Month: August 2015

Categories
Affirmative Consent

PR: Univ. of Minnesota Administrators Advance Controversial Sex Policy Without Full Review By Regents And Students

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Univ. of Minnesota Administrators Advance Controversial Sex Policy Without Full Review By Regents And Students

WASHINGTON / August 28, 2015 – Despite opposition from the campus community, University of Minnesota President Eric Kaler announced he will be implementing an affirmative consent sexual assault policy this upcoming school year.  SAVE urges the Board of Regents to suspend the controversial policy at its upcoming September 9-10 meeting.

The policy will be implemented before students return to campus, meaning that students were not able to effectively express their concerns about the policy: http://www.startribune.com/debate-grows-over-proposed-sexual-consent-policy-at-the-u/322561191/

The new policy will require “affirmative consent” between any students engaging in sexual activity.  Under the policy, affirmative consent is defined as “informed, freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in sexual activity that is expressed by clear and unambiguous words or actions.”  The policy requires that consent be continuous throughout the sexual activity:

https://policy.umn.edu/operations/sexualassault-appa

If students are accused of failing to obtain affirmative consent at each step of a sexual activity, they are subject to disciplinary action, including expulsion from the university.

An “affirmative consent” policy will remove the presumption of innocence from accused students and trivialize the problem of violent rape, SAVE believes: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/

As explained by civil rights lawyer, Robert Shibley, “when these guidelines become binding rules that are adjudicated by campus courts, they effectively render students guilty until proven innocent.” Shibley warned, “Those accused, meanwhile, dare not forget a single detail of how that continuous consent was communicated each and every time they have sex.”: http://www.startribune.com/u-s-yes-means-yes-policy-is-obviously-flawed/321829881/

“The new policy was enacted without the understanding or consent of the students,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “It is dangerous to implement such a radical change without ever explaining how students are expected to be able to cope with it.”

SAVE recommends that the University Board of Regents table or suspend the policy at their September board meeting, while starting a serious review of the proposal and its consequences.

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

Categories
Campus Sexual Assault

PR: Four Rulings, Four Reversals: Judges Give ‘Thumbs Down’ on Campus Sex Tribunals

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Four Rulings, Four Reversals: Judges Give ‘Thumbs Down’ on Campus Sex
Tribunals

WASHINGTON / August 25, 2015 – In four recent cases, judges have overturned sexual assault findings by campus disciplinary committees. In each case, the judges ruled the college proceedings lacked necessary due process protections. As the new academic year begins, these judicial decisions highlight the need for renewed focus on fairness in college sex assault cases, SAVE says.

In the most recent case, federal judge Norman Moon ruled that Washington and Lee University created a climate of gender discrimination that served to “railroad” students who are wrongly accused of sexual assault. The judge concluded the university’s bare-bones adjudication process “plausibly support a Title IX claim” by the plaintiff. See Doe v. Washington & Lee Univ.: https://d28htnjz2elwuj.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/06171146/Opinion-on-MTD.pdf

In a landmark case, Judge Carol McCoy ruled that the affirmative consent standard used by the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga was unfair because the rule “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the defendant, robbing the student of his due process rights. McCoy noted that “requiring the accused to affirmatively provide consent… is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused.” https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/memorandum-mock.pdf

In mid-August, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert H. O’Brien barred the University of Southern California from expelling Bryce Dixon, a football player who was expelled on an allegation of sexual assault. The judge found that that the university’s sexual assault adjudication process was fundamentally unfair to accused students: http://reason.com/blog/2015/08/13/judge-stops-usc-from-expelling-football

And in July, Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman overturned a decision to suspend a University of California-San Diego student based on an allegation that consent for sex had not been obtained. Concluding “the hearing against petitioner was unfair,” Judge Pressman found serious procedural flaws in the university’s handling of the case: http://documents.latimes.com/uc-san-diego-sex-assault-case-ruling-doe-vs-regents-uc-san-diego/

“The presumption of innocence and due process lie at the very heart of notions of fairness and justice,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Universities that flaunt these standards can expect to become the focus of judicial scrutiny.”

Lack of due process could be harmful to victims, as well. In a recent editorial, columnist Ashe Schow highlighted the fact that faulty campus procedures “could also mean an actual rapist would be able to use the legitimate justice system to have his expulsion overturned.” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lack-of-campus-due-process-could-one-day-help-an-actual-rapist/article/2570559

SAVE recommends that colleges forward allegations of sexual assault to local police for investigation and possible prosecution.

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

Categories
Affirmative Consent Sexual Assault

PR: Judge Raps Knuckles of University Over Affirmative Consent Rule for Sexual Assault

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Email: info@saveservices.org

Judge Raps Knuckles of University Over Affirmative Consent Rule for Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON / August 12, 2015 – A Tennessee judge has just ruled that the affirmative consent standard used by the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga was unfair because the rule “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the defendant, robbing the student of his due process rights. Judge Carol McCoy noted that “requiring the accused to affirmatively provide consent… is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused.”

The decision can be read here: https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/memorandum-mock.pdf

The University of Tennessee-Chattanooga (UTC) sexual assault policy stated, “Consent is given by an affirmative verbal response or acts that are unmistakable in their meaning. Consent to one form of sexual activity does not mean consent is given to another type of sexual activity.

The ruling also highlighted undue interference in the adjudication process. The UTC Administrative Law Judge initially found Corey Mock, the defendant, to be innocent. Following a request by the UTC Chancellor, the Administrative Law Judge reversed her decision, but did not alter any of her original 49 specific findings

George Washington Law School professor John Banzhaf notes about the UTC case that “if the Constitution prohibits a ‘yes means yes’ standard of consent…that cannot be changed by legislation, by federal agencies, or even by the colleges themselves.

The UTC ruling follows two other recent judicial decisions which found university sexual assault proceedings violated the due process rights of the accused

In California, Superior Court Judge Joel Pressman ruled in July that the University of California-San Diego unfairly expelled a student for sexual activities that were allegedly non-consensual. And in Virginia, federal judge Norman Moon ruled last week that Washington and Lee University’s truncated adjudication process “plausibly support a Title IX claim” by the plaintiff

“Due process is a right afforded by the Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment,” explains SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Abridging this fundamental right, as many state universities are trying to do, has no justification in a nation that cherishes civil rights and the rule of law.”

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

Categories
Affirmative Consent

PR: SAVE Calls for the University of Minnesota to Abandon Proposed Affirmative Consent Policy for Sexual Assault

Contact: Gina Lauterio

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

 

SAVE Calls for the University of Minnesota to Abandon Proposed Affirmative Consent Policy for Sexual Assault

WASHINGTON / August 4, 2015 – SAVE, a national organization working to end campus sexual assault, is today calling on the University of Minnesota Board of Regents to reject the affirmative consent sexual assault policy proposed by President Eric Kaler. SAVE warns that the draft policy will do nothing to stop intentional sexual assault. Instead, the policy would serve to trample on students’ freedom, privacy, and due process protections.

The policy would require students to follow an “affirmative consent” standard or face disciplinary action: http://policy.umn.edu/review/sexualassault-appa The Board of Regents will reconsider the proposed policy at its upcoming September board meeting, after the Board earlier halted the policy from going into effect in mid-July.

SAVE’s letter to the Board of Regents cautions that the policy contains numerous vague and unworkable provisions, and does not even define the term “sexual activity.” Most importantly, the proposed policy never specifies how consent is to be communicated. Students would be left without practical guidance as to what indicators are sufficient to obtain consent.

Affirmative consent policies have become the focus of national criticism and satire: The Sexual Train Wreck Behind Yes Means Yes, Heather Wilhelm, Real Clear Politics, July 9, 2015, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/09/the_sexual_train_wreck_behind_yes_means_yes_127304.html Journalist Ashe Schow concludes that under the proposed U of M standard, “anything the accuser decides later they didn’t like can become grounds for an accusation.” The proposed policy was the subject of a satirical Reason.com contest where readers were invited to submit entries to mock the policy.

SAVE also warns the Board of Regents that the policy would shift the burden of proof to the accused in any campus adjudicatory procedure, and the mere accusation could suffice as proof of sexual assault. This new procedure would violate the basic right that students have to the presumption of innocence.

“The sexual assault policy is what the University of Minnesota will use to determine whether students have committed serious crimes,“ notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “It is important that the policy is carefully vetted so that students and the campus adjudicatory panel are not left more confused as to what the university mandates.”

The full letter to the University of Minnesota Board of Regents can be found here: http://www.saveservices.org/2015/07/save-letter-to-university-of-minnesota-board-of-regents/

 

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE — promotes evidence-based solutions to the problem of sexual assault: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/