Category: Campus

SAVE Calls for End of Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 24, 2017

Contact: Jonathon Andrews

Telephone: 301-801-0608

SAVE Calls for End of Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / January 24, 2017 – In the wake of continuing reports of incompetence and neglect, SAVE is calling for a wide-ranging re-evaluation of the role of campus disciplinary committees in adjudicating allegations of felony-level sexual assaults.

Last week, for example, it was reported that a rape tribunal at the University of Kentucky repeatedly violated the accused student’s due process rights, leading to three appeals and three re-hearings on the case. As the process dragged on for two-years, the woman’s mental health began to deteriorate. She eventually filed a lawsuit.

In response, District Court Judge Joseph Hood issued a strongly worded ruling, suggesting the University may have acted with “deliberate indifference.” The Judge concluded, “the University bungled the disciplinary hearings so badly, so inexcusably, that it necessitated three appeals and reversals in an attempt to remedy the due process deficiencies.” These problems “profoundly affected Plaintiff’s ability to obtain an education at the University of Kentucky.” (1)

Numerous expelled students have filed lawsuits as well, charging that their former universities ignored fundamental due process protections. In 30 cases, judges have ruled at least partly in favor of the accused students (2). Many of these lawsuits arose from schools’ use of “victim-centered” investigations in which the guilt of the accused party was presumed (3).

The American public supports the need for criminal justice involvement in campus cases. One national survey found that 91% of likely voters agreed with the statement that “The justice system, not colleges, should be primarily responsible for deciding if students are guilty of sexual misconduct or assault.” (4)

Today SAVE is launching its End Kangaroo Courts campaign to assure justice and fairness for both sexual assault victims and for the accused. The campaign will consist of meetings with state lawmakers, radio interviews, a whiteboard video, and more (5). SAVE is inviting state lawmakers to introduce the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA), which seeks to involve the criminal justice system in campus sex cases (6).

Citations:

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

Campus Sexual Assault

Affirmative Consent for Sex: R.I.P.?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 28, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Affirmative Consent for Sex: R.I.P.?

WASHINGTON / December 28, 2016 – Following heated debates on campus sexual assault, legislators in 10 out of 11 jurisdictions decided to not enact affirmative consent legislation in their states in 2016. Connecticut was the only state to pass an affirmative consent bill into legislation (1). California was the first state to enact such legislation at the end of 2014, and Connecticut is only the third state, after New York, to adopt such a law (2).

The major news story for campus sexual assault in 2016 was the sexual assault case involving Brock Turner at Stanford University. This incident occurred in California, despite the existence of a widely touted affirmative consent law in that state. The case highlighted the necessity for greater law enforcement involvement in such crimes (3).

Affirmative consent proposals experienced a range of other set-backs in 2016, suggesting a turn to other strategies to end campus sexual assault:

In March, a federal District Court ridiculed the Brandeis University affirmative consent policy. Judge Dennis Saylor wrote, “it is absurd to suggest that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the other party is a total stranger or a long-term partner in an apparently happy relationship” (4).

In May the membership of the prestigious American Law Institute, by a four-to-one margin, voted down a proposal to make affirmative consent the centerpiece of a proposed overhaul of its Model Penal Code for Sexual Assault (5).

In August, a study found “yes-means-yes” policies bear little relationship to the reality of sexual foreplay among college students. Based on interviews with California students, sexual encounters reportedly “just happened” following, for example, a nuzzling of the neck or tug on a partner’s sweatpants (6).

SAVE believes sexual assault is a crime, and should be treated as a crime. In January, SAVE will launch its Safe Students in ’17 campaign, which will feature its model Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA), designed to further involve criminal justice experts in campus sexual assault cases (7).

Citations:

Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Wesley College Determination Letter, Presidential Election May Portend Overhaul of Campus Sexual Assault Procedures

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 18, 2016

Contact: Christopher Perry

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: cperry(at)saveservices.org

Wesley College Determination Letter, Presidential Election May Portend Overhaul of Campus Sexual Assault Procedures

WASHINGTON / November 18, 2016 – A recent Determination Letter from the federal Office for Civil Rights, along with impending administrative changes at the Department of Education, highlight the need for college administrators to reassess their campus investigative and adjudicatory procedures in sexual assault cases to assure fairness and reliable outcomes.

In April 2015, a student who formerly attended Wesley College of Delaware who was accused of videotaping a sexual encounter without consent, filed a Title IX complaint with the Office for Civil Rights. The student alleged that the college failed to provide a full opportunity for him to respond to the charges, rebut the allegations, or defend himself at his hearing.

The subsequent OCR Determination Letter documented a broad array of due process violations (1). Based on these findings, Wesley College agreed to implement numerous provisions to bring its school into compliance with Title IX, including:

Providing for an adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation of all complaints
Providing an equal opportunity for the parties to present witnesses and other evidence
Providing equal access to information being considered during the adjudication process
Complying with law enforcement requests for cooperation, and temporarily suspend its own investigation while law enforcement is in the process of gathering evidence.
Revising school policies so parties would not be prohibited from discussing information related to their complaint with others.
Conducting a careful inquiry into the risk of harm to the school community, prior to imposing any interim suspension.

The recent OCR Determination Letter was the first time the U.S. agency has investigated alleged due process shortcomings at a college.

In addition, last week’s presidential election is certain to alter the political landscape for the Department of Education. According to Gerard Robinson, a leader in president-elect Trump’s transition team, the Office for Civil Rights needs to revise its policies to ensure that students’ rights are not “trampled on” (2). “I think you can be certain that OCR will be downsized and will be less prominent in a Trump administration,” according to Rick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (3).

Earlier this week, SAVE assembled an expert panel to discuss how the incoming Trump Administration is likely to alter the Office for Civil Rights sexual assault policies. The SAVE representatives on the panel recommended that schools take decisive steps to assure due process for accused students, including elimination of single-investigator models and victim-centered investigations, which make a presumption of guilt and make it difficult, if not impossible for an innocent student to prove his innocence (4).

Citations:

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a non-profit organization, is working for effective and fair solutions to the problem of campus sexual assault.

Campus False Allegations Sexual Assault

PR: Rolling Stone Verdict Highlights Need for State Lawmakers to Bring an End to Campus Rape Vigilantism

Post author By saveadmin
Post date November 7, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Rolling Stone Verdict Highlights Need for State Lawmakers to Bring an End to Campus Rape Vigilantism

WASHINGTON / November 7, 2016 – A federal jury decided on Friday that Rolling Stone magazine was responsible for libel and acted with “actual malice” in its reporting of an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia. Later this week the jurors will decide on UVA dean Nicole Eramo’s $7.5 million lawsuit demand (1).

Thousands of news accounts and internet sites have now identified the UVA rape accuser as Jackie Coakley of Charlottesville, Virginia (2).

Coakley alleged that a student named “Drew” brought her to the fraternity house where she was led upstairs and brutally raped by seven men. When the assault was reported to Nicole Eramo, head of UVA’s Sexual Misconduct Board, Coakley alleged Eramo was more interested in protecting the university’s reputation than helping sexual assault survivors.

Shortly after the article was published, the fraternity house where the rape allegedly occurred was vandalized, forcing its residents to go into hiding; violent protests were held on campus; and death threats were directed to Eramo (3). University president Teresa Sullivan suspended all Greek organizations. Subsequently, the number of applications to the University fell to the lowest level since 2002.

“Eventually, it was revealed that Coakley hadn’t been raped at all, and had apparently invented her story as part of a convoluted scheme to win the affections of a boy she had a crush on,” according to reporter Blake Neff (4).

Columnist Mollie Hemingway noted that the “rape culture craze has led to attacks on the civil liberties of men and created a panic built on emotion more than reality,” Hemingway lamented that as a result of the UVA events, “Actual victims of rape will suffer and not be believed” (5).

Commentator Robby Soave concluded, “If we’re going to make college a safer environment—for both victims of sexual assault, and the wrongfully accused and maligned—the truth has got to matter more than the story” (6).

SAVE has developed a model bill titled the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act. CEFTA mandates a series of due process protections for the accused and encourages the involvement of local criminal justice authorities in campus sexual assault cases (7).

References:

SAVE is working for practical and effective solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Sexual Assault Special Report Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: Railroading the Innocent: SAVE Calls on University Administrators to End ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 26, 2016

Contact: Christopher Perry

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: cperry@saveservices.org

Railroading the Innocent: SAVE Calls on University Administrators to End ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

WASHINGTON / October 26, 2016 – A report issued today probes a recent spate of lawsuits against universities, and calls on college administrators to stop the use of so-called “victim-centered” investigations to probe allegations of campus sexual assault. The report concludes such methods are “inconsistent with the most basic notions of fairness, repudiate the presumption of innocence, and are likely to lead to wrongful determinations of guilt, thereby increasing schools’ liability exposure.”

Titled “Victim-Centered Investigations: New Liability Risk for Colleges and Universities,” the report analyses 18 lawsuits filed by students who had been accused of sexual misconduct, and in which the judge ruled in favor of the accused student. In all 18 cases, students alleged the university committed investigational improprieties. The paper classifies the investigational flaws into categories such as “Incomplete/Inadequate Collection of Evidence” and “Overt Bias/Predetermination of Guilt.” (1)

The report also highlights the recent Office for Civil Rights determination against Wesley College of Delaware. According to the OCR, the college did not conduct any meaningful investigation of the accused student’s perspective. The Washington Post concluded, “In this case, the OCR found virtually everything wrong and therefore, a violation of Title IX’s protections against discrimination.”

“Victim-centered” methods abandon traditional notions of impartiality and objectivity. They instead call on investigators to presume that “all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings” (2). Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk describes the victim-centered concept as an extreme “near-religious teaching” that is likely to discredit future rape victims (3). An Expert Panel composed of attorneys and professional investigators recently rejected “victim-centered” methods, calling for them to be replaced by “justice-centered” approaches (4).

SAVE has developed a model bill titled the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA). The bill mandates the use of “justice-centered” investigations that would require campus investigators to “discharge their duties with objectivity and impartiality” (5). More information about victim-centered investigations is available (6).

Citations:

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

Accountability Campus Civil Rights Department of Justice Discrimination Law Enforcement Office for Civil Rights Press Release Research Training Victims

PR: Expert Panel Calls on Lawmakers to Bring an End to Campus ‘Kangaroo Court’ Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 11, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Expert Panel Calls on Lawmakers to Bring an End to Campus ‘Kangaroo Court’ Investigations

WASHINGTON / October 11, 2016 – Warning “victim-centered” investigations are “inconsistent with basic notions of fairness and justice,” an Expert Panel has issued a report calling on lawmakers to end such approaches in campus sexual assault cases (1). The Expert Panel was convened in observance of Wrongful Conviction Day on October 4 and addressed the growing problem of “victim-centered” investigations at colleges and in the criminal justice system.

“Victim-centered” methods abandon traditional notions of impartiality and objectivity, and instead call on investigators to presume that “all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings,” as one report enjoins (2). Such recommendations represent a negation of the long-held tenet of the presumption of innocence, and are likely to lead to wrongful determinations of guilt.

One of the expert panelists was Michael Conzachi, a former homicide detective and police academy instructor. Conzachi sharply criticized the University of Texas-Austin document Blueprint for Campus Police, saying its recommendations to remove inconsistent statements and exculpatory information from investigational reports represent a potential violation of laws that bar evidence concealment and tampering.

E. Everett Bartlett, president of the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, reported that many lawsuits by accused students against universities now include allegations of investigational impropriety. He identified nine categories of investigational biases claimed in campus lawsuits such as Overt bias/Predetermination of guilt and Inadequate investigator qualifications.

Campus Due Process False Allegations Sexual Assault

PR: Federal Directive Triggered Spurt of Lawsuits Against Universities For Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Assault Cases, Report Says

Post author By saveadmin
Post date September 7, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Federal Directive Triggered Spurt of Lawsuits Against Universities For Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Assault Cases, Report Says

WASHINGTON / September 7, 2016 – A report released today reveals a 2011 U.S. Department of Education sexual harassment directive led to a dramatic increase in the number of lawsuits alleging mishandling of allegations of sexual assault on campuses. Titled “Lawsuits Against Universities for Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Misconduct Cases,” the report found that the number of lawsuits by students tripled over an eight-year period.

During the period 2006-2010, a leading insurance company received an average of 52 claims per year from alleged victims of sexual assault and from students who asserted they were wrongfully expelled for sexual assault. By 2013, the number increased to 154 claims. Claims by students alleging lack of due process increased at an even higher rate, increasing from 10 lawsuits in 2013 to 53 in 2015.

These claims represent a growing liability risk for colleges and universities. During the period 2006 to 2010, payments to accused students represented 72% of all expenses for legal fees and payments to persons alleging mishandling of sexual assault cases by campus disciplinary committees, according to a leading insurance company. In July, Georgia Tech officials agreed to pay a male student $125,000 to settle a case in which he had been accused of sexual assault(1). Earlier this year, a former University of Montana quarterback received a $245,000 settlement for the university’s “unfair and biased” rape investigation (2).

The report provides a detailed analysis of 30 lawsuits in which a state or federal court ruled at least partly in favor of the accused student. For each of the 30 cases, the report identifies the causes of action. Among the most common causes of action, an allegation of lack of due process was successful in eight out of 11 cases (73%), followed by breach of contract (62%), Title IX violation (54%), and negligence (33%).

The report also details the relief requested for each lawsuit. Among the 30 lawsuits, a total of 198 types of relief were requested. The three

most commonly requested types of relief requested were reversal of the expulsion/ finding of guilt, just and proper, and reimbursement of attorneys’ fees.

The report highlights the most significant procedural and policy deficiencies identified in the judicial decisions. The deficiencies pertained to weak qualifications of university adjudicators, inappropriate use the word “victim,” selective enforcement of Title IX, investigational biases, weak cross-examination provisions, unfair appeal procedures, and affirmative consent policies.

The report notes that alleged victims of sexual assault have prevailed in numerous lawsuits, as well. The report concludes by noting the fundamental incompatibility between the requirements of the federal Department of Education 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and the mission and capabilities of colleges and universities.

Lawsuits Against Universities for Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Misconduct Cases represents the first detailed, quantitative analysis of sexual assault lawsuits filed by accused students. The report can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/reports/

Citations:

SAVE is working for balanced, evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus False Allegations Sexual Assault

No Harassment, No Victim, No Investigation. Expelled Anyway.

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 3, 2016

Jack Hunter

August 8, 2016

As a college student, I earned a degree in Law Enforcement, but I ended up pursuing a successful business career. At the age of 52, I decided I wanted to become a volunteer deputy at the local Sheriff’s Office.

But first I had to complete a rigorous vetting process, which involves the same procedures as for a full-time officer. The evaluation included a 200-hour background check, physiological testing, and a voice stress analysis. I passed all the checks and took my oath to uphold the Constitution.

After two years serving as an auxiliary deputy, I decided I wanted to qualify for more advanced assignments. So I enrolled in the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy, which is affiliated with Kent State University. My wife of 20 years and two teenage daughters were all committed to helping get Dad through school.

Four months into the program things were progressing well, other than the ribbing I occasionally endured about my age and being called the class know-it-all because I answered many of the Instructors’ questions.

One of our classes involved training on deadly force, which covers the protective procedures utilized when an officer is under attack. One student, playing the perpetrator, crouches over another student, playing the officer, and pretends to strike the officer in the face. In self-defense, the officer rolls the perpetrator over, changing positions to neutralize the threat.

For purposes of this training exercise, I was the designated “perpetrator” and a female student in the class the designated “officer.” The demonstration proceeded uneventfully and the class dismissed.

But at the next class, I was called out of the room and escorted to the administrator’s office. At that time, I was accused of “inappropriate contact” with the female cadet during the training demonstration.

Oddly, the complaint was not filed by the female student who had participated in the training exercise, or by any of the three instructors who closely observed our every move. Instead, the complaint came from another student who claimed he witnessed this “inappropriate” contact. None of the other 25 students watching the demonstration noticed anything out of the ordinary.

Adding to the irony was the fact that this female classmate and I were friends. She often solicited my help with her classwork. Just 20 minutes before I was summoned to the office, she had joined me and another student for lunch.

Now, I found myself being escorted out of the building.

Three days later the Investigator sent me a text message informing me that I was being terminated from the school. Three weeks the Termination Letter arrived. The letter contained accusations of actions that had never occurred and for which no substantiation was provided. The letter concluded with these blunt words: “No Appeal.”

Stunned and shocked, I requested an appeal. The university legal counsel directed me to the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy, which in turn sent me back to the university. After a year of repeated requests, the hearing was granted. But the school refused to return my calls to answer questions how the hearing would be conducted.

In Kafkaesque manner, no written charges were presented at the hearing. I was not allowed to call anyone to speak on my behalf.

Previously the Investigator, a sitting police officer, had claimed a written statement existed to justify his actions. But at the hearing, I learned that no written statements were taken at the time of the alleged incident. Indeed, the Investigator had never even spoken to the alleged “victim.”

By definition, this represents a falsification of the evidence.

I then contacted the college dean, the Ohio Board of Regents, and others to review the finding in hopes of changing the outcome, without success.

These events have imposed unimaginable hardships on me and have taken a heavy toll on my family. The emotional damage has been devastating. I am now approaching two years in counseling to deal with the feelings of betrayal of everything I believed in. I had to cash in my retirement to cover legal costs that have already exceeded $20,000.

Needless to say, the Training Academy’s actions have destroyed my dream to work in law enforcement. To this day, I remain dumbfounded as the Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy is training future police officers, many of whom will one day become investigators of sex-related crimes.

Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Campus Sexual Assault: Lawmakers Abandon Affirmative Consent, Turn to Traditional Law Enforcement Approaches

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 19, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Campus Sexual Assault: Lawmakers Abandon Affirmative Consent, Turn to Traditional Law Enforcement Approaches

WASHINGTON / July 19, 2016 – Responding to high-profile cases at Stanford University, Vanderbilt, Baylor, and elsewhere, Democratic and Republican legislators are beginning to enact laws that emphasize traditional criminal justice approaches to curbing campus rape. Lawmakers have largely abandoned consideration of affirmative consent policies, which require intimate partners to indicate agreement at every step of sexual activity.

In the wake of the Stanford rape case, California lawmakers have begun debating whether to expand the definition of rape and establish minimum sentencing requirements (1). In Missouri, a bill was enacted on July 1 that directs universities to enter into a memorandum of understanding with law enforcement on sexual assault policies (SB 921) (2). Laws designed to strengthen the reporting of sexual assault cases to local law enforcement were enacted earlier this year in Hawaii (3) and Virginia (4).

In Congress, the House Judiciary Committee approved the Survivor’s Bill of Rights Act on July 7 (HR 5578). The bipartisan bill provides protections and access to a legal process for sexual assault survivors on campus and elsewhere (5).

Affirmative consent proposals made little legislative headway in 2016. In six states, affirmative consent bills failed to be approved before the legislature adjourned for the year: Hawaii (HB 597 and SB 3119), Iowa (HSB 637 and SF 2195), Maryland (HB 1142), Minnesota (HF 3100 and SF 3088), Missouri (SB 626), and North Carolina (HB 474).

Affirmative consent bills have been introduced three other states where legislatures are still in session – Michigan (HB 4903 and SB 512), New Jersey (A 2271), and Pennsylvania (SB 1005) — and the final outcome of these bills remains uncertain. Only in Connecticut was an affirmative consent bill for college students (HB 5376) enacted into law, but the bill does not define “sexual activity,” leaving the practical impact of the law in doubt.

SAVE has developed a bill that supports the rights of accusers and the accused. Titled the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA), the bill encourages the referral of campus sex cases to local criminal justice authorities for investigation and adjudication (6).

The American College of Trial Lawyers recently issued a statement describing campus sex disciplinary procedures as “demonstratively unfair to the accused, with no right to representation or cross-examination.” (7)

Citations:

SAVE is working for fair, balanced, and constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Stanford Sex Case Highlights Dangers of Campus Rape Adjudications

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 14, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Stanford Sex Case Highlights Dangers of Campus Rape Adjudications

WASHINGTON / June 14, 2016 – The recent sentencing of Brock Turner, former Stanford University student convicted on three counts of felony sexual assault, has stoked national outrage, and refocused attention on the proper role of the criminal justice system in handling campus sex crimes. Turner was sentenced to six months in jail for his sexual assault of an unconscious woman.

The letter written by the victim has registered over 16 million views (1); a petition calling for the impeachment of the presiding judge has generated over one million signatures (2); and Vice President Joe Biden has penned an Open Letter to the woman (3).

The case has also stoked public awareness of the shortcomings of campus committees in handling felony-level crimes.

Washington Examiner writer Ashe Schow explained, “the worst thing a campus can do to someone like Turner is ban him from campus, leaving him free to prey on off-campus victims.” (4)

Writing in the Washington Post, KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor noted, “the Turner case shows that the best way to deal with a campus sexual assault problem is to rely on law enforcement professionals to protect women and to pursue justice, not on campus disciplinary systems run by amateur sex bureaucrats.” (5)

Spotlighting the role of binge drinking, National Review columnist Mona Charen decried how campus hook-up culture is the “greatest petri dish for enabling rape and sexual assault imaginable.” (6)

SAVE has recently released a bill, the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA), which encourages the referral of campus sex crimes to criminal justice authorities, and requires colleges to implement policies to curb binge drinking (7).

SAVE is working for evidence-based solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org