Categories
Uncategorized

OTL: College athletes three times more likely to be named in Title IX sexual misconduct complaints

COLLEGE ATHLETES IN recent years were about three times more likely than other students to be accused of sexual misconduct or domestic violence in complaints made at Power 5 conference schools, according to an analysis by Outside the Lines.

That finding is based upon data from Title IX complaints covering allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, sexual exploitation, sexual coercion, stalking or retaliation collected from 32 Power 5 schools that provided records in response to requests for complaints against athletes over the past six years. Outside the Lines sought the data from all 65 Power 5 schools, but some officials did not provide information, and some that did provide information did not do so for all years.

The data provided show that, on average, about 6.3 percent of Title IX complaints against students — whether the complaint resulted in a formal investigation or not — included an athlete as the person accused of wrongdoing, officially called a “respondent” in the reports. Though that percentage equates to a minority of the overall number of complaints at Power 5 campuses made during the time period, athletes were named in such reports more often than might be expected considering they represent, on average, just 1.7 percent of total student enrollment at the universities.

Using the data to make school-to-school comparisons about which have the highest percentage of complaints or the highest number of complaints involving accused athletes should be done with caution because school officials did not always provide the exact data Outside the Lines requested. For example, one school might have insisted upon providing every complaint that had been filed with a Title IX office while another school might have insisted upon providing data only about cases that ended up in formal investigations.

It is, however, possible to determine an overall student-athlete-to-other-student comparison, because within each school, the data for athletes and students were subject to the same parameters. Outside the Lines consulted with two statisticians about its study methods.

W. Scott Lewis, co-founder of the Association of Title IX Administrators and partner with The NCHERM Group consultants, said it can be helpful to know whether a student involved in a Title IX complaint is an athlete, a member of the Greek system, ROTC or any other affiliation so school officials can detect patterns and take next steps.

“You’re supposed to — when you’re dealing with a student — understand the context of that student’s experience,” Lewis said, “regardless of the action they’ve been accused of.”

Kansas State University did not have an existing report about complaints against athletes but compiled the data for Outside the Lines anyway.

“If we don’t know this, we should know this,” said Jeff Morris, vice president of communications and marketing at Kansas State. Given the high-profile, national stories about campus sexual assault issues tied to athletes, he said, “We should all be paying attention.”


STARTING IN MARCH, Outside the Lines filed public records requests with all 53 public Power 5 schools and followed up with informal inquiries. Outside the Lines also requested data from the 12 private Power 5 schools that are not subject to open records laws; Baylor was the only private school that provided information.

A few schools declined Outside the Lines’ requests, stating that releasing records would violate student privacy, although each Outside the Lines request explicitly stated that names and identifying information could be excluded.

Some of the schools that didn’t provide numbers of complaints against athletes did at least provide the number of complaints against all students. Outside the Lines included those in its database because the information would be of public interest, even though those schools were not factored into the overall data analysis. However, some schools didn’t even have that level of detail on complaints.

The University of Virginia sought to charge Outside the Lines $33,902 to pull complaints in order to calculate just those that had named students; that estimate did not include records involving athletes, which the university refused to provide, citing privacy concerns. Outside the Lines declined to pay for the records but did pay clerical expenses for data from some schools.

An official at Virginia consulted with archrival Virginia Tech University prior to sending Outside the Lines its estimate, according to emails obtained by Outside the Lines. Virginia Tech officials confirmed to Virginia officials that they had received the same request but were planning to deny the request for athlete data. “I honestly do not feel it’s the best use of our extremely limited resources to try to pull this data for a story,” one Virginia Tech Title IX official wrote.

Understaffed Title IX offices is a common concern among Title IX officials: Outsides the Lines surveyed Title IX administrators at schools of all sizes and divisions, and of the 99 respondents, 75 percent said they did not have enough staff.

“I want the information as much as anybody else. I think we could learn from it. I think we could prevent things with it,” said Brett Sokolow, president of the Association of Title IX Administrators. “It would be amazing if Title IX offices had the capacity to get out there and say, ‘We’re having a problem with the tennis team, and we can see that in our data. Let’s make sure we direct more of our education policy training efforts to them to see if we can shore that up.’ That’s very rare.”

Dan Schorr, a Title IX consultant who aided Michigan State with Title IX investigations, said schools should, at the very least, know how many athletes are in complaints overall.

“If everyone in the community knows a certain sports team is involved in a certain number of complaints, there might be an outcry and a demand for reform,” said Schorr, who is now managing director with the consulting firm Ankura. “If people aren’t aware of that, that’s not going to happen.”

The U.S. Department of Education did not respond to requests for an interview with its assistant secretary for civil rights, Kenneth Marcus, or to questions from Outside the Lines for this story. The office is planning to release new rules for how schools should handle allegations of sexual assault, with an emphasis on giving accused students more due process in investigations.

Several rules in draft form were leaked to media this year and relate to which sexual assault and violence incidents should be counted and who should be required to report them. The changes could have significant impact on the Title IX caseload totals. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights re-emphasized sexual violence as a matter of equity and access under Title IX. Schools have been required to have a Title IX coordinator on campus and set up a procedure to address filed complaints.

Another key finding from the data obtained by Outside the Lines: Awareness and use of Title IX offices has increased dramatically in the past six years, with many coordinators and industry experts citing high-profile athlete cases as a driving force. Reports of sexual misconduct against students overall are up — about four times as many in 2017 as in 2012 among the schools that provided data for those years. The OCR, which investigates complaints about how all types of schools respond to Title IX sexual violence reports, had 130 complaints in 2014. As of this fall, it had about 400 open cases, according to the department’s website.

Without those athlete cases making headlines, the campus sexual assault awareness campaign “would be largely nonexistent,” said Catherine Lhamon, the assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education from 2013 to 2017, and current chairwoman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

“The capturing of the hearts and minds of the American public is what has moved this issue,” she said. “The response of student communities to sexual violence among athletes has been really important.”

While there were some variations in the Outside the Lines data about how schools categorized violations and complaints, and which university office handled those complaints, the numbers generally included accusations of sexual assault and abuse, domestic or dating violence, sexual exploitation, sexual coercion, stalking and — where available — retaliation for reporting such incidents.

A spokesman for Ohio State, which had 37 complaints from 2012 to 2017 involving athletes, noted that the university has the most athletes of any Power 5 athletic department and that members of the dance and cheer teams are designated as athletes within the athletic department. A campaign launched in 2015 to raise awareness of sexual assault has “resulted in more survivors coming forward in subsequent years,” he said.

Michigan State, which remains under federal investigation for its handling of Title IX complaints, provided data on athletes for 2016-17 and 2017-18 only. It had 26 complaints made against athletes. A Michigan State spokeswoman told Outside the Lines that officials did not know how many total complaints against Spartan athletes there were prior to 2016; the officials declined to review existing Title IX complaints to find the answer.

At West Virginia, athletes made up about 1.8 percent of the student body but represented about 13 percent of Title IX complaints filed there over six years. WVU’s executive director for student conduct, Carrie Showalter, said the school’s system allows officials to track and detect patterns in certain groups, but she wasn’t aware of that discrepancy involving athletes until contacted by Outside the Lines.

“I do think it’s something that would cause us to look into things a little bit further to see if there’s anything else as a university we need to be doing,” she said.

The idea that athletes are overrepresented in college sexual assault cases is not new. A 1995 study in the Journal of Sport & Social Issues found that male athletes made up 3.8 percent of the male student body but were responsible for 5.5 percent of reported sexual assaults. That report also included data from judicial affairs departments at 10 schools, which showed athletes represented 19 percent of the perpetrators reported for sexual assault but made up only 3.3 percent of the male population.


KNOWING THAT THE data show athletes are over-represented in Title IX complaints at these schools is one thing; the reason why that might be occurring is unknown and debated among Title IX experts.

Lhamon said too many colleges and universities “turn away” from information that might show cultural problems within athletics, yet “the unfortunate reality today, still, is that we have a hypersexualized culture associated with elite athletes.”

Sokolow, the Title IX administrators association leader, said of the roughly 400 external investigations his group completes each year, at least half involve allegations against athletes.

“A lot of it may have to do with the aggressive kind of training and inclination that programs place on athletes to exert aggressive behavior. If that flows over into their sexual lives, you’re going to see more complaints coming out of that,” Sokolow said. “When students of any kind, athletes or not, tend to have a lot of consensual sexual opportunities, it becomes more difficult for them to separate out what non-consent looks like, because everything for them tends to seem consensual. And I think if you did studies, you’d see that student-athletes probably have more sex than students who are not athletes, in many cases.”

Schools and coaches can make the problem worse when they promote sex and sexual behavior among athletes, said Justin Lawrence, a Title IX administrator who conducts sexual assault awareness training at various colleges, including Texas Tech University, which had the lowest percentage of complaints against athletes in the Outside the Lines analysis.

Lawrence cited as examples the recent University of Louisville scandal in which basketball staffers provided access to strippers for recruits and the use of attractive female students as hosts to accompany recruits on official visits — a practice that made headlines at Tennessee and Baylor.

But it starts with coaches tolerating something far subtler, Lawrence said.

“People in the locker room talking about what they did with who or how this person looks. You know the locker room talk, ‘Boys will be boys,’” Lawrence said. “That’s where the rape culture starts. The very foundation of it. So we have to stop that.”

John Clune, a Colorado attorney who has represented women in several high-profile Title IX lawsuits, including some involving athletes, said he sees a higher rate of gang rape and videotape of sex abuse allegations against athletes than nonathletes. He cited a lawsuit he filed against Baylor that alleged a gang rape was part of a bonding activity for recruits.

“There’s something different about the group mentality within these athletic teams that we don’t really see in nonathlete cases, or at least not anywhere near the same frequency,” Clune said.

A September article in the Journal of Clinical Sport Psychology, “Sexual Assault on College Campuses: What Sport Psychology Practitioners Need to Know,” combined years of past research on sexual assault and college athletes and details higher alcohol use among athletes and that “male student-athletes are historically overrepresented as offenders.” The article states that some studies of violent behavior and athletes supported a link between sports and sexual aggression, but there were others that did not.

The article also cited a 2017 study — published in a journal called Violence Against Women — that covered sexual coercion practices among undergraduate athletes showing that they were “77 percent more likely to engage in sexual coercion than non-athletes,” and that athletes reported less positive attitudes toward women and greater acceptance of rape myths, with one example being that “women make false allegations of sexual assault to target innocent men.”

But Paul V. Cannarella, an attorney in South Carolina, said that is exactly what happened this year with his client, a soccer player at Coker College, a private school in Hartsville. The athlete was arrested and charged with rape and kidnapping, but the charges were dropped when the woman who had accused him admitted to making it up, according to a May 6, 2018, story in The State newspaper. The woman was arrested and charged with filing a false police report. A Title IX investigation also found no merit to her claims, Cannarella said.

“Nice-looking athletes tend to attract more women. … They’re just attracted to the big man on campus,” he said. “They consensually involve themselves with that athlete. And then if they feel rejected after anything that goes on between the two of them, and they get angry about it, they have a tendency to misrepresent what happened between the two of them.”

Since 2011, of 256 lawsuits brought by accused students against their universities alleging unfair treatment, about 20 percent of the claims have been made by athletes, said Samantha Harris, a vice president with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), an advocacy group promoting greater due process in Title IX investigations.

“There may be a perception out there that this might be a problem of student-athletes because these cases have been in the news,” she said. “But I don’t think that is generally reflected in the greater prevalence of sexual assault.”

Schorr, who said he has consulted with dozens of universities, said that although students overall are becoming more comfortable coming forward, he said the process is still daunting for those “who dare accuse the star athlete of impropriety.”

He said women can face hostility from the school and community, and that “there is definitely preferential treatment institutionally.” Schorr said that the investigative process actually tends to favor athletes who are “not always being held as accountable as a nonstudent-athlete would be.”

Even though the Outside the Lines data show complaints against athletes are rising, information from police reports and interviews with alleged victims who have spoken to Outside the Lines indicate that there are still women who decline to report athletes for fear of retaliation and publicity.

FIRE’s Harris said “very few” students accused in Title IX complaints are getting due process — student-athletes or other students — but she did not know why athletes would be more likely to be accused in a complaint.

Of the 45 Division I and Division II Title IX administrators who responded to the Outside the Lines survey, about 69 percent said they felt that athletes were neither more nor less likely to be accused in a complaint, 18 percent said they were less likely, and 13 percent said they thought they were more likely.

Professor Vicki Michaelis and journalism students Wilson Alexander, Brittney Butler, John Durham, Jed May, Connor Richter, Kelsey Russo, Mason Wittner at the University of Georgia assisted Outside the Lines in requesting records for this story. ESPN consulted with Analysis & Inference Inc.’s senior statistician and president William Fairley and senior statistician William Huber on the methodology used in the analysis of the Outside the Lines data.

Categories
Uncategorized

Cornell pays accused student $125,000 to settle double-jeopardy suicide lawsuit

Title IX proceedings sometimes traumatize accused students so much they attempt suicide.

This happened to a male student at Cornell University, who formally accused his sex partner of sexual and physical assault before she filed a Title IX complaint against him.

Cornell judged “James Doe” responsible based on the testimony of his accuser’s non-eyewitnesses; redacted information from Doe’s complaint, without his permission, that contradicted his accuser’s testimony; and refused to investigate his allegations, he claimed in a federal lawsuit.

Though Doe won an appeal of his temporary suspension, another official resurrected the charge with no warning – after he’d been diagnosed with “severe anxiety and major depressive disorder.” He attempted suicide the same day.

MORECornell refused to investigate female student’s alleged rape of frat member

A year and a half later, Cornell and Doe have reached a settlement where the Ivy League university will pay him $125,000 to drop the litigation. This is before attorney’s fees, which have yet to be assessed and which Cornell will pay to Doe’s lawyers once the judge approves them.

Brooklyn College Prof. KC Johnson, who closely tracks Title IX litigation, says the settlement occurred before the presiding judge had handed down any order.

Cornell’s options for responding to the suit were limited from the start because of its federal appeals court, Johnson told The College Fix in an email. It could have filed a motion to dismiss, “but it would have had no chance of prevailing” under the 2nd Circuit’s precedentagainst Columbia University, which involved similar factual allegations.

Syracuse University and Hobart & William Smith College, both in New York, learned this the hard way when their motions to dismiss in similar cases were rejected, Johnson said. The 2nd Circuit precedent is also why Yale has not attempted to dismiss the high-profile lawsuit by its former basketball team captain, Jack Montague.

“Several months of the Cornell case were consumed in mediation, though the case technically was pending throughout,” Johnson said.

Andrew Miltenberg, attorney for Doe, told The Fix he couldn’t immediately explain the action in the case since its filing a year and a half ago.

MOREJudge says Cornell ‘directly contradicted’ policy by not investigating male claim

MOREStudents tell the feds Cornell is botching sexual-assault investigations

MORECornell refused to investigate male’s rape claim against female

Read Fix coverage of the Doe lawsuit.

Categories
Uncategorized

Due process reflects human nature and it is our best chance for fairness

According to a recent Reason headline, proposed changes to the Department of Education’s (DOE) Title IX require “due process protections…for individuals accused” of sexual misconduct on campus.  A CNN article on Kavanaugh-accuser Christine Blasey Ford states, “#MeToo is not revenge: It is a timely search for due process” for accusers.

“Due process” is a battle cry throughout the news and across campuses. Conservatives demand due process for those accused; the left insists upon it for accusers. The term is not a weaponized talking point, however; it is a principle of justice.

What is due process? Why it is essential to justice?

In common parlance, due process is the fair treatment that every individual deserves from law enforcement and the judiciary. Accusers should be heard without bias; defendants should be judged on the evidence and through unbiased procedures. In America, the legal meaning of “due process” derives from the common law tradition, the Bill of Rights, laws and court precedents. The protections include “innocent until proven guilty,” the right of cross-examination, legal representation and transparent proceedings.

Because the protections apply to defendants, however, due process is often said to obstruct justice for accusers. Thus, the pendulum swings far in the direction of protecting an accuser. Campus hearings are an example. They stress the need to believe an allegation, which is captured by the phrase “believe the woman” because women reputedly do not lie about sexual assault. Campus hearings invert due process protections. The defendant is guilty until proven innocent; he is denied legal representation and the right of cross-examination; standard rules of evidence are abandoned.

But automatically believing an accuser devolves to abandoning the judicial process altogether. If an accusation is automatically true, then there is no need for investigations or courts to uncover the facts. #MeToo-style public “prosecutions” are a large step in that direction; accusations are tried in the court of human opinion, where they are immediately believed. The accused people are guilty before a trial or any other unbiased investigation.

“Believe the accuser” runs up against human nature. People are not only fallible, but they also capable of bad behavior, such as lying.

Due process acknowledges that accusers can be mistaken, confused, or lying. It attempts to separate evidence from error and malice in order to judge an accused on the former. This is especially important for cases in which a guilty judgment can ruin a person’s life. Third parties — judges, juries, the public — simply cannot know the truth without facts that are evaluated by reasonable standards, such as placing the burden of proof on the person making an accusation.

The dynamic is not an indictment of an accuser who may be honestly wrong about an identification or other key evidence. It happens with some frequency. The mission of the Innocence Project is “to free the staggering number of innocent people who remain incarcerated,” mostly due to errors.

The organization has freed “more than 350 wrongfully convicted people based on DNA.” Confusion is also a large factor, especially in cases involving drugs or alcohol. Differing interpretations can lead to plausible “she said/he said” scenarios through which objective third parties need to sort.

Some allegations are also lies, of course. In a recent Connecticut case, Nikki Yovino was sentenced for falsely accusing two student football players of rape. One of the accused stated, “I lost my scholarship, my dream of continuing to play football and now I am in debt $30,000.”

Western jurisprudence, especially due process, is organized around the reality that people can be mistaken or lie. That’s why a defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty, with the burden of proof falling to the accuser. The right to face an accuser means an accuser must stare a defendant in the eye, which removes the anonymity through which lies flourish.

The necessity of due process is often contested on the grounds that false allegations are rare. What is the rate? No one knows for sure, but early FBI sources place the rate of false accusations at about 8 percent. Even if it is far lower, however, every defendant deserves a fair trial. Statistics do not alter the fundamentals of justice.

It must be noted: Accusations in the news or on campus are not criminal cases in which due process is mandated. That is true. But traditional due process applies to criminal rather than civil cases or procedures for a reason: criminal procedures have a huge potential to destroy people’s lives in a manner that cannot be remedied. The same is true of cases in the court of public opinion or other unofficial hearings. The “guilty” can lose the accomplishments of a lifetime, with no chance for redemption. “Guilty” students can lose their futures; they are expelled and their records tagged in a way that prevents them from enrolling elsewhere, receiving licenses, or pursuing many desirable professions.

Accusers must be heard. But they should embrace due process and invite a clear spotlight to be shone on every claim they make. The worst barrier to belief for an accuser are false charges brought by others in the past; the public remembers. By contrast, every time an accusation is treated seriously enough to be objectively assessed, the path of the next accuser — female or male — becomes easier.

Wendy McElroy is a research fellow at the Independent Institute and the author or editor of nine books on women’s issues, government and liberty.

Categories
Uncategorized

Due process legal update: Judge holds that ‘preponderance of evidence’ standard may be unconstitutional in campus sexual misconduct proceedings

Last week, a federal judge in New Mexico allowed a student’s due process lawsuit to proceed against the University of New Mexico and its president, but dismissed his claims against several individual administrators, holding that because the “contours of [the plaintiff’s] due process rights were not clearly established,” the university administrators who punished him were entitled to qualified immunity.

In his opinion, Judge James Browning made some of the strongest and most remarkable statements to date in favor of a student’s right to due process in a campus proceeding.

The student-plaintiff, known in the pleadings only as “J. Lee,” alleged that the process used by the University of New Mexico to find him responsible for sexual misconduct violated his constitutional right to due process. When the university moved to dismiss his claim, Judge Browning found that Lee had indeed stated a plausible due process claim. Among other things, the court held that:

  • “Lee’s allegations plausibly support a finding that his sexual misconduct investigation resolved into a problem of credibility such that a formal or evidentiary hearing, to include the cross-examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence in his defense, is essential to basic fairness.”
  • “[P]reponderance of the evidence is not the proper standard for disciplinary investigations such as the one that led to Lee’s expulsion, given the significant consequences of having a permanent notation such as the one UNM placed on Lee’s transcript.”
  • “[The fact] that UNM provides an evidentiary hearing in cases of alleged non-sexual misconduct but not in cases of alleged sexual misconduct supports Lee’s claim that the process he received was constitutionally inadequate.”

On the question of cross-examination, this is the latest in a growing line of cases holding that cross-examination is essential to due process when credibility is at issue. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that “[I]f a public university has to choose between competing narratives to resolve a case, the university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses in the presence of a neutral fact-finder.”

On the second point — the evidentiary standard — this opinion is remarkable. It is, to my knowledge, the first federal court decision explicitly stating that “preponderance of the evidence” is an inadequate standard in campus disciplinary cases with such severe potential consequences. Of particular importance is the fact that the judge considered the lasting impact of “a permanent notation” on the plaintiff’s transcript in reaching this finding. FIRE has long argued that “[i]f a de facto sex offender registry for college students is to be constructed, it is all the more critical that procedural protections be in place to ensure trustworthy results,” and it is heartening to see a judge reach the same conclusion. I hope other courts (there are currently hundreds of lawsuits by accused students pending in federal and state courts around the country) will follow suit.

Judge Browning also noted the difference between UNM’s process for students accused of non-sexual misconduct, who get an evidentiary hearing, and its process for students accused of sexual misconduct, who do not. This phenomenon is hardly unique to UNM; a disturbing number of universities offer fewer procedural protections to students accused of sexual misconduct than students accused of non-sexual misconduct. Other schools that provide students with a meaningful hearing in non-sexual misconduct cases, but not in sexual misconduct cases, include Brown, Cal Tech, Dartmouth, Georgetown, Notre Dame, Princeton, Penn, Tufts, UC Berkeley, UCLA, the University of Virginia, and Washington University in St. Louis, to name just a few. (For more information on procedural protections at these and other schools, stay tuned for FIRE’s second annual report on campus due process, coming out later this fall.)

Despite these findings, however, Judge Browning dismissed Lee’s claim against the individual administrators on grounds of qualified immunity. Under the doctrine of qualified immunity, state officials and employees are entitled to immunity from suit “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982).

This result, while disappointing, is not altogether surprising. Until the recent deluge of lawsuits brought by students accused of sexual misconduct, the law surrounding students’ due process rights in campus proceedings was not very well fleshed-out. Recently, a growing number of courts have begun to clarify the scope of these rights, but Judge Browning clearly felt that the parameters were still insufficiently clear to hold university administrators personally liable. Hopefully, the many additional rulings certain to come in the hundreds of accused-student lawsuits still pending will help increase certainty and clarity. And in the meantime, Lee’s due process claim against the university itself continues on.

Categories
Uncategorized

PR: The Constitution Doesn’t Stop at the Campus Gates

Contact: Christopher Perry

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: cperry@saveservices.org

The Constitution Doesn’t Stop at the Campus Gates: SAVE Commends Lawmakers for Advancing Free Speech, Due Process Bills

WASHINGTON / July 17, 2017 – Responding to concerns about unconstitutional practices on college campuses, lawmakers in 16 states have introduced 18 bills designed to restore free speech or due process protections to college students. The states are California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

SAVE commends the legislators who have championed these bills, and notes the favorable bipartisan support these bills are enjoying.

Among the 18 bills, four already have been signed into law by the governors of Colorado, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia. In North Carolina and Rhode Island, bills have passed both chambers and await the governors’ approval.

The free speech bills address a range of First Amendment concerns such campus speech codes, so-called “free speech” zones, dis-invitations of controversial speakers, and other infringements on the expressive rights of students and faculty.

Notable is Tennessee’s Campus Free Speech Protection Act, Senate Bill 723. Signed into law by Gov. Bill Haslam on May 9, the Act provides some of the country’s strongest protections for student and faculty speech on public college campuses.

The due process bills were designed to ensure the availability of active counsel and other due process protections for students involved in campus disciplinary proceedings. Legislators in Georgia, North Carolina, and Utah championed the due process bills in these three states, but those bills did not reach the governors’ desks.

SAVE has drafted a model sexual assault bill titled the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act that is designed to encourage law enforcement involvement in campus felony-level crimes, and establishes a range of due process protections: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cefta/

SAVE has developed a chart that displays all 18 bill numbers, their URL links, bill summaries, and current legislative status. The chart is available here: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/State-FS-and-DP-Legislative-Analysis.pdf

SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is working to restore free speech and due process on college campuses: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Uncategorized

PR: Lesson from the UVA Gang-Rape ‘Disaster:’ Due Process Must be Restored for Campus Sex Cases

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Lesson from the UVA Gang-Rape ‘Disaster:’ Due Process Must be Restored for Campus Sex Cases

WASHINGTON / March 26, 2015 – In the aftermath of the recent Charlottesville, Virginia police report of “no evidence” of an alleged gang-rape of “Jackie” during a University of Virginia fraternity party, commentators on all points of the political spectrum are deploring the harmful effects arising from the incident.

SAVE, a national organization working to end sexual assault, has compiled a listing of over 50 commentaries on the Rolling Stone allegations (1). These editorials abhor how the Rolling Stone story has exacerbated rape-hysteria on college campuses, contributed to the wrongful expulsion of innocent college men, injured the reputation of the University of Virginia, wasted scarce law enforcement resources, undermined basic notions of journalistic integrity, and damaged the credibility of women claiming to be victims of rape.

Phi Kappa Psi is currently exploring its legal options to address the damage caused by Rolling Stone. Fraternity president Stephen Scipione noted, “These false accusations have been extremely damaging to our entire organization, but we can only begin to imagine the setback this must have dealt to survivors of sexual assault.”

“For rape victims, the falsely accused, taxpayers, and for UVA administrators, the Rolling Stone piece has been an unmitigated disaster,” notes SAVE spokeswoman Sheryl Hutter. “If we’re going to prevent future rape-hoaxes, college administrators must begin to restore due process to the handling of campus sex allegations.”

Washington Post report concluded the Rolling Stone account was “a complete crock…built on a mix of naivete and advocacy” (2).

 

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Categories
Uncategorized

PR: Public Opposition to Campus Sex Assault Policies is Widespread, Polls Show

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Public Opposition to Campus Sex Assault Policies is Widespread, Polls Show

WASHINGTON / November 18, 2014 – Three national polls reveal widespread disapproval of campus sexual assault policies implemented in recent years. The polls point to a need to re-think current federal and state mandates designed to curb campus rape, according to Stop Abusive and Violent Environments.

In 2011 the Obama Administration’s Department of Education issued a Dear Colleague Letter requiring campus disciplinary committees to take the lead in resolving sexual assault allegations. This year, controversial Affirmative Consent policies were implemented at colleges in California, New York, and elsewhere.

In 2014, three national opinion polls gauged the level of public support for these new policies.

In January, a YouGov/Huffington post survey of 1,000 adults found only 17% placed “a lot” of confidence in the ability of colleges to “properly handle someone reporting rape, sexual assault, or harassment.” Far greater percentages of respondents trusted law enforcement (37%) and non-profit organizations (51%): https://today.yougov.com/news/2014/02/03/poll-results-sexual-assault/

In July, Fox News-affiliated Gretawire conducted an online poll asking how campus rape cases should be handled. Among the nearly 3,000 respondents, 94.3% said all allegations should be sent to police and prosecutors. Only 5.7% believed colleges should first review the allegation: http://gretawire.foxnewsinsider.com/poll/rape-allegations-where-should-it-go-click-to-read/

In October, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments commissioned a national telephone poll on Affirmative Consent. When asked whether the government should have the “authority to determine how partners give their consent to sex,” 85% of respondents answered ‘No.’ http://www.saveservices.org/camp/affirmative-confusion/survey/findings/

“The message comes through loud and clear — Americans place little faith in the ability of campus disciplinary committees to handle complicated sex assault cases,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “We need to reform the current system which is shortchanging  both victims and the accused.”

Nearly 700 editorials have criticized the Department of Education mandate and Affirmative Consent proposals on grounds of being unworkable, ineffective, and unfair: www.accusingu.org

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is working to promote effective solutions to campus sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/

Categories
Uncategorized

Eighteen Groups Announce Opposition to Campus Accountability and Safety Act

Contact: Mac Walter
Email: info@saveservices.org
Phone: 301-525-2279

Eighteen Groups Announce Opposition to Campus Accountability and Safety Act

WASHINGTON / September 10, 2014 – Eighteen organizations are today announcing their opposition to the proposed Campus Accountability and Safety Act (CASA), S. 2692 and H.R. 5354. The 18 groups represent a broad coalition including victim advocacy groups, gender-specific organizations, college trade entities, and media outlets.

Their opposition to CASA arises from the fact the bill does nothing to address the documented inadequacies of campus committees to conduct investigations, hold hearings, and impose appropriate sanctions. Ironically, the Campus Accountability and Safety Act contains no requirements to increase police presence, promote thorough investigations, or strengthen prosecutorial actions.

Under existing Department of Education policies, campus committees are required to adjudicate allegations of sexual assault, but can only expel a person found guilty of sexual assault.

As a result, numerous complaints have been filed by victims of sexual assault alleging the university did not take the allegation seriously.

In addition, over 40 students accused of sexual assault have filed lawsuits claiming due process violations. Last week the U.S. Department of Education notified Brandeis University that it was opening an investigation on behalf of an accused student who was found guilty of sexual misconduct last Spring.

The 18 groups voicing their opposition to CASA include the American Council on Education, Beyond the Registry, Community of the Wrongly Accused, ifeminists.com, National Association of Scholars, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, Voice for Male Students, Women for Men, and others.
A complete list of opposing groups can be seen here: www.saveservices.org/camp/campus-justice-coalition/

The Duke University Chronicle recently editorialized that the current campus system “has the potential for real, human cost, where innocent students are convicted and guilty ones set free.” The editorial boards of both USA Today and the Los Angeles Times have also come out against universities’ reliance on campus committees to adjudicate felony sexual assault cases.

“The current system represents second-class justice for both victims and the accused,” charges Campus Justice Coalition spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “CASA is a perfect example of a bill that is full of symbolism but woefully lacking in substance.”

Over 300 editorials have been published this year disputing the notion of “rape-culture” and critiquing proposed legislative approaches: www.accusingu.org .

The Campus Justice Coalition is working to promote effective and fair solutions to the problem of campus sexual assault.

Categories
Press Release Sexual Harassment Uncategorized

PR: White House Report Downplays False Allegations of Rape, Artificially Inflates the Numbers, SAVE Asserts

PRESS RELEASE

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

White House Report Downplays False Allegations of Rape, Artificially Inflates the Numbers, SAVE Asserts

WASHINGTON / January 24, 2014 – A leading victim-advocacy group is charging the recent White House report, Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action (1), ignores the growing problem of false allegations and relies on inflated rape statistics. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) calls on the Obama Administration to fulfill its promise of policymaking based on science, not ideological persuasion.

Three peer-reviewed studies have found the rate of false accusations of rape ranges from 41% to 60% (2). A recent study of prisoners convicted on sexual assault charges found 15% of the cases lacked a DNA match to the victim (3).

Ironically, the White House report was released just days after a Michigan judge sentenced Sarah Ylen to five years in prison for falsely accusing two men of raping her, labeling Ylen’s actions “diabolical” (4).

But the problem of false allegations is ignored by the White House report.

The report makes the claim that one in five women has been raped during her lifetime. But a fine-print footnote reveals many of these women were actually subjected to “attempted,” not “completed” rapes. The category of “attempted” rapes is particularly susceptible to the problem of false allegations, SAVE believes.

More worrisome is the fact that nearly half of the “rape” victims were involved in what the report terms “alcohol/drug facilitated completed penetration.” This broad category encompasses consensual intercourse following a carefree New Year’s Eve celebration, and could even apply to a newly married couple consummating their vows. With such broad definitions, most American adults could become classified as a “rapist” or “rape victim,” SAVE worries.

These elastic definitions can be traced to a 2011 Centers for Disease Control project called the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS). The survey has been the focus of repeated criticism.

Columnist Christina Hoff-Sommers has charged the NIPSVS exemplifies “advocacy research” that can lead to “recklessly misguided” conclusions (5). SAVE sent a 12-page complaint to the Centers for Disease Control in 2012, saying the report was riddled with “biases, misrepresentations, and other flaws.” (6).

Knowing that half of the cases in the CDC report do not meet any common-sense definition of rape, and about half of all rape allegations turn out to be false, the actual incidence of rape is closer to 5%, not 20%.

Five percent is an unacceptably high number, SAVE believes, and calls on all sectors of society to respond to the problem. But the White House 20% figure defies reason and undermines the credibility of the nation’s efforts to end rape, SAVE asserts.

“No woman should have to fear rape, and no man should have to live in fear of a false accusation of rape,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “But ignoring the problem of false allegations and inflating the numbers only invite ridicule, confusion, and doubt.”

(1) http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/sexual_assault_report_1-21-14.pdf
(2) http://www.mediaradar.org/research_on_false_rape_allegations.php
(3) http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412589-Post-Conviction-DNA-Testing-and-Wrongful-Conviction.pdf
(4) http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/article/20140117/NEWS01/301170023/False-rape-claims-diabolical-judge-says?nclick_check=1
(5) http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html
(6) http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/CDC-Ltr.1.4.2012-1.doc

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

Categories
Accountability Discrimination Domestic Violence False Allegations Press Release Research Uncategorized Victims

PR: Cocoon of Dishonesty: SAVE Warns Lawmakers about False Information from Domestic Violence Groups

PRESS RELEASE

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

Cocoon of Dishonesty: SAVE Warns Lawmakers about False Information from Domestic Violence Groups

WASHINGTON / January 6, 2014 – A leading victim-advocacy organization is advising lawmakers to be wary of claims made by domestic violence groups seeking to enact new laws. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE — is issuing the warning after the Washington Post’s Fact Checker reported that a claim made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder turned out to be based on a false statement made by a leading domestic violence researcher.

In 2009, Holder made the startling claim that “intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45.” Holder’s statement was taken word-for-word from a 2003 study published by Jacquelyn Campbell, a well-known researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing.

But Campbell’s statement turned out to be wrong, leading the Washington Post to say the claim could qualify for its notorious “Four Pinocchios” rating: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/12/18/holders-2009-claim-that-intimate-partner-homicide-is-the-leading-cause-of-death-for-african-american-women/

SAVE has identified many other examples of misrepresentations by domestic violence groups.

In the past year, SAVE reviewed the Fact Sheets of seven leading domestic violence organizations for accuracy and completeness. Based on the review, SAVE assigned a letter grade to the information sheet. In each of the 7 cases, the group’s Fact Sheet received a failing grade: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/truth/

SAVE then contacted organizational leaders to advise them about the flawed information. To date, none of the 7 groups has corrected the erroneous statements.

False information is also found in the Findings of proposed bills designed to combat domestic violence. For example, the proposed federal International Violence Against Women Act contains 16 findings, of which only 3 could be verified to be truthful. All the remaining findings were found to be one-sided, misleading, or false: http://www.saveservices.org/dvlp/policy-briefings/i-vawa-2013-findings/

“Victims of partner abuse are not served when domestic violence groups knowingly disseminate one-sided and false information,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Lawmakers should assure that anti-abuse programs are based on reason and science, not a biased gender ideology.”

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