<p>Bengalmombengal, </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for this. In my limited experience, this is what I see.</p>
<p>The argument that people should use the civil court doesn’t fly. It is too expensive. </p>
<p>From my personal experience with a legal case the legal bills were astronomical. Who wins is who has the most money in the end or who is the best pro se lawyer. Every delay, every filing by the other side has to met with your lawyer doing the same. Court cases are long, drawn out and financially extremely destructive. They can go on for years. Also, you cannot have a criminal and civil case going on at the same time. By the time you have finished one you will have PTSD and want to go on with life unless you honestly have no choice and have an unlimited bank account.</p>
<p>Jonri, I appreciate your thoughtful post. I understand that organizations – like co-ops, schools, clubs, workplaces – have rules and those that break the rules are subject to penalties, which may include firing or expulsion. However, I believe these regulations do not and should not include violent crimes, like rape and sexual assault. </p>
<p>If a member of an organization is accused of committing a violent crime, the investigation is handed over to law enforcement authorities. Yes, the alleged perpetrator may be removed from the organization while investigation works its way through the courts. I don’t have a problem with allowing college’s to suspend students who are accused of violent crimes while the legal process takes place. </p>
<p>What I have a problem with (again, in the case of violent crimes) is the schools assuming the role of investigator, judge and jury. The maximum penalty would be expulsion which is either too lenient if a violent crime was committed or too severe if it hasn’t. Under Title IX, neither the accuser nor the school is required to report violent crimes to the police so criminals, even though off the colleges’ hands, may never be criminally charged. This makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>Title IX is to me a flawed document – ambiguous and confusing – which allows schools considerable leeway in how they structure enforcement leading to even more inconsistency and confusion. </p>
<p>Some problematic examples:
Lawyers may or may not be allowed
Appeals may or may not be allowed
Training of investigators and decision makers must be “adequate” but the specifics are left up to the schools
The complainant may be notified of the decision before the accused
A lower standard of evidence is used than is used in criminal courts
The schools must investigate accusations even if the same accusation was already decided by a criminal court
The decision to file a police report is left up to the complainant
It’s up to the school to decide whether to inform law enforcement about criminal cases.</p>
<p>The mandated investigation is also confusing. If a complaint is made and then withdrawn then the school still must proceed? Or not?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The point that I really can’t understand is this.
[/quote]
Public and state supported schools must provide due process to the alleged perpetrator.However, school should ensure that steps taken to accord due process rights to the alleged perpetrator do not restrict or necessarily delay Title IX protections for the complainant.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So Title IX protections trump due process even though public and state-supported schools must provide due process?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lookingforward - Though I’ve done a little bit of reading recently, the meager knowledge base I have is several years old. I do know that if you’re not an expert there are a number of technicalities that can make understanding things confusing. The codes of conduct are completely college specific (though they have to comply with the law and Title IX guidance). </p>
<p>Amherst may not have a mediation process. UVa has what they call an “informal” process, which sounds like what I was calling mediation. Harvard’s newly created policy has a “request for informal resolution”. I thought that this was considered best practice, but the article I read criticized UVa for having the process. Amherst may be the outlier here since they went through a complete top to bottom re-examination of their policies a few years ago in response to some disturbing incidents.</p>
<p>I’m not sure you’re right about the requirement to respond officially. Here’s a link to Harvard’s new policy:</p>
<p><a href=“http://diversity.harvard.edu/files/diversity/files/harvard_sexual_harassment_procedures_student.pdf”>http://diversity.harvard.edu/files/diversity/files/harvard_sexual_harassment_procedures_student.pdf</a></p>
<p>It was just blessed by the OCR, so it might be an especially good example. If I’m reading it right, there are several ways to terminate the complaint even after initiation of a formal complaint. Basically, as with almost every legal procedure, there is a lot of flexibility if everyone (accuser, accused, and the ‘court’) agrees. In practice, the accuser can terminate whenever they want. However, one thing I noticed is that it’s possible for the Title IX officer to press the complaint forward if it’s sufficiently serious, even if the accuser withdraws. I assume this will be rarely done, but in spirit I think it’s a good thing, though I’d need to learn more about its actual effects</p>
<p>Bengalmombengal,
Post 2901. :)</p>
<p>Al2, at the time, I didn’t want to leave the impression that how it works at one school is necessarily how it works elsewhere. Amherst (you probably saw) also has a voluntary resolution (mediation) process but apparently makes it available for Title IX harassment/misconduct, but not for sexual violence. That’s all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>CF - Looks like you’re absolutely right. Maybe I was thinking of Clery Act vs. everything else.When I googled the Clery Act report for the college the Non-Forcible Sexual Offenses lines were 0 for all the reported years (though it looks like they changed categories again recently), so since there weren’t any I’m sure it wasn’t a discussion topic. I obviously don’t remember the names, so my best guess is what I wrote above:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>al2simon, I assume that your college dealt with a number of sex-related offenses that weren’t reportable at all. The Clery Act is for crimes, but your college code of conduct outlawed various things that aren’t crimes, I’m sure. The sex offenses committee, whatever it was, probably dealt with sexual harassment and minor sexual offenses that are not crimes, as well as the rarer (we hope) and more serious offenses that have to be reported in the Clery report. </p>
<p>Diving deeper into the Dear Colleague letter on mediation, immediate action, termination, and notifying law enforcement. Individual schools may choose to enhance and intensify these rules as long as they don’t contradict the rules.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Mediation can’t be used for sexual assault complaints. Mediation is a “voluntary informal mechanism.”
</p></li>
<li><p>The school must take “Immediate action to eliminate harassment” but it’s not clear what their obligation is if there is no student complainant. For example, if an RA learns of a sexual assault from a student who isn’t willing to file a complaint.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>The section on termination, is opaque. How can the school take all reasonable steps to investigate consistent with the request not to pursue an investigation?</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<ol>
<li>My understanding is that if the complainant decides not to go the police, the school may or may not do so at their discretion and depending on the laws of their state. I’m not sure how this squares with reporting under the Clery Act. Two separate issues?</li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>CF - Yes, that’s right about the relationship between Clery reporting and the code of conduct. And it was even more complicated since a sexual assault by a non-student on a student wouldn’t be covered by the code of conduct but would be Clery reportable. If I were king I’d probably get someone clever to compile a set of very carefully defined terms that apply to this area and make everyone use it. I think that could eliminate a lot of miscommunication so at least the arguments could be more productive (though just as heated) ;)</p>
<p>We’re going on vacation and then it’s time to return to work, so it’s back to lurker status for me. Most everyone on this thread seem to be of good faith, but there were definitely a few strange characters who showed up. In honor of them I’ll share a quote I like:
</p>
<p>Good luck to you all !</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Couldn’t agree more.</p>
<p>From post 2892 …the daily progress…
Jackie told a similar story to the asst dean as she told to her friends. </p>
<p>The asst dean may not have told the president until she found out RS was going to print a story. That’s two years</p>
<p>What Jackie told the asst dean was a felony. Multiple felonies. Did UVA investigate? </p>
<p>What did the president of UVA do after she heard the story?</p>
<p>Did UVA sit on a story of a gang rape without investigating?</p>
<p>A different story at the same frat that occurred years earlier.</p>
<p><a href=“I Was Gang Raped at a U-VA Frat 30 Years Ago, and No One Did Anything”>http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/16/i-was-gang-raped-at-a-uva-frat-30-years-ago-and-no-one-did-anything.html</a></p>
<p>Is the temporary thread still being used? Posted the following over there:</p>
<p>Article on possible legislation to have colleges put any disciplinary actions placed on transcripts so a student found responsible for sexual assault will not be able to transfer schools so easily:</p>
<p><a href=“Lawmakers Consider How To Address Sexual Assault Offenders Transferring Colleges | HuffPost College”>Lawmakers Consider How To Address Sexual Assault Offenders Transferring Colleges | HuffPost College;
<p>"In some cases, as HuffPost reported, schools have changed a student’s record to remove expulsion in order to help the student get into another college after being found responsible for sexual assault.</p>
<p>Following HuffPost’s reports, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said she plans to introduce legislation making it clear that schools are allowed to share information about sexual misconduct punishments, despite current federal privacy law. The legislation is still being drafted, according to her office staff." </p>
<p>The problem is if a girl goes uses the college system to get a boy expelled not using the definition of beyond a doubt that is used in a court of law, a civil case can arise and probably will arise if it is murky with a he said she said scenario. Because rape is such a serious crime and because of the stigma of rape attached to your name I can’t imagine the accused who has the financial means not suing for damages in a she said he said scenario. Hence, if the girl is truly raped she will be a victim twice. On the other hand, lets say the female told half truths or lies about the event the boy is the victim and a very real victim whose life is turned upside down or destroyed if they do not have the financial means to fight it. The legal system can and is used to destroy innocent lives as revenge. Unfortunately, people do lie for various reasons creating massive injustice in itself. Even with overwhelming evidence that you have been victimized it does not mean you will ever have justice whether it is rape or some other crime. And without proof whether it is fraud, rape, theft or anything else unless you get the accused to admit guilt generally there is no conviction because of the standard set forth by the Constitution. </p>
<p>This thread reminds me that much, if not most, of human experience involves the process of interpretation, and that one’s interpretations are often in a state of flux. Any event can lead to innumerable possible interpretations, though hard evidence can sometimes impose firm boundaries. However, without hard evidence, without something firm and constant to limit one’s imagination in considering various interpretations, the imagination can drift long distances, especially if propelled by a current of fear.</p>
<p>So I am curious how many of you, if you had the power, would eradicate all college tribunals and have sexual assault claims adjudicated in the criminal justice system? And how many of you would keep the university tribunals but tweak the process in an attempt to bring in the “due process” that so many feel is missing?</p>
<p>Well, we can add Mrs. Camille Cosby to the list of people who object to the Rolling Stone report. I guess that settles it then. (SARCASM!!!).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would do neither; the former is too tough on victims and the latter puts an interested party in charge. (Colleges cannot be “independent”, despite best intentions which, the press has demonstrated, is sorely lacking.) </p>
<p>I would suggest that the college be forced to pay for an independent arbiter to run the tribunal – perhaps a retired judge to be in charge of the investigation. And that the college be required to pay for legal/counseling for each of the accused and the accuser. All would have to have experience with assault.</p>
<p>And I would change the law to allow those wrongfully discharged by a college to sue for damages. (That way the poor have access to outside legal, just as the wealthy dol.)</p>
<p>HarvestMoon1, I am not sure how I would handle things. This thread has me all spun around. On the one hand, rape is a serious crime and should be treated as such not only for the sake of the victim but for society as whole. So if it is serious treat it that way and go the distance (police, college, everyone).</p>
<p>On the other hand, it has been discussed that a person who has been assaulted can not and should not be forced to report to the police. In that case, if she then chooses to report the incident to her college, what exactly does she want? It seems some want the guy expelled; others might just want an apology and the accused, say, removed from the dorm. In that Yale case I posted earlier (where the man lost his Rhodes and his summer internship), it seemed all the woman wanted was to file a complaint—she didn’t even want ANY kind of resolution either with the accused or the school. He couldn’t even find out exactly what the complaint said, except that it was of a sexual nature.</p>
<p>I know that I do think both sides should be afforded the same processes—if one can have a lawyer, so should the other. If the accuser can read the accused’s statement beforehand, the accused should have the same right. If the accuser can ask any question of the accused, the opposite should be true as well. I understand it is a hard thing to face an attacker, but sometimes hard things must be done in the name of justice.</p>
<p>There is another aspect I have been pondering, and that is a statute of limitations (not talking about criminal here, just in the college disciplinary setting). Should there be one? It seems in many of the cases we have discussed, charges were brought to the administration weeks, months, and even in one case an accusation brought senior year for something that happened freshman year. The longer one waits to bring an accusation, it would seem to me the harder it is to prove a case. Witnesses forget, texts and emails are erased, etc. This makes it harder for both sides to get the evidence they need to present their cases. How long is too long? A semester? An academic year? Or should you be able to file a complaint May of senior year for something that happened August of freshman year? Why wait so long? And again, what resolution are you hoping for?</p>
<p>I would move it to the legal system because the standard of proof is higher and to remove the prejudices involved for both the accuser or accused. Its unrealistic to expect the colleges to pay for legal counsel as that cost would be just passed along in student fees and the sky is the limit when it comes to legal fees. I agree that those wrongfully discharged should be allowed to sue but they already can in civil court which is why you need to be very cautious as the accuser.</p>