Category: Campus

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

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

Campus Civil Rights

PR: Title IX Over-Reach: Leading Law Professors Issue Call to Rein in Federal Office for Civil Rights

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 16, 2016

Contact: Chris Perry

Email: cperry@saveservices.org

Title IX Over-Reach: Leading Law Professors Issue Call to Rein in Federal Office for Civil Rights

WASHINGTON / May 16, 2016 – Professors from leading law schools have signed an Open Letter deploring the erosion of free speech and due process on campus. The Letter calls on the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to cease its unlawful practice of issuing binding policy directives that do not comply with review-and-comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Open Letter is believed to be the first time that professors from numerous law schools, as a group, have publicly chastised the federal Office for Civil Rights.

The co-signers include faculty members from Harvard Law School, Stanford University, University of Pennsylvania, George Washington University, University of Wisconsin, New York University, University of Miami, Touro Law School, University of San Diego, and other schools.

The Open Letter traces the evolution of the OCR policy directives that purport to interpret Title IX, the federal law that was enacted in 1972 to bar sex discrimination in schools. The OCR mandates have had the effect of broadening, weakening, and eventually negating the Supreme Court’s definition of sexual harassment. In Davis v. Monroe, the High Court defined sexual harassment in schools as conduct that is “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive.” Over the course of time, the OCR has expanded that pivotal definition to encompass conduct that is severe, pervasive, OR subjectively offensive.

In a 2013 ruling, the OCR mandated that the University of Montana change its definition of sexual harassment to include “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including verbal comments. This has had the effect of pressuring universities to establish speech codes and free-speech zones. The Open Letter also recounts the effects of OCR policy mandates on due process protections for students accused of sexual assault.

The professors’ statement makes recommendations to clarify the legal status of OCR directives, reinvigorate free speech, and restore due process.

“The federal Office for Civil Rights has ignored constitutional law, judicial precedent, and Administrative Procedure Act requirements by issuing numerous directives, and then enforcing these directives by means of onerous investigations and accompanying threats to withhold federal funding. The OCR has brazenly nullified the Supreme Court definition of campus sexual harassment,” the professors warn. “These unlawful actions have led to pervasive and severe infringements of free speech rights and due process protections at colleges and universities across the country.”

The Open Letter can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Law-Professor-Open-Letter-May-16-2016.pdf The Letter remains open for additional co-signers.

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

Campus Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault

PR: Book Warns of ‘New Totalitarianism’ on Campus, Links Problem to 2011 Federal Mandate

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 9, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Book Warns of ‘New Totalitarianism’ on Campus, Links Problem to 2011 Federal Mandate

WASHINGTON / May 9, 2016 – A provocative new book spotlights the dramatic erosion of free speech and due process rights on college campuses, and pins much of the problem on the federal Office for Civil Rights. Rape Culture Hysteria: Fixing the Damage Done to Men and Women calls on lawmakers to take determined measures to restore democratic ideals and constitutional protections to universities.

Written by social commentator Wendy McElroy, Rape Culture Hysteria examines the factual basis of “rape culture” and concludes it is “not a real crisis but a manufactured one.” The book portrays Rolling Stone magazine’s report of an alleged gang-rape at the University of Virginia as emblematic of the hysteria. Even though the magazine account was quickly exposed as a fraud, rape culture proponents continued to insist that university investigators should “always believe the victim.”

Much of the problem can be traced to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which issued a Dear Colleague Letter on campus sexual violence in 2011. The policy required colleges to eliminate many due process protections in their handling of sexual assault allegations. As a result, the “treatment of accused males on campus has worsened dramatically,” McElroy posits.

McElroy charges the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and other “government policies are instrumental in turning American universities into bankrupt social experiments.” As a result, a new “high-paid, careerist professional caste” of college administrators has been created, she writes.

The book identifies a number of solutions, including reducing the OCR budget, treating sexual violence as a “criminal matter by turning accusations over to the police,” and devolving educational authority to the states.

“Political correctness is the new totalitarianism,” McElroy concludes. More information on the book can be seen here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B01EENF4HW/ref=tsm_1_fb_lk

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

Campus Sexual Assault

PR: ‘Something is going seriously wrong’: Colleges Grapple with Wave of Sexual Assault Lawsuits

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 18, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

‘Something is going seriously wrong’: Colleges Grapple with Wave of Sexual Assault Lawsuits

WASHINGTON / April 18, 2016 – Following a recent California ruling in favor of a student accused of sexual misconduct, state lawmakers and college administrators are beginning to consider the budgetary implications of these claims. On April 5 the California Second Appellate District Superior Court overturned a University of Southern California decision that found a male student responsible because he allegedly “encouraged or permitted” other students to slap a female student on her buttocks. The Superior Court explained, “it is not too heavy a burden to require that students facing disciplinary action be informed of the factual basis for the charges against them.” (1)

The University of Southern California decision is the eighth ruling in 2016 in which a court found in favor of a student accused of sexual assault, or allowed the case to proceed because the pleadings were sufficient to state a cause of action. (2)

The growing number of rulings in favor of accused students was the focus of a recent Inside Higher Ed article. (3) The account quoted Gary Pavela, editor of the the Association of Student Conduct Administration’s Law and Policy’s Report, as saying, “In over 20 years of reviewing higher education law cases, I’ve never seen such a string of legal setbacks for universities, both public and private, in student conduct cases….Something is going seriously wrong.”

These lawsuits represent a growing financial burden for colleges. According to Brett Sokolow of the Association of Title IX Administrators, responding to a due process lawsuit “can run into the high six or even seven figures, not counting a settlement or verdict.” (4) In February, the University of Montana agreed to pay a former student $245,000 because of the university’s biased adjudication of a sexual assault allegation. (5)

Risk management efforts to forestall these lawsuits are becoming increasingly costly, as well. Salaries for Title IX coordinators can range from $50,000 to $150,000 a year. Sokolow estimates the cost of lawyers, counselors, and educational campaigns run from $50,000 a year at small colleges, to half a million dollars and more at large universities.

Harvard University now employs 50 Title IX coordinators across its 13 schools. At Yale, nearly 30 faculty members and staff are involved in its Title IX programs. Columbia University now has a Title IX staff consisting of 11 educators and 7 case workers, and covers the legal expenses of both accusers and the accused.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni recently issued a statement sharply critical of the U.S. Department of Education for issuing directives that have “unconscionably conflated ‘conduct and speech cases’ in a way that has grossly expanded the intrusion of this unaccountable bureaucracy at the expense of faculty and student constitutional rights.” The Council warned, “It’s time that institutions—and their boards—fought back.” (6)

(1) http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B262917.PDF

(2) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/court-decisions/

(3) https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/04/14/several-students-win-recent-lawsuits-against-colleges-punished-them-sexual-assault

(4) http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/us/colleges-beef-up-bureaucracies-to-deal-with-sexual-misconduct.html?_r=0

(5) http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/university-of-montana-to-pay-ex-qb-jordan-johnson-245k-over-handling-of-rape-accusation-021616

(6) http://www.goacta.org/news/acta_praises_aaup_report_the_history_uses_and_abuses_of_title_ix_outlines_l

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

Campus Due Process

PR: Judge Issues Scathing Decision Against Brandeis U.; Ruling is Latest in String of Cases Favoring Due Process

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 5, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Judge Issues Scathing Decision Against Brandeis U.; Ruling is Latest in String of Cases Favoring Due Process

WASHINGTON / April 5, 2016 – The Massachusetts District Court has issued a strongly worded decision, ruling in favor of a student accused of sexual misconduct. The case is the most recent is a series of legal rulings supporting the need for stronger due process measures in campus sexual misconduct cases.

The case involved a same-sex relationship between two male students attending Brandeis University in Massachusetts. Following a 21-month long romantic relationship, John Doe was accused of “numerous inappropriate nonconsensual sexual interactions.” (1) The college proceeding led to a disciplinary warning and permanent notation in his educational record stating Doe had committed “serious sexual transgressions.” Doe filed a lawsuit alleging breach of contract, defamation, and other violations.

Writing on behalf of the District Court, Judge Dennis Saylor highlighted the basic unfairness of the University engaging an experienced attorney, while it expected “a student, approximately 21 years old, with no legal training or background, to defend himself, alone.”

The Court chided the university for its description of the accuser as a “victim,” noting, “Whether someone is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at the beginning.”

Judge Saylor was especially critical of the university investigator’s finding that Doe had violated the university’s affirmative consent policy because “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.”

The judge also questioned the University’s use of a preponderance of evidence standard of proof, which he viewed “as part of an effort to tilt the playing field against accused students, which is particularly troublesome in light of the elimination of other basic rights of the accused.” The District Court concluded, “Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process.”

The Brandeis decision is the most recent in a series of rulings that favor stronger due process protections for accused students at Appalachian State University, Brown University, University of California-Davis, University of California-San Diego, Cornell University, George Mason University, University of Michigan, Middlebury College, Pennsylvania State University, Salisbury University, University of Southern California, University of Tennessee-Chattanooga, and Washington and Lee University. (2)

(1) https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/brandeis-decision.pdf

(2) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/court-decisions/

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