Category: Title IX

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Impartial Investigations Are the Foundation of Equitable Proceedings for Complainants and Respondents

Impartial Investigations Are the Foundation of Equitable Proceedings for Complainants and Respondents

An impartial and fair investigation is the foundation of an equitable adjudication. In a recent guidance, the Office for Civil Rights reaffirmed, “The school must conduct an adequate, reliable, and impartial investigation that provides the parties with an equal opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence.”[1]

Because the investigative process is subject to less oversight than the adjudication, investigative bias can be difficult to discern. Unfortunately, biased investigative philosophies known as “victim-centered,”[2] “trauma-informed,”[3] or “Start By Believing”[4] are believed to be commonly utilized in campus investigations. These conviction-oriented philosophies presume the guilt of the respondent and engender confirmation bias.[5]

Trauma-informed concepts, in particular, have been derided as circular and unscientific:

  • Title IX: The Big Mess on Campus[6]
  • Title IX and “Trauma-Focused” Investigations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly[7]
  • Best-Practice Interviewing Spans Many Contexts[8]
  • Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing[9]

Flawed campus investigations have shortchanged both complainants and the accused. At Baylor University in Texas, for example, complainants reported alleged assaults to the athletic coaches of the accused harassers, but those claims were ignored and not investigated.[10]

For these reasons, the 2020 Title IX regulation contains essential language about the need for truthful investigations:[11]

A recipient must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process, receive training on….. how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias… recipient also must ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence. Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment. [emphasis added]

In 2019, SAVE established an online petition devoted to the need for impartial campus investigations. [12] To date, 5,131 persons have signed the petition.[13]

SAVE urges the Office for Civil Rights to retain the existing language at Section 106.45 (b)(1), and to issue additional policy directives designed to rein in guilt-presuming “victim-centered” investigations.

Citations:

[1] Office for Civil Rights Question (May 13, 2021). Questions and Answers on Civil Rights and School Reopening in the COVID-19 Environment. Question 26. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-reopening-202105.pdf

[2] SAVE (2016), Victim-Centered Investigations: New Liability Risk for Colleges and Universities. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Victim-Centered-Investigations-and-Liability-Risk.pdf

[3] Center for Prosecutor Integrity, Trauma-Informed: Junk Science. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/trauma-informed/

[4] Center for Prosecutor Integrity, Start by Believing: Ideology of Bias. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/start-by-believing/

[5] Simply Psychology (2020). Confirmation Bias. https://www.simplypsychology.org/confirmation-bias.html

[6] Garry, Maryanne. Title IX: The Big Mess on Campus. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (8, 2019): 411-412. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/TitleIX-TheBigMessonCampus.pdf

[7] Davis, Deborah & Loftus, Elizabeth. Title IX and “Trauma-Focused” Investigations: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (8, 2019): 403-410.   https://www.saveservices
.org/wp-content/uploads/TitleIXand%E2%80%9CTrauma-Focused%E2%80%9DInvestigations-TheGood
TheBadandtheUgly.pdf

[8] Brubacher, Sonja P. & Powell, Martine B. Best-Practice Interviewing Spans Many Contexts. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (8, 2019): 398-402.  https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Best-PracticeInterviewingSpansManyContexts.pdf

[9] Meissner, Christian A. & Lyles, Adrienne M. Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition (8, 2019): 389-397. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/TitleIXInvestigations-TheImportanceofTrainingInvestigatorsinEvidence-BasedApproachestoInterviewing.pdf

[10] Lavigne, Paula (July 13, 2018), Baylor University settles Title IX lawsuit in which gang rape by up to 8 football players was alleged. http://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/24090683/baylor-university-settles-title-ix-lawsuit-which-gang-rape-8-football-players-was-alleged

[11] Section 106.45 (b)(1).

[12] SAVE, ‘One of the worst days of my life:’ Stop sham ‘Start By Believing’ investigations. https://www.change.org/p/congress-stop-sham-believe-the-victim-investigations . Accessed June 3, 2021.

[13] https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2.-Petition-signatures-Attachment-B-6.6.2021.pdf

Categories
Campus Scholarships Sexual Assault Title IX

PR: On Title IX Anniversary, SAVE Deplores Widespread Discrimination of Male Students

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

On Title IX Anniversary, SAVE Deplores Widespread Discrimination of Male Students

WASHINGTON / June 24, 2021 – June 23 marked the 49th anniversary of the passage of Title IX, which was enacted in 1972 to combat sex discrimination in schools. Regrettably, SAVE highlights an epidemic of discriminatory practices against college students who are male — a problem that appears to have worsened in recent years.

Sex-discriminatory practices have been documented at universities and colleges across the nation, including at a number of elite institutions. A recent article, for example, reported that Stanford University supports 33 programs that openly discriminate against males (1).

The sex bias is confirmed by judicial decisions, male-excluding scholarships, and female-only campus programs, which are summarized below.

Judicial Decisions

On June 15, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on a case involving a former student at the University of Denver. The decision revealed a pattern of pervasive unfairness to men: “John highlights that the University failed to formally investigate any of the 21 sexual-misconduct complaints brought by men from 2016 to 2018…. In sum, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to John, we are satisfied that a reasonable jury could find that John’s sex was a motivating factor in the University’s decision to expel him.” (2)

Other appellate court rulings of prejudicial campus practices against men are: Does 1-2 v. Regents of the Univ. of Minnesota, Schwake v. Arizona Bd. of Regents, Doe v. Oberlin College, Doe v. University of Arkansas-Fayetteville, Doe v. University of Mississippi, and Doe v. Columbia University. Nineteen trial court decisions have confirmed anti-male bias, as well (3).

Male-Excluding Scholarships

Title IX’s implementing regulation, 34 CFR 106, prohibits schools from offering scholarships that, “On the basis of sex, provide different amounts or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance which is of any particular type or source, apply different criteria, or otherwise discriminate.” University responsiveness to federal investigations of alleged Title IX violations has ranged from cooperative to resistant.

On April 22, 2020, for example, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) opened a Title IX investigation against the University of Idaho for offering 14 scholarships that were restricted to or stated a preference for female students. On June 22, 2021, the OCR concluded its investigation after the university altered its criteria for scholarship awards in order to comply with Title IX requirements.

In contrast, institutions such as Tulane University apparently have not acted in good faith. On June 18, 2018, a complaint was filed with OCR alleging Tulane was treating men unfairly by “discriminating in the provision of financial assistance of the basis of sex.” As a result, the university signed a voluntary resolution agreement promising it would cease the illegal actions by September 6, 2019. (4) Unfortunately, a 2020 follow-up review revealed the university was offering 10 female-specific scholarships, but only three scholarships for male students. In response, the OCR opened a new investigation of the recalcitrant university.

The Office for Civil Rights currently has 140 open investigations of universities for scholarships that exclude male students (5).

Female-Only Programs

A number of universities have established a variety of programs that cater exclusively to females. University of Michigan professor Mark Perry has filed hundreds of Title IX complaints against schools that sponsor leadership institutes, fellowships, summer programs, and other initiatives that openly discriminate against men (6).

Former Department of Education official Adam Kissel has documented the irony of Joe Biden’s alma mater, the University of Delaware, a school that “pervasively discriminates in favor of women and against men.” Most of the violations lie with its Lerner College’s Women’s Leadership Initiative, Kissel notes (7).

The Office for Civil Rights currently has 98 open investigations of universities for programs that exclude male students (8). This number is likely to increase as the OCR processes newly filed Title IX complaints.

Praise for Cardona’s Recent Statement

SAVE applauds Secretary Miguel Cardona’s recent affirmation that Title IX is “the strongest tool we have to protect every student’s right to equal access to educational opportunities free from sex discrimination.” (9) And universities that discriminate against men have become a focus of numerous media accounts (10).

Currently, males constitute only 43% of all undergraduate students (11). If universities were to institute sex-specific programs, their efforts logically should be focused on helping men.

Citations:

  1. https://www.thecollegefix.com/nearly-three-dozen-stanford-programs-discriminate-against-males-complaint-alleges/
  2. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/06/case-summary-doe-v-university-of-denver/
  3. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/06/27-judicial-decisions-have-documented-the-problem-of-campus-sex-bias/
  4. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/06182230-b.pdf
  5. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-investigations/tix.html In the Type of Discrimination box, select “Title IX – Single Sex Scholarships”. As of May 28, 2021.
  6. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-year-in-review-an-update-on-my-efforts-to-challenge-title-ix-violations-in-higher-education-and-advance-civil-rights-for-all/
  7. https://thefederalist.com/2021/02/18/bidens-alma-mater-bans-men-from-posts-and-scholarships-just-for-being-men/
  8. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/open-investigations/tix.html In the Type of Discrimination box, select “Title IX – Single Sex Campus Programs”. As of May 28, 2021).
  9. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-cardona-title-ix-strongest-tool-protecting-educational-opportunities-free-sex-discrimination
  10. https://www.saveservices.org/equity/
  11. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Title IX

Case Summary: Doe v. University of Denver

Case Summary: Doe v. University of Denver

No. 19-1359 (10th Cir. 2021)

 Christian Cooper

Juris Doctor Candidate

Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University

Brief Factual Summary

During John Doe’s (“John”) first year at the University of Denver (the “University”), he became romantically involved with Jane Roe. For months, the two discussed having sexual intercourse but never did so. The two also discussed being in an exclusive relationship, but John was not interested in dating Jane, and began to try to distance himself from her.

One night, an intoxicated Jane ran into an intoxicated John. Jane led John to her dorm room. The two kissed and touched each other. John could not recall what happened that night, but remembered that he and Jane took their clothes off and tried unsuccessfully to have sexual intercourse.

Jane and John dispute what happened the next morning. John said him and Jane had consensual sex, while Jane accused John of having sex with her without her consent. Jane decided to report what happened to her when she found out John told students of their sexual encounter. Jane admits that she made the report for this reason. John was not made aware of the specific allegations against him until the University issued a Preliminary Report of John and Jane’s encounter. The Final Report found John more likely than not engaged in non-consensual sexual contact with Jane. The University did not hear his appeal saying it did not meet the appeal criteria.

Procedural History

John Doe sued the University of Denver in the District Court of Colorado alleging violations of (1) Title IX, (2) procedural due process under the 14th Amendment, (3) breach of contract, (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) promissory estoppel, and (6) negligence. The District Court of Colorado granted Summary Judgment to the University on all claims. John appealed on the grounds that (1) there is clear evidence to create a genuine dispute of material fact as to his Title IX claim and (2) the district court erred in failing to analyze his Title IX claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework.

Issue

John alleges the District Court improperly applied part three of the McDonnell Douglas summary judgment standard thus improperly granting summary judgment in favor of the University.

Holdings

The District Court of Colorado improperly applied the McDonnell Douglas summary judgment standard.

If there is a one-sided investigation plus some evidence of sex bias, it should be up to a jury to determine whether sex bias exists.

Summary Judgment Standard (McDonnell Douglas) – See Doe v. University of Denver, No. 19-1359, at *13-14.

  1. John Doe has the burden of showing that his sex was a motivating factor in the school’s investigation and disciplinary proceeding
  2. If John clears that hurdle, the burden shifts to the University to articulate a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its decision.
  3. If the University succeeds, then the burden shifts back to John to show there is a genuine issue of a material fact as to whether the proffered reason is pretextual.

Applying McDonnell Douglas

  1. “John raised a reasonable inference that the University’s one-sided investigation establishes a prima facie case of sex discrimination. In other words, John has sufficiently shown evidence of differential conduct that plausibly was on the basis of his sex.” at *18.
  2. “[T]he University posits a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for its conduct: the University employees were bias against sexual-misconduct respondents, regardless of their sex.” at *19.
  3. “[The Court] assess[es] whether John has produced enough evidence to raise an inference that the University’s proffered explanation is pretextual – that is, covering up sex-based discrimination. We concluded that John has satisfied his burden [because of the one-sided University investigation plus evidence of sex bias.]”
    1. The University investigation was one-sided because:
      1. “The Final Report acknowledges Jane had chosen what pages of the SANE report to provide and had omitted potentially important exculpatory information[.]” Id. at *23.
      2. “[I]nvestigators interviewed eleven witnesses proposed by [the accuser] Jane but initially refused to interview all five witnesses proffered by [the accused] John.” Id. at *20.
      3. “In addition to Jane’s conflicting accounts of the alleged assault, the record reveals several examples of Jane making inconsistent statements about other matters to John, her classmates, and the investigators.” Id. at *21-22.
      4. “In fact, as [the accused] John points out, Jane told an array of inconsistent stories about the alleged incident . . . [a]nd none of [Jane’s] witness accounts completely align with the story [Jane] told investigators.” Id. at *23.
    2. The University was biased towards men because:
      1. “John does not simply raise the disparity in the gender makeup of the complainants and respondents. He also points to a number of other statistical [evidence] that raise at least a fair inference of anti-male bias.” Id. at *26.
      2. “First, John highlights that the University failed to formally investigate any of the twenty-one sexual-misconduct complaints brought by men from 2016 to 2018. In contrast, during that same period, there were about 105 complaints brought by women, fourteen of which were formally investigated by the University.” Id. at *26-27.
      3. “Moreover, from 2016 to 2018, the University received five complaints brought against a female. Four of those complainants were male and one was female. The University did not formally investigate the four male-initiated complaints but did investigate the female-initiated complaint.” Id. at *27.

Conclusion

“In sum, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to John, we are satisfied that a reasonable jury could find that John’s sex was a motivating factor in the University’s decision to expel him.” Id. at *29.

Significant Quote

“[W]here there is a one-sided investigation plus some evidence that sex may have played a role in the school’s disciplinary decision, it should be up to a jury to determine whether the school’s bias was based on a protected trait or merely a non-protected trait that breaks down across gender lines.” Id. at *29-30.

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Campus Due Process Enjoys Strong Support from the Public At Large

Campus Due Process Enjoys Strong Support from the Public At Large

SAVE

June 22, 2021

From 2015 to 2020, five national public opinion polls were conducted to gauge the level of public support for campus due process. Following is a summary of these polls, in reverse chronological order:

  1. A YouGov poll commissioned by SAVE surveyed a representative sample of 2,806 persons on November 12-16, 2020:[1]

Percent of respondents who agreed:

  • Students accused of crimes on college campuses should receive the same civil liberties protections from their colleges that they receive in the court system: 68%
  • Students accused of sexual assault on college campuses should be punished only if there is clear and convincing evidence that they are guilty of a crime: 75%
  • Students accused of sexual assault on college campuses should have the right to know the charges against them before being called to defend themselves: 80%
  • Allegations of sexual assault on campus should be primarily handled by the state or local police: 68%

A secondary analysis according to party affiliation revealed similar levels of support among Democrats and Republicans.[2] The survey used the same questions and methods as the 2017 poll conducted for the Bucknell Institute for Public Policy — see 5. below.

  1. A national survey conducted May 20-25, 2020 by a Fairleigh Dickinson University Poll of 1,003 adults asked, “Assume you or someone you loved reported being sexually assaulted while attending a college or university. Please tell me if you would favor or oppose each of the following:” [3]
  • “A live court-room style hearing for the accused and accuser to meet and cross examine each other and any witnesses with the assistance of attorneys.” 62% of respondents favored, 31% opposed, 7% didn’t know
  • “The opportunity for the accused and accuser to cross examine each other and any witnesses remotely with the assistance of attorneys so that they would not have to be face to face.” 67% of respondents favored, 28% opposed, 5% didn’t know, 1% refused.
  1. A 2018 survey of 2,225 undergraduate students sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education found widespread support for due process in sexual assault cases:[4]
  • 80% support the presumption of innocence
  • 68% support cross-examination
  • 72% support a unanimous decision required for expulsion
  1. A Rasmussen poll conducted in September, 2017 found that 73% of American adults agreed with the statement, “Every survivor of sexual misconduct must be taken seriously. Every student accused of sexual misconduct must know that guilt is not predetermined.” Six percent disagreed, and 20% were not sure how they felt about the statement.[5]
  2. A poll by the Bucknell Institute for Public Policy conducted July 25-August 1, 2017 of 1,200 persons reported these results:[6] Percent of respondents who agreed:
  • Students accused of crimes on college campuses should receive the same civil liberties protections from their colleges that they receive in the court system: 67%
  • Students accused of sexual assault on college campuses should have the right to cross-examine their accusers: 61%
  • Students accused of sexual assault on college campuses should be punished only if there is clear and convincing evidence that they are guilty of a crime: 71%
  • Students accused of sexual assault on college campuses should have the right to know the charges against them before being called to defend themselves: 81%
  • Allegations of sexual assault on campus should be primarily handled by the state or local police: 69%

In conclusion, due process and fairness are not partisan issues. They are quintessentially American values.

Citations:

[1] SAVE (Nov. 16, 2020), YouGov Poll on Campus Due Process. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/YouGov-Poll-on-Campus-Due-Process-11.16.2020.xlsx

[2] SAVE (Nov. 18, 2020), YouGov Poll with Political Party Identification. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/YouGov-Poll-with-political-party-identification-11.18.2020.xlsx

[3] Fairleigh Dickinson University (June 29, 2020), Americans Unsure About Title IX Changes to Colleges and Universities but Support Fairness and Consistency. https://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2019/200629/index.html

[4] FIRE (June 2018), Proceeding Accordingly: What Students Think about Due Process on Campus. https://www.thefire.org/research/publications/student-surveys/student-attitudes-due-process-survey/

[5] Rasmussen Reports (Sept. 13, 2017), Most Americans Agree With DeVos on Sexual Misconduct on Campuses. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current
_events/social_issues/most_americans_agree_with_devos_on_sexual_misconduct_on_campuses

[6] Bucknell Institute for Public Policy (Sept. 2017), Perceptions of Higher Education Survey – Topline Results. http://bipp.blogs.bucknell.edu/files/2017/09/BIPP-Higher-Ed-Toplines.pdf

Categories
Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Professor’s Lawsuit Against JMU Highlights Necessity of Campus Due Process Protections

Professor’s Lawsuit Against JMU Highlights Necessity of Campus Due Process Protections

Michael B. Miley

June 21, 2021

Allegations of sexual misconduct or sexual assault are serious charges that demand a serious and consistent process for the investigation and deliberation as to the fault, or lack thereof, assigned to the accused.  Even if a wrongly accused person does not face a severe and visceral punishment such as prison, a finding of fault by an officially-sanctioned institutional authority—particularly as it relates to sexual misconduct—can devastate a person’s life by potentially destroying their professional reputation and private relationships.  All individuals, and groups of individuals, can find assurance in procedures that ensure the law applies to everyone equally.

Campus adjudicative systems have long been criticized by legal scholars for lacking basic procedural protections for the accused, but in 2011, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights issued new guidance for how universities must handle allegations of sexual assault, which has brought those procedural concerns into much greater focus.  The guidance document, known as the “Dear Colleague Letter,” required universities to adopt a “preponderance of the evidence” standard (greater than 50 percent chance allegation is true), granted accusers the right to appeal a university’s finding of no-fault/not guilty, and encouraged universities to restrict an accuser’s right to cross-examination.

Thus, a situation was created where universities—ill-equipped to prosecute sexual misconduct in the first place—faced serious pressure by the federal government to return findings of guilt or responsibility for those accused of sexual misconduct, as too many not guilty verdicts could result in loss of federal funds for non-compliance with agency directives.

A recent federal complaint filed in Virginia is illustrative as to how this process can railroad an individual totally without merit, and why then, due process protections necessarily improve the Title IX process.  In 2015, the complainant, Alyssa Reid, a nationally recognized debater, and professor at James Madison University began a romantic relationship with Kathryn Lese, a female graduate TA who Reid did not supervise and who did not work in Reid’s department.  Indeed, one year into their relationship, an anonymous complaint prompted a Title IX investigation by JMU, which cleared Reid of any wrongdoing in her relationship with Lese for precisely those reasons.

Two years later, their relationship ended on less than pleasant terms and Lese began sending Reid abusive text messages with threats to “ruin” Reid’s career.  Lese then gave a statement to JMU’s Title IX office that did not meet the standard necessary for a formal complaint; it did not allege that their relationship was non-consensual, unwelcome, or negatively impactful to her education.  Reid alleges that JMU discriminated against her because of her sex and sexual orientation when they improperly accepted Lese’s complaint, did not inform Reid of the complaint against her for two months, applied the wrong version of JMU’s Title IX policy to her case, and imposed sanctions on Reid prior to the consummation of the Title IX investigation, hearing, and appeals process; furthermore, there were no representatives of the LGBTQ community on Reid’s hearing panel, and during the hearing, she could not cross-examine Lese and Lese’s witnesses, and was prevented from presenting her own witnesses.

Reid is recognized by students for using her rhetorical skills and communicative abilities to give voice to marginalized individuals and groups, and her voice has been silenced now because of an unstructured process that turned Reid into an unperson: guilty, with no way to prove her innocence.

Often when faced with difficult choices, or a seeming crisis scenario—especially when the government confirms the existence of said crisis—the temptation to temporarily (at least at first) ignore or weaken procedural protections, or components of procedural protections, that are, or may appear to be, impediments to speedy dispositions and decisive institutional action.

The social, economic, and political benefits all Americans receive from the procedural safeguards of our legal system, however, must not be forgotten or ignored.  Indeed, if there are concerns from society, or certain segments of society that government mandated adjudicative systems are not achieving their espoused ideal of “equal justice under law,” the answer is not to dispose of the entire system, and all the protections inherent to it, but rather the answer is to look for ways these due process rights can be strengthened and applied to extrajudicial adjudicative bodies.

Citation:

[1] See Samantha Harris & KC Johnson, Campus Courts in Court: The Rise in Judicial Involvement in Campus Sexual Misconduct Adjudications, 22 N.Y.U. J. Legis. & Pub. Pol’y 49, 53 (2019).

 

Categories
Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Strong Due Process Protections Are Essential for the Protection of Vulnerable Campus Groups

Strong Due Process Protections Are Essential for the Protection of Vulnerable Campus Groups

SAVE

June 17, 2021

Due process protections are especially important to assure the rights of vulnerable groups such as LGBT persons, racial minorities, disabled students, and immigrants:[1]

LGBT Groups

Former James Madison University faculty member and speech coach Alyssa Reid was accused by her former female partner of a “non-consensual relationship.” Reid eventually was held responsible for violating the university’s Title IX policy. Reid recounted movingly,[2]

“When you’re accused of sexual misconduct, it’s fundamentally different. It’s something that critiques the nature of who you are to your core, that sticks with you forever….JMU did not provide me with due process. It provided me with the illusion of due process….This hearing has ruined my life. This hearing ruined my dream. I have helped students find their place in the world. And the irony now is that I’m lost.”

Reid recently filed a lawsuit against James Madison University alleging multiple due process violations.[3]

In a second case, a male student at Brandeis University filed a complaint against his former male partner, alleging non-consensual sexual interactions. Even though the men had been in a long-term relationship, the campus investigator treated each sexual incident as if the men were strangers to each other, leading to a campus finding of “responsibility.” In a milestone decision, Judge Dennis Saylor vindicated the accused student, opining,[4]

“If a college student is to be marked for life as a sexual predator, it is reasonable to require that he be provided a fair opportunity to defend himself, and an impartial arbiter to make that decision.”

Saylor also noted that Brandeis had forced the accused student to:

“defend himself in what was essentially an inquisitorial proceeding that plausibly failed to provide him with a fair and reasonable opportunity to be informed of the charges and to present an adequate defense.”

African-Americans

During a 2015 Senate hearing on campus sexual assault, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley made the observation that in her experience, “male students of color are accused and punished at ‘unreasonably high rates’ in campus sexual misconduct investigations.”[5] 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.”[6]

Black faculty members also have been targeted in campus Title IX proceedings. 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.[7]

In 2017, the Office for Civil Rights investigated Colgate University for potential race discrimination in its sexual assault adjudication processes. During the course of the investigation, the institution had to reveal the fact that “black male students were accused of 50% of the sexual violations reported to the university,”[8] even though black students represent only 5.2% of all undergraduate students.

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.[9]

Learning Disabled Students

Because learning disabled students may have a more difficult time navigating social relationships, students with autism and other learning disabilities are at greater risk of accusations of sexual misconduct.[10],[11],[12],[13],[14] These articles reveal a pressing need for policy guidance to clarify the interface between Title IX and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Following is an illustrative case from New York:

Jason Doherty, a student at the State University of New York, Purchase had been diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome and was classified as a disabled student. During freshman orientation, Doherty had a contentious interaction with three female students, resulting in a no-contact order being issued against the man. As a result, Doherty alleged that the order interfered with his academic success, and that he suffered from anxiety and depression as a result.

In his lawsuit against the institution, Doherty alleged that, “Defendants did not take into account [Plaintiff’s] disability when issuing the no contact orders, nor did they consider whether the no contact orders were being requested in an effort to tease and bully [Plaintiff] because of his disability.’”[15] The judge ruled that Doherty’s allegations of failure to accommodate were sufficient to sustain the ADA claim.

In the words of Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Suzanne B. Goldberg, “Our nation’s civil rights laws require fair and nondiscriminatory school discipline practices, yet we have data that show concerning disparities based on race, sex, and disability in the administration of discipline.”[16] To end this wave of discrimination, the due process rights of vulnerable groups on campus need to be affirmed, protected, and vigorously defended.

Citations:

[1] Raul Jauregui (June 2, 2021), Title IX Needs to Protect Every Student Present in the US, Including Dreamers. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/06/title-ix-needs-to-protect-every-student-present-in-the-us-including-dreamers/

[2] New Civil Liberties Alliance, Alyssa Reid v. James Madison University, et al. https://nclalegal.org/alyssa-reid-v-james-madison-university-et-al/

[3] New Civil Liberties Alliance, Alyssa Reid v. James Madison University, et al. https://nclalegal.org/alyssa-reid-v-james-madison-university-et-al/

[4] Doe v. Brandeis University, 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. 2016). https://casetext.com/case/doe-v-brandeis-univ

[5] G. Piper (Aug. 4, 2015). Shut out of sexual-assault hearing, critics of pro-accuser legislation flood Senate committee with testimony. https://www.thecollegefix.com/shut-out-of-sexual-assault-hearing-critics-of-pro-accuser-legislation-flood-senate-committee-with-testimony/

[6] Emily Yoffe (Sept. 11, 2017). The Question of Race in Campus Sexual-Assault Cases. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-question-of-race-in-campus-sexual-assault-cases/539361/

[7] L. Douglas Wilder (June 3, 2020). Secretary DeVos Right to Restore Due Process on Campus. The Roanoke Times. https://www.roanoke.com/opinion/commentary/wilder-secretary-devos-right-to-restore-due-process-on-campus/article_dfac7ff4-7d4d-5109-9657-2532a0816f1d.html

[8] Soave, Robby (Sept. 14, 2017). We Need to Talk About Black Students Being Accused of Rape Under Title IX. Reason. https://reason.com/2017/09/14/we-need-to-talk-about-black-students-bei/

[9] Title IX for All (July 6, 2020). Plaintiff Demographics in Accused Student Lawsuits. https://www.titleixforall.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Plaintiff-Demographics-by-Race-and-Sex-Title-IX-Lawsuits-2020-7-6.pdf

[10] William Russell (Jan. 1, 2017). Sexual Misconduct on Campus: A Brief Introduction to Title IX Guidelines and Policies for Parents and Caregivers. Autism Spectrum News. https://autismspectrumnews.org/sexual-misconduct-on-campus-a-brief-introduction-to-title-ix-guidelines-and-policies-for-parents-and-caregivers/

[11] Lee Burdette Williams (Feb. 8, 2018), The Nexus of Autism and Title IX. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/02/08/colleges-should-understand-special-issues-related-autism-and-title-ix-opinion

[12] Susan Stone & Kristina Supler (July 12, 20218), ‘I Don’t Get It:’ Why College Students with Autism are Vulnerable to Charges of Sexual Misconduct. https://studentdefense.kjk.com/2018/07/02/i-dont-get-it-why-college-students-with-autism-are-vulnerable-to-charges-of-sexual-misconduct/

[13] Michael Allen (Dec. 20, 2018), Disability Rights and Title IX. https://allen-lawfirm.com/2018/12/20/disability-rights-and-title-ix/

[14] Golub, David (May 9, 2021), How Will Title IX Policies Affect Autistic Students? SAVE. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/05/how-will-title-ix-policies-affect-autistic-students/

[15] Doherty v. Bice, No. 18-CV-10898 (NSR), 2020 WL 5548790, *8 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 16, 2020)

[16] Department of Education (June 4, 2021), U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Seeks Information on the Nondiscriminatory Administration of School Discipline. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-educations-office-civil-rights-seeks-information-nondiscriminatory-administration-school-discipline#:~:text=%22Our%20nation’s%20civil%20rights%20laws,in%20the%20administration%20of%20discipline.

Categories
Believe the Victim Campus Department of Justice Investigations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Start By Believing Title IX Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: Railroading the Innocent: 5,200+ Petition Signers Demand an End to ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

PRESS RELEASE

Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Railroading the Innocent: 5,200+ Petition Signers Demand an End to ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

WASHINGTON / June 16, 2021 – An online petition is demanding an end to the use of so-called “victim-centered” investigative methods. “Victim-centered” approaches serve to remove the presumption of innocence and tilt the investigation in favor of the complainant (1). Such investigative philosophies are becoming widespread both in the criminal legal system and on college campuses.

The petition highlights the account of Matt Rolph of New York, who was accused of sexual assault by his former long-term girlfriend. Despite the fact that a jury found him innocent of all charges, Hobart College launched a “victim-centered” investigation that ignored inconsistencies among the witness statements. Rolph sued the college, with Judge Elizabeth Wolford eventually ruling in his favor (2).

Inexplicably, Congress has been supportive of such “victim-centered” methods.

Recently the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1620, which endorses “victim-centered” investigations. The bill defines “victim-centered” as asking questions of a complainant “in a manner that is focused on the experience of the reported victim.” (3) This description is an admission of the biased nature of such investigations, because it says nothing about focusing on the experiences of the defendant, or seeking to verify the truth (or falsity) of the allegation.

“Start By Believing” is another “victim-centered” philosophy that has enjoyed generous government support. Over the years, the “Start By Believing” sponsor has received $9.5 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Justice and other sources (4).

“Trauma-informed” is yet another victim-centered ideology that has been derided as “junk science.” (5)  Healthcare providers now are being instructed in circular “trauma-informed” thinking. According to a New York State nurse who attended one such training, “Current trauma-informed training teaches that a patient who remembers every detail of an incident, or a patient who remembers little to nothing of an incident, both indicate a trauma has occurred.” (6)

Two years ago the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) successfully organized to defeat ABA Resolution 114. The resolution sought to establish an “affirmative consent” standard on the basis of flawed trauma-informed science (7).

The National Registry of Exonerations, which tracks wrongful convictions of the innocent, found that investigative misconduct contributes to 35% of all wrongful convictions. The investigative misconduct includes concealment of evidence, fabrication of evidence, witness tampering, misconduct in interrogations, and making false statements at trial (8).

The names of the petition signers, now numbering 5,278 persons, are available for inspection (9). The online petition continues to accept additional signers: https://www.change.org/p/congress-stop-sham-believe-the-victim-investigations

Citations:

  1. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/victim-centered-investigations/
  2. https://casetext.com/case/rolph-v-hobart-william-smith-colls
  3. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1620/text
  4. https://evawintl.org/grants/
  5. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/2021/05/healthcare-providers-are-being-indoctrinated-with-trauma-informed-myths/
  7. https://nacdl.org/Article/SeptOct2019-FromthePresidentUnleashingthePowerofNA
  8. http://www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/detaillist.aspx?View={faf6eddb-5a68-4f8f-8a52-2c61f5bf9ea7}&FilterField1=OM%5Fx0020%5FTags&FilterValue1=OF&SortField=Exonerated&SortDir=Desc
  9. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/2.-Petition-signatures-Attachment-B-6.6.2021.pdf
Categories
Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

Disregarding Bogus Claims of Activists, Vast Majority of Americans Support Campus Due Process

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Disregarding Bogus Claims of Activists, Vast Majority of Americans Support Campus Due Process

WASHINGTON / June 9, 2021 – For years, campus activists have promoted a narrative about campus sexual assault using inflammatory terms such as “rape culture.” But analyses reveal these claims to be factually untrue, pointing to the need to restore campus fairness. Over the last decade, campus groups have made a series of questionable claims.

These groups portray campus sexual assault as an exclusively a male-on-female problem. But according to the Centers for Disease Control, nearly identical numbers of men and women are victims of sexual violence. The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reports that each year, 1.270 million women are raped, and 1.267 million men are “made to sexually penetrate” by their female partners (1).

Activists also have repeated the factoid that only 2-10% of sexual assault allegations are false (2). But the actual number is much higher. According to Brett Sokolow, head of the Association of Title IX Administrators, “Probably 40 or 50% of allegations of sexual assault are baseless.” (3)

More concerning is the belief that due process is an obstacle, not conduit to justice. According to this theory, the solution to campus sexual assault was to remove due process protections for the accused. As a result, reporting of incidents supposedly would increase, convictions would multiply, and sexual assault would be curbed. This was the rationale for the federal Dear Colleague Letter policy of 2011, which eliminated due process protections for the accused, such as the right to be represented by counsel.

But the “due process as an obstacle to justice” theory backfired.

A survey sponsored by the American Association of Universities documented increases in campus sexual assaults from 2015 to 2019 among undergraduates, growing by 1.4% for men and 3.0% among women. In 2019, only 11.2% of sexual assaults were reported to campus police, partly because only 45% of victims believed that school officials were “very likely” or “extremely likely” to take their report seriously (4).

Part of the problem can be traced to campus Title IX Coordinators who came to view their role as advocates, not neutral administrators. In many cases, these Coordinators made snap decisions of innocence or guilt, even before the formal investigation began. An early survey of Title IX coordinators concluded that these persons “did not consistently comply with requirements requiring mandatory reporting, did not consistently provide notice to respondents, and often departed from the investigation, documentation, and reporting requirements” of the Department of Education (5).

A 2020 YouGov survey commissioned by SAVE revealed strong public support for campus due process, as well (6):

  • Students accused of crimes on college campuses should receive the same civil liberties protections from their colleges that they receive in the court system: 68%
  • Students accused of sexual assault on college campuses should be punished only if there is clear and convincing evidence that they are guilty of a crime: 75%
  • Students accused of sexual assault on college campuses should have the right to know the charges against them before being called to defend themselves: 80%

Democrats and Republicans expressed similarly high levels of support for campus fairness (7).

This week, the federal Office for Civil Rights is holding a Public Hearing on the Title IX regulation that took effect last August. The Comment submitted by SAVE highlights the strong bipartisan support for campus due process among lawmakers, newspaper editorial boards, organizations, and individual commentators (8).

SAVE urges lawmakers and college administrators to disregard the dubious claims of activist groups, and instead work to uphold the quintessential principle of fairness and due process.

Links:

  1. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946
  2. https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/12193336/Lisak-False-Allegations-16-VAW-1318-2010.pdf
  3. https://www.thecentersquare.com/national/legal-experts-say-bidens-pushing-ahead-to-the-obama-past-on-campus-rape-could-be/article_184d1e3a-3fc0-11eb-956d-87947675f52c.html
  4. https://www.aau.edu/newsroom/press-releases/aau-releases-2019-survey-sexual-assault-and-misconduct
  5. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/232687125.pdf
  6. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/YouGov-Poll-on-Campus-Due-Process-11.16.2020.xlsx
  7. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/YouGov-Poll-with-political-party-identification-11.18.2020.xlsx
  8. https://www.saveservices.org/title-ix-regulation/
Categories
Campus Due Process Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX

SAVE Oral Testimony to the Office for Civil Rights

SAVE Oral Testimony to the Office for Civil Rights

June 7, 2021

Good morning. My name is Edward Bartlett. I am the president of SAVE, a non-partisan organization that is working for campus fairness and due process. SAVE advocates on behalf of both complainants and respondents.

One of the misconceptions surrounding the sexual harassment debate is that the issue is a partisan one that separates Democrats and Republicans. But is that really true?

First, let’s look at the statements issued by law school professors, who are generally inclined to be liberal. Beginning in 2014, law professors from Harvard Law School,[1] the University of Pennsylvania,[2] and Cornell Law School [3] issued strongly worded statements in support of campus due process.

Second, let’s look at a recent public opinion poll.  A 2020 YouGov poll commissioned by SAVE found that two-thirds to four-fifths of all Americans agreed with the due process questions that were asked [4]. The survey reported similar levels of support among Democrats and Republicans.[5]

Third, let’s look at the judges who have issued rulings in favor of campus due process. A 2019 analysis published in the New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy looked at the number of pro-due process decisions by judges who had been nominated by Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama. The report found, “no meaningful statistical correlation exists between the [judicial] outcome and [which president] nominated the judge.”[6]

Fourth, let’s examine the statements published in the last three months, after the Department of Education announced it would be reviewing the 2020 regulation. The editorial boards of five major newspapers weighed in, in support of campus fairness:

  1. Detroit News [7]
  2. Los Angeles Times [8]
  3. New York Daily News [9]
  4. Washington Post [10]
  5. Wall Street Journal [11]

Of these newspapers, four are generally regarded as liberal, and one, the Wall Street Journal, viewed as conservative.

Finally, former Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg issued a strongly worded editorial on March 25.[12] Referring to the campus regime established under the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, Bloomberg explained, “Alleged victims said that schools failed to investigate their claims professionally…. Accused students were routinely denied the right to examine evidence, receive written notice of the charges against them, or cross-examine witnesses.”

Bloomberg concluded, “College students deserve a better and more just system, and the Biden administration should undertake to create it.”

SAVE looks forward to continuing conversations with the Office for Civil Rights. Thank you.

Citations:

[1] https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard-sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html

[2] http://media.philly.com/documents/OpenLetter.pdf

[3] https://www.scribd.com/document/375274931/John-Doe-v-Cornell-Motion-of-23-Cornell-Law-Professors-to-File-Amicus-Brief-in-Support-of-Student

[4] SAVE, (November 16, 2020), YouGov Poll on Campus Due Process. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/YouGov-Poll-on-Campus-Due-Process-11.16.2020.xlsx

[5] SAVE (November 18, 2020), YouGov Poll with Political Party Identification. https://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/YouGov-Poll-with-political-party-identification-11.18.2020.xlsx

[6] https://nyujlpp.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Harris-Johnson-Campus-Courts-in-Court-22-nyujlpp-49.pdf

[7] The Detroit News (May 10, 2021), Opinion: Keep Title IX sex assault rules constitutional. https://www
.yourdailyjournal.com/opinion/100732/opinion-keep-title-ix-sex-assault-rules-constitutional

[8] The (Los Angeles) Times Editorial Board (March 22, 2021), Editorial: Betsy Devos’s campus sex-assault rules need a tweak, not an overhaul.  https://news.yahoo.com/editorial-betsy-devoss-campus-sex-100019802.html

[9]Daily News Editorial Board (March 10, 2021), Fairness for accusers & accused: Biden shouldn’t mess with Title IX improvements on sexual misconduct.  https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-edit-biden-title-ix-changes-20210310-hn6wmbuwgfflnld72aj24qclse-story.html

[10] The Washington Post Editorial Board (March 28, 2021), Opinion: Biden has a chance to restore balance to the rules on campus sexual assault. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/biden-has-a-chance-to-restore-balance-to-the-rules-on-campus-sexual-assault/2021/03/28/cc4416fc-8767-11eb-8a8b-5cf82c3dffe4_story.html

[11] WSJ Editorial Board (March 4, 2021), Here Comes the Due Process Rollback, House Democrats want Biden to repeal campus protections in sexual misconduct cases. https://www.wsj.com/articles/here-comes-the-due-process-rollback-11614902297

[12] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-03-25/title-ix-biden-should-bring-better-justice-to-u-s-universities

Categories
Campus Due Process Title IX

Hostile Environment Concerns May Cancel Academic Freedom

Hostile Environment Concerns May Cancel Academic Freedom

David B. Porter, DPhil, Col, USAF (Ret.)

June 6, 2021

I am a 72-year-old veteran and acknowledge my many blessings and privileges.  I graduated from the Air Force Academy with distinction in 1971 with an engineering degree; a year later, I earned a master’s degree from UCLA in Industrial Relations and Labor Law.  After serving as a rescue helicopter pilot and aircraft maintenance officer, I returned to the Air Force Academy faculty. Later, I completed my doctorate in Experimental Cognitive Psychology at Oxford University.  In 1996, I was selected by the Academy and confirmed by the Senate as the third Permanent Professor and Head of the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership.

Throughout my career, I’ve supported diversity and inclusion. I earned AF qualifications as an Equal Opportunity & Treatment Officer and Race Relations Instructor.  As an Organizational Maintenance Officer, our unit was the first to be assigned female aircraft mechanics; the following year, we won the Dedalian Award for the best Aircraft Maintenance in the AF.  At the Academy, I advised the first female cadet to finish first in Graduation Order of Merit; I led efforts to integrate women & civilians into the Academy’s faculty and I sponsored the Cadet Free Thinkers.  I drafted the Academy Core Values (which later became the Air Force Core Values) and the initial Operations Plan for the integration of gays and lesbians into the Cadet Wing in 1995.

I’ve been a “consultant evaluator” for three regional educational accrediting bodies and was on key academic committees for Western Governors University. I served as Provost at Berea College from 2001-2005 and as a tenured professor of psychology and general studies until 2018.  I’ve sought to implement the goals of diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout my lifetime.

This is why I was so deeply disappointed when I observed the negative consequences of Title IX’s Dear Colleague Letters on my campus.

Trying to combat racism and discrimination without authentic assessment and due process is like trying to fight a fire while blindfolded.  Hosing down a fire chief because he happens to be “some old white guy” is not an effective tactic.  As an advisor to a faculty respondent charged with discrimination in selection and promotion, retaliation, and creating hostile environment, I saw nearly all the critical due process safeguards I had learned as an Air Force Equal Opportunity and Treatment Officer abandoned.

The college’s Title IX coordinator was an advocate rather than an administrator, mediator, or arbitrator.  A slip-shod investigation undertaken by misinformed and poorly prepared social justice zealots, ignored objective contrary evidence and obvious exaggerations, misinformation, and demonstrably false claims by the grievants.  The administrative goal was successful prosecution rather than fair and equitable treatment.  I was embarrassed for my college and for the cause I had served for so long.

Berea College is not the only place where such travesties have occurred; there are hundreds of others who have been unjustly accused and dismissed for doing or saying things subjectively assumed to be “dangerous” or “threatening.”  Emotions are important and microaggressions can be real, however, objective analysis of the variables involved is essential.

In 2018, I developed a survey of identity, beliefs, perceptions, & judgments related to hostile learning environments & academic freedom with my Industrial/Organizational classes.  Some of the scenarios it included were derived from actual incidents both at Berea College and elsewhere.  No names were revealed, and race and/or gender were sometimes changed to obscure the identity of the guilty as well as the innocent.  The survey was reviewed by my acting department chair, my academic division chair, and the chair of the Institutional Review Board.  No one expressed ethical concerns or harm to others.

For posting this survey as a part of my course, I was suspended, prohibited from communicating with students, and banished from campus.  To the best of my knowledge, there was never an investigation and suggestions of mediation or compromise were quickly squelched by a zealous dean who falsely claimed to my colleagues that I was “unrepentant and unapologetic” despite clear evidence to the contrary.  After a 10-week suspension based on fears expressed by un-identified grievants; my professional competence was questioned; my tenure was revoked; and I was dismissed for cause.  A presentation of the results of our study is available at https://davesfsc.com.  We found that identity and beliefs predict a perception of environmental hostility, and that this perception negatively influences judgments about academic freedom.

The enhanced protections for due process incorporated in the Office for Civil Rights 2020 regulation must be retained and strengthened. A formal assessment of program effects on campuses must be integrated into all programs and policies. As our research suggests, the more that is done to increase sensitivity to micro-aggressions and exaggerated perceptions of “hostility,” the greater the potential damage to academic freedom and higher learning.

“When we tell the truth, we honor all those who have given their all…” — Anonymous Gold Star Father, 2021