<p>Agree, the reporter never asked about the rapes that Jackie told to the reporter. The reporter asked a very general question that was not tied to Jackie’s supposed comments and received an answer. Never once in the taped interview that is available did the reporter ask specific questions about Jackie or her reported experience. I’m not even sure where the reporter got the number 3 unless she was counting Jackie as 1 and then the supposed two other people that supposedly came forward and said they were also gang raped. There has never been any specificity about three gang rapes unless I missed something along the way. </p>
<p>Bluebayou, that is an interesting point. Do you have a link? </p>
<p>yes, I posted it earlier today, dstark.</p>
<p>Here’s a good link about the libel aspects that I hadn’t read before:</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/06/libel-law-and-the-rolling-stone-uva-alleged-gang-rape-story/”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/06/libel-law-and-the-rolling-stone-uva-alleged-gang-rape-story/</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Bluebayou, you provided a link to the Dear Colleague letter. I just skimmed the entire thing, but was unable to substantiate your claim that the federal guidelines prohibit the university from notifying law enforcement, in any situation, if the student has requested confidentiality. The letter was clear that the college was not required to report, but that’s a different matter. Could you give me the page number and the quote that you are referring to?</p>
<p>I did, however, discover why OCR says that colleges must use a “preponderance of the evidence” standard of proof in resolving these cases. The letter says that the Supreme Court says that institutions must use preponderance of the evidence in civil rights cases, and OCR maintains that Title IX requires that sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations be treated as claims about civil rights violations.</p>
<p>Here’s a pretty decent FAQ on Title IX. It also answers questions about what colleges and universities can do punitively. The college is required to advise the complainant of there right to file criminal charges. In UVas case, the college says they will send an advocate with the student to press charges.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf”>http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not a fan of Title iX for many reasons. Probably the two foremost reasons are that it is soft-handed. It does not require specific punitive actions for specific behavior. It merely says that the process of adjudication must occur and leaves the punishments up to the college even when the infraction is criminal and second too many colleges did not have policies and procedures that while it respected an accusers rights it did not address accused civil rights. It is my belief that most colleges are now aware that they cannot set aside an accused civil rights simply to check the box with Title IX. I believe less than a dozen of the 60 some investigations have been completed so as they sort through those I believe that colleges and universities will follow a best practice model, something President Sullivan alluded to in the interview. </p>
<p>For the off with their head crowd here is the specific Title IX guidance on sanctions:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. But, the president is prevented from acknowledging any specifics or doing anything, which may indicate guilt or innocence. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It most likely was true until Jackie went public to RS. The school was obliged to respect Jackie not going to the police and reporting when it was just an internal UVA issue. When Jackie went public, she gave up the confidentiality that UVA was held to keeping her story quiet. </p>
<p>Additionally, if the school knows the account is false in major aspects, it is smart for it to request police so it forces Jackie to come clean and clear up the matter publicly. </p>
<p>From a PR standpoint, it makes no sense for the school to be the one to say Jackie fabricated parts of the story. Imagine the political storm that would cause, even it were true. Politically, the school is stuck even though it may have info that may end all this speculation about what Jackie told who, what, where and when. </p>
<p>Anyway, the fact that Jackie is not cooperating with police means her lawyer has advised her that to not answer police truthfully opens her up to perjury. Therefore, pretty sure there is a trail Jackie left that shows not all things are what she said, and she knew it. </p>
<p>This is not to say something bad did not happen to her. However, her being assaulted by someone or some group does not give her some special privilege to start calling out people who may have nothing to do with it, and there is where trouble lies for her, i.e., if she did that. </p>
<p>My senior counsel thinks she could be in major hot water if she knew what she was saying did not add up based on her paper (tech) trail. As an UVA admin said (saw in a previous post)- innocent people have been hurt. And yes, I understand RS is a big part / enabler here, but the law does not look at things that way - simply, RS would not have the story if Jackie did not tell it in the first place and looks like she is has been telling more than one version and things got out of hand. If innocent people were smeared, just saying sorry will not cut it for the people harmed.</p>
<p>Several posters have claimed that if Jackie said she wanted confidentiality, UVa was obligated not to bring the matter to law enforcement. Would one of those posters please substantiate this claim? Everything I’ve read and the quotes that people have posted from the Dear Colleague letter seem to say that in some cases, the school can go to law enforcement.</p>
<p>Even if the school could go to LE, what would be the point if the victim is not willing to cooperate? If there is clear evidence that does not require the girl’s cooperation, it could make sense for the college to get LE involved. Otherwise, the police may not be able/willing to intervene and it could just make things more difficult for the girl and could discourage others from coming forward. </p>
<p>If colleges could go to the police there would have been no need for Dear Colleague. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>both of you are correct. Some of her friends have said they think something traumatic happened (her freshman roommate for example) while others have expressed doubts because of things like the texts</p>
<p>Fang is right. Upon consideration, the college can make authorities aware.</p>
<p>If the alleged victim is uncooperative, it presents a challenge in pursuing her case. LE can still investigate what they can. And even when confidentiality is requested, on campus the U can still do what they can.</p>
<p>Confidentiality is, most often, granted by default.</p>
<p>A student’s records are deemed confidential and not even a parent can see them without permission. And any conversation a student has with an RA, counselor, and admin is also part of the student record. Therefore, said information is deemed confidential by default. Students can expect confidentiality and actually need to say, and probably needs to put in writing, when something in their records is not confidential info and can be shared.</p>
<p>And this is exactly how it should be. If this were not the case, i.e., confidentiality by default, few students would discuss anything private, personal, and serious with any dean, counselor, school doctor, etc. Confidentiality must be assumed so students feel reasonably “safe” in saying something and not thinking their parents and classmates will find out, much less the police. </p>
<p>Of course, there are limits. I can speak only for my company, but would be surprised if schools are any different. Most likely, crimes, such as being told of a murder; being told information, which makes one a co-conspirator to a continuing crime; being told information about a future crime; being told information, which if not shared would make one guilty of obstruction of justice - cannot be assumed to be held in confidence. I can think of a few more, but they run the same vein. </p>
<p>In any case, an allegation of rape of one student by another student does not fit any of these categories, and can easily be put down in the personal category. This info becomes part of the student record, which is deemed confidential and only the student can authorize release of said info, thus, no police report. </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>From the Dear Colleague letter:
</p>
<p>This is somewhat contradicted by the letter’s other equally ambiguous injunction:
</p>
<p>During the October 2 Erdely/Sullivan interview, Susan Davis from the Student Affairs office has a hard time explaining in which cases confidentiality is appropriate and which it isn’t.</p>
<p>I think the problem in Jackie’s case – if we assume that she did tell Dean Eramo that she was gang raped in either version of events – is that not only would UVA have no named accuser, but that they wouldn’t have a named perpetrator. The person who allegedly orchestrated the attack, Haven/Drew, couldn’t be produced because he didn’t exist. The assaulters may not have been named – possibly because Jackie didn’t know their identities (although in the RS article she identified one as a student in one of her classes) or because Jackie chose not to reveal their names to the Dean. We don’t know when Jackie identified Phi Psi as the scene of the crime.</p>
<p>So that puts the school in a difficult position: They don’t want to name the victim because of confidentiality and because she didn’t want to pursue the case herself. They can’t find and verify the student who orchestrated the attack. They don’t know the name of the attackers. They may not be sure where it happened. I don’t think any police department could proceed on such vague information.</p>
<p>Some time between Spring of 2013 and Spring of 2014 Jackie learned of two other gang rapes at Phi Psi. She met with Eramo to
</p>
<p>We don’t know if either of these women reported their attacks to U-VA, but according to Eric Wemple in WaPo, the fraternity’s national director said that university told him that the two additional claims only came from Jackie. </p>
<p>When asked about the 3 gang rapes in the Erdely interview President Sullivan said that even though the university didn’t have the the names of any specific individuals, they could take action against the organization, for example suspend the organization’s charter. Presumably that’s what was under discussion with the fraternity; however before the RS article, I don’t think the university had enough firm information to report the claims to the police. </p>
<p>After the RS article came out Sullivan told NBC29 that they hadn’t previously had all the details, “There was much more information in Rolling Stone than we had.” At that point the university turned the investigation over to police. I don’t think we know if Jackie will or won’t cooperate with the police investigation, or if the police will subpoena her. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This idea that a student must request confidentiality does not follow general practice. I am assuming here that the statement is written about the situation AFTER the student is asked if she wants to file a police report, not that the student must request confidentiality in general.</p>
<p>How it plays out is most likely like this:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Student goes to dean or whomever and makes allegation and person makes note of it. (This is automatically confidential info, as it part of the student record at that point already)</p></li>
<li><p>Person asks student if she wants school to file a police report</p></li>
<li><p>Student then says no and says to keep the info confidential - reaffirming the initial, assumed code of student record confidentiality, not invoking a new code of confidentiality.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>
</p>
<p>Sure, but what inconsistent nonsense - 4000 different policies for 4000 colleges and universities. And that makes sense to people?</p>
<p>One school reports X to police, but the other does not etc. Based on what, who is sitting in the chair at time? </p>
<p>This explains why the default is not to report. Unless a school has a real good understanding of what took place, it would be silly for admin to think they can ascertain an accurate account of rape or not. Therefore, unless it is really bad, it is better not to report anything to the police. And all the tribunals do is keep this ignorance in house and mess up the adjudication process. </p>
<p>Best to take it off the admin hands, and make it so they must report rape to the police, just as admin must report a student suicide, missing student, and murder. </p>
<p>Yup, awc. And I don’t think you can claim any default is not to report. That is the fear of some, yes. But on consideration they may report on their own, still maintaining confidentiality, as needed. Your comments are pointed- and include opinion. They are not to discourage the student from reporting. And-</p>
<p>“if the complainant continues to ask that his or her name or other identifiable information not be revealed, the school should evaluate that request in the context of its responsibility to provide a safe and nondiscriminatory environment for all students. Thus, the school may weigh the request for confidentiality against the following factors: the seriousness of the alleged harassment; the complainant’s age; whether there have been other harassment complaints about the same individual; and the alleged harasser’s rights to receive information about the allegations if the information is maintained by the school as an “education record” under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. Part 99. …Even if the school cannot take disciplinary action against the alleged harasser
because the complainant insists on confidentiality, it should pursue other steps to limit the effects of the alleged harassment and prevent its recurrence.”</p>
<p>LF, thanks. </p>
<p>Bluebayou, I read your lnk.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why don’t you show me where this was said? </p>
<p>Here is another excellent synopsis of university Title IX obligations from The National Association of College and University Attorneys. From what I’m reading, colleges are obligated to confidentiality if that is what the accuser desires. It does appear that a loop hole exists should colleges have a working relationship with local authorities for the investigative phase but my guess is that is a rare, rare occurrence if the accuser does not want to proceed with local authorities. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.higheredcompliance.org/resources/resources/05D_13-06-38.pdf”>http://www.higheredcompliance.org/resources/resources/05D_13-06-38.pdf</a></p>