Universities and colleges are increasingly experiencing legal challenges to their institutions’ Title IX enforcement processes, a trend that higher education law experts say is a natural reaction to proceedings that declare “winners” and “losers.”
The societal pressures from the Me Too movement and repercussions from the Obama administration’s 2011 guidance for how colleges should adjudicate sex assault cases have led to more civil complaints from both alleged victims and accused perpetrators of sexual misconduct who feel they were treated unfairly during Title IX hearing processes. Legal challenges in federal courts exploded following the guidance, which called on universities and colleges to vigorously root out campus sexual assault and harassment with a preponderance of evidence standard, leaving officials to determine if “it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred.”
More than one-fourth of 305 Title IX claims analyzed in a 2015 study by United Educators (UE) were challenged by students who either filed lawsuits in the federal courts or lodged complaints through the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). There’s a consensus among higher education and legal experts that students are increasingly claiming flawed hearings or unfair disciplinary sanctions as a result of procedural failings at their universities, said Jake Sapp, Title IX coordinator and institutional compliance officer at Austin College in Sherman, Tex.
UE, one of the largest insurance providers for postsecondary institutions, also reported that sexual assault was the top liability for colleges and universities in 2018. Payouts resulting from Title IX procedural challenges, which went primarily to victims of sexual assault, surpassed the legal costs of large risks such as wrongful death or negligence and wrongful termination, according to the report.
“Across the board, you have to think that it’s in the back of every administrator’s mind,” Sapp said. “It would be negligent to not be thinking, ‘Am I following the law?’ Especially in such a gray area … If they’re not thinking about lawsuits, they ought to be.”
Civil Claims
Accused students in particular are more frequently turning to federal courts to claim due process violations during Title IX proceedings at public institutions, Sapp said. He noted that while students at publicly funded universities have due process rights in Title IX proceedings and can sue the institutions for violations, students at private institutions don’t have much chance of success at making such claims.
Other accused students have filed suit because of an “erroneous outcome” in their hearing because a disciplinary panel was allegedly biased against them. The students sometimes cite the Obama-era guidance itself, or societal pressures from the Me Too movement as the bases of the bias. Some students file what Laura Dunn, a renowned attorney for campus sexual assault survivors, called a “reverse Title IX” gender-discrimination claim, where male students will argue their university’s process is biased against men. Nearly all accused students in the 2015 UE report were male.
Language in Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX rule changes, which were published in November 2018 and are awaiting release, would allow for more of these types of civil lawsuits brought by accused students, said B. Ever Hanna, policy director for End Rape on Campus, an advocacy organization for survivors of sexual violence.
The proposed regulations say that Title IX administrators’ “treatment of both complainant and respondent could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex” and “a respondent can be unjustifiably separated from his or her education on the basis of sex, in violation of Title IX, if the recipient does not investigate and adjudicate using fair procedures before imposing discipline.”
Josh Richards, an attorney who represents colleges and universities in Title IX matters, said legal challenges are inevitable in such emotionally fraught proceedings.
“When you make a campus responsible for adjudicating a dispute between two students, you set up a system where there’s a winner and loser … the loser seeks to vindicate the rights that they feel the school did not vindicate in court,” he said.
In the wake of the shifting Title IX rhetoric of the Trump administration, which rescinded the Obama-era guidance in 2017, more students are aware of Title IX and the ways it can be enforced, said Michael Dolce, a Florida-based attorney who represents victims of sex crimes. With more accused students looking to turn to the courts, there’s also been increased demand for attorneys to defend them, Dolce said.
“A lot of criminal defense lawyers are specifically advertising that they represent the accused in Title IX cases,” he said. “Pick any university in the country and go five miles from there, and you will find lawyers who advertise defending the accused. That wasn’t the case 10 years ago.”
Settling complaints from alleged victims in court cost colleges and universities an average of $350,000 in the years following the Obama guidance, and some settlements reached $1 million, UE reported in an analysis of Title IX claims from 2011 to 2015 at 1,600 institutions. This does not include legal defense expenses, which can cost colleges and universities millions before settlements are even reached, according to UE’s 2015 report.
Claims settled with a student accused of sexual misconduct cost universities less in damages on average — around $20,000 to $30,000, Dunn said. These settlements typically cover the accused student’s losses in tuition and housing from periods when they were suspended or expelled from the institution, whereas a sexual assault victim could claim more monetary relief for the loss of educational access and post-traumatic stress, she said.
The high cost of addressing sexual misconduct on campus has become a lose-lose situation for universities and can even possibly put some institutions out of business, said Peter Lake, director of Stetson University’s Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy.
“If you don’t deal with sexual violence, you’re going to get sued. If you deal with sexual violence, you’re going to be sued,” Lake said.
Richards said most of these lawsuits are dismissed by federal judges early on in the process if a judge concludes that the university did follow Title IX procedures under its own written rules and Department of Education regulations, and they very rarely proceed to trial.
Some lawsuits challenging Title IX procedure result in a “redo” of the hearing process led by the university if a judge finds that there was gender discrimination against either student, Dunn said.
But fewer cases brought by the accused are being dismissed due to the “judicial activism” of some judges, Lake said.
“Federal courts are being very activist now in asserting themselves as the courts of appeal over the college court — whether they want to admit it or not,” he said.
Undisclosed Settlements
A consequence of this new legal landscape is that universities are settling civil lawsuits filed by students accused of sexual harassment. The settlements are not typically publicized. The identities of students involved in Title IX proceedings are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The federal law, commonly known as FERPA, also prevents students’ disciplinary records from being shared without their consent, but Title IX requires that the victims of sexual violence and harassment are made aware of sanctions against the perpetrators.
One lawsuit filed against Yale University by a student accused of sexual misconduct was dismissed by a judge in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut on April 25, 2018, after the two sides reached an undisclosed agreement. The student, who was identified in news reports as Daniel Tenreiro-Braschi, was suspended for two semesters after being accused of sexual assault. Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct determined he groped two female students in 2016 and was “creating a hostile academic environment,” according to the 53-page complaint.
Tenreiro-Braschi claimed an unfair hearing and bias on the part of the committee. He maintained that members of the committee had professional connections to the accusers’ parents, who were Yale faculty and notable alumni. His suit also claimed the independent fact finder assigned to his case included “unrelated hearsay and derogatory character statements” in her investigation and that the two accusers had listened to each other’s testimony and coordinated responses to the committees’ questions.
Tenreiro-Braschi, a junior at the time, demanded to be “reinstated as a student in good standing and permitted to begin classes during the spring 2018 semester … [and his] disciplinary record be expunged; the record of expulsion be removed from his education file; and any record of the complaint be permanently destroyed,” the complaint states.
Tenreiro-Braschi was listed in the Yale College 2019 graduation ceremony program, the New Haven Register reported.
“Yale doesn’t comment on or acknowledge the existence of sexual misconduct cases,” wrote Yale director of media relations Karen Peart in an email. “All decisions regarding discipline are based on the facts known at the time.”
While the terms of any settlement Tenreiro-Braschi may have reached with Yale are unknown, lawsuits that end in private settlements do occur, Hanna said. And despite guilt or innocence, an accused student could be reinstated at the university without the knowledge of their accuser, Hanna said.
“When there are settlements, the hoarding and sealing of that information makes it hard for victims,” Hanna said. “The community can’t be informed about what happened. Anecdotally, we’ve heard from people who are survivors [that] the person who harmed them does go through this process and is permitted to come back on campus and permitted to graduate, and the survivor doesn’t even know about it.”
The Title IX procedures in place on campuses that attempt to provide victims an alternative to the often slow-moving and strenuous criminal justice system are leading to an even more strenuous process for all parties involved in the federal courts, Lake said.
“The pressure now is to avoid getting in situations where [institutions] go before the court,” Lake said. “If colleges get into too many situations where they have to litigate, they’ll go out of business.”
Some institutions offer “alternative” or “early” resolution models for victims of harassment, which could entail the accused student and accuser mediating the issues or incident that caused the Title IX complaint, Sapp said. These are informal procedures for violations that fall short of sexual violence and could provide a “learning experience” rather than sanctions for the accused, he said. There is a consensus that resolution models should not be used in cases of sexual assault, Hanna said.
In some cases, restorative justice works with certain students, Dolce said.
“It could be immaturity or bad cultural upbringing that leads to harassment,” he said. “There’s a world of difference between that and the ability to lay hands on somebody.”
RAINN’s position is that “restorative justice” options are an easy out for universities and allow perpetrators to avoid actual consequences for their actions, said Camille Cooper, vice president of public policy for RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network and sexual assault hotline. End Rape on Campus argues that the process can work for students who were harassed but not assaulted, Hanna said. Both organizations agree that universities should tread carefully when offering alternative resolution methods so as not to coerce victims to accept a process they are not comfortable with, or that could retraumatize them.
“Resolutions are one thing that can work,” Hanna said. “They don’t always, and we have seen and heard many times about survivors feeling pushed into mediation or resolution. We’ve heard stories of Title IX coordinators or advocates saying, ‘This is going to be the only way to get what you want.’”
These methods provide a way for colleges and universities to avoid civil litigation challenging Title IX proceedings and could end up being positive for all parties, Richards said.
“Many schools are setting up these models … because they’ve had the time to see how these adversarial models play out,” he said. “They’re agreed upon by the parties and don’t result in these sorts of winners and losers scenarios.”
Women have long been underrepresented across science, technology, engineering, and math majors, leading colleges to start hundreds of programs — scholarships, summer camps, and societies — to draw them in.
But in recent years, a handful of activists have complained that those programs, and gender-specific programs more broadly, discriminate against men. And they’ve grabbed the attention of the U.S. Department of Education.
The department has started more than 24 investigations of colleges, including the Universities of California at Berkeley and at Los Angeles, Yale University, and many others, the Los Angeles Times reported this week, following complaints that their single-sex programs and scholarships discriminate against men.
Women earn less than a third of all degrees in STEM, according to data from the National Center for Education Statistics, and remain underrepresented in many of the fields after graduation.
Part of the movement against the programs originated with Mark J. Perry, a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan at Flint. He has documented much of his fight against what he calls “gender apartheid” in online posts at the American Enterprise Institute.
Perry said he began filing complaints with civil-rights offices in 2016, when he noticed that Michigan State University had a women-only lounge. The university shut it down and reopened it to all genders (a move it said was already planned following other complaints from men, and concerns about welcoming transgender students).
Perry believes he is responsible for many of the Education Department’s outstanding investigations. His work has inspired Kursat C. Pekgoz, a doctoral candidate in English at the University of Southern California, to file complaints of his own. (Pekgoz had been the subject of a Title IX sexual-harassment investigation, but has denied the accusations and said the investigation was unrelated to his complaints.)
Perry, as well as the Maryland-based organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, argues that single-sex programs violate Title IX, which bars institutions that receive federal funds from discriminating based on gender. In a report released this week, the organization said that 57 percent of the more than 200 colleges it studied offer gender-specific scholarships in a way that is “facially discriminatory.”
“They enforce any kind of discrimination against women, but they allow discrimination against men, in violation of Title IX’s clear prohibition of sex discrimination,” Perry said.
An Education Department spokesman confirmed that the Office for Civil Rights is investigating colleges including Princeton, Rice, and Yale Universities, and the University of Southern California, for possible discrimination against males on the basis of sex, and declined to provide further details because the investigations are active.
Distorting Title IX
Experts and advocates have argued that pressuring these programs into closure would flout the Education Department’s own regulations and distort the purpose of Title IX protections. Department regulations allow for affirmative-action programs “to overcome the effects of conditions which resulted in limited participation” in the past.
The American Association of University Women has pointed out the need for Title IX protections in many areas, including STEM fields, where women remain underrepresented.
Advocates for the programs also say there are real consequences for dropping them.
“In states where affirmative-action bans have been implemented for race-conscious admissions, we’ve seen enrollment for people of color drop,” Adaku Onyeka-Crawford, director of educational equity at the National Women’s Law Center, told NBC News. “And so we’re really concerned that doing away with gender-inclusive programs would see the same thing for women across the board.” (The university women’s group and the women’s law center did not respond to requests for comment on Thursday.)
Literature shows that having a role model who is knowledgeable in science or math, for instance, makes a young woman more likely to pursue those fields, Khan said. Data on single-sex programs are less clear. But she said they serve a valuable role in exposing women to fields they may not otherwise see themselves in.
“If your goal is to get more women in STEM, if you crack down on the programs, yes, you will harm it,” Khan said. “If they only have mixed-gender programs, it will probably end up with fewer women going into STEM.”
Source: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Women-Only-STEM-Programs/246996
Contact: Rebecca Stewart
Telephone: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org
Federal Office for Civil Rights Launches Investigations of Title IX Discrimination Complaints by Male Students
WASHINGTON / July 9, 2019 – Following hundreds of lawsuits by male students alleging disparate and unfair treatment by institutions of higher education (1), the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has begun to open investigations into some of these cases. The OCR is known to be conducting 24 investigations at universities in the following states: CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, MA, MI, NC, NJ, RI, SC, TN TX, and WI. The cases have been opened by the OCR Regional Offices located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, District of Columbia, New York, and San Francisco (2).
The most common complaint involves allegations of denial of benefits. One of these investigations is targeting the University of Michigan, which sponsors 11 scholarships, support groups, and medical treatment programs that exclude male students, in direct violation of Title IX sex-discrimination mandates (3).
A smaller number of complaints involves due process infractions. Two weeks ago, for example, it was announced that the OCR opened an investigation against Northwestern University for failing to provide due process protections for two men accused of sexual misconduct. One student accused the university of engaging in the sex-biased practice of “believe the victim.” (4)
The OCR already has closed investigations that found in favor of male students at Wesley College, Delaware, and Tulane University. In August 2018, OCR opened an investigation of Tulane’s six scholarships reserved for women. Four months later, Tulane entered into a resolution agreement with the OCR, agreeing to ensure that financial assistance is fairly distributed to both male and female students (5).
A recent analysis of scholarships at 115 of the nation’s largest universities revealed widespread discriminatory policies. Among 1,161 sex-specific scholarships, 91.6% were reserved for female students, with only 8.4% designated for male students (6).
Title IX is the federal law designed to prevent sex-based discrimination in educational institutions that received federal financial assistance. Information on how to file an OCR complaint is available on the SAVE website (7).
Citations:
The SAVE Title IX Equity Project is working to assure that the Title IX law is fairly and consistently applied and enforced: www.saveservices.org/equity
Contact: Rebecca Stewart
Telephone: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org
Widespread Sex Discrimination Found in College Scholarship Programs
WASHINGTON / May 20, 2019 – An analysis of sex-specific scholarships at 115 of the nation’s largest universities reveals widespread sex discrimination policies. Among 1,161 sex-specific scholarships, 91.6% were reserved for female students, with only 8.4% designated for male students.
Such sex-specific scholarships violate requirements of federal Title IX regulations, which prohibit 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.” (34 CFR 106.37(a)(1))
The analysis was conducted on colleges in 24 states across the nation: : AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY.
The disparities were greatest in three states: Alabama (Male-female scholarship ratio: 2 to 81), Florida (Male-female ratio: 3 to 70), and Utah (Male-female ratio: 2 to 86). The only state where sex-specific disparities approached parity was South Carolina, with 12 scholarship programs designated for men and 16 programs for women. Full details are available on the Title IX Equity Project website (1).
SAVE has begun to contact these colleges about their discriminatory policies, urging them to come into compliance with Title IX requirements. When colleges decline to promptly remedy their discriminatory policies, complaints are forwarded to the federal Office for Civil Rights. An OCR Title IX investigation costs colleges $193,750, on average (2).
Last year the OCR reached a Resolution Agreement with Tulane University to correct eight discriminatory programs such as its Women-to-Women Mentoring program (3). Currently, the Office for Civil Rights is investigating complaints of female-specific programs at the following universities: Brown (Complaint No. 01-19-2053), Clemson (Complaint No. 11-19-2081), Michigan (Docket No. 15-18-2272), Rutgers (Case No. 02-19-2068), and Wayne State (Docket No. 15-18-2312).
Currently, 43.7% of college students are male (4), which means there are 129 women enrolled in college for every 100 men. For African Americans, the degree gap is much larger: Black women earned 178.2 bachelor’s degrees in 2017 for every 100 degrees earned by Black men. Digest of Education Statistics, Tables 322.40 and 322.50.
Such disparities are incompatible with long-held aspirations for gender equality.
Citations:
The Congressionally-appointed U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, often labeled a “watchdog” group, has raised concerns about Secretary Betsy DeVos’ Department of Education and its enforcement of civil rights statues. But in reality, DeVos’ department is returning to long-held interpretations of civil rights guarantees such as Title IX and racial equity in school discipline, after President Obama’s administration pushed them far beyond their boundaries. Using his infamous “pen and phone,” President Obama often pushed the boundaries of statutory interpretation, moving beyond language designed to protect the equal rights of women and racial minorities to advance a far-left agenda that has had serious negative consequences on the ground.
Title IX guidance from the Obama administration has spurred the spread of kangaroo court-style sexual misconduct “trials” in universities. Just last month, a freshman at UC Davis spent months of his life and $12,000 defending himself in a Title IX court for a make-out session that was clearly not only consensual, but mutual. An African-American student is suing Brown University for discrimination after the university barred him from campus in which a girl “bit, choked, and pinned him,” but later filed a Title IX claim. The Obama guidelines produced a system so absurd that the roles of victim and perpetrator in a drunken hookup can be assigned by the order in which students report the incident.
Americans recently watched these reputation-destroying new norms metastasize onto the political scene in the Kavanaugh hearings, and poll results indicate they did not like what they saw. A large, bipartisan majority of 75 percent disagreed with the way the accusations against then-Judge Kavanaugh were handled by the Democrats, and almost 70 percent agree that false accusations are some type of problem in the workplace, directly contradicting the “believe all women” slogan of campus-style feminism.
Furthermore, having the opportunity to observe what was for all intents and purposes an Obama administration-endorsed Title IX “trial” play out on the national stage may have done long-term damage to professional and personal relationships between the sexes. In a new survey, 40 percent of men would rather be falsely accused of murder than sexual assault, compared with just 22 percent who preferred the latter, almost certainly because almost 60 percent of all respondents, men and women, said that men accused of sexual misconduct do not have the benefit of being presumed innocent absent evidence.
Are these the “civil rights” the U.S. Commission is concerned DeVos is not enforcing sufficiently? If so, Americans are indicating by wide margins that they would prefer the Department of Education focus on bringing to justice violators of the actual rights that Title IX is intended to protect, rather than engaging in witch hunts that upend other important rights-protecting norms like the presumption of innocence and cross-examination of accusers.
Likewise, investigations into school districts for racial disparities in discipline rates has produced not just bad policy, but arguably tragedy.
While specific incidents of suspected racial bias in public schools should absolutely be investigated, once again, the Obama Department of Education issued overly-broad guidance that strongly incentivized schools to move away from traditional discipline practices. The result in many districts has been that students who repeatedly engage in violent behavior have been slipping through the cracks. Most famously, the Parkland school shooter had no criminal record despite multiple potentially criminal behavioral incidents, due to the reluctance of the district to bring formal disciplinary charges or involve law enforcement. Those same Parkland policies were praised and pushed by the previous administration, with dubious statutory authority, in the name of “civil rights.”
Civil rights statutes are meant to ensure that students of color have the same opportunities to receive a public education as white students, not to micromanage the on-the-ground discipline decisions of teachers and incentivize districts to accept lax, sometimes dangerous, discipline standards. When the Trump administration undoes some of these attempts to push social policy well beyond the boundaries of civil rights law, it is not threatening rights in this country, but ensuring that federal law is enforced properly.
Two Commission on Civil Rights appointees voted against the politicized resolution condemning DeVos, and some speakers highlightedthe normalcy of the Department’s pushback against overbroad interpretations. “Conservatives, including conservative civil rights lawyers, tend to feel bound by statutory and constitutional text. As such, advocacy groups and others that want, in the absence of statutory authority, to advance issues such as transgender rights, are disappointed,” said Robert Driscoll, a former DOJ Civil Rights Division deputy assistant attorney general under the Bush administration.
DeVos’ more narrow interpretations of federal law will help to reverse some of the unintended consequences of the previous administration’s overreach. That the Department of Education is pulling back from some of the most extreme interpretations of the Obama era is not cause to worry that it is abandoning its obligation to enforce civil law statutes. Instead, DeVos’ insistence on staying within the boundaries of reasonable Congressional intent instead of legislating via administrative fiat is a welcome return to Constitutional governance.
Source: http://iwf.org/blog/2807995/Trump-Administration-Rollbacks-Protect,-Rather-than-Endanger,-Civil-Rights
badly mischaracterized Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’ proposed changes to Title IX, the federal statute dealing with campus sexual misconduct.
ABC has“One of the biggest changes to the rule would be a new definition of sexual harassment,” writes ABC’s Anne Flaherty. “Under Obama, it was defined it as ‘unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.’ The new rule would define sexual harassment as unwanted sexual conduct that is ‘so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a recipient’s education program or activity.’”
So far, her description is correct. (For more on why such changes are good for students’ due process and free speech rights, read this post.) But what comes next is totally false:
That definition would be significantly more difficult to prove because the victim would have to prove the misconduct prevents them from returning to school.
Unfortunately, ABC’s mischaracterization of the standard is already being parroted by the Daily Kos. This is how fake news spreads.
If would be great if a civil-liberties-minded organization in good standing with the left could step up and explain why Title IX reform is necessary and long overdue. Unfortunately, the American Civil Liberties Union has opted to go another route.
Photo Credit: LEAH MILLIS/REUTERS/Newscom
Contact: Nasheia Conway
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: nconway@saveservices.org
Following USC ‘motherf—er’ Case, SAVE Calls for Major Reforms to Campus ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations
WASHINGTON / January 12, 2018 – Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White recently issued a ruling regarding a sexual assault case in which she concluded the university’s investigative procedures lacked fairness and impartiality. Based on this case and similar ones at other universities, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is now calling on college administrators to end the practice of using guilt-presuming “victim-centered” investigations.
University of Southern California investigator Patrick Noonan submitted an investigative report that omitted more than 150 pages of communications between the parties. The investigator failed to interview the man’s roommate, despite the accused student’s request. Noonan also organized the numerous text messages in non-chronological order, rendering their meaning difficult to decipher.
Following a subsequent teleconference between the university officials and the accused student and his advisor, neither party hung up the line. Thereupon Noonan and the USC Title IX coordinator chatted between themselves, referring to the male student as a “motherfucker” and commenting that the accuser was “so cute and intelligent.”
The expelled student filed a lawsuit against the university. Not surprisingly, the judge concluded the accused student was a victim of a process that was not “fair, thorough, reliabl[y] neutral, and impartial.” http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/40537/
This week SAVE is releasing a new Special Report, “’Believe the Victim:’ The Transformation of Justice.” The report traces the evolution of the “victim-centered” movement over the past decade and documents its incompatibility with recognized investigative methods that are premised on objectivity, neutrality, and fairness. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/SAVE-Believe-the-Victim.pdf
The report concludes, “Victim advocates’ efforts to assure serious consideration and respectful treatment for complainants are commendable. But demanding that investigators and adjudicators reflexively “believe the victim” places a priority on subjective feelings over objective evidence.”
A previous SAVE report documented how victim-centered investigations represent a liability risk for colleges and universities: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Victim-Centered-Investigations-and-Liability-Risk.pdf
SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is working for fair and effective solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org
Contact: Chris Perry
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: cperry@saveservices.org
WASHINGTON / April 10, 2017 – The current system of campus-based adjudications for sexual assault has turned out to be inefficient, unfair, and in some cases harmful, according to a report released by the non-profit group, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments. The report, “Six-Year Experiment in Campus Jurisprudence Fails to Make the Grade,” was issued on the six-year anniversary of the controversial “Dear Colleague Letter” on sexual violence, first issued by the Department of Education on April 4, 2011.
The “Dear Colleague Letter” has not led to respectful, fair, and prompt resolutions. Rather, complaints to the Office for Civil Rights and federal lawsuits that identify flawed campus procedures increased six-fold after the Department of Education letter was released.
The SAVE report identifies numerous cases in which identified victims of sexual assault claimed their colleges failed to appropriately investigate, adjudicate, and sanction their complaints. In one case, a female student charged that campus authorities at Harvard University showed “deliberate indifference” to her sexual assault claim. Her claim focused not only on the school’s initial response, but also on the University’s failure to respond “to her multiple reports that she was subjected to continuous, retaliatory harassment by [John] Doe and his friends.”
Numerous accused students have filed federal lawsuits as well. In one recent case, a judge criticized Brandeis University for “appear[ing] to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process.” Among the 51 known lawsuits filed by accused students since 2012, a majority of the rulings from federal judges have been decided at least partly in favor of the expelled student.
The Massachusetts legislature is currently considering S.706 and H.632 which would codify many provisions of the “Dear Colleague Letter.” Instead, SAVE urges the enactment of the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act. CEFTA aims to protect all students by encouraging the referral of campus rape cases to law enforcement officials and providing due process: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cefta/.
Identified victims and accused students share a common, over-riding interest in assuring the investigative and adjudicatory process is conducted in a respectful, prompt, and fair manner in order to reach reliable outcomes.
The SAVE report can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/reports/.
SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is working for fair and effective solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org