Constitutionally rooted due process is one of the foundations of American society, because it protects individuals from government over-reach and from false allegations.

In 1975, Judge Henry Friendly identified key due process procedures.[1]

• An unbiased tribunal.
• Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
• Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
• The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
• The right to know opposing evidence.
• The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
• A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
• Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
• Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and the reasons for its decision.

In 2011 the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) pre-emptively issued a Dear Colleague Letter on campus sexual assault.[2] The document was unlawful in the sense that it violated the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act, and it severely weakened constitutionally-rooted due process protections for the accused.

On August 4, 2011, SAVE sent a letter to the OCR expressing concern over the new requirement for use of the “preponderance of evidence” standard, and calling for the Dear Colleague Letter to be rescinded.[3] The OCR did not respond to the substance of the request or even acknowledge receipt of the correspondence.

It wasn’t until six years later that SAVE’s request was fulfilled. On September 22, 2017, the Office for Civil Rights announced its withdrawal of the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter and its 2014 Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence.[4]

Last year SAVE published a Special Report, Appellate Court Decisions for Allegations of Campus Sexual Misconduct, 2013-2018.[5] The report analyzes the 14 appellate cases decided in favor of the accused student involving campus sexual assault. These were the most common due process violations identified in the Judicial Findings, in descending order:

1. Insufficient hearing process
2. Lack of cross-examination/Inadequate credibility assessment
3. Insufficient notice
4. Inadequate investigation
5. Conflicting roles of college officials
6. Improper use or exclusion of witness testimony
7. Potential sex bias
8. Misuse of affirmative consent policy

These eight violations closely track the due process procedures that Judge Friendly identified 45 years before.

Sexual assault complainants are unhappy with the current state of affairs, as well. SAVE has identified examples of persons who said their mistreatment at the hands of inept college officials was more traumatic than the original sexual assault. A recent CBS News documentary highlighted victims who complained that the current system is not working for them.[6]

In short, the current campus “Kangaroo Courts” represent a failed response to the problem of campus sexual assault.

On November 29, 2018 the Department of Education released its proposed Title IX regulations.[7] Among other things, the proposed regulation will restore a series of due process procedures on college campuses:[8]

• A presumption of innocence for the respondent throughout the grievance process;
• The school must objectively evaluate all relevant evidence including inculpatory and exculpatory evidence;
• All Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must not have conflicts of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents;
• Training materials for Title IX Coordinators, investigators and decision-makers must foster impartial determinations without relying on sex stereotypes;
• A respondent cannot face discipline without due process protections;
• Ensure the burden of proof and burden of gathering evidence rest on the school, not on the parties;
• Provide equal opportunity for both parties to present witnesses and evidence;
• Not restrict the ability of either party to discuss the allegations or gather relevant evidence (e.g., no “gag orders”);
• Provide the parties with the same opportunity to be accompanied at all phases of the grievance process by an advisor of the party’s choice (who may be an attorney);
• Give written notice of any interview, meeting, or hearing at which a party is invited or expected to participate;
• Provide equal access to review all the evidence that the school investigator has collected, including the investigative report, giving each party equal opportunity to respond to that evidence before a determination is made;
• For colleges and universities, a final determination must be made at a live hearing, and cross-examination must be allowed (with rape shield protections against asking about a complainant’s sexual history) and must be conducted by each party’s advisor (i.e., no personal confrontation allowed).
• After investigation, a written determination must be sent to both parties explaining for each allegation whether the respondent is responsible or not responsible including the facts and evidence on which the conclusion is based. The determination must be made by a decisionmaker who is not the same person as the Title IX Coordinator or investigator
• Where a finding of responsibility is made against the respondent, the written determination must describe what remedies the school will provide to the survivor to restore or preserve equal access to the school’s education program or activity, and any sanctions imposed on the respondent.

Nine years after the Department of Education issued its Dear Colleague Letter, the debate has been resolved. Neither identified victims nor accused students are being well served by the new campus regime. The current system is broken. SAVE urges the Office of Management and Budget to publish the new Title IX regulations promptly, and calls upon the Department of Education to vigorously enforce the new requirements.

[1] https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5317&context=penn_law_review

[2] http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html

[3] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/OCRLetter.pdf

[4] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Appellate-Court-Cases-Report.pdf

[6] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/title-ix-sexual-misconduct-on-campus-cbsn-documentary/

[7] https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=ED-2018-OCR-0064-0001

[8] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/background-summary-proposed-ttle-ix-regulation.pdf