Categories
Accusing U. Campus

PR: SAVE Calls for an End to ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Contact: Chris Perry

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: cperry@saveservices.org

With Growing Bipartisan Support for Campus Due Process, SAVE Calls for an End to ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / December 4, 2017 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is calling for the restoration of fairness and due process in campus sexual assault cases. SAVE is issuing this appeal in light of the resurgent bipartisan support for fair and equitable treatment of all students.

This recent bipartisan support includes California Governor Brown’s October 15, 2017 veto of a bill that would have codified the denial of key due process rights for accused students, such as the right to cross-examination and a presumption of innocence.  In his veto message, Governor Brown highlighted the fact that accused students, “guilty or not, must be treated fairly and with the presumption of innocence until the facts speak otherwise.” (1)

On October 26, the House of Representatives Roundtable on Campus Sexual Assault convened a hearing during which Task Force members argued that fundamental fairness was essential (2):

  • Rep. Ann McLane Kuster (D-NH): “Too often conversations about these proceedings break down into two camps: those in support for the rights of the accused, and those who support protections for survivors of sexual assault. These are not mutually exclusive.”
  • Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA): We appreciate the “very delicate balance that exists in which all students have an expectation of the right to due process.”

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the PROSPER Act, a bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. The bill would guarantee several fundamental due process rights, including adequate written notice, a meaningful opportunity to admit or contest allegations, access to material evidence, and a prohibition on institutional conflicts of interest (3).

In light of these developments, SAVE urges state lawmakers to consider passage of the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA) (4), which contains many due process provisions similar to those in the PROSPER Act.

Presaging the rescission of the Department of Education’s 2011 policy on campus sexual violence, Secretary Betsy DeVos declared on September 7, “Through intimidation and coercion, the failed system has clearly pushed schools to overreach…It’s no wonder so many call these proceedings ‘kangaroo courts.’” (5)

Citations:

  1. https://www.gov.ca.gov/docs/SB_169_Veto_Message_2017.pdf
  2. https://www.thefire.org/bipartisan-task-force-to-end-sexual-violence-discusses-campus-sexual-assault/
  3. https://www.wsj.com/articles/higher-education-bill-requires-notice-on-free-speech-policies-1511963076?tesla=y
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/CEFTA-2.26.2017.pdf
  5. http://abcnews.go.com/US/campus-rape-policy-review-trump-administration/story?id=49687058

SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is working for practical and effective solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Accountability Accusing U. Affirmative Consent Due Process Press Release Rape-Culture Hysteria Victims

PR: American Law Institute Pulls the Plug on Affirmative Consent

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

American Law Institute Pulls the Plug on Affirmative Consent

WASHINGTON / May 23, 2016 – By a resounding margin, members of the American Law Institute voted down a controversial “affirmative consent” standard being considered for the group’s proposed Model Penal Code for Sexual Assault. Instead, the ALI membership approved a definition proposed by attorney Margaret Love that states, “’Consent’ means a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact. Consent may be expressed or it may be inferred from behavior, including words and conduct—both action and inaction—in the context of all the circumstances.” (1)

The historic vote took place at the ALI annual conference on May 17 in Washington, DC. After two hours of at times acrimonious debate, approximately four-fifths of the 500 members present voted to remove the affirmative consent language (2). Leading judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys comprise the membership of ALI, which develops model laws for adoption at the state level.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had sharply criticized the proposed affirmative consent policy, charging the ALI draft used “the bludgeon of criminal sanctions to impose the new and yet untested concept of ‘affirmative consent’ upon society.” (3)

The affirmative consent standard has been struck down in two state-level decisions, as well.

In August, Judge Carol McCoy ruled the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga’s affirmative consent policy “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the defendant. The administrative judge noted that “requiring the accused to affirmatively provide consent… is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused.” (4)

Last month the Massachusetts District Court ruled against the Brandeis University affirmative consent policy, saying “it is absurd to suggest that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the other party is a total stranger or a long-term partner in an apparently happy relationship.” (5)

Decrying the rigidity and intrusiveness of the affirmative consent approach, Newsday columnist Cathy Young asks, “While there’s still time, we should stop and ask just how much government we really want in the bedroom.” (6) More information about affirmative consent can be found on the SAVE website (7).

(1) https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/19/a4/19a45dd8-da30-44d5-a4a1-5bb3992a3521/mpcsa-language-52016.pdf
(2) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-mess-law-group-rejects-affirmative-consent/article/2591692
(3) http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NACDL-Comments-Draft-6-MPC-Sexual-Assault.pdf
(4) https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/memorandum-mock.pdf
(5) https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/brandeis-decision.pdf
(6) http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/the-risks-of-affirmative-consent-1.11819583
(7) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Accusing U. Affirmative Consent Campus Press Release Rape-Culture Hysteria Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

Campus Anti-Rape Efforts Go Silly

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
October 7, 2014

Three percent of women are victims of rape during their college years. And that number appears to be declining. But that hasn’t stopped campus activists from declaring that a sexual assault “epidemic” is sweeping our campuses and advocating for rape prevention programs that are downright silly, if not absurd.

These are 5 recent examples around the country:

1. Crazy-Making at Michigan
The new University of Michigan policy provides several examples of sexual violence. One type of “violence” listed in its policy is “withholding sex and affection.”

That’s right, U of M no longer believes that “no means no.” Columnist Susan Kruth recently wrote: “This is utterly unconscionable, and, frankly, insane. It is the absolute last message we should be sending to college students.”

2. Taco Runs at ASU
Arizona State University has come up with a novel solution to rape: having by-standers suggest that intoxicated men go out and grab some tacos.

If that doesn’t work, an intoxicated male should be persuaded that the girl he is talking to is “ugly” and “not worth sleeping with,” according to the student group Always Get Consent.

3. Whistles for Rapists
At the University of Colorado, campus activists claim that encouraging women to take common-sense protective measures like carrying a rape whistle constitutes “blaming the victim.”

So the Student Health Center is now distributing flyers to men instructing them that the “only use for a rape whistle is: If you are about to rape someone, warn them. Blow the whistle.”

4. Big Sister at Clemson
At Clemson University in South Carolina, students were required to complete a survey asking detailed questions such as:
• “How many times have you had sex (including oral) in the last 3 months?”
• “With how many different people have you had sex (including oral) in the last 3 months?”

Failure to complete the questionnaire was deemed to be a violation of the Student Code of Conduct and subject to disciplinary action.

5. Sex Week in New Mexico
Last week the University of New Mexico Women’s Resource Center co-sponsored Sex Week. The week included lectures on topics such as “How to be a Gentleman AND Get Laid,” “Reid’s Negotiating Successful Threesomes,” and “O-Face Oral.”

According to the media account, “The events are designed to prevent sexual assault, but organizers have taken a new approach…Instead of teaching students how not to get hurt, they’re teaching them how to have safer and better sex.”
We’re hoping the event organizers will explain how escalating the already hyper-sexualized environment of college campuses will serve to deter sexual assault.

Time to Get Serious About Rape

Let’s state the obvious: Rape is a crime.

Stopping rape requires improved police reporting, professional investigations, and vigorous prosecutions.

Rape cases should be handled by the criminal justice system, not by ill-equipped campus Kangaroo Courts.

Categories
Accusing U. Affirmative Consent Campus False Allegations Sexual Assault

Feminist Says No to California’s Yes-Means-Yes Law … Here’s Why

Roz Galtz
October 10, 2014

GUEST WORDS-As a lifelong, hardcore feminist—not to mention the mom of a teenage girl—I know I’m supposed to be overjoyed by passage of California’s SB 967, the law that enshrines a “yes-means-yes” consent standard for sexual assault on college and university campuses. (You’ve got to confirm your partner’s active consent throughout a sexual encounter, or the facts will support a sexual assault claim.

I want to be happy. It feels like forever since feminists have had a win. Still, I can’t help but dislike this bill entirely.

How did we get to a place where we uncritically celebrate a law meant to enhance justice for survivors of sexual assault, but only if they’re enrolled in a college or university?

Let’s start by acknowledging: college women are at no greater risk of sexual assault than other women their age. Given the reporting, you’re probably tempted to dismiss that assertion out of hand, but check it out. Rely on nearly any set of measures you’d like. As tricky as sexual assault stats can be, the evidence is nearly uniform on this point. Campus women aren’t at greater risk than their non-academic sisters, they’re just more aggregated in space.

So how did we get here? There are a number of explanations, but ultimately the only reason we need to rethink campus policies on sexual assault in the first place is that campuses are permitted to adjudicate them.

For far too long, residential campuses have been permitted to act as little, make-believe municipalities, complete with their own quasi-judicial processes, staffed by faculty who just love the buzz of the solemnity of getting to play judge.

When I try to envision a campus sexual assault proceeding, I flash on the case of a kid at a “living learning” program where I used to teach. After an RA busted him for trouble in the dorms, he distributed hundreds of copies of a disordered, rambling tract targeting her. He promised to get stray dogs to urinate all over her. He declared “open f-cking season on dumb tw-ts now” (a threat with a little extra oomph, coming from a burly guy who dressed in full combat fatigues).

The RA was terrified and terrorized—forced to flee the dorm that was both her housing and her job site.

This wasn’t a sexual assault, but the program’s response was telling. Was the guy arrested? Put before a disciplinary board? Subject to a mandatory psych eval? Did the RA receive some form of protection? Was she given a say in how the problem was handled?

The answer, as far as I could ever learn, was no on every count.

Administrators seemed anxious to keep things in house. The program was under scrutiny for its high costs and persistent crises. A senior faculty member had recently racked up his second reprimand for sexual harassment. The last thing anyone wanted was another black eye.

Faculty sentiment also ran decidedly against formal discipline, which may have led to expulsion given the student’s “priors.” Rationales for were varied—one prof simply maintained there was no way this kid could be a threat because: “I’ve had him in several classes, and he’s always been very quiet.”

(No, seriously, that’s what he said.) Of course, “this kid” was white. Does anyone buy for a minute that a burly black dude who dressed like a sniper could plaster his college with vows to torture and kill a white female RA and walk away with no repercussions…because he was quiet in class?

Now consider: these are the same folks assembling with all sense of seriousness to judge sexual assault claims on campuses. Don’t get me wrong, people with PhDs are probably no less likely than the rest of the population to be thoughtful about gender, violence, and race when confronting real-life conflict; but let’s not kid ourselves—they’re not liable to be more.

Administrators are, meanwhile, directly, materially tethered to the reputations of their institutions. No one who understands this should be surprised to learn that sexual assault adjudications are often delayed till the aggressor graduates or the victim drops out.

The cosplay that is campus criminal justice was simply never about valuing women’s lives in the first place. It’s always been about protecting institutions.

So what to do?

Source: http://www.citywatchla.com/8br-hidden/7677-feminist-says-no-to-california-s-yes-means-yes-law-here-s-why

Categories
Accusing U. Campus Innocence Press Release Rape-Culture Hysteria Sexual Assault

PR: SAVE Deplores Orwellian Claims Surrounding California Campus Sex Bill

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

SAVE Deplores Orwellian Claims Surrounding California Campus Sex Bill

WASHINGTON / March 25, 2014 – Senate Bill 967, which would impose an “affirmative consent” standard on sexual activities at California colleges, has attracted national attention. SAVE believes that campus sexual assault is a problem that deserves greater attention. Since its inception, however, the controversial California bill has been surrounded by exaggerated and inflammatory claims that bear little relationship to the truth, SAVE says.

When Sen. de Leon introduced his affirmative consent bill on February 10, he highlighted reports in the Los Angeles Times that Occidental College had withheld 27 sexual assault cases from its Clery Act reports: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/02/10/6146048/california-bill-would-set-affirmative.html

But a March 14 LAT editorial retracted the newspaper’s prior claims, noting that the 27 unreported incidents “did not fall under the law’s disclosure requirements:” http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-editors-note-20140315,0,1134632.story#axzz2wHq5eFQN

De Leon has insisted his bill would reduce the number of campus sexual assaults. But his bill would not require assault cases to be reported to law enforcement authorities, meaning many rapists would be expelled from college, but not imprisoned. SAVE believes mere expulsion to be a woefully inadequate punishment for rape.

Dramatically expanding the definition of sexual assault would result in many more cases being processed by campus disciplinary boards. As a result, real victims will encounter longer delays and greater skepticism from university investigators, SAVE predicts.

Without offering evidence, de Leon claimed that current campus culture “stigmatizes survivors, not the perpetrators.” Given that media accounts typically name the accused but not the accuser, SAVE believes most stigma is placed on the accused, whether or not he is actually guilty of the alleged assault.

“The measure will change the equation so the system is not stacked against the survivors,” de Leon claimed, apparently unaware of the irony that civil rights experts say his bill would create a “vicious double standard” against the accused: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/making-men-rapists

“The California bill was inspired by a policy that was tried at Antioch College in the 1990s. Student enrollments declined, and Antioch was forced to close its doors,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “We can only imagine what would happen if a similar misguided policy is imposed on California colleges.”

See SAVE’s Ten Steps to Turn Any Student into a Sex Offender: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/affirmative-consent

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

Categories
Accusing U. Bills Campus Innocence Press Release Sexual Assault

PR: Commentators Ridicule Campus Sex Bill, SAVE Says It Will Harm Victims

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

Commentators Ridicule Campus Sex Bill, SAVE Says It Will Harm Victims

WASHINGTON / March 11, 2014 – Editorial writers are criticizing Senate Bill 967 for removing due process protections and encouraging false allegations. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a victim advocacy group, says the bill’s broad definitions would serve to dissipate scarce resources and make it harder for victims to be believed.

SB 967 would require students contemplating any form of “sexual activity” to express their prior consent through “clear, unambiguous actions.” SB 967 also encourages partners to reaffirm consent on a continuing basis throughout the sex act.

National columnist Cathy Young reveals the notion of mandating verbal consent to sex has been “widely ridiculed as political correctness gone mad.” “With the California bill, we now have a state legislature effectively mandating how people—at least college students—should behave during sex,” Young notes. “Whatever happened to getting the government out of the bedroom?” http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/02/want_to_have_sex_sign_this_con.html

Civil rights expert KC Johnson believes SB 967 embodies a clear “hostility to due process” by mandating the “preponderance-of-evidence threshold in branding a student a rapist.” http://www.mindingthecampus.com/forum/2014/02/a_deceptive_california_bill_on.html

By expanding the definition of sexual assault, the number of persons charged with sexual offenses would be likely to increase exponentially. Columnist Hans Bader asks, “How will classifying most consensual sex as rape help rape victims?” http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/09/california-activists-seek-redefine-quiet-consensual-sex-rape/

“The California bill would flood the system with students falsely accused of sexual assault,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “This would make investigators more skeptical of persons claiming to be raped, and leave real victims less likely to report the crime. Who in their right mind would want that?”

For more information, see SAVE’s Ten Steps to Turn Any Student into a Sex Offender: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/affirmative-consent/

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
Accusing U. CAMP Campus DED Sexual Assault Directive Innocence Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

PR: Honor Independence Day by Demanding Govt. Bureaucrats Restore Freedom of Speech on College Campuses, SAVE Says

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

Honor Independence Day by Demanding Govt. Bureaucrats Restore Freedom of Speech on College Campuses, SAVE Says

WASHINGTON / July 1, 2013 – During the days leading up to our annual Independence Day festivities, the non-profit group SAVE is calling on Americans to demand the U.S. Department of Justice to restore freedom of speech on college campuses.

On May 9, 2013 the U.S. Department of Justice reached a Settlement Agreement with the University of Montana. The Agreement expands the definition of sexual harassment to encompass any unwelcome conduct, including speech, of a sexual nature. “Unwelcome” would now be judged by a student’s subjective feelings, not by an objective “reasonable person” standard.

The Agreement specifies that its broad new definitions and procedures are intended to be used as a “blueprint” by other colleges. The policy thus applies to all faculty members and the 21 million undergraduate and graduate students at all universities receiving federal funding, and represents a national campus speech code, SAVE believes.

The May 9 policy has triggered controversy and spirited protest. To date, over 100 editorials have been published opposing the federal mandate: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/ded-directive/ded-editorials/.

Elected officials have expressed reservations, as well. In a June 26 letter to the Department of Justice, Arizona senator John McCain charged the DOJ’s new policy threatens free speech and raises “great concerns about the security of constitutional rights.” http://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=818fd6f0-b009-240c-b963-7b7bb47f03fb

The McCain letter highlights examples how the DOJ directive could impair First Amendment rights: A student asking another student on a date; a professor assigning an English literature book that contains sexual allusions; or a student listening to music that contains content of a sexual nature overheard by others.

“Independence Day is about recalling and recommitting ourselves to the Founding Principles of our nation,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “If Americans don’t speak out now in defense of freedom of speech on campus, then how will our freedoms be protected the next time a clueless government bureaucrat comes along?”

The May 9 policy comes on top of a controversial 2011 Dept. of Education mandate requiring colleges to use the weakest preponderance-of-evidence standard in handling allegations of sexual assault and curtail other due process protections. More information on the effort to restore free speech on college campuses can be seen here: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/free-speech/  

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

Categories
Accusing U. Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Press Release Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment

PR: Accusing U. Launches Radio Campaign to Protect Free Speech on Campus

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

Accusing U. Launches Radio Campaign to Protect Free Speech on Campus

WASHINGTON / June 14, 2013 – The non-profit Accusing U. is launching a nationwide radio campaign designed to highlight how the recent Obama Administration’s sexual harassment mandate represents an unprecedented threat to free speech. The campaign will consist of radio interviews featuring Christina Hoff Sommers, well-known author, columnist, and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

On May 9, the U.S. Department of Education and Department of Justice unveiled a new campus policy that classifies speech as a form of sexual harassment, enlarges its scope to include any speech that is deemed “unwelcome,” and eliminates the reasonable person standard.

The policy applies to all faculty members and over 21 million undergraduate and graduate students at colleges receiving Department of Education funding.

The federal decision has proven to be controversial. Last week the Women’s Committee of the American Association of University Professors released a letter expressing concerns about the policy: http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/accusing-u/complaints/

To date, over 85 editorials have been written opposing the decision: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/ded-directive/ded-editorials/ Columnists believe the policy will effectively ban discussion on controversial topics such as AIDS prevention and gay rights, and may require removal of sex-themed classical works from English literature courses.

“The federal policy represents a radical assault on the First Amendment rights of faculty and students alike,” explains Accusing U. spokesman Mike Thompson. “And what will happen if a student makes an unwelcome request for a date – will that be construed as sexual harassment?”

The May 9 policy comes on top of a divisive 2011 Dept. of Education mandate requiring colleges to use the weakest preponderance-of-evidence standard in handling allegations of sexual assault. The standard makes false allegations more likely, harming the credibility of victims.

Accusing U. — www.accusingu.org — is a project of Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to domestic violence and sexual assault.

Categories
Accusing U. Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive Innocence Press Release Sexual Assault Wrongful Convictions

PR: ‘Point of Parody:’ Six More Editorials Slam Campus Sex Assault Panels

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

‘Point of Parody:’ Six More Editorials Slam Campus Sex Assault Panels

WASHINGTON / May 1, 2013 – Campus sex assault committees at Swarthmore, Occidental, Brown, and Cornell found themselves at the center of satire and scrutiny this past week as six new editorials probed sex assault complaints at these institutions. SAVE calls on the Department of Education to respond to allegations of civil rights violations arising from a 2011 policy issued by its Office for Civil Rights.

One editorial, “Swarthmore, Occidental, and Their Kangaroo Courts,” documents how Swarthmore College mandates that the accused refrain from any outside discussion of the allegation, thus precluding assistance by a defense attorney. At Swarthmore, “an accused student can be punished even if no charges were filed against him,” thus reaching the “point of parody,” columnist KC Johnson asserts.

Dr. Helen Smith takes the argument a step farther, wondering if breaches of due process for the accused represent a “Secret War on Men?” Smith charges universities have “established a kangaroo campus court system” for alleged sexual misconduct that have “little due process protection.” These procedures form part of a larger “hostile environment on campuses” for men, Smith believes.

Professor Walter Mead places the Department of Education’s sexual assault mandate within the context of heavy drug use, binge drinking, and hook up culture that have “turned many campuses into genuinely toxic environments.” But abandoning “our commitment to ideas like the presumption of innocence will not fix what is wrong on campus today,” Mead warns.

“The federal sex assault mandate has become a wrecking ball to fundamental concepts of democratic society like due process and the presumption of innocence,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sherry Warner-Seefeld. “The refusal of the federal Department of Education to respond to numerous letters must be seen as tacit acknowledgement of the civil rights travesty it has created.”

The six editorials, published during the week of April 21-27, 2013, are listed online (1). To date, over 120 editorials have criticized the DED mandate as an anathema to civil rights. Thirteen national organizations, including the American Association for University Professors, have called for repeal of the federal mandate (2).

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

  1. http://www.saveservices.org/camp/ded-directive/ded-editorials/
  2. http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/complaints/
Categories
Accusing U. Campus Civil Rights DED Sexual Assault Directive False Allegations Innocence Sexual Assault Wrongful Convictions

PR: ‘Totalitarian Justice:’ Criticisms of Campus Sex Assault Panels Intensify

Contact: Mike Thompson
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: mthompson@saveservices.org

‘Totalitarian Justice:’ Criticisms of Campus Sex Assault Panels Intensify

WASHINGTON / April 29, 2013 – Three articles sharply critical of the handling of sex assault cases by campus disciplinary committees were published this past week. The critiques suggest college administrators may need to re-evaluate whether the federally mandated sex assault panels are rendering a disservice to victims, to the accused, and to the principle of justice itself, according to Stop Abusive and Violent Environments.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal on April 16, Judith Grossman describes the experience of her son, a student at a New England liberal-arts college (1). The panel’s hearing consisted of a “two-hour ordeal of unabated grilling” during which he was “expressly denied his request to be represented by counsel.” Grossman, a lawyer and self-described feminist, charges the student courts have “obliterated the presumption of innocence that is so foundational to our traditions of justice.”

The following day Harry Lewis, former Dean of Harvard College, and Jane Shaw, president of the John W. Pope Center for Higher Education, penned a critique of the University of North Carolina’s adjudication of a recent rape case (2).

After the accuser criticized the student panel for exonerating the accused, the university then proceeded to charge her with engaging in “disruptive or intimidating” behavior. Lewis and Shaw allege the student was denied her First Amendment rights, and conclude sexual assault cases are “certainly beyond the capacity” of campus disciplinary courts.

The sharpest critique appeared in the Northern Kentucky Law Review. Titled “A Hostile Environment for Student Defendants: Title IX and Sexual Assault on College Campuses,” attorney Stephen Henrick highlights the inherent conflicts of interest in college disciplinary panels (3).

One of these conflicts Henrick describes as ideological. At Stanford University, for example, a training manual advises sexual assault fact-finders that “persuasive and logical” statements by the accused should be interpreted as a sign of guilt.

“In the former Soviet Union, defendants were often denied legal counsel, freedom of speech was a legal fiction, and protestations of innocence were taken as evidence of guilt,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Now we are seeing a similar form of totalitarian justice, imposed by federal fiat on American universities in the name of curbing sexual assault.”

To date, over 110 editorials have criticized the Department of Education policy (4). Thirteen national organizations, including the American Association for University Professors, have called for repeal of the federal mandate (5).

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

  1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324600704578405280211043510.html
  2. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2013/04/17/colleges-must-promote-personal-responsibility-not-he-said-she-said-trials/
  3. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/Final-Law-Review-Article.pdf
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/camp/ded-directive/ded-editorials/
  5. http://www.saveservices.org/falsely-accused/sex-assault/complaints/