Category: Sexual Assault

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Stalking Title IX Victims

Analysis: New Title IX Regulation Will Support and Assist Complainants in Multiple Ways

Commentators have previously argued that the draft Title IX regulation would be beneficial to victims and survivors of sexual assault. For example, Professor of Political Theory Meg Mott has highlighted “the substantial powers the new rules grant to survivors.”

Following publication of the final regulation, SAVE conducted a detailed analysis to identify ways the final policy will benefit victims of sexual assault and other offenses. The analysis reveals the new regulation benefits victims in seven broad ways:

  1. Establishes a legally enforceable duty of universities to respond to such cases in a timely manner.
  2. Requires the school to investigate allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and harassment.
  3. Requires the school to offer complainants supportive measures, such as class or dorm reassignments or no-contact orders, even if an investigation is not initiated.
  4. Defines the procedures to properly investigate and adjudicate such complaints.
  5. Promotes victim autonomy by allowing the complainant to participate in dispute resolution or withdraw a complaint, if desired.
  6. Ensures complainants are not required to disclose any confidential medical, psychological, or similar records.
  7. Discourages minor complaints that tend to dilute the availability of resources and harm the credibility of future victims.

Nashville attorney Michelle Owens provides examples of lawsuits from her own practice that fall into the category of minor and trivial complaints. Owens recounts:

  • “I have one client who was charged under Title IX for allegedly touching a girl on her head. This was not on a date or in a romantic setting.
  • “One client was charged for touching a girl on her elbow at a dance because he was trying to move her out of the way of someone else.
  • “Another of my clients was charged for giving an honest compliment to a friend on her outfit.
  • “One student was charged for tickling his female friend on her stomach, something they had done to each other previously.
  • “One student was charged for putting his arm around his girlfriend — nothing more.

“I also have cases where the girlfriend files a charge after the couple gets in a fight or breaks up. But when they get back together, the charge still stands. In such cases, you have a couple who had sexual relations 32 times, but number 28 was rape, according to the charge. All the times before and after that were consensual.”

Specific Beneficial Provisions

The new Title IX regulation contains dozens of provisions that are designed to support the rights sexual assault victims. A summary of these 28 provisions is listed in the order that they appear in the regulation:

  1. §106.8(c) Adoption of grievance procedures:
  • Complainants will be notified of the grievance process, including how to file a complaint and how the institution is expected to respond.
  1. §106.30 Definitions:
  • Complainants are assured of protection against “quid pro quo” sexual harassment by faculty and staff.
  • Complainants are assured that unwelcome conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive will not be tolerated at their institution.
  • Complainants can include allegations sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking in a formal complaint.
  1. School response:
  • §106.44(a) General response to sexual harassment:
    • Complainants are assured their institution must respond promptly to a formal complaint in a manner that is not deliberately indifferent.
    • Complainants must be offered supportive measures (with or without filing a formal complaint) and be explained the process for filing a formal complaint.
  • 106.44(b) Response to a formal complaint:
    • Complainants are assured that once a formal complaint is filed, a grievance process that complies with the regulation must be followed.
  • §106.44(c)(d) Emergency removal:
    • Complainants are assured that respondents who are deemed an immediate threat to safety will be removed from campus.
  1. §106.45(b)(1) Basic requirements for grievance process:
    • Complainants are assured that all remedies and supportive measures are designed to restore or preserve their access to the institution’s educational program or activity
    • Complainants are assured they have the right to see all evidence, and that all relevant evidence will be evaluated.
    • Complainants are assured of no conflict of interest or bias among the persons involved with evaluating, investigating or decision-making of the formal complaint, or facilitating an informal resolution, and that all parties involved will be properly trained on the processes and all technology involved.
    • Complainants are assured of a reasonably prompt timeframe of the grievance process or informal resolution, which still allows for delays for good cause.
  1. §106.45(b)(5) Investigations of a formal complaint:
    • Complainants are not responsible for proving an alleged perpetrator’s responsibility.
    • Complainant’s medical and therapy records cannot be used for the grievance process without written consent.
    • Complainants are allowed to present fact and expert witnesses and inculpatory evidence.
    • Complainants are allowed to discuss the allegation with others – no “gag” rules.
    • Complainants may have an advisor of their choice (who may be an attorney), and the advisor may participate in the proceedings.
  1. §106.45(b)(6) Hearings:
  • Complainants must be allowed to cross-examine the alleged perpetrator, and may challenge the alleged perpetrator’s credibility at a live hearing.
  • Complainants must be provided an advisor free of charge to conduct cross-examination on their behalf
    • Complainants’ sexual predisposition or prior sexual behavior is considered to be not relevant to the allegation, except under specific circumstances.
    • Complainants do not need to be in the same room as the alleged perpetrator, and the live hearing may be conducted virtually.
  1. §106.45(b)(7) Determination of responsibility:
    • Complainants are assured the decision-maker will be neutral.
    • Complainants must receive written documentation of the steps taken in the adjudication process, in the event they choose to file an OCR complaint or lawsuit.
  1. §106.45(b)(8) Appeals:
    • Complainants have the right to appeal determinations regarding responsibility or any dismissal of their complaint.
    • Complainants are assured the appeal decision-maker has not been previously involved in the case.
  1. §106.45(b)(9) Informal resolution:
    • Complainants can seek an informal resolution once a formal complaint has been filed, and can withdraw from the informal resolution process and resume the formal complaint grievance process at any time
  • §106.45(b)(10) Recordkeeping:
    • Complainants have access to all training materials used to train persons involved in the proceedings of a formal complaint.
  • 106.71 Retaliation
    • Complainants are protected from retaliation arising from their complaint.
Categories
Campus Dating Violence Department of Education Domestic Violence Due Process Investigations Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Victims

PR: New Sexual Assault Regulation Will Benefit Victims, For Numerous Reasons

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 New Sexual Assault Regulation Will Benefit Victims, For Numerous Reasons

WASHINGTON / May 8, 2020 – SAVE is today releasing an analysis that enumerates the many ways by which the newly released Title IX regulation will benefit victims of campus sexual assault. Title IX is the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools. The new regulation was released on Wednesday by the Department of Education (1).

Titled, “Analysis: New Title IX Regulation Will Support and Assist Complainants in Multiple Ways,” the SAVE report identifies seven broad ways that the new federal regulation benefits victims and survivors:

  1. Establishes a legally enforceable duty of universities to respond to such cases in a timely manner.
  2. Requires the school to investigate allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and harassment.
  3. Requires the school to offer complainants supportive measures, such as class or dorm reassignments or no-contact orders, even if an investigation is not initiated.
  4. Defines the procedures to properly investigate and adjudicate such complaints.
  5. Promotes victim autonomy by allowing the complainant to participate in dispute resolution or withdraw a complaint if desired.
  6. Ensures complainants are not required to disclose any confidential medical, psychological, or similar records.
  7. Discourages minor complaints that tend to dilute the availability of resources and harm the credibility of future victims.

Nashville attorney Michelle Owens provides examples of lawsuits from her own practice that fall into the category of minor and trivial complaints:

  • A student who was charged under Title IX for allegedly touching a girl on her head. This was not on a date or in a romantic setting.
  • One client was charged for sexual misconduct for touching a student on her elbow at a dance because he was trying to move her out of the way of another person.
  • One male student was charged for giving an honest compliment to a friend on her outfit.

The new SAVE document identifies 28 legally enforceable provisions in the new regulation that will benefit and support victims. Three examples of these provisions are: “Complainants are assured that unwelcome conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive will not be tolerated at their institution;” “Complainants are assured that respondents that are deemed an immediate threat to safety will be removed from campus;” and “Complainants must be provided an advisor free of charge to conduct cross-examination on their behalf.”

SAVE has identified numerous cases in which campus disciplinary committees, sometimes derisively referred to as “kangaroo courts,” have shortchanged victims (2). The Independent Women’s Forum argues that “Survivors should praise efforts to ensure that disciplinary decisions are not overturned by courts or regarded as illegitimate in the court of public opinion.” (3)

There is no evidence that the previous campus policies have succeeded in reducing campus sexual assault. A recent report from the American Association of Universities revealed an actual increase in campus sexual assaults from 2015 to 2019 (4).

The SAVE analysis is available online: http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/analysis-new-title-ix-regulation-will-support-and-assist-complainants-in-multiple-ways/

Links:

  1. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/newsroom.html
  2. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/victims-deserve-better/
  3. https://www.iwf.org/2020/05/06/does-due-process-silence-survivors/
  4. https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/press-releases/aau-releases-2019-survey-sexual-assault-and-misconduct
Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Title IX

Does Due Process Silence Survivors?

Honest question for those putting out panicked press releases claiming that Betsy DeVos has just silenced rape survivors on college campuses:

How exactly does due process silence anyone?

The new Title IX regulations released today by the Department of Education outline a school’s legal obligation to respond to every report of sexual harassment or assault. They require schools to investigate all complaints and emphasize the importance of supportive measures (such as course adjustments; schedule changes; counseling; no-contact orders; dorm room reassignments; and/or leaves of absence) for all survivors, even those who choose not to file a formal complaint.

They also require schools to adopt investigatory and disciplinary procedures that are fair and unbiased.

So, to which of these procedures do the rules’ opponents object?

— Do they object to informing students of the specific claims against them in a timely manner?

— Do they object to letting accused students present witnesses in their own defense?

— Do they object to letting accused students present potentially exculpatory evidence, such as text messages?

Exactly which of these basic aspects of due process silences or otherwise harms survivors?

Many of the opponents of the new rules say they’re concerned that allowing accused students to question their accuser will retraumatize victims. But cross-examination does not have to be traumatic. In fact, the new rules recommend that college administrative proceedings employ certain “rape shield” protections, such as putting the parties in separate rooms; requiring that the questioning be done by a third-party; and prohibiting questions about an accuser’s unrelated sexual history.

Do the opponents of the rules object to any attempt to test the credibility of an accuser?

The Department of Education’s new Title IX regulations do not “roll back” protections for survivors. Rather, they codify existing case law. As such, they aim to ensure fairness and protect the legitimacy and the integrity of college disciplinary decisions. Survivors should praise efforts to ensure that disciplinary decisions are not overturned by courts or regarded as illegitimate in the court of public opinion.

These new rules help to do that.

So tell me again how they silence survivors?

 

Source: https://www.iwf.org/2020/05/06/does-due-process-silence-survivors/

Categories
Campus Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

U.S. Department of Education Releases Final Title IX Rule

The U.S. Department of Education today released its Final Rule under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in education programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance. In addition to posting the unofficial version of the Final Rule, the Department is releasing a Final Rule Fact Sheet, a Final Rule Overview, a document detailing the major provisions of the Final Rule, and a document highlighting changes between the prior Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Final Rule.  Finally, the Office for Civil Rights has also released a Webinar describing the Final Rule and many of its features.

The Final Rule is clear, predictable, and effective at ensuring schools have the tools they need to address incidents of sexual harassment in their programs and activities.  Under the Final Rule, schools know the importance of responding to such incidents appropriately by supporting survivors, as well as by providing a fair, transparent process for investigating and adjudicating sexual harassment matters.  The Final Rule will carry the force and effect of law as of August 14, 2020.

OCR Webinar: Title IX Regulations Addressing Sexual Harassment (Length: 01:11:29) 05/06/2020

 

Categories
Campus Due Process Free Speech Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

PR: 266 Professors Nationwide Issue Call for Prompt Restoration of Free Speech and Due Process on Campus

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

266 Professors Nationwide Issue Call for Prompt Restoration of Free Speech and Due Process on Campus

WASHINGTON / May 4, 2020 – A group of 266 distinguished faculty members today is releasing a Faculty Resolution in Support of the Prompt Restoration of Free Speech and Due Process on Campus. The co-signers come from 43 states and represent a broad range of disciplinary backgrounds and political persuasions. The Resolution concludes with an urgent appeal: “the undersigned professors call on lawmakers and university administrators to assure the prompt implementation of new policies that will clarify grievance procedures, enhance free speech, and embrace fairness for all.”

Among other institutions, the group includes professors from 25 law schools: Brooklyn Law School, University of California – Berkeley, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland-Marshall School of Law, Denver University, Duke University, George Mason University, Harvard Law School, University of Hawaii, Howard University, Indiana University, John Marshall Law School, University of Kentucky, Marquette University, University of Minnesota, Mitchell Hamline School of Law, Notre Dame University, Ohio Northern University, University of Pittsburgh, University of St. Thomas, University of San Diego, Stanford University, Touro College, University of Virginia, and Washington University.

Since 2011, groups such as the American Association of University Professors have issued statements condemning the growing encroachments on free speech and due process. In 2016, the AAUP Council adopted a report, “The History, Uses, and Abuses of Title IX,” which highlights that as a result of federal sexual assault policies, free speech considerations “have been relegated to the background or ignored altogether.” (1)

Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law Emerita at the New York Law School and former President of the American Civil Liberties Union, has lamented that free expression on campus has become “an endangered species.” (2)  The National Association of Scholars has called for the upcoming Higher Education Act reauthorization to include provisions to enhance free speech (3).

There are numerous examples of faculty members whose constitutionally based due process rights have been curtailed (4).  At Northwestern University, professor Laura Kipnis was subjected to a months-long investigation because two students complained her criticism of her campus’ sexual harassment policy allegedly created a “chilling effect” on other students who wanted to file a sexual misconduct report (5).

SAVE urges the prompt implementation of the new Title IX regulation, which is expected to be issued soon. The Faculty Resolution in Support of the Prompt Restoration of Free Speech and Due Process on Campus can be viewed online. The names are listed in alphabetical order by state: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Faculty-Resolution-5.2.2020.pdf

Links:

  1. https://www.aaup.org/file/TitleIXreport.pdf
  2. https://shorensteincenter.org/nadine-strossen-free-expression-an-endangered-species-on-campus/
  3. https://www.nas.org/blogs/press_release/scholars_call_for_free_speech_protections_in_the_higher_education_act
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/faculty-members/
  5. https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/laura-kipniss-endless-trial-by-title-ix
Categories
Due Process Sexual Assault Title IX

Reform Title IX Now

The Department of Education’s (DOE) reform of Title IX—the law that bans discrimination based on sex at federally-funded schools—has been a long time coming. For three Senators, it has not been long enough. They strenuously object to the impact on how colleges handle accusations of sexual misconduct. No longer will an accused be presumed guilty until proven innocent. Instead, he will be accorded due process.

On March 31, Patty Murray—the leading Democrat on the Senate education committee—Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand sent a letter to Education Secretary Betsy DeVos to express their opposition to finalizing the reform. “We urge you not to release the final Title IX rule at this time,” they argued, “and instead to focus on helping schools navigate the urgent issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.”

This is an odd argument. Now seems to be the perfect time for colleges to work on policy and administrative matters. Campuses are empty. No sexual misconduct hearings will be interrupted; students will be spared the confusion of a mid-semester policy change; administrators can implement regulations before the new academic year.

Colleges are hardly caught off guard. The reform began on September 22, 2017 when the DOE withdrew the controversial Dear Colleague Letter (2011) that governed the treatment of sexual misconduct accusations on campus. The Obama-era Letter was widely criticized for mandating a low standard of proof for findings of guilt and encouraging the denial of due process, such as a defendant’s right to a lawyer. The DOE’s replacement guideline was officially made public on November 29, 2018 when the Federal Register published “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiving Federal Financial Assistance.”

The proposed reform received vast attention and backlash in this time of #MeToo that demands automatic belief of women’s accusations. in January 2018, three national public interest organizations, including the highly influential National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), sued DeVos and the DOE to block the Title IX reform. The lawsuit claimed that the “new and extreme Title IX policy…was issued unlawfully and based on discriminatory beliefs about women and girls as survivors of sexual violence, in violation of the Constitution.” The lawsuit was eventually dismissed.

Senator Murray has also attacked the Title IX proposals. A news release from her office reported on Murray’s statements at a Senate hearing on campus sexual assault. “I stand with you [accusers] and I’m going to keep fighting to stop what happened to you.” Murray accused the DOE of being “callous” and ignoring “the experiences of survivors,” which would “discourage students from coming forward after being sexually assaulted.” Gillibrand has decried DeVos as favoring “predators over survivors.” Warren has stated, “There’s no greater example of how we’re failing students and teachers than Betsy DeVos, the worst Secretary of Education we’ve seen.” These statements do not argue for the delay but for the derailment of DOE’s plans.

Liberals view the new rules as a shift to the right and an abandonment of Obama-era policies. Consider two definitions of a key term, “sexual harassment.” According to the Dear Colleague Letter, “Sexual harassment is unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature. It includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal, or physical conduct of a sexual nature.” This broad characterization includes bad jokes and leering glances. By contrast, DeVos uses the reigning Supreme Court definition of “unwelcome conduct on the basis of sex that is so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.” This is a far more limited definition.

Why, then, are the 3 Senators calling for delay rather than dismantlement? The coronavirus is unlikely to disappear as an issue before the 2020 election. And, if Joe Biden wins, he has promised the reform would be withdrawn. This process would be be easier, however, if policy changes were not already implemented.

Stalling the DOE reform seems to be a conscious strategy of its opponents. According to Tulane University Title IX coordinator, Meredith Smith, the NWLC orchestrated a sequence of delays with various victims rights groups. Smith stated, “So there was this delay strategy happening. We would hear that the Department of Education was about to release the regulations and then the National Women’s Law Center and all these other groups would parachute in and get more and more meetings on the calendar which push [the release date] back.” They requested a long series of meetings with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for example. During the final public commentary on a regulation, individuals can meet in person or over the phone with OMB officials to share concerns; this process usually takes a couple of days, With the DOE regulation, the first meeting was November 13, 2019, and the process ended on March 27, 2020. It stretched over 4 months.

A recent article in the National Review, entitled “Coronavirus Is No Excuse to Delay the Education Department’s New Title IX Regulations,” declared, “Those making this argument [for postponement] are taking advantage of a crisis to try to keep due process out of college campuses.” They are gaming the system.

The DOE reform returns due process to campuses. It also offers relief to lawsuit-prone schools that now function as police, judge and jury in handling students and faculty accused of sexual misconduct. Increasingly, colleges are sued in federal court by those who were found guilty without a fair hearing. As a headline in the Detroit Free Press stated. “Courts ruling on side of students accused of sexual assault. Here’s why.” The “why” is the violation of their due process rights.

Justice delayed is justice denied. And Justice must not be further denied.

Source: http://www.ifeminists.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.1467

Categories
Sexual Assault Title IX Uncategorized

National Women’s Law Center’s Bag of Title IX Tricks

On September 22, 2017, the Office for Civil Rights announced its withdrawal of the flawed 2011 Dear Colleague Letter. This unlawfully issued policy has been documented to have disastrous effects for students, faculty, and university administrators. [1] Fourteen months later, the Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulations.

In a country grounded on democratic principles, all parties are certainly entitled to  debate a proposed rule. Almost everyone seemed to be playing nice in the sandbox. But the National Women’s Law Center (NWLC) and their consortium of supporters devised and executed a plot to delay, delay, and delay.

First, in January 2018, NWLC filed suit against the Trump Administration to block the “new and extreme Title IX policy”, alleging it was unlawfully based on discriminatory stereotypes about women and girls as survivors of sexual violence. [2]  The court eventually dismissed the lawsuit.[3]

Second, during the Notice and Comment period that began November 29, 2018, the NWLC requested Secretary DeVos to extend the “Notice and Comment” period for 60 more days because, in their words, “The proposed 60-day period comes in the midst of the holiday season. This is a particularly busy time for students, who are juggling final exams, preparations for winter break, and traveling home for the holidays. Teachers and school administrators are similarly overburdened.” [4]

That’s right, we don’t want to inconvenience students’ holiday shopping plans, do we?

The Department of Education prudently rejected the NWLC request.

By the end of January 2019, the Department received over 100,000 comments [5], and according to their website, plenty of those comments came from the NWLC who told Betsy DeVos to “keep her hands off Title IX”. [6] NPR radio revealed, “Survivors’ advocates especially have been running these big campaigns on social media and hosting comment-writing events, especially on college campuses.” [7]

Wondering who organized these “big campaigns”? Read on….

Next came the opportunity for final public commentary on the regulation to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in which persons can meet in person or on the phone with OMB officials to share any lingering concerns.  The first meeting was held November 13, 2019. [8] Normally this step takes a couple days, certainly less than a week. But this time, the process stretched out over months, recently ending March 27.

In an Instagram video posted on April 3, Tulane University Title IX coordinator, Meredith Smith, spilled the beans. She revealed that the National Women’s Law Center orchestrated a strategy with various victim rights groups to request a seemingly endless string of meetings with the OMB, with the objective of delaying the release of the regulations. [9]

Smith explained: “So there was this delay strategy happening. We would hear that the Department of Education was about to release the regulations and then the National Women’s Law Center and all these other groups would parachute in and get more and more meetings on the calendar which push [the release date] back.”

The goal was to push the release date of the regulations to after the November 3 presidential election. Front-runner Democratic presidential candidate, Joe Biden, has vowed to restore the Obama era 2011 Dear Colleague letter guidance [10].

Even more recently the NWLC used the corona virus pandemic as an excuse, claiming “Now is hardly the right time to push forward with this fundamentally flawed rule.” [11]

The NWLC has utilized multiple tactics from their bag of tricks to strategically attempt to delay the release of the new regulations grounded in fairness and due process for now. And now, the cat is out of the bag!

Citations:

[1] https://www.thefire.org/dear-colleague-its-over-education-department-rescinds-controversial-2011-letter/

[2] https://nwlc.org/resources/nwlc-sues-betsy-devos-and-trump-administration-for-discriminating-against-student-survivors-of-sexual-violence/

[3] https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/DOESexAssaultGuidance-JUDGMENT.pdf

[4] https://nwlc.org/resources/nwlc-requests-dept-of-education-to-extend-title-ix-nprm-comment-period/

[5] https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/11/29/2018-25314/nondiscrimination-on-the-basis-of-sex-in-education-programs-or-activities-receiving-federal

[6]https://nwlc.org/blog/nwlc-submits-comment-telling-betsy-devos-to-keep-her-handsoffix/

[7] https://www.npr.org/2019/01/30/690102168/litigation-is-likely-for-new-title-ix-guidelines

[8]https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eom12866SearchResults?view=yes&pagenum=34

[9] https://www.instagram.com/tv/B-hgmk0nRUz/?igshid=9tsk5uaj0e9m

[10] https://thefederalist.com/2019/12/12/joe-biden-promises-to-restore-obamas-disastrous-campus-kangaroo-courts/

[11] https://nwlc-ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/NWLC-Letter-to-ED-and-OMB-re-COVID-19-and-Title-IX-3.25.20.pdf

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Title IX

89 Percent of Colleges Reported Zero Incidents of Rape in 2015

American Association of University Women

May 10, 2017

2015 Clery Act Numbers

Newly updated data required by the Clery Act indicate that the annual statistics collected by colleges and universities still do not tell the full story of sexual violence on campus. Many studies have found that around 20 percent of women are targets of attempted or completed sexual assault while they are college students, but less well known is that more than one in five college women experiences physical abuse, sexual abuse, or threats of physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner. AAUW’s analysis of the 2015 Clery data revealed the following:

  • Eighty-nine percent of college campuses disclosed zero reported incidences of rape in 2015. With about 11,000 campuses providing annual crime data, an overwhelming majority of schools certified that in 2015 they did not receive a single report of rape.
  • For the second year, we have access to new data regarding dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking incidents on campuses nationwide. For 2015, about 9 percent of campuses disclosed a reported incident of domestic violence, around 10 percent disclosed a reported incident of dating violence, and about 13 percent of campuses disclosed a report incident of stalking. So in each of these categories as well, most campuses did not disclose any reported incidents in 2015.
  • Among the main or primary campuses of colleges and universities with enrollment of at least 250 students, 73 percent disclosed zero rape reports in 2015.
  • The 2016 numbers show that campuses that reported one type of sexual violence often disclosed reports of other types. This suggests that some schools have built the necessary systems to welcome and handle reports, support survivors, and disclose accurate statistics — and others have not.

NOTE: This article was originally posted at https://www.aauw.org/article/schools-still-underreporting-sexual-harassment-and-assault/ 

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Title IX

PR: Chaos on Campus: Lawmakers Seek Answers for Failure of Sexual Assault Policies

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 Chaos on Campus: Lawmakers Seek Answers for Failure of Sexual Assault Policies

WASHINGTON / April 7, 2020 – Lawmakers are increasingly impatient over the failure of new campus policies to make a dent in the problem of sexual assault. The concerns have come into focus following release of an American Association of Universities report that contained troubling conclusions (1).

First, the AAU report revealed levels of sexual assault have increased in recent years:

“For the 21 schools that participated in both the 2015 and 2019 surveys, the rate of nonconsensual sexual contact by physical force or inability to consent increased from 2015 to 2019 by 3.0 percentage points (to 26.4 percent) for undergraduate women, 2.4 percentage points for graduate and professional women (to 10.8 percent) and 1.4 percentage points for undergraduate men (to 6.9 percent).” (2)

In short, sexual assaults became more common among undergraduate women, graduate women, and undergraduate men.

Also disappointing was the AAU finding that among sexual assault victims, only 45% reported school officials were “very likely” or “extremely likely” to take their report seriously. Consistent with that gloomy assessment, campus police were contacted in only 11.2% of sexual assault cases.

In 2017, SAVE published “Six-Year Experiment in Campus Jurisprudence Fails to Make the Grade,” which documented a five-fold increase in the number of Title IX complaints to the Office for Civil Rights following issuance of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter (3). The report also detailed numerous incidents of mistreatment of identified victims by campus officials.

The following year, the American Association for University Women reported that 89% of American colleges had received zero reports of rape incidents in 2016 (4). This finding either means that campus rapes are far less common than claimed, or that victims do not view the campus tribunals to be helpful.

Serious shortcomings with campus sexual assault policies also have been documented for accused students (5), for faculty members (6), and by college administrators (7). Despite enormous expenditures of time and money, there is no evidence of benefit for campus policies that were put in place following release of the Department of Education’s policy on campus sexual violence in 2011.

Citations:

  1. http://www.saveservices.org/2020/04/aau-climate-surveys-reveal-failure-of-campus-sexual-assault-policies/
  2. https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/press-releases/aau-releases-2019-survey-sexual-assault-and-misconduct
  3. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Six-Year-Experiment-Fails-to-Make-the-Grade.pdf
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/2020/04/89-percent-of-colleges-reported-zero-incidents-of-rape-in-2015-2/
  5. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/faculty-members/
  7. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/college-administrators/

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is leading the national policy movement for fairness and due process on campus: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Title IX

89 Percent of Colleges Reported Zero Incidents of Rape in 2015

American Association of University Women

May 10, 2017

2015 Clery Act Numbers

Newly updated data required by the Clery Act indicate that the annual statistics collected by colleges and universities still do not tell the full story of sexual violence on campus. Many studies have found that around 20 percent of women are targets of attempted or completed sexual assault while they are college students, but less well known is that more than one in five college women experiences physical abuse, sexual abuse, or threats of physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner. AAUW’s analysis of the 2015 Clery data revealed the following:

  • Eighty-nine percent of college campuses disclosed zero reported incidences of rape in 2015. With about 11,000 campuses providing annual crime data, an overwhelming majority of schools certified that in 2015 they did not receive a single report of rape.
  • For the second year, we have access to new data regarding dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking incidents on campuses nationwide. For 2015, about 9 percent of campuses disclosed a reported incident of domestic violence, around 10 percent disclosed a reported incident of dating violence, and about 13 percent of campuses disclosed a report incident of stalking. So in each of these categories as well, most campuses did not disclose any reported incidents in 2015.
  • Among the main or primary campuses of colleges and universities with enrollment of at least 250 students, 73 percent disclosed zero rape reports in 2015.
  • The 2016 numbers show that campuses that reported one type of sexual violence often disclosed reports of other types. This suggests that some schools have built the necessary systems to welcome and handle reports, support survivors, and disclose accurate statistics — and others have not.

NOTE: This article was originally posted at https://www.aauw.org/article/schools-still-underreporting-sexual-harassment-and-assault/