors agree (with some suggested amendments) with the Rule’s treatment of the burden of
proof, the rejection of the single -investigator model, and the requirement of a live hearing process. They argue that the rules they endorse do not undermine the critical goal of enforcing Title IX. They express serious concerns about the provisions on cross examination and the definition of sexual harassment, and propose revisions that will be more protective of complainants.
The Comment strongly objects to provisions encouraging schools to file complaints when they have multiple allegations against a single potential respondent but no formal complainant: the inquiry there should be refocused on the threat of harm and take into
account the complainants’ as well as the respondents’
interests. The three professors say that they “strongly object to the deliberate indifference standard for schools’ ultimate responsibility to respond to sexual harassment.”
Gersen, Gertner and Halley have researched, taught, and written on Title IX, sexual harassment, sexual assault,  and feminist legal reform. They were three of the signatories to the statement of twenty-eight Harvard Law School professors, published in the Boston Globe on October 15, 2014, that criticized Harvard University’s newly adopted sexual harassment policy as “overwhelmingly stacked against the accused” and “in no way required by Title IX law or regulation.”
To access the Comment, go to:
https://perma.cc/3F9K-PZSB
Inquiries please contact:
Jeannie Suk Gersen, jsg@law.harvard.edu
Nancy Gertner, ngertner@law.harvard.edu
Janet Halley, jhalley@law.harvard.edu
Categories
Campus

Proposed Title IX Regulations Target Sex Bias on College Campuses

January 24, 2019

“A recipient’s treatment of the respondent may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX.”[1]

Docket No. ED-2018-OCR-0064, RIN 1870–AA14, Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance

Supplemental Comment submitted by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE)

On November 29, 2018 the Department of Education issued proposed Title IX regulatory changes.[2] Although these proposed regulations often have been referred to as “due process” regulations, it is clear that these regulations, once implemented, will help remedy widespread sex bias against male students at colleges and universities.

This Comment discusses the broader problem of sex discrimination in the arena of campus sexual assault, examining the barriers faced by male students in reporting and defending themselves against sexual assault allegations. The Appendix of this Comment features a listing of 38 judicial opinions issued 2014 to 2018 that upheld a male accused student’s sex discrimination cause of action in a campus sexual assault action.

SEX DISCRIMINATION CAN ASSUME MANY FORMS, DOES NOT REQUIRE ANTI-MALE ANIMUS

Sex discrimination can assume many guises, even within a single case. In Wells v. Xavier Univ., the judge recognized that anti-male bias resulted in an unfair process: “[Wells’] Complaint, however, recounts Defendants having rushed to judgment, having failed to train UCB members, having ignored the Prosecutor, having denied Plaintiff counsel, and having denied Plaintiff witnesses. These actions came against Plaintiff, he contends, because he was a male accused of sexual assault.”

Discrimination against male student was also demonstrated in 2014, in adjudication of a Duke University female student’s complaint alleging that she was too intoxicated to give consent. Duke found the male respondent guilty and a federal lawsuit ensued. During a hearing in federal court, Duke’s dean was asked whether both students could have assaulted one another since both were heavily intoxicated. The dean responded no and stated, “Assuming it is a male and female, it is the responsibility in the case of the male to gain consent before proceeding with sex.”[3]

This admission by the dean demonstrated that Duke was in violation of Title IX.

The discriminatory impact of policies such as those above violates Title IX, whether or not the school was expressly motivated by anti-male bias. In Doe v. Columbia Univ., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals appropriately observed,

“A defendant is not excused from liability for discrimination because the discriminatory motivation does not result from a discriminatory heart, but rather from a desire to avoid practical disadvantages that might result from unbiased action. A covered university that adopts, even temporarily, a policy of bias favoring one sex over the other in a disciplinary dispute, doing so in order to avoid liability or bad publicity, has practiced sex discrimination, notwithstanding that the motive for the discrimination did not come from ingrained or permanent bias against that particular sex.” (emphasis added).

MALE VICTIMS FACE BARRIERS IN REPORTING AND OBTAINING SUPPORT

According to the CDC National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, similar percentages of men and women (Men: 5.3%; Women: 5.6%) experience sexual violence other than rape each year.[4] Of the 25.1 million men who have experienced sexual violence in their lifetimes:[5]

  • 5.4 million were forced to penetrate
  • 6.8 million experienced sexual coercion
  • 13.3 million had unwanted sexual contact

Similarly, among college populations, large percentages of male students are known to have been victimized. According to an American Association of Universities survey at 27 institutions of higher education, 40.9% of undergraduate heterosexual males have experienced sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, or stalking, compared to 60.5% of undergraduate heterosexual females.[6]

According to the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, “About 14% of reported rapes involve men or boys, 1 in 6 reported sexual assaults is against a boy, and 1 in 25 reported sexual assaults is against a man.”[7] Though it may not be apparent, “Male victims experience similar effects of sexual violence as female victims such as shame, grief, anger and fear…Men and boys who have been sexually victimized have a right to a full range of recovery services in settings that fully support their needs.”[8]

But on campus, male students are “Up Against A System That’s Not Designed To Help Us.”[9] In one survey, 475 undergraduate students “believed that campus resources are more helpful for female than male survivors.”[10] MaleSurvivor notes:

For many boys and men the harm of the initial betrayal of sexual abuse is compounded by the lack of a compassionate response from friends, family, and their community. In addition, toxic stereotypes about masculinity create powerful disincentives to disclosure by men of their pain and suffering. As a result, it is not uncommon for a male survivor to ignore, repress, or avoid disclosure and help-seeking for years – sometimes decades.[11]

Nevertheless, campus processes, websites and training materials are permeated with female -victim centric information, while wholly ignoring the possibility that men may also be sexual assault victims.

Proposed Title IX Regulations

The proposed Title IX rules attempt to resolve sex discrimination against men and treat students equally in several ways.

Section 106.30: General

“. . . [D]efines “supportive measures” as non-disciplinary, non-punitive individualized services offered as appropriate, as reasonably available, and without fee or charge, to the complainant or the respondent before or after the filing of a formal complaint or where no formal complaint has been filed . . . [S]uch measures are designed to restore or preserve access to the recipient’s education program or activity, without unreasonably burdening the other party; protect the safety of all parties and the recipient’s educational environment; and deter sexual harassment. Supportive measures may include counseling, extensions of deadlines or other course-related adjustments, modifications of work or class schedules, . . . and other similar measures . . .”[12]

Section 106.45(b)(1): General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

“. . . [G]rievance procedures must . . . [r]equire that a recipient ensure that coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers receive training on the definition of sexual harassment and how to conduct an investigation and grievance process . . . that protect the safety of students, ensure due process protections for all parties, and promote accountability; and that any materials used to train coordinators, investigators, or decision-makers not rely on sex stereotypes and instead promote impartial investigations and adjudications of sexual harassment . . .”[13]

Indeed, in court decisions involving the University of Pennsylvania, University of Mississippi, and Drexel University, judges ruled the institutions’ use of seemingly biased training material might have violated Title IX.

FAILURE TO CONSIDER COMPLAINTS BY MALE STUDENTS

A 2015 survey of college students revealed that “Students perceived that barriers to disclosure were more likely to prevent men than women from telling someone they were assaulted and seeking help.”[14] One of these barriers is campus disciplinary committees that refuse to consider allegations of sexual assault when they are made by a male student.

Relevant Case Law

In several lawsuits filed by male accused students, institutions failed to investigate evidence developed during the course of the institution’s own investigation that the accused student was a victim of sexual misconduct according to school policies: Rollins College (2017), Miami University, Amherst College, Williams College, and Drake University.

Rollins College

On January 16, 2019 U.S. District Court Judge Roy Dalton allowed a lawsuit against Rollins College – the second against the institution within two years — to move forward under the theories of breach-of-contract and selective enforcement.[15]

According to the male accused student, his female accuser had taken advantage of him sexually while he was inebriated. During its investigation, the college ignored evidence in favor of the male and overlooked contradictions in the woman’s testimony.[16]

The judge determined that the complaint raised the possibility that Rollins had effectively discriminated against the male student by: rejecting testimony from his witnesses “based, in part, on the male witnesses’ fraternity associations,” while allowing testimony from his accuser’s sorority witnesses; “excus[ing] any inconsistencies” in her testimony concerning whether she had “verbalized consent;” and made “irrelevant, inflammatory, and conclusory statements” about the accused. Rollins College prejudged the male accused student as guilty in order “to protect its image,” according to Judge Dalton.

in the Rollins College case the Title IX office maintained a web page that predominantly displayed the words “Rollins, It’s On Us. We are proud to support the national ‘It’s on Us’ campaign to stop sexual assault. To learn more, click here.”[17] Clicking on the link takes the viewer to the website of the It’s On Us campaign, which is designed to promote “a culture of consent, bystander intervention, and survivor support.”[18] Rollins’ It’s On Us webpage features the following statements focused on women as potential victims of sexual assault:

  • “Only 20% of female student victims, age 18-24, report to law enforcement”
  • “Among college women, 9 in 10 victims of rape and sexual assault knew their offender”

Rollins’ It’s On Us page does not include mention of how many male student victims report to law enforcement or knew their offender. Neither does the Rollins’ Title IX page provide any information specific to male victims of sexual assault.

In his ruling, Judge Dalton relied on federal appellate court decisions in lawsuits against Columbia University[19] and Miami University of Ohio[20] involving allegations of sex discrimination. The Columbia University appellate court decision was notable because it overruled a lower court decision that, if allowed to stand, would have made it nearly impossible for male victims of sexual assault to make viable complaints to campus sex tribunals.[21] The Columbia University court determined that a plaintiff can defeat a motion for summary judgment if his or her complaint meets the minimal burden of showing discriminatory intent.[22]

Judge Dalton found sufficient evidence to allow the male accused student’s lawsuit to go forward based on Rollins College’s refusal to even consider the possibility that the female was the sexual aggressor, its biased investigative process, and its subsequent decision to expel the male student.

Proposed Title IX Regulations

Section 106.45(a): Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

“. . . [A] recipient’s treatment of a complainant in response to a formal complaint of sexual harassment may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex, and also states that a recipient’s treatment of the respondent may constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX.”[23]

Section 106.45(b)(1): General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

“. . . [G]rievance procedures must . . . Treat complainants and respondents equitably . . .; [r]equire an investigation of the allegations and an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence . . . and provide that credibility determinations may not be based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness . . .; and that a ensure . . . that any materials used to train coordinators, investigators, or decision-makers not rely on sex stereotypes . . .”[24]

SEX-BIASED INVESTIGATIONS

Biased investigations against male students have become a serious problem in campus sexual assault cases. The following strategies are three investigative approaches used by universities, which have resulted in discrimination against men:

  1. Start By Believing program materials instruct sexual assault investigators to:
    1. Focus on witness statements “that corroborate the victim’s account.”
    2. Make sure the incident report does “not look like a consensual sexual experience.”[25]
    3. Make the complainant “appear more innocent.”[26]
    4. Tell the accuser, “I am sorry this happened to you. I’m an advocate, and I’m here to help.”[27]
    5. Collect any “information necessary to undermine” “potential defense strategies.”[28]
  1. Training materials developed by the national consulting firm Margolis Healy:[29]
    1. Consistently use the term “victim,” not complainant.
    2. Refer to the accused student using the gendered pronoun, “he.”
    3. Advise investigators to turn “He said, she said” into “He said, they said,” meaning the investigator should interview multiple witnesses to corroborate the complainant’s version of events, but not interview witnesses for the defense.
  1. The University of Texas School of Social Work’s Blueprint for Campus Police has two tables[30] that coach investigators how to thwart defense strategies, and discusses factors that are traditionally suggestive of innocence, but interprets them as indicative of guilt:
    1. “The alleged perpetrator knows what happened and therefore, appears to make more sense, which can be mistaken for credibility.”[31]
    2. “Studies have consistently shown that detecting deception is difficult, so officers may not realize when a perpetrator is lying.”[32]

These policies discriminate against men because the vast majority of respondents in Title IX proceedings are men. In fact, we have seen less than a handful of cases in which women have been accused, while there have been thousands of Title IX adjudications.

Furthermore, when school officials assume a female complainant is the victim and the accused male the perpetrator, then discount or ignore exonerating evidence, and refuse to consider male, the process necessarily favors women over men. As discussed above, in Doe v. Columbia Univ., the Second Circuit Court of Appeals held that, though the school’s intent in adopting its policies may not have been specifically to discriminate against men, any “policy of bias favoring one sex over the other” constitutes sex discrimination.

Relevant Case Law

Over the years, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against universities by accused men alleging a broad range of investigational biases and errors, based on the types of policies described above.[33] In five decisions, judges affirmed the accused students’ allegations of investigational deficiencies stemming from sex bias: Columbia University, Lynn University, Syracuse University, Hobart and William Smith Colleges, and Cornell University.

In each of these cases (with minor variations), the accused male student presented credible evidence of non-responsibility, e.g., witnesses contradicting the accuser at Columbia, a contemporaneous video of the sexual encounter at Lynn University, or a toxicology report at Cornell undermining the accuser’s claims of incapacitation. In each case the university essentially ignored exonerating evidence because of preconceived notions about how men and women behave (ie., Duke, as discussed above) and/or to allegedly preempt criticism from campus activists, the media, or the federal government that the institution was being insufficiently tough on sexual assault.

This issue was on display in Doe v. Amherst College after a federal district court denied Amherst’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.[34]

In Amherst, the male plaintiff (Doe) had been incapacitated when the female complainant gave him oral sex. However, the school found the male student repsponsible for sexual assault. It was not until the accused filed his lawsuit that discovery revealed text message that proved his claim thast he was the victim.

The plaintiff in Amherst asserted several causes of action, including that the school had violated Title IX based on selective enforcement and deliberate indifference:

In order to prevail on a selective enforcement claim, Doe was required to to establish that his gender was a “motivating factor behind either the College’s decision to pursue disciplinary action . . . or its decision as to the severity of punishment . . .”[35] The Court found that the accused student plaintiff  had met his burden on this claim, because he had alleged that Amherst encouraged the female complainant to file her complaint but did not do the same for him. Amherst did not even investigate his allegations despite his repeated allegations that he had had been “blacked out” when the female complainant initiated sexual activity with him.[36]

The plaintiff’s deliberate Indifference claim required him to show that Amherst was deliberately indifferent when handling his sexual harassment claim. The court found the male student had met this burden after he asserted that the female complainant initiated sexual activity with him while he was incapacitated. According the Court, “the College did not take even minimal steps to determine whether [the plaintiff] should have been viewed as a victim under the terms of the policy.”[37]

Proposed Title IX Regulations

The proposed Title IX regulations include two provisions designed to reduce investigative bias:

Section 106.45(b)(1): General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

“[G]rievance procedures must . . . [t]reat complainants and respondents equitably; an equitable resolution must . . .; [r]equire an investigation of the allegations and 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.”[38]

Section 106.45(b)(3): Investigations of a Formal Complaint

“[W]hen investigating a formal complaint, a recipient must . . . “[p]rovide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review evidence . . . so that each party can meaningfully respond to the evidence prior to conclusion of the investigation . . . [and] [c]reate an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence and, at least ten days prior to a hearing . . . , provide a copy of the report to the parties for their review and written responses.”[39]

FLAWED ADJUDICATIONS

In many cases, flawed adjudications are a direct result of the use of a single-investigator model in which the same college official serves as the investigator and adjudicator. Sex-biased adjudications have been well documented by accused male student lawsuits.

Relevant Case Law

In six decisions, the judge ruled the institution purportedly found all accused male students responsible for engaging in sexual misconduct (or) employed Title IX officials who were openly biased against male students: University of Oregon, Penn State University, University of Cincinnati, Muskingum University, University of Chicago, and Washington and Lee University.

Proposed Title IX Regulations

Section 106.45(b)(1): General Requirements for Grievance Procedures

“[G]rievance procedures must . . . [t]reat complainants and respondents equitably; an equitable resolution must . . .; [r]equire that any individual designated by a recipient as a coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker not have have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent; and that a recipient must ensure that coordinators, investigators, and decision-makers receive training on the definition of sexual harassment and how to conduct an investigation and grievance process – including hearings, if applicable – that protect the safety of students, ensure due process protections for all parties, and promote accountability . . .”[40]

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Cynthia Garrett, Esq. did the final case review and analysis of the report.

Appendix

JUDICIAL DECISIONS UPHOLDING A CAUSE OF ACTION OF SEX DISCRIMINATION, 2014-2018

  1. Wells v. Xavier Univ., 7 F.Supp.3d 746 (S.D. Ohio 2014)
  2. Harris v. St. Joseph’s Univ., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65452 (E.D. Pa. May 13, 2014)
  3. Doe v. Salisbury Univ., 107 F.Supp.3d 481 (D. Md. 2015)
  4. Doe v. Washington and Lee Univ., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102426 (W.D. Va. Aug. 5, 2015)
  5. Doe v. Salisbury Univ., 123 F.Supp.3d 748 (D. Md. 2015)
  6. Doe v. Brown Univ., 166 F.Supp.3d 177 (D.R.I. 2016)
  7. Prasad v. Cornell Univ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161297 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2016)
  8. Marshall v. Indiana Univ., 170 F.Supp.3d 1201 (S.D. Ind. 2016)
  9. Doe v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., No. 15-cv-04079 (N.D. Ga. April 19, 2016)
  10. Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2016)
  11. Collick v. William Paterson Univ., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160359 (D.N.J. Nov. 17, 2016)
  12. Doe v. Lynn Univ., 235 F.Supp.3d 1336 (S.D. Fla. 2017)
  13. Neal v. Colo. State Univ. – Pueblo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22196 (D. Colo. Feb. 16, 2017)
  14. Doe v. Amherst Coll., 238 F.Supp.3d 195 (D. Mass. 2017)
  15. Doe v. Ohio State Univ., 239 F.Supp.3d 1048 (S.D. Ohio 2017)
  16. Doe v. Williams Coll., No. 3:16-cv-30184 (D. Mass. Apr. 28, 2017)
  17. Mancini v. Rollins Coll., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113160 (M.D. Fla. July 20, 2017)
  18. Doe v. Case Western Reserve Univ., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142002 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 1, 2017)
  19. Doe v. Univ. of Pa., 270 F.Supp.3d 799 (E.D. Pa. 2017)
  20. Rolph v. Hobart & William Smith Colls., 271 F.Supp.3d 386 (W.D.N.Y. 2017)
  21. Doe v. Univ. of Chicago, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153355 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 20, 2017)
  22. Saravanan v. Drexel Univ., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193925 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 24, 2017)
  23. Doe v. Pa. State Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3184 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2018)
  24. Gischel v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 302 F.Supp.3d 961 (S.D. Ohio 2018)
  25. Doe v. Miami Univ., 882 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018)
  26. Schaumleffel v. Muskingum Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36350 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 6, 2018)
  27. Doe v. Marymount Univ., 297 F.Supp.3d 573 (E.D. Va. 2018)
  28. Doe v. Univ. of Or., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49431 (D. Or. Mar. 26, 2018)
  29. Elmore v. Bellarmine Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52564 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 29, 2018)
  30. Werner v. Albright Coll., No. 5:17-cv-05402 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2018)
  31. Doe v. Johnson & Wales Univ., No. 1:18-cv-00106 (D.R.I. May 14, 2018)
  32. Doe v. Univ. of Miss., 2018S. Dist. LEXIS 123181 (S.D. Miss. July 24, 2018)
  33. Doe v. Brown Univ., 327 F.Supp.3d 397 (D.R.I. 2018)
  34. Doe v. Baum, 903 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 2018)
  35. Doe v. Syracuse Univ., 341 F.Supp.3d 125 (N.D.N.Y. 2018)
  36. Rossley v. Drake Univ., No. 4:16-cv-00623 (S.D. Iowa Oct. 12, 2018)
  37. Doe v. Rider Univ., No. 3:16-cv-04882 (D.N.J. Oct. 31, 2018)
  38. Powell v. Mont. State Univ., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 215891 (D. Mont. December 21, 2018)

Citations:

[1] Proposed Title IX regulation, Section 106.45(a): Discrimination on the Basis of Sex

[2] Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance. Prop. Dep’t Educ., 83 Fed. Reg. 61462, 61499 (Nov. 29, 2018).

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001

[3] City Journal, “Mainstream Ideas, Fringe Opposition.” January 18, 2019. https://www.city-journal.org/neomi-rao-college-oped

[4] NISVS, Tables 2.1 and 2.2. http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

[5] NISVS,Table 2.2.

[6] Report on the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct, 2015. Table 5-3. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/AAU-Campus-Climate-Survey-FINAL-10-20-17.pdf

[7]  https://www.endsexualviolence.org/where_we_stand/male-victims/

[8] https://www.endsexualviolence.org/where_we_stand/male-victims/

[9] Emily Kassie, Male Victims Of Campus Sexual Assault Speak Out ‘We’re Up Against A System That’s Not Designed To Help Us’ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/male-victims-sexual-assault_n_6535730.html

[10] Christopher T. Allen, Rebecca Ridgeway & Suzanne C. Swan, College Students’ Beliefs Regarding Help Seeking for Male and Female Sexual Assault Survivors: Even Less Support for Male Survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2015. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926771.2015.982237

[11] MaleSurvivor. https://www.malesurvivor.org/for-professionals/

[12] Proposed Title IX Regulation at 61479.

[13] Id. at 61472.

[14] Christopher T. Allen, Rebecca Ridgeway & Suzanne C. Swan, College Students’ Beliefs Regarding Help Seeking for Male and Female Sexual Assault Survivors: Even Less Support for Male Survivors. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 2015. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10926771.2015.982237

[15] https://www.scribd.com/document/397618499/Judge-allows-anti-male-bias-lawsuit-to-proceed-against-Rollins-College-for-Title-IX-investigation#from_embed

[16] Greg Piper, Judge approves gender-bias lawsuit against Florida college for ignoring evidence in male’s favor. January 17, 2019. https://www.thecollegefix.com/judge-approves-gender-bias-lawsuit-against-florida-college-for-ignoring-evidence-in-males-favor/

[17] https://www.rollins.edu/sexual-misconduct/

[18] https://www.itsonus.org/pledge/

[19] https://www.thecollegefix.com/appeals-court-reinstates-reverse-discrimination-case-columbia-student-accused-rape/

[20] Doe v. Miami Univ., 822 F.3d 579 (6th Cir. 2018).

[21] Greg Piper, Appeals court reinstates reverse discrimination case against Columbia by student accused of rape. July 29, 2016. https://www.thecollegefix.com/appeals-court-reinstates-reverse-discrimination-case-columbia-student-accused-rape/

[22] Doe v. Columbia Univ., 831 F.3d 46, 55 (2d Cir. 2016).

[23] Proposed Title IX Regulation at 61472.

[24] Id.

[25] EVAWI Effective Report Writing, at 14. http://olti.evawintl.org/images/docs/REPORT%20WRITING%205-15-12.pdf

[26] EVAWI Effective Report Writing, at 11.

[27] EVAWI, http://www.startbybelieving.org/home

[28] EVAWI Effective Report Writing, at 4, 26.

[29] Margolis Healy, Title IX Investigations. Slide 28 (2012). http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Margolis-Healy-VCI-presentation.docx

[30] Busch-Armendariz, N.B., Sulley, C., & Hill, K. (2016). The Blueprint for campus police: Responding to sexual assault. Austin, TX: Institute on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, The University of Texas at Austin” Tables 7.3 and 7.4. https://utexas.app.box.com/v/blueprintforcampuspolice

[31] Id. at 97.

[32] Id.

[33] SAVE, “Victim-Centered Investigations: New Liability Risk for Universities.” 2016. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Victim-Centered-Investigations-and-Liability-Risk.pdf

[34] Amherst Coll., 238 F.Supp.3d at 229.

[35] Id. at 223.

[36] Id.

[37] Id. at 224.

[38] Proposed Title IX Regulation at 61472.

[39] Id. at 61475.

[40] Proposed Title IX Regulation at 61472.

Categories
Campus

Historic Advance for Fairness on Campus: Due Process Statement Signed by Nearly 300 Legal Experts and Scholars is Released

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Historic Advance for Fairness on Campus: Due Process Statement Signed by Nearly 300 Legal Experts and Scholars is Released

WASHINGTON / December 4, 2018 – Today, 294 law professors, other legal experts, and scholars from across the country are releasing a Due Process Statement that enunciates key principles for the investigation and adjudication of campus sexual assault cases. The Statement is designed to correct the erosion of due process protections that has plagued college campuses in recent years.

The Due Process Statement notes strong public support for campus due process, calls for balanced and objective investigations, highlights the fact that false allegations undermine the credibility of future victims, and urges lawmakers to speak out publicly in support of due process. The Statement cites the statement by Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg who said about campus procedures, “The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself…everyone deserves a fair hearing.”

For years, campus disciplinary committees have given short shrift to fair procedures, giving rise to terms like campus “kangaroo courts.” In 2011 the Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague Letter on sexual violence that attempted to remedy these procedural deficiencies, but the federal policy only served to make matters worse.

The SAVE Special Report, Six-Year Experiment in Campus Jurisprudence, documents how the system of campus adjudications created by the federal mandate has shortchanged both sexual assault complainants and accused students (1). As a result, hundreds of identified victims and accused students filed lawsuits and OCR complaints (2).

The Due Process Statement is available online (3).

Citations:

  1. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Six-Year-Experiment-Fails-to-Make-the-Grade.pdf
  2. http://counsel.cua.edu/res/docs/titleixlitigation.pdf
  3. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Due-Process-Statement-11.29.2018.pdf

 

SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is working for effective and fair solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org