Author: saveadmin

Categories
Uncategorized

Universities should not reward gender

Editors Note: The opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the Tropolitan or its staff members. Address responses and critiques to opinion@tropnews.com

Last week, the L.A. Times reported that the U.S. Department of Education opened more than two dozen different investigations around gender discrimination in universities such as Rice and Yale. The basis of these investigations comes from studies that show gender inequality in scholarship offers. One such survey was recently released by the nonprofit organization Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE). The survey points out that most single gender scholarships are granted to women. 

The study examined more than 200 colleges across the United States and found that the total number of single gender scholarships vastly favored women over men. In our state of Alabama alone, there are 87 women-only scholarships compared to only three for men. Here at Troy, there are five scholarships only for women and one scholarship only for men. Auburn University has one of the most egregious gender scholarship gaps in the entire country. There, women are offered 67 scholarships compared to a measly one for men. 

Title IX, a federal law that applies to any school that receives federal money, makes discrimination based on sex in education programs illegal. Single gender scholarships are permitted under this rule if the “overall effect” of scholarships is equitable. In other words, the scholarships are legal if the opportunities offered to one gender are equal to the other. This recent study from SAVE shows that the overall effect of these gender-specific scholarships is not equitable. Therefore, the universities offering these scholarships in such lopsided proportions should be investigated, as they are quite possibly violating title IX rules. 

The reason for these possible violations isn’t the fact that universities offer only women or only men scholarships. Each individual scholarship on its own is and should be respected and uncontested. The problem is when the disproportionate numbers offered to women over men is taken into account. At Troy for instance, if the university offered five scholarships that were only to women and five that were only to men, that would have an overall equitable effect since both genders would be given the same number of exclusive opportunities. Instead, women are given a larger amount more than men, and thus the effect is not equitable. 

Now, if there are more men receiving gender neutral scholarships, that might change the balance enough for the existence of such a gender specific scholarship gap. However, I was unable to find specific numbers of distribution of general scholarships based on gender. I did find that more women attend and graduate college compared to their male counterparts. Women make up roughly 57% of college students and earn more bachelors and doctoral degrees annually than men. 

I think that men should have at least an equal amount of gender specific scholarships. 

Categories
Title IX Equity Project

Discriminating against men hasn’t solved gender disparities in STEM

Famed historian Carl Sandburg once remarked, “If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.” Taking this aphorism to heart, the recent Baltimore Sun editorial railed against the SAVE study that found disturbing disparities in sex-specific scholarships in Maryland and across the country (“Women in STEM: The pendulum hasn’t swung nearly far enough,” Sept. 3).
If the Sun editorial had opted to argue the facts, it would have highlighted that Johns Hopkins University now offers zero scholarships designated for men, compared to five scholarships for women. At the Community College at Baltimore County, the shortfall is even worse — two scholarship programs for male students and 16 for female students. In Maryland, our study documented a stunning 16-1 disparity that disadvantages male students who now represent only 40% of the total U.S. college population.

Or if The Sun had decided to argue the law, it would have reported on the Title IX law that bans sex discriminatory programs. The law does allow for STEM scholarship programs exclusive to women, but only if the university provides off-setting scholarships for male students.

But lacking any plausible argument based on facts or on the law, the Sun editorial resorted to one-sided sarcasm and ridicule. The Sun readership surely expects better.

Everett Bartlett, Rockville

Source: https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/readers-respond/bs-ed-rr-women-stem-letter-20190909-emlxvvq42zcg5lkamxsm4knogm-story.html

Categories
Investigations Trauma Informed

‘Trauma-Informed’ Bulletin Is Replete with Misrepresentations and Mistakes: CPI Report

‘Trauma-Informed’ Bulletin Is Replete with Misrepresentations and Mistakes: CPI Report

WASHINGTON / September 3, 2019 – A new Center for Prosecutor Integrity report documents factual errors and faulty conclusions contained in a 2019 bulletin published by End Violence Against Women International. Titled, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims,” the EVAWI bulletin purports to summarize the research on the neurobiology of trauma and provide recommendations for law enforcement personnel who investigate allegations of sexual assault.

The new CPI report was researched and written by behavioral neuroscientists Sujeeta Bhatt, PhD and Susan Brandon, PhD.

“Trauma-informed” proponents claim that persons who experience sexual assault are unable to accurately recall the incident, and that inconsistencies in their accounts should be taken as proof that the assault occurred. But citing numerous studies, Bhatt and Brandon reject this theory, concluding, “The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories, impair memories, have no effect on memories, or increase the possibility of false memories.”

Bhatt and Brandon argue that criminal investigators do not need to use special interview methods with purported trauma victims: “Examination of studies across these domains did not reveal any evidence to support the notion that victims of potentially traumatic events require interview methods that are different from those that have been shown to be most effective for accounts of events that are presumably not traumatic.”

Their critique is more fundamental, saying an “undue emphasis on brain science increases the likelihood of hindering an investigation” because it can promote confirmation bias and undue stereotypes. The new CPI report is available online (1).

Separately, the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) recently published a Position Paper on “Trauma-Informed Training and Neurobiology of Trauma” that sharply criticizes the assumptions, precepts, and methods of trauma-informed advocates (2).

Citations:

  1. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx
  2. https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf

Press release is posted here: http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/trauma-informed-bulletin-is-replete-with-misrepresentations-and-mistakes-cpi-report/

Categories
Domestic Violence False Allegations

Do False Allegations Represent a Form of Domestic Violence? A Delaware Judge Said ‘Yes.’

Ten years ago my marriage began to dissolve. My ex-wife soon discovered the “magic bullet” that would assure custody of our children. Her determination to “win at all costs” came very close to destroying my life.

From 2009 to 2012, I was subjected to five protection orders and nine arrests, resulting in a total of 21 criminal charges. Each and every one of those criminal charges eventually would be expunged from my record.

This onslaught of false accusations resulted in reliance on public transportation, homelessness, a Court-ordered GPS ankle bracelet, parental alienation, and incarceration. As a “victim” of domestic violence, she was entitled to receive free legal representation, rental assistance, and free furniture – all compliments of programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act. As a result, she was able to acquire de facto control over the course of the divorce and custody proceedings.

That wasn’t enough.

She then decided it was time for the Grand Finale, the proverbial “kill shot.” She scrawled these words on her body: “Bitch, I will kill you.” She added my initials, as if I were signing off on a calling card. She then used a sharp device to inflict scratch marks on her body.

She then drove to a side road, stripped to her underwear, and lay on the side of the road feigning a horrific attack. When the police and paramedics arrived, she told them that I and an accomplice had forced her off the road, beaten her, and attempted to rape her. An all-points-bulletin was issued to track me down, the evil man who had horrendously attacked his ex-wife.

But unbeknownst to her, the court had ordered me to wear a GPS ankle bracelet. The police soon located me at the Texas Roadhouse restaurant in Camden, Delaware. The officer ripped me from my vehicle, with another officer pointing his weapon at my center mass. I was handcuffed and transported to a holding cell at the Delaware State Police Troop 3.

Once detectives determined that I was nowhere in the vicinity of the staged attack, I was released. Four days later she was arrested.

She had intended for me to go away for a long time. Had I not been strapped with the GPS device, I would have been charged with horrific crimes and possibly forced to accept a “guilty” plea deal.

I subsequently filed for a Protection from Abuse (PFA) order based on the abuse that I had been subjected to from the false allegations I endured. This is the provision from the Delaware State Code tit. 10, § § 901, 1041 that defines an act of domestic violence: “engaging in a pattern of alarming or distressing conduct in a way likely to cause fear, emotional distress, or provoke a violent or disorderly response…unlawful imprisonment, kidnapping, interference with custody, or coercion; or any other conduct that a reasonable person under the circumstances would find threatening or harmful.”

My experiences of being falsely accused and arrested obviously fell within this definition, and the judge determined these acts did constitute acts of domestic violence. A Protection from Abuse order was granted against my ex-wife, including a no-contact order.

To my knowledge, this PFA against my ex-wife established a precedent in the State of Delaware. I was designated a victim of domestic violence based upon the false allegations that I had been subjected to for three years.

My ex-wife was arrested on September 1, 2012 and charged with several counts of false police reports and lying to the police. This was a defining moment, the day my life would begin to change. I was finally vindicated and exonerated.

If you have gone through, or are currently going through the nightmare of false allegations, I hope you might find my experience to be a source of insight and inspiration, to know you can come out on top of this kind of rampant injustice.

 

Additional information about my experiences:

Categories
Believe the Victim Trauma Informed

Highlights of New Special Report on the Neurobiology of Trauma

Recently the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) published a Position Paper on “Trauma-Informed Training and Neurobiology of Trauma” that sharply criticizes the assumptions, precepts, and methods of trauma-informed proponents. Now, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity has published a separate report that takes a deep-dive into the science behind trauma-informed theory, as expounded in a bulletin written by End Violence Against Women International titled, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims.”

Following are highlights from the CPI report titled, “A Review of ‘Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims:’ Are We Trading One Prejudice for Another?“, researched and written by behavioral neuroscientists Sujeeta Bhatt, PhD and Susan Brandon, PhD. A large part of their review, which contains 250 citations from the scientific literature, documents the “Over-Simplification and Errors in Descriptions of Brain Processes” of the EVAWI report:

  • “The impacts of trauma on memories and recall are widely variable. The stress accompanying and resulting from trauma may produce strong memories (McGaugh, 2000; McGaugh and Roozendaal, 2002), impair memories (Salehi, Cordero, and Sandi, 2010), have no effect on memories (Shermohammed, Davidow, Somerville, and Murty, 2019), or increase the possibility of false memories.” (p. 5)
  • “The  [EVAWI] authors describe one of the roles of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) as being to integrate “memory data into narrative ‘stories’ (p. 9);” however, recent research shows that the neural networks involved in narrative formation are currently unknown.” (p. 5)
  • “The description of ‘attachment circuitry,’ defined as that “which allows us to connect emotionally with other human beings,”  does not appear to be based on current findings.” (p. 6)
  • “The authors incorrectly name and describe “habitual behaviors” demonstrated by sexual assault victims.” (p. 7)

Bhatt and Brandon caution that an “undue emphasis on brain science increases the likelihood of hindering an investigation”  because it can promote confirmation bias and undue stereotypes, and create a false information effect (pp. 7-9) More fundamentally, the authors argue that criminal investigators do not need to use special interview methods with purported trauma victims:

“Examination of studies across these domains did not reveal any evidence to support the notion that victims of potentially traumatic events require interview methods that are different from those that have been shown to be most effective for accounts of events that are presumably not traumatic. In fact, one of the most robust – and most studied – methods of interviewing victims and witnesses, the Cognitive Interview, was constructed specifically for such interviews, as part of a request to the academic and scientific community by the U.S. Department of Justice to construct an interview protocol that was different from the accusatorial protocols common to American police departments (Kelly and Meissner, 2015; Meissner, et al., 2014). Previous reviews of interview protocols purported to be especially useful to trauma victims (e.g., the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview; Meissner, 2014) also have failed to support the assertion that memory processes (encoding, consolidation, or recall) are so unique in instances of trauma that special protocols are necessary or even useful.” (p. 9)

Bhatt and Brandon conclude their analysis with this stunning critique:

“Unfortunately, the neurobiology of trauma information provided in the Wilson et al. (2019) bulletin does not contribute in any meaningful way to justify the need for trauma-informed interviewing methods….research has indicated that resilience, use of psychopharmacologic substances (e.g., drugs, alcohol), and frequency and type of trauma all affect the subjective experience of trauma, however, none of these mitigating factors are described in the Wilson et al. (2019) bulletin.

“The meaning of our current understanding of the brain, as described above, for investigations of assault is difficult to ascertain because the impacts of traumatic experiences on memories and recall are variable, as noted. This means that an investigator who makes assumptions about the status of an alleged victim risks biasing the investigation in ways that increase the likelihood that either the innocent will be found guilty or the guilty will go free.

“In fact, assertions about brain processes in instances of trauma run the risk of leading an investigator to assume that he or she knows how the case should proceed, what the victim feels, or what should happen with respect to the suspect.” (p. 10)

In short, “Over-generalizations and assertions in the bulletin that cannot be supported by current science make some of these descriptions problematic for the intended audience(s)” (p. 5), and “As written, the bulletin does not provide sufficient evidence to support conclusions reached on the basis of the anecdotes” (p. 3).

Categories
Campus Trauma Informed Violence Against Women Act

Highlights from the ATIXA Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Methods

On August 22, the Association of Title IX Administrators – ATIXA – issued a Position Statement on Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma that exposes the many fallacies of “trauma-informed” concepts and methods: https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf

The Statement begins by quoting a claim that is often cited in trauma-informed training materials:

“Trauma leaves tracks on its victims. It is very difficult to fake or ‘act’ the sorts of symptoms [of trauma]. When someone displays these symptoms, this alone is evidence that they have been victimized.”

ATIXA delivers a strong rebuke to this claim: “Proffered as truth that a mere claim of trauma is proof of assault, this quote should be troubling to any rational mind. To assert that trauma cannot be faked is as flagrantly false a claim as asserting that trauma is proof of assault.”

The eight-page Statement goes on to address many of the flaws of the claims of trauma-informed proponents:

  • “Using a study of lab rats to reach any conclusion about the story of a victim of sexual assault is troubling..Do rats tell stories? Do they experience sexual assault?..there is science behind these ideas, but they are not empirical conclusions.”
  • “The ‘Neurobiology of Trauma’ should not significantly influence the way that colleges and schools evaluate evidence… improper use of trauma-informed methods turns trauma into evidence, which IS junk science and goes way too far.”
  • “application [of trauma-informed theories].. has gotten way ahead of the actual science… is being misapplied, and…some purveyors of this knowledge are politically motivated to extrapolate well beyond any reasonable empirical conclusions…”
  • There’s an “important distinction between practices that help an impacted party retrieve memory and avoid gratuitous re-triggering…and those [relying] on neurobiological theories to influence the interpretation of evidence.” Only the former is correct.

The ATIXA Statement concludes with this unequivocal message:

“The truth is that we understand perhaps 1/100th of 1% of what we need to know and may someday understand about how the brain responds to trauma. With such a nascent body of knowledge, most conclusions are premature. It is irresponsible to attribute much about how we interpret evidence to existing neuroscientific understandings of trauma, except to correlate scrambled memory encoding and retrieval with life-threatening incidents, and to see that flight/fright/freeze may be common reactions to such incidents. That is about it. Anything more than that is really theory, thus far unsupported by conclusive evidence.”

The ATIXA report may turn out to be a game-changer.

 

Quotes compiled by Cynthia Garrett, Esq.

Categories
Scholarships Title IX Equity Project

Colleges and Universities are Failing to Meet Their Title IX Obligations to Male Students

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

 Colleges and Universities are Failing to Meet Their Title IX Obligations to Male Students

WASHINGTON / August 20, 2019 – A review of scholarships at over 200 colleges and universities in 36 states reveals widespread discriminatory practices in the provision of sex-specific scholarships for male students. The analysis reveals 57% of institutions offer scholarships that facially violate provisions of Title IX that ban sex-based discrimination. Among the other schools, 27% were classified as Borderline, and only 16% were assessed as Compliant with Title IX requirements (1).

For example, Kent State University in Ohio offers two scholarships for male students, compared to 11 scholarships reserved for females. In Academic Year 2018-19, each male undergraduate student was awarded an average scholarship of $1,567, compared to an average scholarship of $2,208 to each female student, based on information supplied by the university to the SAVE Title IX Equity Project (2).

This $641 disparity represents a violation of the Title IX regulation, which requires that “the overall effect of the award of such sex-restricted scholarships, fellowships, and other forms of financial assistance does not discriminate on the basis of sex.” (34 CFR 106.37(b)(1))

Discriminatory sex-specific scholarships are only one example of widespread Title IX violations at institutions of higher learning. Many institutions offer programs that limit participation to female students, such as engineering and information technology programs.

Currently, the federal Office for Civil Rights is investigating complaints of such discriminatory programs at the following colleges and universities: Florida Institute of Technology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Boston College, Brown University, University of Rhode Island, Yale University, Indiana University, University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin-Stout, Grand Valley State University, Michigan State University, Saginaw Valley State University, University of Michigan, Wayne State University, Duke University, Princeton University, Rutgers University, Rochester Institute of Technology, UC-Berkeley, UCLA, and University of Southern California (3).

Last week the Office for Civil Rights reached an agreement with Clemson University in South Carolina to end sex-discriminatory practices for three programs: Project WISE [Women In Science and Engineering] Summer Camp, WISE Choice, and STEM Connections (4).

In addition, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed by male students against colleges and universities alleging due process violations. To date, judges have ruled in favor of these students in 151 such cases (5).

As institutions of higher learning prepare for the new academic year, the Title IX Equity Project urges campus administrators to carefully review policies, procedures, and practices to assure male students are being treated equitably.

Citations:

  1. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  2. Email dated August 15, 2019 from Kent State University Associate Counsel.
  3. http://www.saveservices.org/ocr-investigations/
  4. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/OCR-LETTER-CLEMSON-U-8.14.2019.pdf
  5. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0
Categories
Uncategorized

Sex Without A Notarized Document Of Consent Is Teetering On Becoming A Thing Of The Past

Of course, even a notarized document doesn’t protect you, as the person you’re having sex with could say they withdrew consent mid-act, and you don’t have proof that you had consent to continue.

In short, this proposed new law is how to fuck any man over — because it’s mostly men who will get ensnared by the revision that’s being proposed, moving over “affirmative consent” from college campuses to the rest of the adult world.

Samantha Harris blogs for theFIRE.org:

In just a few days, the American Bar Association will consider whether to adopt a resolution urging state legislatures to adopt a criminal-law definition of consent similar to the “affirmative consent” standard increasingly popular on college campuses. Given the ABA’s reputation and influence, it would be disastrous for due process if this resolution were to pass.Here is the resolution (emphasis added):

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges legislatures and courts to define consent in sexual assault cases as the assent of a person who is competent to give consent to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration, oral sex, or sexual contact, to provide that consent is expressed by words or action in the context of all the circumstances, and to reject any requirement that sexual assault victims have a legal burden of verbal or physical resistance.

By making sex presumptively nonconsensual unless and until someone can produce evidence of consent, affirmative consent standards effectively shift the burden of proof to accused parties to prove themselves innocent.

From The College Fix’s Greg Piper on the guilty until proven innocent tack of this resolution and some of the groups that oppose it on that count:

Among the groups opposing the resolution is the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which says it would prove an offense occurred “merely upon evidence of a sex act with nothing more.”The resolution shifts the burden of proof to the accused for each act, undefined, within a larger sexual encounter, and “assumes guilt in the absence of any evidence regarding consent,” the association wrote last month.

“This radical change in the law would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments and the Presumption of Innocence,” the group argues. “The resolution will often force the defendant to testify in order to present evidence that consent was expressed.”

An essential bit from the NACDL link:

1. Burden-Shifting in Violation of Due Process and Presumption of Innocence: NACDL opposes ABA Resolution 114 because it shifts the burden of proof by requiring an accused person to prove affirmative consent to each sexual act rather than requiring the prosecution to prove lack of consent. The resolution assumes guilt in the absence of any evidence regarding consent. This radical change in the law would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and the Presumption of Innocence. It offends fundamental and well-established notions of justice.

From Sam Harris’s excellent piece at FIRE:

Affirmative consent standards are already common in campus disciplinary proceedings. On campus, not only has affirmative consent proven confusing, but the state of due process and fair procedure is so bad that over the past eight years, more than 500 accused students have filed lawsuits alleging that they were not afforded even the most basic procedural protections before being found responsible for sexual misconduct. As high as the stakes are on campus — where students found responsible face the loss of educational and job opportunities as well as permanent stigma — they are higher still in the criminal context, where those found guilty face imprisonment.We hope that the ABA’s House of Delegates will reject this resolution as a grave threat to the due process rights of those accused of one of society’s most serious crimes.

Categories
Investigations

CORRUPT COPS: Planted Evidence, Coerced Confessions, and now, ‘Conviction-Oriented’ Investigations

Police misconduct is a long-standing problem in our criminal justice system. Examples include fabrication of evidence, high-pressure interrogations, bribery, and more. Now there’s a new way to corrupt the process: Conviction-oriented investigations. AND IT’S BEING ACTIVELY PROMOTED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Ethics codes require investigators to follow the evidence without bias or preconception. For example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police ethics code states, “The law enforcement officer shall be concerned equally in the prosecution of the wrong-doer and the defense of the innocent. He shall ascertain what constitutes evidence and shall present such evidence impartially and without malice.”[1]

FAIRNESS GOING OUT OF FASHION?

On May 29, 2019, the DOJ Office for Victims of Crime presented an online training session titled, “Law Enforcement Response: Approaching Your Work with a Trauma–Informed Lens.”[2] The session was conducted by retired sheriff’s deputy Marcus Bruning, described as a “nationally recognized expert, a 28 year veteran of public safety.”

Bruning did not state that the main objective of a criminal investigation is to obtain the facts and details of the alleged incident. Instead, the investigator’s main job, according to Bruning, is to avoid re-traumatizing the “victim” — ignoring the fact that in the event of a false allegation, the real “victim” is the person who is wrongfully accused.

CONVICTION-ORIENTED

Most troubling of all, Bruning advised law enforcement personnel to take a “conviction-oriented approach,” which means investigations should be carried out with an eye to “determining what elements of the crime must be proven and what will be challenged in court.” In essence, he argued to work the case from the position that a crime has been committed (because the “victim” says it did) and that the suspect committed that crime.

The main focus of courtroom testimony should be the feelings of the “victim” before, during, and after the alleged incident, Bruning insisted. This provides the prosecutor, jury, and judge “an opportunity to experience a traumatic event with understanding and without blaming the victim.”

DOUG WILDER, VICTIM OF A CONVICTION-ORIENTED INVESTIGATION?

On July 12, the Washington Post reported on former Virginia governor Douglas Wilder, accused of non-consensual kissing of a female. But Wilder said he was railroaded by a biased investigator who glossed over inconsistencies in the accuser’s testimony and excluded important exculpatory evidence from the investigative report.[3] In other words, the investigator cared more about getting a conviction than seeking out the truth.

The Center for Prosecutor Integrity asks persons to contact Attorney General William Barr and urge him to reject biased, “conviction-oriented” investigations. Because justice is at stake.

Citations:

[1] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/ethics-codes/

[2]https://www.ovcttac.gov/ovcttac_assets/eblast/ExpertQA-Eblast-May-2019.HTML

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/former-va-governor-doug-wilder-says-claims-against-him-are-untrue-days-after-investigation-finds-he-kissed-a-20-year-old-student/2019/07/12/0c3286dc-a4b5-11e9-b8c8-75dae2607e60_story.html

Categories
Uncategorized

Former Va. governor Doug Wilder contests finding of sexual harassment investigation

Former Virginia governor L. Douglas Wilder, outside the capitol in Richmond in 2015. (Timothy C. Wright for The Washington Post)
By Jenna Portnoy

July 23

Former Virginia governor L. Douglas Wilder has formally contested the finding of an investigator hired by Virginia Commonwealth University who concluded that he kissed a 20-year-old student without her consent.

The 88-year-old Democrat, who is a distinguished professor at the university’s L. Douglas Wilder School of Government, accused the VCU office overseeing the investigation of “underlying bias.”

He said the reasoning of Jody Shipper, an outside attorney and investigator with expertise in federal civil rights law, is “unsound, biased and violates due process.”

He made the accusations in a 15-page document posted on his website and social media accounts Tuesday and submitted to VCU last week in response to Shipper’s findings.

Shipper found Wilder responsible for “non-consensual sexual contact” for kissing Sydney Black in 2017, according to a two-page summary of the investigation’s findings.

Black was a student and worked as an assistant at the Wilder School at the time of the incident. The report cleared Wilder of three other charges that were based on Black’s complaint: sexual exploitation, sex- or gender-based discrimination, and retaliation.

Because Wilder is contesting the finding of the investigator, the VCU Review Panel is expected to hold a hearing to determine whether the probe was conducted properly.

University spokesman Michael Porter declined to comment on the findings of the investigation or release Shipper’s full 262-page report, but he defended the university’s approach to allegations of sexual misconduct.

“VCU takes seriously any allegations of misconduct and all parties’ rights to a fair and impartial process that provides a full opportunity to be heard,” he said in a statement.

Black’s attorney, Jason V. Wolfrey, said he requested an extension to give Black until Aug. 2 to submit her response to Wilder’s document. Black believes Shipper was impartial, he said.

“She just wants it to be over,” he said. “She’s upset, but she’s also fired up a little now.”

The grandson of slaves, Wilder became the nation’s first elected African American governor and served from 1990 to 1994.

Black filed a complaint with VCU in December 2018, alleging that Wilder kissed her and made other overtures, including suggestions that she could live at his country house and join him on trips.

His first extensive public comments about the investigation, the document posted on Wilder’s website said Black’s “allegations are false, lack credibility and reflect glaring inconsistencies.”

It said she may have invented the story “to reap a financial reward from a respected, high-profile faculty member who might be more concerned with the appearance of impropriety [than] with the underlying truth.”

“While disappointed in the External Investigator’s findings and with growing concerns about the impartiality of the overall process, Wilder remains confident that the truth will [come] out,” the document said.

Wolfrey, Black’s attorney, said she never asked Wilder for money or to pay her bills and has no plans to file a lawsuit. She has asked VCU to forgive about $4,000 in tuition debt incurred after she filed the complaint and withdrew from classes, he said.

Much of the dispute stems from events on Feb. 16, 2017, when Wilder and Black dined together at the Boathouse, a riverfront restaurant in Richmond to celebrate her 20th birthday.

Black said Wilder invited her to dinner; Wilder said that dining together was “at best a mutual decision.”

Black has said Wilder bought her vodka martinis, knowing she was underage. Wilder denied that he intended to make her vulnerable to his advances. He also denied inviting her to spend a weekend with him in Atlanta.

Wilder pointed to inconsistencies between Black’s statements to Shipper and records and other interviews that he said were detailed in Shipper’s report.

Black said they went to his condo after dinner, where Wilder kissed her and touched her leg. But Wilder said Shipper’s report indicated Black told her roommate that Wilder merely tried to kiss her without mentioning the leg touch.

The roommate said Black told her about the incident only after the investigation began, Wilder said, quoting the report, but Black said she told the roommate the same night.

Black said she told her mother that Wilder tried to touch her leg but did not mention actual touching or a kiss, he said, citing the report.

Wilder also takes issue with the report’s description of phone calls between him and Black after the dinner.

He said Shipper concluded that he wouldn’t have called Black after the dinner “if there had not been some kind of precipitating event he felt required further discussion.”

Wilder said he would call Black only after she called or texted him asking for a call in return.

Wilder said the “deliberate and calculated” omission of these details about the nature and frequency of the calls is “indicative of bias and constitutes a gross violation of due process.”

Black has said Wilder invited her to his country home in Charles City, Va., to apologize for the kiss, but he said he allowed her to visit only “with the belief that doing so was merely a hospitable gesture.”

Although Black has said she “felt scared” to be alone with Wilder after he kissed her, Wilder said, “notwithstanding these claims,” she drove more than an hour to the home, knowing they would be alone.

“This is hardly the behavior of a young woman who had been previously sexually assaulted by the person she was meeting and of whom she claimed she was ‘scared,’ ” he said.

Wilder said Shipper relied on the “very same inconsistencies and behaviors” to find other allegations unfounded.

“No reasonable unbiased External Investigator, without a pre-existing agenda, armed with this information, would conclude that it was more likely than not that Wilder kissed Complainant and touched her leg,” the posting on his website said.

He asked what steps were taken to make sure VCU employees overseeing the investigation treated him fairly after a previous case in which Wilder accused a prominent VCU dean of harassing Wilder’s assistant, Angelica Bega.

Wilder also noted that Black reported the incident to the Richmond Police Department, which he said determined the allegations were unfounded. A police spokesman confirmed no charges were filed.