Categories
Title IX Uncategorized

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

Restoring Impartial and Fair Investigations on Campus

SAVE

May 29, 2020

The new Title IX regulation, recently released by the Department of Education, contains several provisions designed to assure impartial and fair investigations on campus: http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/new-title-ix-regulatory-text-34-cfr-106/  The relevant provisions, with key words in bold, are listed below:

Section 106.45 (b)(1): A recipient’s grievance process must—

(i) Treat complainants and respondents equitably….

(ii) Require an objective evaluation of all relevant evidence—including both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence—and provide that credibility determinations may not be based on a person’s status as a complainant, respondent, or witness;

(iii) Require that any individual designated by a recipient as a Title IX Coordinator, investigator, or decision-maker, or any person designated by a recipient to facilitate an informal resolution process, not have a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or an individual complainant or respondent. A recipient must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process, receive training on….. how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias… recipient also must ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence….Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment;

These regulatory provisions represent an important step in restoring impartiality and fairness to campus investigations.

Categories
Uncategorized

Nebraska State Patrol study: Boys make up majority of missing Native Americans

https://www.omaha.com/news/state_and_regional/nebraska-state-patrol-study-boys-make-up-majority-of-missing-native-americans/article_827cc5cb-d819-5cc1-ae30-adbb7c1f7d17.html?utm_medium=social&utm_source=email&utm_campaign=user-share#1

Nebraska State Patrol study: Boys make up majority of missing Native Americans

A study from the Nebraska State Patrol and others found that the majority of Native American missing persons are boys age 17 or younger.

That’s just one of the findings in a 42-page study the State Patrol released Saturday. The study was done in collaboration with the Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs.

Last year, the Nebraska Legislature passed a bill that required the State Patrol to study the issue of missing Native American women and children in Nebraska.

State Sen. Tom Brewer of Gordon, a member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe, introduced the bill.

The State Patrol and others looked at missing persons databases and policies from 51 law enforcement agencies and conducted listening sessions with four Native communities.

Among the findings, a disproportionate number of the state’s reported missing persons were black or Native American. The greatest percentage of Native American missing persons are boys age 17 or younger, accounting for 73.3% of all Native American missing persons in Nebraska.

Among all racial demographics, 59.6% of Nebraska missing persons are boys age 17 or younger, the report found.

The challenges of reporting and investigating cases may be exacerbated by jurisdictional issues between tribal and nontribal law enforcement agencies, lack of relationships between the agencies and racial classification when entering the cases into databases, the study found.

Judi gaiashkibos, executive director of the Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs, said Saturday that the study was a step in the right direction, but it is just the beginning.

“This study reveals that persistent and deliberate human and Indigenous rights abuses are significant factors in Nebraska’s staggering rates of violence against Indigenous women and children,” gaiashkibos wrote in the report. “There is a need for transformative legal and social change to resolve the crisis that has devastated Indigenous communities in this state.”

Col. John Bolduc, superintendent of the State Patrol, said in a press release that his agency has been able to develop new partnerships through the study that are already benefiting the state’s Native American citizens.

“The most common points raised during the listening sessions illustrated a need to revitalize connections between tribal residents and law enforcement,” Bolduc said. “That work can have a substantial impact on multiple facets of public safety, including missing persons cases.”

The State Patrol found that many law enforcement agencies across the state do not currently have a policy for reporting missing persons to centralized databases. The patrol said it will work with the Nebraska Crime Commission to develop a standard operating procedure for handling missing persons cases and provide it to agencies throughout the state.

Brewer said Saturday he hadn’t had an opportunity to review the report in its entirety.

If conducting the study broke down some of the barriers between law enforcement and the state’s Native American citizens, then it’s a step forward, Brewer said.

Categories
Title IX Title IX Equity Project Uncategorized

145 Universities Under Federal Investigation for Sex Discrimination Against Male Students

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

145 Universities Under Federal Investigation for Sex Discrimination Against Male Students

WASHINGTON / May 27, 2020 – A total of 145 colleges and universities around the country are currently under investigation by the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) for allegations of sex discrimination against male students. The investigations are targeting some of the most prestigious and largest institutions of higher education around the country.

On January 7, 2020, OCR opened an investigation against Harvard University for its support of seven sex-discriminatory programs. These programs include the Harvard College Women’s Leadership Awards, Graduate Women in Science and Engineering, and the Women in Global Health LEAD Fellowship. The LEAD Fellowship advertises its program with this uncommon description, “Learn, Engage, Advance, Disrupt.” (1)  (OCR Complaint No. 01-19-2203)

Ohio State University boasts a total enrollment of 68,262 students, with female students outnumbering males. Despite this fact, OSU offers zero male-specific scholarships and 10 scholarships for female students (2). OCR initiated this case on May 18, 2020. (OCR Complaint No. 15-20-2074)

Community colleges are being investigated, as well. On April 22, the OCR launched a probe of Portland Community College. The Complaint by the SAVE Title IX Equity Project identified 11 scholarships designated for female students, and only one scholarship for male students. The College’s student demographics are 45.9% male and 54.1% female (3). (OCR Complaint No. 10-20-2081).

Disparities in the numbers of sex-specific scholarships can be surprisingly large (4). Auburn University, for example, offers 67 female-only scholarships, and only one scholarship for male students.  (OCR Complaint No. 04-20-2092).

Title IX is the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in schools. The Title IX implementing regulation states, “no person shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any academic, extracurricular, research, occupational training, or other education program or activity operated by a recipient which receives Federal financial assistance….” (5)

The listing of all 145 institutions is available online (6). The number of universities under investigation is expected to climb as OCR considers dozens of other Title IX complaints that have been filed in recent weeks.

Allegations of sex discrimination have garnered widespread media attention (7). SAVE urges college legal counsel to provide stronger oversight to Title IX Coordinators, who are responsible for assuring compliance with Title IX requirements and minimizing the institutional burdens of responding to a federal Title IX investigation.

Links:

  1. https://globalhealth.harvard.edu/women-gh-lead-fellowship/womenleadgh
  2. http://enrollmentservices.osu.edu/report.pdf
  3. https://www.collegetuitioncompare.com/edu/209746/portland-community-college/enrollment/#gender-block
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  5. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/rights/reg/ocr/edlite-34cfr106.html#S8
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/ocr-investigations/
  7. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/145

 

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is leading the national policy movement for fairness and due process on campus: www.saveservices.org

Categories
Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Uncategorized

The Tale of ATIXA

SAVE

May 22, 2020

A dramatic tale includes the elements of conflict, controversy, unexpected character behavior, and resolution. Here’s how the Tale of ATIXA recently unfolded….

On Monday, May 11, the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) sponsored a webinar titled, Ten Things to Know About the New Title IX Regulations. Brett Sokolow, President of ATIXA, instructed over 4,200 webinar attendees that they were not to follow the Department of Education regulation to post all training materials on university websites.

Instead, they were to follow ATIXA’s guidance to post only the training material titles. Inquirers could request to look at the training material in person, but could not photocopy or make a copy.

An audio recording of the webinar was then posted on the ATIXA website [1].

SAVE then wrote a commentary regarding Sokolow’s instruction to the ATIXA membership. The article, ATIXA Puts Members into Legal Jeopardy Regarding Requirement to Publicly Post Training Materials, posed this question: “So what part of ‘A recipient must make these training materials publicly available on its website’ does the Association for Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) not understand?” [2]

SAVE’s commentary was posted on May 13 at 12:19pm. That’s when the elements of conflict, controversy, and unexpected character behavior came into play.

Within hours, Sokolow posted a series of critical remarks directed at SAVE. Sokolow deleted the posts several days later, but not before they were captured by screenshot: [3]

5/13/20 @BrettSokolow

3:54pm

“I suppose I should respond with a tweet “SAVE Advocates Colleges and Schools Engage in Violation of Federal Copyright Laws.” Somehow you seem to think OCR has the authority to abrogate other federal laws. Interesting.”

“How embarrassed are you that you worked this hard, transcribed our content (sharing of which likely violates fair use), and never even bothered to read the regs, which explicitly protect our copyright. Egg on your face much? Going off half-cocked much? You’re a hack.”

“Ed. Take this crap down. Immediately.”

Sokolow then quoted a passage from the new Title IX regulation [4]:

1/2 “Read ‘em and weep. To the extent that commenters’ concerns that a recipient may be unable to publicize its training materials because some recipients hire outside consultants to provide training, the materials for which may be owned by the outside consultant and not by the….

2/2…recipient itself, the Department acknowledges that a recipient in that situation would need to secure permission from the consultant to publish the training materials…Rescind your garbage communication, now, Ed. It violates our copyright, too.”

SAVE did not respond to these inaccurate posts, because the truth is its own witness.

The plot thickens.

On Monday, May 18, just one week after the ATIXA webinar, the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights Blog cleared up any misunderstanding. The Department issued a clarification for posting (1) Contact information for the school’s Title IX Coordinators; (2) A school’s non-discrimination policy; and (3) Training Materials used to train the school’s Title IX personnel.

The blog post reads in part [5]:

  • Section 106.45(b)(10)(i)(D) does not permit a school to choose whether to post the training materials or offer a public inspection option.
  • If a school’s current training materials are copyrighted or otherwise protected as proprietary business information (for example, by an outside consultant), the school still must comply with the Title IX Rule.
    • If a school is unable to secure permission from a third party to post copyrighted training materials, then the school must create or obtain training materials  that can lawfully be  posted on the school’s website.

This clarification soon led to the tale’s resolution…

5/19/20 @BrettSokolow to another Twitter user:

“We have withdrawn and are revising this guidance based on the most recent OCR clarification of its expectations.”

Conflict, controversy, unexpected character behavior, and resolution.

This cautionary Tale represents a victory for students and faculty members who are facing a Title IX investigation; and for universities who will not have to face legal battles for ignoring federal Title IX law.

Citations:

[1] https://atixa.org/r3/#Webinars

[2]http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/atixa-puts-members-into-legal-jeopardy-regarding-requirement-to-publicly-post-training-materials/

[3] Available upon request at info@saveservices.org

[4] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf

[5] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/blog/20200518.html

Categories
Uncategorized

It’s On Us and End Rape On Campus Virtual Town Hall on Title IX Rule Changes

Title IX is a federal civil rights law that was enacted in 1972 and states that discrimination on the basis of sex is illegal in the United States of America. This law has since been amended and expanded to include crimes in the Clery Act and the Violence Against Women Act. Past administrations also released guidance to ensure schools are providing students and survivors of sexual violence with proper support and response options that ensure they continue to have access to educational programs. On December 21, 2018, Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos released new guidelines for Title IX. The proposed rules gutted previous guidance from the Obama administration and included new guidelines that could make it even harder for survivors to report or receive supportive services. Unfortunately, two weeks ago today, these damaging new rules were officially published on the federal register and schools have just a few months to change their policies to abide by these new rules.

On Friday May 8, 2020, It’s On Us and End Rape On Campus held a virtual town hall with over 1,200 students from around the country, national organizations, and direct service providers, and we have put the top 10 most frequently asked questions from that town hall here with our answers and any information we have. We will continue to provide information to you as we receive it and are working to announce a virtual action in response to these dangerous new rules.

Top 10 Questions and Answers

Q: Can we see the entire 2000 page document? How do we access it?

A: Yes, HERE is a link to the document itself. For any visual learners, THIS is also a helpful webinar on the new rules.

Q: Will the new rules apply retroactively to cases opened before August 14, 2020?

A: Legally, cases that have already begun should not be affected by these new rules; however, whether the Department of Education will hold schools accountable for these new rules before August 14, 2020 is still unclear. Our assumption, based only on our policy analysis of the newly published rules, is that cases that were open prior to the August 14 deadline may essentially be affected by the new rules, but for cases that have been closed and with no pending appeals, the Title IX regs will not be retroactively applied to these cases. (Page 1869, Paragraph 2)

Q: Who would conduct cross examinations?

A: Cross examination is conducted by the opposing party’s advisor of choice. This means that a survivor cannot be questioned by the person who harmed them, but they can be questioned by that person’s best friend, coach, or parent. (Page 996, Paragraph 1)

Q: How does this affect students studying abroad? Are schools considered responsible for addressing these cases? If not responsible, are schools allowed to choose to address reports from study abroad?

A: The new rules specify that Title IX ONLY requires a school to respond to an assault that happens “in the United States”. This does not include study abroad programs, even if it is through an official school program, such as an international campus of a U.S. based school.

According to the Department of Education, sexual assault that occurs during a study abroad program doesn’t apply to Title IX specifically because it happened outside of the United States and they do not want to create a conflict with another country’s laws. However, according to the Department, “there is no prohibition of a school deciding to include more robust policies against sexual harassment for study abroad programs.” If schools decide to do this, it will be legally outside the realm of Title IX, and have no oversight by the Department of Education. (Page 1575, Paragraph 2)

Q: With the narrowed definition of sexual harassment in the new rules, are schools obligated to investigate instances of sexual harassment that occur online?

A: The new rules do not specifically mention online harassment. The circumstances of online harassment must be analyzed to determine if the event where the respondent exercised “substantial control” over the victim/survivor occurred “in a school program or activity.” For example, online harassment would qualify if a student was harassing another student during a class, but not if they did it on their personal device in their off campus apartment. (Page 644, Paragraph 1)

Q: How will schools determine if harassment is “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive”?

A: All crimes in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) are included in the Title IX rules as they are defined in the VAWA statute (sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, stalking). The new Title IX rules define “severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive” as any crimes on the basis of sex that a “reasonable person” would find to “effectively deny a person equal access to an educational program or activity.” The rules do not define who a “reasonable person” is. (Page 488, Paragraph 2)

Q: Lots of questions about reporting / mandating reporter/ing / top official / responsible employee / responsibility of title ix coordinator

A: All schools are responsible for hiring at least one Title IX coordinator. A Title IX Coordinator is defined as at least one employee that is designated to coordinate the efforts to comply with a school’s responsibilities under Title IX. All Title IX Coordinators have the authority to institute corrective measures on behalf of a school (Page 2009, Paragraph 7). All schools must display the Title IX coordinator’s information on their website and in employee/student handbooks. This must include an option for both verbal and written reports. The Title IX Coordinator is responsible for responding to a report once the school has “actual knowledge” of the assault. Actual knowledge is defined in the rule as any information given to or attained by a Title IX Coordinator. Once there is actual knowledge, the school is responsible for a “prompt” response. This includes reaching out to the person alleging sexual harassment and confidentially discussing available resources and options for support. Options include receiving supportive measures from school or choosing to file a formal complaint. (Page 1605, Paragraph 1)

Q: Does the new rule change how campus public safety responds to incidents?

A: Based on our review, there are no specific changes to how campus safety responds; however, the narrowed definition of sexual harassment and the increased responsibility of the Title IX coordinator, may affect the way campus safety handles reports.

Q: Do schools have the right to define consent?

A: Yes they do. According to the new rules, each school can define consent so that it is in line with their state laws; however, it must also follow definitions listed in the Jean Clery Act, which defines sexual assault as, “Any sexual act directed against another person, without the consent of the victim, including instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent.” (Page 363, Paragraph 1)

Q: Do the new rules change prevention education requirements?

A: They do not provide any specifications on prevention requirements or instruction on sexual consent. They do however, require ALL persons who are involved in responding to these crimes to receive training. See Violence Against Women Act Amendments to Clery Act for more specific prevention language.

Q: What can states do and how can state policies mitigate loopholes to the new Title IX changes?

A: We can encourage our state legislators to write and sign into law, policies that provide robust and comprehensive definitions of consent and requirements for prevention education or response to these crimes. For example, on June 28, 2019, Governor Tom Wolf signed into law Act 16 of 2019 (Act 16) which added Article XX-J to the Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949. Building on the It’s On Us PA initiative, this law includes statutory requirements for addressing sexual assault at postsecondary institutions in Pennsylvania that award an associate degree or higher. Learn more about the sexual violence policy, PDE’s model policy, and the anonymous online reporting system here.

Q: Can colleges and universities choose to take stricter action?

A: Yes, as long as their policies do not interfere with the language of the new Title IX rules, they can institute more detailed policies.

1 | United States, Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs or Activities Receiveing Federal Financial Assistance,” 34 C.F.R. Part 106, 2020. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/titleix-regs-unofficial.pdf

Source: https://medium.com/@ItsOnUs/its-on-us-and-end-rape-on-campus-virtual-town-hall-on-title-ix-rule-changes-questions-answers-dc66a1d6cecc

Categories
Uncategorized

Epidemics on Campus, Real and Imagined

The stark differences between universities’ reactions to COVID-19 and sexual misconduct.

Each academic year, activists and politicians sound the alarm that the nation’s college campuses are overrun by an epidemic of sexual violence. Presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden, for example, has warned the nation that “one in five of every one of those young women who is dropped off for that first day of school, before they finish school, will be assaulted in her college years.” The numbers are swelling even larger in other surveys, to one in four or even one in three.

Interestingly, despite this so-called epidemic of sexual violence, colleges never made the decision to close. Instead they staffed up student conduct offices and dismantled due process protections for students accused of sexual misconduct in an effort to persuade alleged victims to come forward.

Now that COVID-19 has hit, we’ve seen how schools respond to a true epidemic. As more people got sick and even died from the coronavirus, colleges across the country closed, mostly voluntarily, in advance of state-ordered shutdowns—even though college-age adults are at much lower risk of death than older adults. Numerous colleges, including the entire California State University system, have already announced that they will not reopen for in-person instruction this fall.

This dramatic, rapid response suggests colleges would react very differently if they actually believed that 20 to 33 percent of their female students would fall victim to violent crime during their time in college.

Those one-in-five numbers come from surveys that define sexual assault differently from both the law and common understandings of what sexual assault entails. One survey asked participants if they’d ever had sex while drunk, or if someone had ever “pressured” them into sex by “threatening to end your relationship” or “showing they were unhappy.” In another survey, participants who answered yes to questions about unwanted conduct were recorded as victims, despite the fact that half of those alleged victims, when asked, did not consider the incidents “serious enough” to report.

Activists who are worried about the prevalence of assault have led opposition to the Department of Education’s new regulations governing the disciplinary process for students accused of sexual misconduct. These new regulations include such staples of Anglo-American justice as the presumption of innocence, the right to know the charges and see the evidence, and the right to cross-examine witnesses, including one’s accuser.

The statistical exaggeration of the activists is in full view in the first complaint filed by the ACLU to stop the new regulations. Either because the lawyers cannot do basic math or because they all truly believe their own numbers, they put the rate of sexual assault on campus at 240 percent, arguing both that 12 percent of college students report being sexually assaulted but that this represents only a mere 5 percent of the actual assaults, because 95 percent are never reported.

Epidemics obviously call for extreme measures, the logic goes, and canceling due process rights is a sacrosanct cure. If colleges allowed alleged perpetrators to confront their accuser, opponents warn, few victims would ever come forward because they might be retraumatized.

But the sexual assault epidemic shouldn’t really be called an epidemic. Rather, it’s the result of changing norms around sexual behavior—norms colleges push students to adopt by redefining a great deal of wholly lawful behavior as sexual violence. Within constitutional limits, colleges have the right to adopt new campus rules. For the sake of everyone involved, though, they must drop the pretense that the majority of the cases they deal with involve criminal sexual behavior.

This pretense they’ve adopted trivializes actual sexual violence. No one is naive enough to believe true sexual violence never takes place on campus. Those crimes must be dealt with. But if those crimes affected one in five women on campus, no doubt colleges would respond by taking aggressive, drastic measures to crack down on the scourge, in the same way they’ve responded to the threat posed by the coronavirus. The absence of such a response illustrates that, despite the terrifying numbers routinely thrown around by opponents of due process on campus, colleges do not actually believe—and have never actually believed—that one-quarter to one-third of their female student body will be the victim of a violent crime.

Meanwhile, punishing infractions against the changing norms permanently stigmatizes students who, while they may have transgressed campus codes, never committed anything close to crimes of sexual violence. Under many of the new college consent rules, even the whiny entreaties of a would-be lover are considered so coercive as to negate the other person’s ability to say no. Northwestern University, for example, expelled a student for “sexual assault” because he used “’emotional and verbal coercion,’ apparently because [he] requested sex more than once that evening.” On a similar note, a Title IX training slide at Boston University cites merely “poor communication” between college students as an example of something that can render sex nonconsensual.

College consent rules that operate like this do not jibe with what the average American understands when he or she hears that someone committed—or was victimized by—”sexual violence.” As a result, branding students as campus sex offenders, as if this were truly “sexual violence,” amounts to a death knell for future educational and career prospects, even when the underlying conduct is not remotely criminal.

Occidental College, for example, expelled a student for having sex with a woman who was supposedly too drunk to consent, despite the fact that she texted him before the encounter to ask, “do you have a condom,” and texted another friend, “I’m going to have sex now.”

Brandeis University threw a student off campus and permanently branded him as a sexual offender after his ex-boyfriend complained, among other things, that he occasionally woke him up “by kissing him” and “looked at his private areas when they were showering together.” Brandeis’ special examiner determined that the complaining student “was not strong-willed or forceful enough” to stand up to these supposed onslaughts and condemned the ex-boyfriend for “serious sexual transgressions.”

Meanwhile, the new campus sex rules give college students the message that they cannot be expected to rebuff cajoling or pressure, or to take proper responsibility for choices made under the influence of alcohol. The inflated statistics also make many of them fearful that sexual violence is much more common than it is.

Cui bono?

If colleges want to redefine consent and prohibit large swaths of lawful sexual interactions under their conduct codes, they largely have the right to do so. But now that colleges have responded to a real infectious disease epidemic by fully closing campuses for months on end—though it means losing out on money and instruction time—the scare tactics about the sexual violence epidemic have been exposed for the exaggerations they are. This presents an opportunity to reemphasize the case for due process protections for students who are accused of sexual assault, starting with the Department of Education’s helpful new rules.

It could also present an opportunity for colleges to start being honest about what they are really doing: attempting to redefine sexual norms, not combating an epidemic of violent crime.

Categories
Domestic Violence

Anatomy of a Hoax: The Great Coronavirus Abuse Myth of 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@EndToDV.org

Anatomy of a Hoax: The Great Coronavirus Abuse Myth of 2020

WASHINGTON / May 29, 2020 – Domestic violence is in retreat in many cities during a time of coronavirus stay-at-home policies, according to reports received from police departments across the nation.

A recent ABC News report documented declines in police calls for domestic violence in Los Angeles and San Francisco on the order of 18%. (1) A similar fall has been reported in New York City (2). The Marshall Project found declines in domestic violence cases in Chicago, IL, Austin, TX, and Chandler, AZ, ranging from 13% to 23%. (3) A fourth analysis found that domestic violence police calls were steady or had decreased in 30 out of 33 localities around the country (4).

But good news may not make for an optimal fund-raising strategy. So domestic violence activists around the country have worked with national and local reporters to publish dozens of headline-grabbing articles that rely on eight strategies that serve to bias, camouflage, and even obfuscate the truth:

  1. Anecdote and conjecture: Articles on this topic follow a predictable script — Open with a shocking abuse tale (which cannot be verified); briefly mention police reports showing a steady or decreasing number of incidents; and then frame these reports as “proof” that the domestic violence problem is spiraling out of control.
  1. Victims as helpless and weak: One New York Times article quotes unnamed “authorities” as saying, “victims were in such close quarters with their abusers that they were unable to call the police.” (5) Considering that a victim can go into the bathroom, turn on the water, and dial 911 — all within a few seconds — this claim lacks plausibility and disempowers victims.
  1. Fabricated numbers: On April 5, the New Mexico Political Report made this claim: “Last week, domestic violence incidents in Bernalillo County reportedly jumped 78 percent.” (6) But when contacted for confirmation, County Undersheriff Larry Koren was unable to confirm anything resembling these numbers.
  1. Fear-engendering language: Articles often utilize fear-provoking terms such as “locked-down,” “trapped,” “horrifying,” and the like. But coronavirus orders allow persons to leave their homes for reasons of health and safety. The Illinois policy, for example, says persons can go outside their residences, “To engage in activities or perform tasks essential to their health and safety, or to the health and safety of their family or household members.” (7)
  1. Front-loading: Police reports of domestic violence typically increase during the Spring months (8). A valid conclusion rests on a comparison of call volume from 2-3 weeks before the imposition of stay-at-home policies in late March or early April, with the numbers immediately afterwards. But many media accounts, such as an NBC News article by Tyler Kingkade (9), include numbers from February, which depress the averages and bias the result.
  1. Vagueness: The Marshall Project article is exemplary because it indicates the time periods being reviewed and provides the actual numbers. This essay is the exception to the rule. Reporters often accept at face value vague claims about a “small decline” or a “tiny uptick.” One article quoted a spokesman for the Des Moines Police Department as saying recent domestic violence calls had been, “garden-variety.” (10)
  1. Sexism: Articles consistently rely on male-as-perpetrator, female-as-victim stereotypes. An article in The Nation opens with this startling claim: “In many households when men are at home, the women are in danger.” (11) None of the articles hint at the reality that according to the Centers for Disease Control, each year there are 4.2 million male victims and 3.5 million female victims of domestic violence (12).
  2. Conclusion by headline: The headlines of many media accounts directly contradict the police reports featured in the article, in many cases. For example, the New York Times reported, “The New York City Police Department said that reports of domestic violence have ‘progressively declined’ since the onset of the pandemic. The crimes fell nearly 15% last month compared to March 2019.” But the headline somehow concluded these declines “might not be a good sign.” (13

Reasons for the steady or reduced number of domestic violence cases vary. Responding to a query from a CEDV staffer, an officer in the Boston Domestic Violence Unit offered this explanation: “Both verbal and aggravated assault are down because people are more focused on good hygiene, their own survival skills and frankly have nowhere to go if they get kicked out of the house (or kick someone out), so they are learning coping skills and learning how to get along with each other by taking walks, etc.”

Commentator Wendy McElroy recently concluded, “The assumption that stay-at-home orders are increasing DV must be questioned because it is deeply flawed.” (14)  Corrine Barraclough reaches a more pointed conclusion: “The myth that domestic violence is surging in lockdown will become one of the biggest lies the gendered narrative leans on for additional funding.” (15)

Links:

  1. https://abcnews.go.com/US/fewer-domestic-violence-calls-covid-19-outbreak-california/story?id=70336388
  2. https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/sns-nyt-drop-in-domestic-violence-reports-not-good-20200419-zkkealbl2ja7xircg3rjxea5z4-story.html
  3. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/04/22/is-domestic-violence-rising-during-the-coronavirus-shutdown-here-s-what-the-data-shows
  4. http://endtodv.org/pr/lawmakers-should-not-be-fooled-by-bogus-claims-of-a-domestic-violence-surge/
  5. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/15/us/domestic-violence-coronavirus.html
  6. https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2020/04/05/domestic-violence-shelters-have-no-shortage-of-beds-but-reports-of-abuse-are-on-the-rise/
  7. https://www2.illinois.gov/IISNews/21288-Gov._Pritzker_Stay_at_Home_Order.pdf
  8. https://patch.com/pennsylvania/ardmore/montco-domestic-violence-calls-increasing-amid-coronavirus
  9. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/police-see-rise-domestic-violence-calls-amid-coronavirus-lockdown-n1176151
  10. https://iowacapitaldispatch.com/2020/04/16/for-domestic-violence-victims-its-a-very-vulnerable-time/?fbclid=IwAR03jb2uy9yNKktADKR_RqU4y3eAPObLyR1ZxpNg7MV8zhXDqz_WpiC4reU
  11. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/domestic-violence-coronavirus/
  12. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015databrief508.pdf  Tables 9 and 11.
  13. https://www.chicagotribune.com/coronavirus/sns-nyt-drop-in-domestic-violence-reports-not-good-20200419-zkkealbl2ja7xircg3rjxea5z4-story.html
  14. https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/new-york-times-hurts-survivors-with-falsehoods-about-domestic-violence/
  15. https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=corrine%20barraclough&epa=SEARCH_BOX

Press release posted here: http://endtodv.org/pr/anatomy-of-a-hoax-the-great-coronavirus-abuse-myth-of-2020/

Categories
Uncategorized

I’m a public defender in Manhattan. The Central Park video is all too familiar.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/im-a-public-defender-in-manhattan-the-central-park-video-is-all-too-familiar/2020/05/26/73c3de60-9f99-11ea-81bb-c2f70f01034b_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most

Video shows white woman calling police on black man who asked her to leash her dog
Amy Cooper called the police on Christian Cooper on May 25 after he asked her to leash her dog in Manhattan’s Central Park. (Christian Cooper)
May 26, 2020 at 6:48 p.m. EDT

Eliza Orlins is a public defender and Democratic candidate for Manhattan district attorney.

That viral video circulating of a white woman calling the police on a black man in New York’s Central Park on Monday was sadly all too familiar. The privilege that the woman in the video sought to weaponize with her 911 call is real — and the system that enables it is overdue for reform.

The incident began when Christian Cooper, in the park to birdwatch on Memorial Day, asked a woman to leash her dog in an area where that’s required, and things escalated from there. In the clip that Cooper recorded on his cellphone, the woman warns Cooper — threatens him, in fact — that she’s going to call the police to falsely report that “there’s an African American man threatening my life,” which she then does: “Please send the cops immediately,” she pleads into the phone.

 

As a public defender in Manhattan for more than a decade, I have represented many people in similar situations. Most of their stories have followed a similar pattern:

 

Opinion | Lessons from Ahmaud Arbery’s killing — that you already knew

This rendition of the poem ‘Black 101’ memorializes the innocent lives poet Frank X Walker says are terrorized by white rage, including jogger Ahmaud Arbery. (Frank X Walker, Joy Sharon Yi, Kate Woodsome/The Washington Post)

 

A white person calls the police on a black man. The police arrive and take the side of his white accuser, refusing to believe his version of events. He is arrested and arraigned. An outrageous bail amount is set. His family can’t afford to buy his freedom. He gets sent to Rikers Island, where he sits for days, months or sometimes years.

 

Eventually, his case is resolved in some way — either because the charges are dismissed or because he decides to plead guilty to a lesser charge. In the meantime, he may have lost his job, his home, his children or some combination of the three.

 

Nothing like that happened to Cooper, thankfully. But the elements of the problem are plain to see.
People socially distance while walking in Central Park on Memorial Day in New York City.
People socially distance while walking in Central Park on Memorial Day in New York City. (Dia Dipasupil/Getty Images)

In cases I’ve taken to trial, the district attorney has offered recordings of “hysterical 911 calls” as evidence of my clients’ guilt, urging the jury to “just listen to the fear in her voice,” saying, “You can tell she can sense a threat,” and asking questions such as, “Why would she lie?” All too often, it works.

 

Usually, there’s no video. On Monday, there was. You can hear “the fear” in the voice of the woman who called the police on Cooper, too.

 

Under normal circumstances, these stories from our criminal punishment bureaucracy can be devastating. But consider how the added risk to anyone sent to jail right now — Rikers Island has had one of the highest covid-19 infection rates in the world — increases the potential damage. Worse, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) has suspended time limits for speedy trials during the pandemic, as well as a requirement that cases be presented to a grand jury within six days of an arrest. Hundreds of New Yorkers sit in jail without even having been charged by indictment. A spurious accusation in a park could mean a death sentence.

 

Of course, all of this assumes the police don’t show up and deliver the death sentence on the spot. By now anyone who chooses to needlessly report a person of color to police has heard the litany of names such as George Floyd, the African American man who died just Monday after a Minneapolis police officer was filmed pinning Floyd’s neck to the ground with his knee.

Some might say the Central Park video is evidence of a criminal legal system that’s “broken.” But after years spent representing thousands of New Yorkers in court, I can attest that the reality is worse: The system is working the way it was designed to work — protecting the wealthy, connected, powerful and white, while disenfranchising already-marginalized communities of color.

 

What can be done? Certainly, end cash bail. We cannot allow people to sit in jail for months on end on the basis of an accusation — not when we can see with our own eyes how easy it is for this to happen.

 

But that only deals with one consequence of privilege. The privilege itself will be far harder to address.

There are two different sets of rules in our criminal legal system. White Americans live every day with the privilege of knowing that they can call 911 and get help. For poor people and people of color, calling for help when in danger presents a new set of risks — including the risk that they won’t be believed by police or that they’ll be charged with falsely reporting a crime.

 

What if false-reporting charges were brought in cases like this one? That would send a very different message. To tip the scales, there needs to be accountability for playing the privilege card.

 

But we can’t stop there. Our real duty is to renew our commitment to creating a very different system of justice — where a black man, falsely accused, can feel safe even without a viral video.
Categories
Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Victims Violence Against Women Act

HEROES Coronavirus Bill is Chock-Full of Domestic Violence Provisions

The coronavirus relief bill, the HEROES Act, HR 6800, was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill proposes $3 trillion (with a ‘T’) in new federal expenditures.

There is little evidence that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence cases. Nonetheless, the HEROES Act bill contains numerous domestic violence and sexual assault provisions that would increase spending by $170 million. Many of the provisions are budget-focused, while others would mandate policy changes in existing programs.

These provisions are listed below.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Office On Violence Against Women

Violence against women prevention and prosecution programs

For an additional amount for “Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs”, $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which—

(1) $30,000,000 is for grants to combat violence against women, as authorized by part T of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Acts of 1968;

(2) $15,000,000 is for transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault, as authorized by section 40299 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322; “1994 Act”);

(3) $15,000,000 is for sexual assault victims assistance, as authorized by section 41601 of the 1994 Act;

(4) $10,000,000 is for rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act;

(5) $10,000,000 is for legal assistance for victims, as authorized by section 1201 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–386; “2000 Act”);

(6) $4,000,000 is for grants to assist tribal governments in exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, as authorized by section 904 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013; and

(7) $16,000,000 is for grants to support families in the justice system, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act:

Indian Health Service

(4) $20,000,000 shall be used to address the needs of domestic violence victims and homeless individuals and families;

Children and Families Services Programs

(1) $50,000,000 for Family Violence Prevention and Services grants as authorized by section 303(a) and 303(b) of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act with such funds available to grantees without regard to matching requirements under section 306(c)(4) of such Act, of which $2,000,000 shall be for the National Domestic Violence Hotline:

Community Planning And Development

That funds made available under this heading in this Act and under this heading in title XII of division B of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136) may be used for eligible activities the Secretary determines to be critical in order to assist survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking or to assist homeless youth, age 24 and under:

Public And Indian Housing

$1,000,000,000 shall be used for incremental rental voucher assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for use by individuals and families who are—homeless, as defined under section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a)); at risk of homelessness, as defined under section 401(1) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(1)); or fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking:

SEC. 40306. GRANTS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME WOMEN AND SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN OBTAINING QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS.

(a) Authorization Of Grant Awards.—The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Director of the Women’s Bureau and in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to enable such entities to assist low-income women and survivors of domestic violence in obtaining qualified domestic relations orders and ensuring that those women actually obtain the benefits to which they are entitled through those orders.

(b) Definition Of Eligible Entity.—In this section, the term “eligible entity” means a community-based organization with proven experience and expertise in serving women and the financial and retirement needs of women.

(c) Application.—An eligible entity that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary of Labor may require.

(d) Minimum Grant Amount.—The Secretary of Labor shall award grants under this section in amounts of not less than $250,000.

(e) Use Of Funds.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to develop programs to offer help to low-income women or survivors of domestic violence who need assistance in preparing, obtaining, and effectuating a qualified domestic relations order.

EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE VOUCHER PROGRAM

DATORY PREFERENCES.—Each public housing agency administering assistance under this section shall provide preference for such assistance to eligible families that are—

(i) homeless (as such term is defined in section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a));

(ii) at risk of homelessness (as such term is defined in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360); or

(iii) fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

TITLE I—PROVISIONS RELATING TO STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS

(5) ESSENTIAL WORK.—The term “essential work” means any work that—

(A) is performed during the period that begins on January 27, 2020 and ends 60 days after the last day of the COVID–19 Public Health Emergency;

(B) is not performed while teleworking from a residence;

(C) involves—

(i) regular in-person interactions with—

(I) patients;

(II) the public; or

(III) coworkers of the individual performing the work; or

(ii) regular physical handling of items that were handled by, or are to be handled by—

(I) patients;

(II) the public; or

(III) coworkers of the individual performing the work; and

(D) is in any of the following areas:

(i) First responder work, in the public sector or private sector, including services in response to emergencies that have the potential to cause death or serious bodily injury, such as police, fire, emergency medical, protective, child maltreatment, domestic violence, and correctional services (including activities carried out by employees in fire protection activities, as defined in section 3(y) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(y)) and activities of law enforcement officers, as defined in section 1204(6) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284(6)).

(xi) Social services work, including social work, case management, social and human services, child welfare, family services, shelter and services for people who have experienced intimate partner violence or sexual assault, services for individuals who are homeless, child services, community food and housing services, and other emergency social services.

Categories
Domestic Violence

Has there been a surge in domestic violence during the Covid-19 pandemic?

Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic the feminist lobby has claimed that there has been a surge* in domestic violence. (*Note that the term ‘surge’ has been well and truly overtaken by now, most recently by ‘staggering increase‘). This development has manifested itself across several countries, with the UN Women agency being a significant player. The feminist lobby has linked this alleged increase in violence to, in particular, the common practice of governments requiring people to quarantine in their own homes.

The proof offered to support the feminist position has varied somewhat, but has primarily been claimed to be significant increases in call volume to DV help-lines (largely operated by feminist NGO’s). There have also been similar claims made in relation to alleged increases in traffic to web sites dealing with the welfare of victims of DV.

In only one of the media articles I have read thus far, was reference made to an increase in the number of calls to police. This did not relate to increases in the number of charges laid, nor punishments meted out, but rather to queries made by people concerned about a perceived threat of DV.

I would suggest, as have others, that domestic violence is the feminist lobby’s primary cash-cow. Consider too, for example, the salary of DV agency bosses such as Sandra Horley, who is reported to receive a remuneration package of more than £210,000. The British Prime Minister is currently paid approx. £155,000.

To base government policy, even just one-off hand-outs of public money, based on unverified allegations, is at best naïve. And when such claims are being provided by individuals with a vested interest in promoting a public view of a problem that they assert to be large & growing. Well, one might label such vested interest ‘ideological bias’, ‘pecuniary interest’, or worse. But whatever you call it, it is by no means competent, objective, unbiased research.

It is particularly annoying that whilst the feminist-saturated domestic violence industry is loudly proclaiming a jump in violence in the home, they are maintaining their silence with respect to the reality of female-perpetrated assaults/abuse of men and children.

What follows now are a series of media releases or articles dealing with the issue, presented in reverse chronological order:

No evidence that domestic violence is rising due to COVID-19 (11 May 2020) USA

Government to invest millions into family violence services (11 May 2020) Meanwhile, also in New Zealand, “demand during lockdown increased by some 35 percent compared to last year, but she believed the full impact was yet to emerge.”

Hollande highlights domestic violence in French lockdown (9 May 2020) The World Health Organisation claims that domestic violence has increased by 60% (based on “emergency calls by women” they claimed had been made).

Dementia charity sees 44% increase in calls during COVID-19 lockdown (9 May 2020) UK. Imagine 44% more people becoming demented. Better get your chequebook out, Prime Minister. Look out Team Harpie #HostileTakeover

The shocking rise in domestic violence reports since lockdown (3 May 2020) Australia

“One of the terrible side effects of Australia being in lockdown is the alarming rise in the number of people ringing domestic violence help lines”

Coronavirus: Government pledges £76m for abuse victims (2 May 2020) UK

“But Labour said this fell “woefully short” of what was needed and proposed amendments to the bill that would see 10% of the £750 million charity support package announced last month ring-fenced in a fast-track fund for domestic abuse charities”

Woman who stabbed boyfriend in the hand told police ‘isolation is getting to me’ (1 May 2020) UK

Domestic violence victims seeking help rises 10 per cent after COVID-19 lockdown (1 May 2020) Australia

” … I have just had 50 front-line workers on a statewide forum on the phone and all of them are saying how much busier it is… and now the stats come back to prove it”. “Stats” that agency staff themselves generated … what could go wrong?

“Ms Foster said the figures were concerning because they conflicted with a recent report from the Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, which found “domestic violence assaults recorded by police did not increase in March 2020, despite social distancing measures commencing … But Ms Foster said the report had sent a “dangerous message” to victims and policymakers. She said it was “irresponsible to put out a report drawing a conclusion that fears that domestic violence would increase hadn’t been realised.”

Coronavirus: Homes a prison as assaults on rise (1 May 2020) Australia

“The Queensland Minister for the Prevention of Domestic and Family Violence, Di Farmer, said authorities across the country were grappling with an “amplification” of abuse caused by the COVID-19 outbreak and tough health restrictions.

Domestic violence crisis centres in the state have experienced a 40 per cent spike in calls for help since the start of the pandemic …”

Domestic violence services prepare for demand as coronavirus restrictions begin to ease (1 May 2020) Australia

“The most concerning statistic came from Google data, with the Federal Government seeing a 75 per cent increase in searches about family and domestic violence compared to the average number of searches over the previous five years.”

“Alison Macdonald, acting chief executive of Domestic Violence Victoria, said there was clear evidence a surge in demand was coming. “We know from international evidence that there are spikes in family violence in post emergency and post crisis situations,” she said. “We know from Australian experience with bushfires, with floods and with cyclones.”

Women’s safety and Covid-19: Focus on the evidence (30 April 2020) ANROWS agency. Australia. A slightly more detailed discussion of the information that is currently available

Domestic abuse killings double and calls to helpline surge by 50% during coronavirus lockdown (27 April 2020) UK. And online requests for help have gone up 400%. All as reported by campaigners and agency staff, etc. And gov’t hands over money for yet another awareness campaign (#youarenotalone)

Impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on family planning and ending gender-based violence (27 April 2020) Another day, another UN report, with this one asserting that:

“To estimate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on efforts to end gender-based violence, Avenir Health modelled a delay in the scale-up of prevention efforts as attention and resources are devoted to COVID-19, and an increase in violence during the period of lockdown. Assuming a slow start to the scale-up of prevention programmes (i.e., a 2-year delay in 2020 and 2021), followed by a rapid expansion of prevention programs in the middle of the decade, an estimated 2 million additional instances of intimate partner violence in 2020-2021 are expected.”

“COVID-19 pandemic is likely to cause a one-third reduction in progress towards ending gender-based violence by 2030”

“For every 3 months the lockdown continues, an additional 15 million additional cases of gender-based violence are expected”

That’s right, no police reports were used to generate predictions. It was all based on modelling. Remarkable. And of course, no mention anywhere of female perpetration.

UK lockdown: Calls to domestic abuse helpline jump by half (27 April 2020) UK. I’m getting dizzy, now calls to helplines *are* jumping up (but still no ‘real’ statistics).

Man fighting for life, woman expected to be charged following serious stabbing at Kilburn in Adelaide (25 April 2020) South Australia

Domestic violence in the wake of COVID-19 (23 April 2020) NSW, Australia

“Domestic violence assaults recorded by police did not increase in March 2020”

Hotels say offer of refuge for domestic abuse victims has been snubbed (19 April 2020) UK. Just send cash please

Coronavirus Australia: Why calls to domestic violence helplines are plummeting (18 April 2020) So a surge in calls means more domestic violence hence more funds are needed for feminist NGO’s, whereas a lull in calls means the same thing. OK, sure

Domestic abuse killings ‘more than double’ amid Covid-19 lockdown (15 April 2020) As identified by “campaigners”. Read more about ‘Counting Dead Women’ here.

COVID-19: The bystander role has never been more critical in calling out (9 April 2020) What’s going on? There appears to be a change of feminist tactics, as suddenly statements admitting that there has been no boost in the number of DV victims post commencement of pandemic.

No spike in domestic violence in Tasmania despite early warnings: police (9 April 2020) Whoops, now that’s awkward. And here’s an unconvincing attempt at recovery by a high-profile feminist spokesperson.

A new Covid-19 crisis: Domestic abuse rises worldwide (7 April 2020)

Statement by Executive-Director UN Women regarding the effect of Covid-19 on the incidence of domestic violence (6 April 2020) Another report released the same week. In each case the ‘proof’ of the link (between Covid-19 and heightened domestic violence) is inferred to be claims made by staff of feminist agencies & NGO’s.

Family violence perpetrators using COVID-19 as ‘a form of abuse we have not experienced before’ (29 March 2020)

‘Covid-19 will slam the door shut’: Australia’s family services brace for domestic violence spike (28 March 2020)

More men die: Women most affected. A Janice Fiamengo video (24 March 2020)

Coronavirus Australia: Why women will feel the impact more than men (17 March 2020)

 

Original article lightly edited to include relevant information. Source: http://www.fighting4fair.com/blog-posts/