Category: Civil Rights

Why Are Some Members of Congress Opposing Due Process Protections for Black Male Students?

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 14, 2020

SAVE

July 14, 2020

During the Senate HELP Committee’s 2015 hearing on campus sexual assault, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley made the surprising observation that in her experience, “male students of color are accused and punished at ‘unreasonably high rates’ in campus sexual misconduct investigations.” (1) Two years later, journalist Emily Yoffe posed this question in The Atlantic: “Is the system biased against men of color?” explaining, “black men make up only about 6 percent of college undergraduates, yet are vastly overrepresented in the cases I’ve tracked.” (2) Lara Bazelon, director of the racial justice clinics at the University of San Francisco School of Law, likewise has opined about the troubling racial dynamics at play under the current Title IX system, and urged Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to “take important steps to fix these problems.” (3)

During this time of national reflection on race relationships, stories mount of black men whose lives were irrevocably harmed by false allegations or poorly administered campus tribunals (4). The examples of unfair treatment are numerous and egregious:

Two years ago, Nikki Yovino was sentenced to one year in jail for falsely accusing two black male football players, students at Sacred Heart University, of sexual assault (5).
Grant Neal, a black student athlete suspended by Colorado State University-Pueblo for a rape his white partner denied ever happened, sued and settled with his university (6).
Two black male students accused of sexual assault recently settled a lawsuit against University of Findlay for racial, gender, and ethnic discrimination (7).

Black faculty members also have been targeted by the campus kangaroo courts. The nation’s first elected black governor, former Virginia Governor L. Douglas Wilder, penned a scathing letter regarding his “unimaginable nightmare at Virginia Commonwealth University” after he was erroneously accused of sexual misconduct. He aptly titled his letter, “Secretary DeVos Right to Restore Due Process on Campus.” (9) Similarly, Howard University castigated law professor Reginald Robinson for allegations of sexual harassment, although his actions were clearly an expression of academic freedom consistent with university policy. (10)

So how widespread is the problem?

In 2017, the Office for Civil Rights investigated Colgate University for potential race discrimination in its sexual assault adjudication process. During the course of the investigation, the institution had to reveal the embarrassing fact that “black male students were accused of 50% of the sexual violations reported to the university,” (11) even though black students represent only 5.2% of all undergraduate students (12).

More recently, Title IX For All analyzed demographic data from the approximately 650 lawsuits filed against institutions of higher education since 2011. Among the 30% of cases in which the race of the accused student was known, black students are four times as likely as white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in Title IX disciplinary proceedings. Title IX For All concludes, “These findings come at a time when public officials who have long regarded themselves as champions of civil rights for minorities suspected or accused of crimes advocate a heightened awareness of their rights, while simultaneously working to undermine their rights in higher education settings.” (13)

The new Title IX regulation will ensure fairness, equitability, and credibility, and will support and assist sexual assault complainants, as well (14). Some members of Congress in both the Senate (15) and the House of Representatives (16) have urged Secretary DeVos to rescind the new regulation with vague claims that it is harmful to students.

At a time when activists across the country are clamoring that Black Lives Matter, why are some members of Congress opposed to a regulation that will help improve the lives of black men?

Citations:

Accountability Campus Civil Rights False Allegations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Uncategorized Victims

Addressing common misconceptions about the new Title IX regulations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 22, 2020

by Susan Kruth, FIRE

May 21, 2020

The Department of Education finalized its new Title IX regulations less than two weeks ago, and already, a lot of misinformation about them has been published in various forms of media. We can’t address it all here, but we wanted to at least clarify some points that many commenting on the regulations are getting wrong.

Often, misinformation about the law proliferates because people don’t have the time or energy to check original sources. Commentary doesn’t always include citations, and sometimes people think they won’t be able to read or understand legalese anyway. On the second point, they’re usually wrong. So when in doubt, readers: Be skeptical of any source that doesn’t quote and link to the regulations themselves, and go back and read them yourselves.

Without further ado, here are some commonly shared incorrect or misleading statements about the regulations:

The regulations mandate that sexual harassment cases be treated differently from racial harassment cases.

The regulations require that federally funded educational institutions — all but a few colleges and universities across the country — respond a certain way to sexual misconduct, and these requirements do not all apply in non-sexual misconduct cases. ED isn’t instructing schools to treat non-sexual misconduct cases differently, per se; it just can’t create obligations for how institutions handle non-sexual misconduct allegations in Title IX regulations, because Title IX governs sex discrimination only. Under the new regulations, institutions will no longer be required or encouraged to provide respondents in sexual misconduct cases fewer free speech and due process rights than they have been providing respondents in non-sexual misconduct cases.

With respect to the definition of harassment, for example, critics argue that sexual harassment will have to reach a higher threshold before schools can and must punish someone engaging in sexual harassment compared with racial harassment.

[T]here are many sources of misinformation out there, including individuals and organizations that should know better.

It’s easy to see where this misinformation comes from: In the spring of 2013, the Department of Education promoted an unconstitutionally broad definition of sexual harassment — “any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including “verbal conduct” — although it publicly backed away from this definition just months later. As FIRE explained at the time, the Supreme Court of the United States established the legal definition of student-on-student (or peer) sexual harassment in the 1999 case Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education: conduct “that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims’ educational experience, that the victim-students are effectively denied equal access to an institution’s resources and opportunities.”

Moreover, in its 2001 Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance, issued by President Bill Clinton’s Department of Education the day before President George W. Bush was inaugurated, ED’s Office for Civil Rights addressed requests “to provide distinct definitions of sexual harassment to be used in administrative enforcement as distinguished from criteria used to maintain private actions for monetary damages.” It declined to do so, explaining that “schools benefit from consistency and simplicity in understanding what is sexual harassment for which the school must take responsive action. A multiplicity of definitions would not serve this purpose.”

The new regulations’ definition of hostile environment harassment tracks the Davis standard: “Unwelcome conduct determined by a reasonable person to be so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively denies a person equal access to the recipient’s education program or activity.” So if critics have a problem, their problem is with the Supreme Court, or perhaps with the Clinton administration, not with the current Secretary of Education.

In any case, courts have been applying the Davis standard to racial harassment cases for almost Davis’ entire existence. When ED instructed institutions to punish “any unwelcome [speech] of a sexual nature,” it didn’t make the same instruction with respect to racial harassment. As a result, institutions were left with the impression that they should be punishing a far broader spectrum of sex-related speech than race-related speech. The new regulations simply clarify that both types of harassment should be assessed according to the Davis standard.

FIRE would be very pleased to see the regulations’ procedural safeguards guaranteed in all serious, non-academic misconduct cases.

Similarly, with respect to the standard of evidence, schools are already treating sexual and racial misconduct cases differently, and the regulations explicitly allow institutions to treat them the same way. In a 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter, ED mandated for the first time that all institutions governed by Title IX use the “preponderance of the evidence” standard in adjudicating sexual misconduct cases — but again, it made no such mandate with respect to race-related cases.

As a result, most colleges maintain a bifurcated system where sexual misconduct cases are dealt with differently from all other cases, including racial harassment cases. Some schools, inclined to require “clear and convincing evidence” for a responsible finding, have been using a higher standard of evidence for non-sex-related cases than for sex-related cases since 2011. ED’s rescission of this 2011 mandate and finalization of the new regulations gives institutions a path (and ED has encouraged institutions) to use the same standard for both types of cases.

Finally, with respect to the adjudication procedure aside from the standard of evidence, the same is true. Many institutions already provide live hearings for non-sexual misconduct cases, but not for sexual misconduct cases. This may be in part due to a 2014 report by the White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault, which encouraged schools to use a single-investigator model for sexual misconduct cases. Under the new regulations, these schools will give students facing non-sexual misconduct cases and students facing sexual misconduct cases more similar opportunities to defend themselves and challenge the evidence against them in a meaningful hearing.

FIRE would be very pleased to see the regulations’ procedural safeguards guaranteed in all serious, non-academic misconduct cases. (In fact, FIRE has worked with legislatures to enact bipartisan legislation that provides consistent, robust safeguards in campus proceedings whenever there is a potential penalty of 10 or more days of suspension or expulsion on the line.) But for now, the regulations at least help ensure that respondents in sexual misconduct cases possess many safeguards they are often granted already in non-sexual misconduct cases.

Students walk near Healy Hall at Georgetown University. (Sharkshock / Shutterstock.com)

The regulations raise the standard of evidence for campus disciplinary cases.

Somewhat relatedly, critics have argued that the regulations effectively require institutions to use a higher standard of evidence for sexual misconduct cases than they did previously. This is easily demonstrated to be false. The regulations plainly state that an institution may choose “whether the standard of evidence to be used to determine responsibility is the preponderance of the evidence standard or the clear and convincing evidence standard,” so long as it uses the same standard for “all formal complaints of sexual harassment,” including against employees. If an institution wants to use the “preponderance” standard, it still can do so. Furthermore, institutions were in the same position before the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, and have remained in the same position even after 2011 with respect to non-sexual misconduct cases. There is no drastic new requirement here.

The same could not be said for the 2011 Dear Colleague letter, which did impose new requirements on schools — without ED soliciting notice and comment from stakeholders, as required under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The ACLU and others argue that the preponderance standard should be required anyway because it is the standard used in Title IX cases in civil court. But those cases are against institutions that are guaranteed many more procedural safeguards in court than students are afforded in campus disciplinary systems, including some of the safeguards to which some commenters have objected now that they are required by the new regulations. Institutions also have lawyers and money and other resources at their disposal to assist in their defense. These institutions will not be punished because three out of five fact-finding panelists believe it is more likely than not that they committed wrongdoing, as students can be.

Still, if institutions want to use the low, preponderance standard, they may.

The regulations gut Title IX protections.

Critics of the regulations claim that they “gut[] Title IX protections for students.” To the contrary, as my colleague Joe Cohn explained in a post earlier this month, the regulations require that schools provide new and important safeguards, options, and tools to both complainants and respondents, and they bring the focus of the regulations back to the original purpose of Title IX — ensuring equal access to education.

Right now, too many institutions aim for whatever result is worst for the respondent, not whatever result is best for the complainant. They are concerned with punishing students who they deem guilty, but they are not necessarily asking what complainants feel would be most helpful for them to continue their education. That serves no one.

Safeguards like the opportunity to question witnesses aren’t just useful for respondents; they can be used by complainants and their representatives to demonstrate to fact-finders the truth of their complaints, too. With more information shared in advance of the hearing, complainants will be better able to prepare for it. And with a guarantee of impartial fact-finders and public training materials, complainants can have more confidence that their cases will be handled fairly — or more recourse if they aren’t.

As Shiwali Patel, senior counsel for the National Women’s Law Center, has written, “[T]here isn’t a conflict between ensuring a fair process for both survivors and for alleged perpetrators.” We agree. With both parties guaranteed many safeguards that they do not receive on most campuses now, fact-finders will be better equipped to reach accurate, reliable findings of fact, whether they’re responsible findings or not responsible findings. Procedural safeguards help ensure more innocent students are not punished and more guilty students are punished.

Procedural safeguards help ensure more innocent students are not punished and more guilty students are punished.

Moreover, some provisions of the regulations and supplementary information will help protect against common hurdles that self-identified survivors have faced. For one example, after recognizing commenters’ concerns about complainants bearing the burden of gathering relevant evidence themselves, ED emphasized that institutions, not students, should bear that responsibility. It explained: “Title IX obligates recipients to operate education programs and activities free from sex discrimination, and does not place burdens on students or employees who are seeking to maintain the equal educational access that recipients are obligated to provide.”

One victims’ rights advocate said in a recent interview that she received only two days’ notice that the person she alleged raped her would be questioning her. She was afraid of hearing her attacker’s voice again, and ended up dropping her case. We can’t say whether she would have dropped her case if the hearing process complied with the new regulations, but there are, at least, provisions in the regulations to address several of these factors. She would never have had only two days’ notice of cross-examination.

Between clear policies requiring an opportunity for questioning and the several weeks of aggregate time guaranteed to students as they collect and review evidence, she would not have been caught off-guard in this way. And she wouldn’t have to face her alleged rapist directly — she wouldn’t have to hear his voice if she didn’t want to. With questioning conducted by both parties’ representatives, and with the ability to participate from another room, she would have to endure less direct exposure to her alleged rapist than she did without the regulations.

This is not a comprehensive review of provisions that will help protect complainants, but these examples should at least cast doubt on claims that the regulations benefit only respondents.

Yet, many responses to the regulations have been extreme. Catherine E. Lhamon, chairwoman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights and former ED’s Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, tweeted: “[Betsy DeVos] presides over taking us back to the bad old days, that predate my birth, when it was permissible to rape and sexually harass students with impunity.”

FIRE understands that too often, complaints of sexual harassment and assault are not taken seriously, and that FIRE’s mission of defending accused students’ due process rights does not align with everyone’s first priorities. However, it is just not true that affording students more robust due process rights means that anyone can rape and harass “with impunity.”

The physical act of assault — sexual or not — is still prohibited and punishable under university rules and state laws. The determination of whether speech may be punished as discriminatory harassment will follow the same analysis as it has in courts for decades. ED retains the ability to deny funding to institutions governed by Title IX. Schools will be able to mete out more serious punishments with more confidence that respondents found responsible have earned it, and that the case won’t be overturned in court. And, if anything, schools will be less able to hide wrongdoing (including bias in favor of respondents) behind closed doors, from training to investigations to decisions to appeals.

In a similar vein, critics of the regulations assert that the regulations instruct institutions to ignore harassment until a student drops out of school, rather than addressing problems early enough that a complainant can continue her education at that institution. But the supplementary information accompanying the regulations explicitly states that the applicable standard requires only “that a person’s ‘equal’ access to education has been denied, not that a person’s total or entire educational access has been denied”; it “does not require that a complainant has already suffered loss of education before being able to report sexual harassment.”

Again: Read the document yourself.

Meier Commons at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. (Ken Wolter / Shutterstock.com)

“But my school already provides a fair disciplinary procedure!”

We’ve spoken with many administrators who think that they already provide procedural safeguards like notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard. But these administrators’ institutions often do not actually guarantee these safeguards; instead, they maintain policies that allow an administrator to grant those safeguards or to omit them, at their discretion. This is problematic on several levels. First, it means that one student (indeed, a complainant or respondent) may be treated better or worse based on an administrator’s personal feelings about them or their case. Such a result cannot stand. Second, it means that many students will, in practice, be denied these procedural safeguards, effectively depriving them of a meaningful opportunity to present their cases.

It’s not enough to have policies that an administrator could theoretically interpret in a way that affords a student procedural safeguards. Policies must be clear and specific enough that they will be applied the same way in all cases, whether applied by the person who wrote them, or a hypothetical administrative robot, or someone who thinks the policies should say the opposite of what they say. And administrators should want this clarity, too. After all, if you went through the trouble of crafting a policy you think is fair, wouldn’t you want it to be applied as you intended if you left the school or something happened to you?

The regulations require this clarity and specificity. And if an administrator thinks their institution already provides these safeguards, surely no harm can come from making that indisputable.

Institutions can’t handle this right now.

Critics of the regulations have argued that now was the wrong time to finalize these regulations. Subsequent headlines described the regulations as “quietly” enacted, as if there hasn’t been constant discussion of their imminence for nearly 18 months among those with an interest. Here’s the timeline:

The regulations were proposed in November 2018. Over 120,000 comments were submitted, and ED had to read and prepare a response to them all. (Hence, also, the length of the supplementary information.) When that was finished, organizations opposing the regulations reportedly (according to a college administrator who also opposes the regulations) implemented a strategy to delay their release for months more. Then COVID-19 hit. Institutions had over a year before then to plan for policy revisions. And without the delay strategy, the regulations may have, indeed, been finalized before this pandemic reached the United States, or at least before it changed the landscape for schools nationwide.

[M]any institutions already have language they can use to comply with the regulations … Institutions do not have to start from scratch.

Delay aside, these opponents of the regulations are essentially arguing that colleges must be required to adjudicate these cases during the pandemic, but that the executive branch is powerless to take steps to ensure they are adjudicated fairly. We doubt the same people would hold this stance if ED had finalized regulations identical to the 2011 Dear Colleague letter. After all, the 2011 letter was enacted without notice and comment and effectively required immediate changes, and we didn’t see objections to the letter on that basis from those who supported the new requirements.

Finally, two practical notes: First, if institutions aren’t looking forward to revising their policies mid-pandemic, they should be even less excited about facing potential litigation for denying respondents due process, especially with an ever-increasing number of rulings in favor of those respondents.

Second, many institutions already have language they can use to comply with the regulations, because they already provide live hearings in non-sexual misconduct cases. These institutions can simply start with this framework, take out language leaving safeguards at the discretion of various administrators, and add in the specific notice and other requirements from the new regulations. Institutions do not have to start from scratch.

A closing note

There are other arguments against the regulations that we will be addressing in the coming weeks and months. We hope that our coverage will serve not only as a source of substantive information about the regulations and their context, but also as a reminder that there are many sources of misinformation out there, including individuals and organizations that should know better.

This is not a black-and-white issue, student rights are not a zero sum game, and there is no easy solution. Not everything in the regulations is exactly what FIRE would have written, or even something FIRE would try to write, given our narrow mission. But the regulations contain many procedural safeguards that ultimately will benefit students on either side of the disciplinary process.

Campus Civil Rights Due Process False Allegations Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Victims

To Senators Murray, Warren and Gillibrand: Secretary DeVos CAN Multi-task

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 3, 2020

For over two years, U.S. Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) urged Secretary DeVos and the Department of Education to not create new Title IX regulations, fallaciously claiming victims will be further harmed. The trio jumped on the crowded coronavirus excuse train, and now claim it is unacceptable for the Department to finalize a rule during the coronavirus outbreak.

The Senators urge DeVos “not to release the final Title IX rule at this time and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic that is top of the mind for all students and families.” [1]

However, the Department’s accomplishments show on March 6, the Department promptly created a coronavirus information and resources website for school and school administrators [2]. Throughout the month they continued this focus on students with disabilities [3], provided student loan relief [4], and announced broad flexibilities for states to cancel testing [5]. There have been multiple task forces, webinars, and conference calls focused on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the corona virus pandemic.

The Senator’s asking Secretary DeVos to suspend due process protections because of the coronavirus is irresponsible, impractical, and unfair to institutions, students and professors.

Ashe Schow, a reporter and columnist, appropriately pointed out in her commentary: “Three Democrat senators are using the coronavirus pandemic to urge Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to delay providing college students their constitutional rights to due process.” [6]

DeVos has shown competing priorities are possible to navigate and combat. She is prioritizing the immediate needs, which include both navigating through this pandemic while ensuring students are given their due process rights.

As students and professors step onto their campuses in August, they will also be stepping into a more fair and equitable and safe environment than they stepped off in March.

Citations:

[1]https://www.help.senate.gov/ranking/newsroom/press/murray-warren-gillibrand-urge-secretary-devos-to-halt-title-ix-rule-focus-on-helping-schools-during-the-covid-19-crisis

[2]https://www.ed.gov/coronavirus?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[3]https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-releases-new-resources-educators-local-leaders-k-12-flexibilities-student-privacy-and-educating-students-disabilities-during-coronavirus-outbreak?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[4] https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/delivering-president-trumps-promise-secretary-devos-suspends-federal-student-loan-payments-waives-interest-during-national-emergency?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[5] https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/helping-students-adversely-affected-school-closures-secretary-devos-announces-broad-flexibilities-states-cancel-testing-during-national-emergency?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

[6] https://www.dailywire.com/news/three-democrats-use-coronavirus-to-demand-delaying-due-process-rights-for-college-students

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.

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” (3).

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 Civil Rights Sexual Assault Wrongful Convictions

PR: Campus Justice Coalition Seeks to Restore Fairness in Campus Sex Cases

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 30, 2014

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: teristoddard@saveservices.org

Campus Justice Coalition Seeks to Restore Fairness in Campus Sex Cases

WASHINGTON / July 30, 2014 – Representatives of sexual assault victims, the accused, and universities have come together to establish the Campus Justice Coalition. The Coalition will seek to achieve legislative change to assure the proper handling of sexual assault cases on college campuses.

Campus sex committees have been criticized for being poorly trained, under-resourced, and lacking the legal authority to impose meaningful sanctions. Rape is a crime, but the campus boards possess legal authority to only expel, not imprison the perpetrator.

The current system was established by a 2011 Department of Education regulation which shifted the resolution process to campus disciplinary panels, and eliminated a number of due process safeguards. Under current policies, neither the identified victim or the accused person are allowed to be represented by an attorney.

Following imposition of the federal mandate, numerous complaints and lawsuits have been filed by victims, and by men claiming they were wrongfully expelled: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Campus-Sexual-Assault-Lawsuits.pdf

Basketball star Dez Wells was expelled from Xavier University in Ohio on allegations of non-consensual sex. The County prosecutor termed the expulsion “fundamentally unfair” and “seriously flawed.” In April the University paid an undisclosed amount, likely exceeding $1 million, to the former student: http://mynorthwest.com/33/2506222/Basketball-star-Wells-settles-suit-against-Xavier

Two weeks ago the University of Connecticut agreed to pay $900,000 to a student who was raped in August 2011. Despite the existence of the new federal policy, the university mishandled her complaint, and the alleged rapist never faced criminal charges: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/07/21/u-connecticut-pay-13-million-settle-sexual-assault-lawsuit#sthash.xJR5NBcw.dpbs

“The shadow-system of justice has betrayed victims and the accused, and has put universities in an impossible situation,” notes Campus Justice Coalition spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Sexual assault cases require the full resources of the criminal justice system, not a sorry replay of vigilante justice meted out by untrained amateurs.”

More information on the Campus Justice Coalition can be seen here: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/campus-justice-coalition/

Bills Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Innocence Law Enforcement Press Release Sexual Assault

Safety of Our Students: SAVE Calls on Congress to Fix Broken System of Campus Rape Panels

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 21, 2014

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: teristoddard@saveservices.org

Safety of Our Students: SAVE Calls on Congress to Fix Broken System of Campus Rape Panels

WASHINGTON / May 21, 2014 – Based on growing complaints by victims and accused students, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is calling on Congress to fix the current system of campus disciplinary committees. A 2011 federal policy mandated that these panels adjudicate claims of campus sexual assault. Over 350 editorials to date have sharply criticized the boards both for shortchanging victims and violating the rights of the accused: www.accusingu.org

SAVE is proposing enactment of a new law entitled “SOS: Safety of Our Students.” The law would require that all allegations of campus criminal sexual assault be referred to local criminal justice authorities for investigation and adjudication. The full text of the bill can be seen here: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/campus-rape-courts

In 2011 the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a “Dear Colleague” letter that shifted responsibility for campus rape cases to the committees that handle cheating and plagiarism cases. These panels lack legal authority to subpoena witnesses, conduct in-depth investigations, or impose criminal sanctions.

On May 1, 2014 the Department of Education announced it was launching investigations of 55 universities for “possible violations of federal law over the handling of sexual violence and harassment complaints.” The probe underscores federal concerns over the turmoil and confusion that the current system is now experiencing.

Five days later a USA Today Editorial Board column charged the current approach is “failing” because the “strongest punishment schools can deliver is to expel a rapist from campus.” A May 13 editorial by the Los Angeles Times Board echoed similar concerns.

“Despite the best of intentions by its proponents, the current system represents second-class justice to victims and third-world justice for the accused,” charges SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “We call on Congress to act promptly to respond to the growing crisis in handling campus rape cases.”

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments—SAVE—is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Accusing U. Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

PR: Accusing U. Launches Radio Campaign to Protect Free Speech on Campus

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 14, 2013

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Accusing U. Launches Radio Campaign to Protect Free Speech on Campus

WASHINGTON / June 14, 2013 – The non-profit Accusing U. is launching a nationwide radio campaign designed to highlight how the recent Obama Administration’s sexual harassment mandate represents an unprecedented threat to free speech. The campaign will consist of radio interviews featuring Christina Hoff Sommers, well-known author, columnist, and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

On May 9, the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice unveiled a new campus policy that classifies speech as a form of sexual harassment, enlarges its scope to include any speech that is deemed “unwelcome,” and eliminates the reasonable person standard.

The policy applies to all faculty members and over 21 million undergraduate and graduate students at colleges receiving Department of Education funding.

The federal decision has proven to be controversial. Last week the Women’s Committee of the American Association of University Professors released a letter expressing concerns about the policy: http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/accusing-u/complaints/

To date, over 85 editorials have been written opposing the decision: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/ded-directive/ded-editorials/ Columnists believe the policy will effectively ban discussion on controversial topics such as AIDS prevention and gay rights, and may require removal of sex-themed classical works from English literature courses.

“The federal policy represents a radical assault on the First Amendment rights of faculty and students alike,” explains Accusing U. spokesman Mike Thompson. “And what will happen if a student makes an unwelcome request for a date – will that be construed as sexual harassment?”

The May 9 policy comes on top of a divisive 2011 Dept. of Education mandate requiring colleges to use the weakest preponderance-of-evidence standard in handling allegations of sexual assault. The standard makes false allegations more likely, harming the credibility of victims.

Accusing U. — www.accusingu.org — is a project of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Civil Rights Discrimination Domestic Violence Innocence Law Enforcement Press Release Prosecutorial Misconduct Research Sexual Assault Special Report Wrongful Convictions

PR: Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct are Widespread, Says SAVE Report

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 15, 2013

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct are Widespread, Says SAVE Report

WASHINGTON / May 15 – A new report by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments highlights the problem of unethical conduct by prosecutors at the state and federal levels. “Prosecutor Bias and Misconduct in Sexual Assault and Domestic Violence Cases” concludes a number of prosecutors have pursued overly zealous practices in sexual assault and domestic violence cases. Such practices erode constitutional guarantees of due process of law and probable cause.

Prosecutors are ethically required to evaluate allegations and only pursue those backed by probable cause. That’s because they wield the power of the state against the modest power of individuals who may be charged. Over the past two decades, prosecutors have often abandoned that role in favor of “win at any cost,” claims the new study.

That’s particularly true when the allegations involve sexual assault or domestic violence, according to the SAVE report.

Former sex-crimes prosecutor Rikki Klieman has noted, “Now people can be charged with virtually no evidence.” In the case of the Central Park Five, for example, five minors were coerced by prosecutors and police into pleading guilty to a crime they had no part in. The prosecutor obtained the confessions despite the absence of objective evidence connecting them to the crime.

The same is true in domestic violence cases.

Despite the fact that half of domestic violence is perpetrated by women, the vast majority of those arrested and charged are men. That’s because “dominant perpetrator” laws encourage the arrest of the larger, stronger partner, i.e., the man. Such gender-biased charging policies are unconstitutional, notes the SAVE report.

Prosecutor malfeasance has real-world consequences. In Virginia, 15% of sexual assault convictions were shown to be false by DNA evidence. In domestic violence cases, some 80 – 85% of allegations are ultimately recanted, but “no-drop” policies mean prosecutors often pursue them anyway.

“For the sake of our families and our system of justice, prosecutors must be held to long-established ethical standards,” says S.A.V.E. spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Probable cause and due process of law cannot be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.”

S.A.V.E.’s new special report can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Prosecutor-Bias-Misconduct-in-Domestic-Violence

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner violence and sexual assault: www.saveservices.org.

Accusing U. Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Innocence Press Release Sexual Assault Wrongful Convictions

PR: ‘Point of Parody:’ Six More Editorials Slam Campus Sex Assault Panels

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 1, 2013

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

‘Point of Parody:’ Six More Editorials Slam Campus Sex Assault Panels

WASHINGTON / May 1, 2013 – Campus sex assault committees at Swarthmore, Occidental, Brown, and Cornell found themselves at the center of satire and scrutiny this past week as six new editorials probed sex assault complaints at these institutions. SAVE calls on the Department of Education to respond to allegations of civil rights violations arising from a 2011 policy issued by its Office for Civil Rights.

One editorial, “Swarthmore, Occidental, and Their Kangaroo Courts,” documents how Swarthmore College mandates that the accused refrain from any outside discussion of the allegation, thus precluding assistance by a defense attorney. At Swarthmore, “an accused student can be punished even if no charges were filed against him,” thus reaching the “point of parody,” columnist KC Johnson asserts.

Dr. Helen Smith takes the argument a step farther, wondering if breaches of due process for the accused represent a “Secret War on Men?” Smith charges universities have “established a kangaroo campus court system” for alleged sexual misconduct that have “little due process protection.” These procedures form part of a larger “hostile environment on campuses” for men, Smith believes.

Professor Walter Mead places the Department of Education’s sexual assault mandate within the context of heavy drug use, binge drinking, and hook up culture that have “turned many campuses into genuinely toxic environments.” But abandoning “our commitment to ideas like the presumption of innocence will not fix what is wrong on campus today,” Mead warns.

“The federal sex assault mandate has become a wrecking ball to fundamental concepts of democratic society like due process and the presumption of innocence,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sherry Warner-Seefeld. “The refusal of the federal Department of Education to respond to numerous letters must be seen as tacit acknowledgement of the civil rights travesty it has created.”

The six editorials, published during the week of April 21-27, 2013, are listed online (1). To date, over 120 editorials have criticized the DED mandate as an anathema to civil rights. Thirteen national organizations, including the American Association for University Professors, have called for repeal of the federal mandate (2).

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