Author: saveadmin

Categories
Campus

Letter to AG William Barr Regarding Campus Due Process

United States Attorney General William Barr

950 Pennsylvania Ave NW,

Washington, DC 20530

Dear Attorney General Barr,

I am writing to you with a grave concern for our male college students. Universities across America have been denying young men their due process rights. There is a general bias against male students regarding Title IX and sexual harassment allegations. This bias is so strong and prevalent that universities have continued to wrongfully expel male students. It appears nothing is outside ethical boundaries, as universities have falsified evidence, denied due process and used their resources to punish students.

I am asking that the Department of Justice please look at the number of Court cases being brought by male students who have been wrongfully terminated since the Obama-era 2011 Dear Colleague letter was introduced. Even the police academy at Kent State University in Ohio falsified evidence to terminate me, a 55-year-old fully vetted volunteer Deputy with two-plus years of service and multiple awards.

Sadly, in the last five years, I have written several articles noting the damage to students and their families by the universities. I even traveled to Washington to lobby Congressional staff to make changes but with few results at the university level. The victim-centered investigations and kangaroo courts that universities utilize must stop.

I am advocating for a process to allow students, since the introduction of 2011 Dear Colleague Letter went into effect, to have their cases reviewed. This could be processed where these students submit their information and evidence for a task force to review.

Mr. Attorney General, just look at recent actions of high-level officials at the FBI and other governmental organizations against a presidential candidate and then a sitting president. If no one stands for the rule of law, then no one in America is safe.

Sincerely,

Don Corsaro

Chardon, Ohio

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

New VAWA Entitlement Will Worsen Crisis of Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds

It’s no secret that many state unemployment insurance trust funds are in trouble right now.

According to the Department of Commerce’s latest Trust Fund Solvency Report,[1] unemployment trust funds do not meet minimum standards for solvency in 24 areas: AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, IL, IN, KY, MA, MD, MN, MO, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, WI, WV, and the Virgin Islands. In addition, nine other states are teetering on the brink of insolvency because they have Average High Cost Multiple ratings of less than 1.10: DC, FL, GA, MI, ND, NH, NM, and VA, and WA.

Under a bill recently passed in the House of Representatives, things could get much worse.

The Violence Against Women Act bill, H.R. 1585, features a new entitlement for unemployment insurance. Titled “Entitlement to Unemployment Compensation to Victims of Sexual and Other Harassment and Survivors of Domestic Violence, Sexual Assault, or Stalking,” Section 703 states:

“no person may be denied compensation under such State law solely on the basis of the individual having a voluntary separation from work if such separation is attributable to such individual being a victim of sexual or other harassment or a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking”

Eligibility to receive such benefits could only require “an attestation that such voluntary separation is attributable to such harassment, violence, assault, or stalking.”

Equally troubling, H.R. 1585 features newly expanded definitions of domestic violence:

“a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim…” (Section 2)

Which means that any person who has experienced a pattern of “attempted” verbal or emotional abuse could simply quit his or her job – no requirement for involuntary, not-for-cause termination — and then qualify for unemployment benefits merely by providing an “attestation.”

Over 100 thought leaders have noted that H.R. 1585 “would dramatically increase unemployment insurance and thus impose an enormous tax on employers that would result in a loss of jobs.”[2] In CY 2018, unemployment benefits in the United States amounted to $27.5 billion.[3] VAWA’s new entitlement could easily cause payouts to balloon by 10%, costing taxpayers $2.75 billion a year.

Such open-ended eligibility criteria would be unsustainable and fiscally irresponsible. In addition, they would also encourage of the filing of trivial and even false claims of “domestic violence.” That would greatly undermine the credibility of victims of physical, severe partner violence.

VAWA’s unemployment entitlement should be removed from further consideration by the Senate.

Citations:

[1] https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/docs/trustFundSolvReport2019.pdf

[2] https://tinyurl.com/y2948xku

[3] https://oui.doleta.gov/unemploy/DataDashboard.asp

Categories
Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Widespread Sex Discrimination Found in College Scholarship Programs

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Widespread Sex Discrimination Found in College Scholarship Programs

WASHINGTON / May 20, 2019 – An analysis of sex-specific scholarships at 115 of the nation’s largest universities reveals widespread sex discrimination policies. Among 1,161 sex-specific scholarships, 91.6% were reserved for female students, with only 8.4% designated for male students.

Such sex-specific scholarships violate requirements of federal Title IX regulations, which prohibit scholarships that “On the basis of sex, provide different amounts or types of such assistance, limit eligibility for such assistance which is of any particular type or source, apply different criteria, or otherwise discriminate.” (34 CFR 106.37(a)(1))

The analysis was conducted on colleges in 24 states across the nation: : AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and WY.

The disparities were greatest in three states: Alabama (Male-female scholarship ratio: 2 to 81), Florida (Male-female ratio: 3 to 70), and Utah (Male-female ratio: 2 to 86). The only state where sex-specific disparities approached parity was South Carolina, with 12 scholarship programs designated for men and 16 programs for women. Full details are available on the Title IX Equity Project website (1).

SAVE has begun to contact these colleges about their discriminatory policies, urging them to come into compliance with Title IX requirements. When colleges decline to promptly remedy their discriminatory policies, complaints are forwarded to the federal Office for Civil Rights. An OCR Title IX investigation costs colleges $193,750, on average (2).

Last year the OCR reached a Resolution Agreement with Tulane University to correct eight discriminatory programs such as its Women-to-Women Mentoring program (3). Currently, the Office for Civil Rights is investigating complaints of female-specific programs at the following universities: Brown (Complaint No. 01-19-2053), Clemson (Complaint No. 11-19-2081), Michigan (Docket No. 15-18-2272), Rutgers (Case No. 02-19-2068), and Wayne State (Docket No. 15-18-2312).

Currently, 43.7% of college students are male (4), which means there are 129 women enrolled in college for every 100 men. For African Americans, the degree gap is much larger: Black women earned 178.2 bachelor’s degrees in 2017 for every 100 degrees earned by Black men. Digest of Education Statistics, Tables 322.40 and 322.50.

Such disparities are incompatible with long-held aspirations for gender equality.

Citations:

  1. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  2. https://www.edurisksolutions.org/Templates/template-article.aspx?id=2147484744&pageid=136
  3. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/06182230-b.pdf
  4. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=372
Categories
Victim-Centered Investigations

Don’t let the Facebook censors ‘disapprove’ our campaign for justice

One of the ways we promote our campaign to end “victim-centered” investigations is to place Facebook ads. We’ve been doing this since March when we first started the Change.org petition to end these biased methods. You can see the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/congress-stop-sham-believe-the-victim-investigations

Four days ago, Facebook approved an ad promoting this petition. There was no nudity, obscenity, or vulgarity. Simply a plea for justice. Since Monday, we spent $357.88 to promote the ad to a broad audience.

But this morning, we had a RUDE AWAKENING — Facebook send us an email saying they did a “closer review,” and decided the ad “doesn’t comply with our Advertising Policies.” Which specific “Advertising Policies,” they didn’t say. You can see the actual email, below.

This was pretty shocking, to say the least!

SO PLEASE SHARE THIS PETITION ON YOUR FACEBOOK AND TWITTER PAGES, and sign our petition: https://www.change.org/p/congress-stop-sham-believe-the-victim-investigations

We’re not going to let the Facebook censors stop our campaign to end “victim-centered” investigations!

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

Email received from advertise-noreply@support.facebook.com on May 17, 2019 at 5:34 am ET:

 

Categories
Campus Due Process E-lert

Has Donna Shalala ever heard of the Constitution?

This past Monday, Rep. Donna Shalala (D-FL) appeared at the Education Summit that billed itself as “giving every child an equal chance to succeed.” http://educationsummit2019.theatlantic.com/

But instead of talking about a balanced approach that respects the rights of both complainants and the accused, she only found fault with the proposed Title IX regulations from the Department of Education. “Many of these things that are coming out of the secretary’s office reflect someone that really does not understand the institutions or their experience or the traditions,” she said.

Worse, Shalala predicted she didn’t think “any institutions in this country are going to follow” DeVos’s changes and that Democrats “will try to overturn them.”

Excuse me, Democrats will try to overturn regulations that are rooted in Constitutional due process protections? It’s a sad day when lawmakers who swore to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” turn around and vow to remove due process regulations.

Let’s all call Shalala’s office: 202-225-3931.

Today.

Categories
Campus Due Process

Rep. Shalala Tells Colleges Not To Change

When dreaded Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos withdrew the “Dear Colleague Letter” and its ensuing “guidance,” then issued new regs which were put through the rigors of Notice and Comment as required by law, heads exploded. Providing the accused with minimal due process on campus was tantamount to giving rapists a free ride, activists screamed.

But it begged the question, would any of this matter? Would colleges care what the regs provided, or would they ignore them, continue to apply rules that deprived  males any chance to defend themselves? Absent mandatory language in the regs, or court decisions like Doe v. Baum, who was going to make colleges change?

Appearing at The Atlantic Education Summit, Shalala — who served as president of the University of Miami from 2001 to 2015 — criticized DeVos for her department’s rollback of several Obama-era regulations and guidance documents, including those regarding Title IX.

“Many of these things that are coming out of the secretary’s office reflect someone that really does not understand the institutions or their experience or the traditions,” Shalala said, adding that “she’s a nice person, but boy she really is confused about what we’re doing out there.”

Donna Shalala, currently the congresswoman from Florida’s 27th district, and formerly Secretary of Health and Human Services, served as chancellor of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and president of the University of Miami. Her message to the summit was clear.

During the education summit, Shalala said she didn’t think “any institutions in this country are going to follow” DeVos’s changes and that Democrats “will try to overturn them.”

First, a representative in Congress calls for educational institutions to reject the regulations, despite court after court holding that they violate the constitutional rights of male students. Ironically, claiming “experience and tradition” as the piece DeVos is missing reflects the social engineering that was rammed down the throat of colleges at the behest of two bureaucrats during the Obama administration who circumvented law. Some tradition.

Second, she says what needs to be said, that should the Democrats regain the executive branch, they will “overturn” regulations that comport with the Constitution and return to unconstitutional process. So why bother to change? Or more to the point, hold out until 2020, when the Democrats will repeal the new regs and  restore the old guidance so you can return to depriving male students of due process.

What makes Shalala’s admonition to colleges that they should persist in denying male students due process—that they shouldn’t change despite the new regs, despite the voluminous judicial opinions holding the processes invented by OCR’s Russyn Ali and her successor, Catherine Lhamon, unconstitutional—shocking is that it’s a call for lawlessness. Hardly the only one, and hardly the only side doing so, but lawlessness nonetheless. And it comes as no surprise.

All of this is true, and yet, doesn’t quite address either the situation or mandate. The “arrogance” of the Dear Colleague letters doesn’t mean that colleges, their bureaucracies built around implementation of the letters and the indoctrinated students and faculty who have become adherents to Lhamon’s and Ali’s orthodoxy, will go away.

Even if this letter, issued lawlessly, is withdrawn, that does not mean colleges will change their tune. Sure, they won’t have the Dear Colleague letters to fall back on as an excuse, but that doesn’t mean academia doesn’t actually like, no love, what Lhamon rammed down their throats.

When the old guidance was withdrawn, and new regs proffered for comment, many took for granted that this would mean change, that colleges would end their war against male students for the sexual sanctity of believing their female students. Battles were huge, as activists geared up to perpetuate the lies that women never falsely accused, that there was an epidemic on campus, that women were being raped all the time, provided one left rape to the fertile imagination of empowered co-eds.

Shalala is right, of course. Should the Democrats prevail in 2020, the DeVos regs will be gone in a jiff. But it won’t mean much as long as colleges refuse to change in accordance with the new regs, court decisions or the Constitution. Many have raised the cost of lost Title IX actions percolating through the federal courts, but it’s a price colleges seem happy to pay to keep their female students from feeling uncomfortable. Well, colleges don’t actually pay it, since they pass along the cost to students in tuition.

The battle waged to end the Obama-era guidance was nasty and ugly, and cost a lot of young men their future, but to what end?

 It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing.

In a more rational world, perhaps a United States congresswoman would not call upon colleges to violate the Constitution, to act lawlessly for the sake of woman at the expense of men. In a more rational world, perhaps the discussions about why sex discrimination against male and deprivation of due process would make academics pause and think about the harm they are doing.

But there is little rational these days, and so there is no good reason why Donna Shalala shouldn’t take to the podium to implore that colleges ignore the regs, reject the law and persist in their discrimination. To explain why this is wrong seems to be a tale told by an idiot. They’ll fix it in 2020 anyway, when they regain control and petty constitutional concerns will no longer be an impediment to experience and tradition.

Source: https://blog.simplejustice.us/2019/05/15/rep-shalala-tells-colleges-not-to-change/

Categories
Uncategorized

In Too Many Sexual Assault Cases Colleges Lack A Basic Understanding Of Fair Process

Evan Gerstmann Contributor

I am a professor and publish on constitutional and educational issues.

Colleges must remember to wait until the facts are in before making judgments in sexual assault cases.

People disagree over a lot of things when it comes to sexual assault on college campuses, but presumably, everybody agrees that a student accused of raping another student ought to get a fair process before he is expelled. The devil is in the details—what exactly is a fair process?

One would think though, that there are certain basic ideas that everyone would agree on. For example, there should be a difference between investigation and prosecution. In other words, when the college authorizes someone to investigate whether or not a rape took place, the investigator should begin with a neutral mindset rather than an assumption that the accused student is guilty.

Relatedly, if the university assembles a panel to hear the charges, the panel should also go into the hearing with a neutral mindset. The university’s position should be neither that the student is guilty or innocent until the university has been presented with the facts. It would be difficult to imagine any principles that are more basic to a fair process.

However, a recent case involving Clarion University of Pennsylvania, a public university, shows how deeply confused universities and their attorneys can be about the basic elements of due process, even in a hearing involving a charge as serious as rape. The case was recently discussed in the blog “Academic Wonderland.” In this case, the rape allegations were investigated by Matthew Shaffer, the university’s Director of Student Engagement and Development. Unfortunately, Shaffer and the university did not seem to be on the same page in terms of Shaffer’s role. Shaffer testified that he was a “neutral party during these proceedings.” However, during oral argument before an appellate court, the university’s attorney was asked by the judges about the fact that Shaffer seemed far from neutral at the hearing, because Shaffer offered his own opinions and did not just stick with the facts. Judge Thomas Ambro asked: “What about the conjecture or the opinion statements if you will by Mr. Shaffer with regard to what he believed happened, whom he believed, etc.? He went beyond the facts didn’t he?”

Counsel for Clarion replied, “He really was in the position of a prosecutor . . .” Judge Ambro replied, “Well that’s interesting because I thought he was the investigator for the case.” In response, the attorney seemed on the verge of calling Shaffer an “investigator/prosecutor” but then clearly thought better of it: “Well it’s an administrative proceeding, he’s an investigator slash . . . I mean he’s the one who presented.”

Judge Ambro was having none of it: “If you are saying he’s the prosecutor, you’re saying he’s not there to just get the independent facts, he’s there to be a prosecutor.”

Things only got worse. The lawyer for Clarion said: “I’m going to concede this. In the record, it does indicate that the normal function of him or someone in the same position was to present the university’s side of the case. It was not presented as this completely neutral thing.” But of course, the role of the university is supposed to be to decide if the accused student committed the rape or not. That is completely incompatible with the idea that there is a “university’s side” prior to the hearing. As judge Morton Greenberg retorted, “Was there a university side of the case before the hearing? I would have thought that there shouldn’t have been, that they should have been neutral to that point.”

In short, the university seemed to be deeply confused about whether they were giving the panel a neutral presentation of the facts or were making a prosecutorial case against the accused student. There was similar confusion about whether the university was supposed to decide upon the accused student’s guilt prior to the hearing.

To make matters worse, there is a very good chance that the accused student will lose this case anyway. That is because he chose not to attend the hearing at all. He made that decision because he was also being criminally charged and if he participated in the college hearing he would be effectively waiving his right to remain silent during the criminal investigation. This is a classic dilemma when there is both a criminal and civil case. To avoid such conflicts, judges in civil matters routinely delay the civil cases until the criminal cases are resolved. But colleges don’t do that because they want to resolve the matter quickly.

Criminal prosecutors are well aware of this dilemma and use it to their advantage in order to circumvent the student’s right to silence. For example, at a 2015 meeting of the International Association of College Law Enforcement Administrators, Susan Riseling, the Chief of Police at the University of Wisconsin at Madison spoke about how to get around the right to remain silent and use Title IX proceedings to circumvent the student’s constitutional rights:

[Riseling] also described a case at Wisconsin, in which the Title IX investigation was the only reason police were able to arrest a student accused of raping his roommate’s girlfriend.

The accused student denied the charges when interviewed by police, Riseling said. In his disciplinary hearing, however, he changed his story in an apparent attempt to receive a lesser punishment by admitting he regretted what had occurred. That version of events was “in direct conflict with what he told police,” Riseling said. Police subpoenaed the Title IX records of the hearing and were able to use that as evidence against the student.

“It’s Title IX, not Miranda,” Riseling said. “Use what you can.”

Riseling also suggested, “Title IX investigators should watch the police’s interview through a television feed, and prompt the detective to ask any additional questions.”

The rush to judgment in the Clarion case was particularly unfortunate because the university held its hearing before the DNA evidence became available. In fact, the DNA did not match that of the accused student and the police dropped all charges. Nonetheless, the student remains expelled.

A final matter to consider is that the accused student is African American. According to the complaint, African Americans are drastically overrepresented among Clarion students tried for sexual misconduct. A future post will discuss the issue of racial bias and sexual assault on campus. For now, it is worth noting that an African American student has been expelled from college by a process that seems confused about the most basic concepts of a fair hearing. He remains expelled even though the charges were dropped by the police as a result of the DNA evidence that the college hearing panel never saw.

Evan Gerstmann is the author of Campus Sexual Assault: Constitutional Rights and Fundamental Fairness (Cambridge University 2019) and is a Professor of Political Science at Loyola Marymount Univ.

Evan Gerstmann

Contributor

I’ve always been interested in how we should balance individual and minority rights with majority rule. After several years practicing law in New York city, I found my true calling as a college professor and researcher. I’ve written about campus free speech, same-sex equality and racial justice for Cambridge University, The University of Chicago, and Harvard University. My latest book is “Campus Sexual Assault: Constitutional Rights and Fundamental Freedoms”.

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

I Survived Domestic Violence. Here’s Why I’m Voting ‘No’ on Violence Against Women Act.

Congresswoman Debbie Lesko represents Arizona’s 8th congressional district. 

 I’m Arizona Congresswoman Debbie Lesko. I’m a survivor of domestic violence from my ex-husband, who I left over 25 years ago.

I am voting ‘no’ on the Democrats’ version of the Violence Against Women Act because it is a radical bill that I believe will actually hurt women more.

This bill, under the weight of federal law, would force domestic violence shelters to take in biological males who identify as women.

This could be in showers. This could be in beds. Can you think of this? We have women that are placed in shelters that have already been abused, some of them sexually abused, but now the federal government is going to require these shelters to take in biological males and sometimes place them right next to these women?

The Violence Against Women Act also requires that prisons take in biological males who identify as women in women prisons.

In the United Kingdom, there’s already been a case where a man who identified as a woman raped two women in prison.

The Democrat version of the Violence Against Women Act takes away Second Amendment rights from people without due process.

When I got an order of protection against my ex-husband many years ago, I went to a justice of the peace and wrote down why I was threatened by him. The justice of the peace gave me an order of protection. My ex-husband was not there. But under this bill, it would have taken away his gun rights. In the case of my ex-husband, he really should have had his gun rights taken away because he was a threat. However, he did not have the ability of due process to defend himself. This is just wrong.

Please don’t be confused by the title of this bill, Violence Against Women Act.

This is nothing but a political strategy by the Democrat Party to put in things in this bill that aren’t bipartisan, that are totally partisan, knowing that Republicans will vote no so that the Democrats can say Republicans are against women.

I’m a survivor of domestic violence. I’m going to vote ‘no’ against this domestic violence act because I don’t believe it will protect women and will actually hurt women more.

Source: https://www.dailysignal.com/2019/04/03/i-survived-domestic-violence-heres-why-im-voting-no-on-violence-against-women-act/

Categories
Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

Everything You’ve Heard About Domestic Violence is One-Sided, Misleading, or Completely False

Certain groups in our society like to create a narrative and then run with that narrative, regardless of the facts of the issue. Domestic violence is perfect example of this phenomenon. Practically everything you’ve heard about domestic violence over the past 20 years is one-sided, misleading, or simply false. Here are three of those myths:

1. “Domestic violence is all about men beating up their wives.” Not true. According to the latest Centers for Disease Control report, men are more likely than women to be victims of physical abuse in the past year:[1]

Level of Violence – Previous 12 Months Men Women
Physical violence – overall 3.8% 2.9%
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 3.4% 2.6%
Any severe physical violence 2.0% 1.9%

2. “Abuse is not a problem among lesbians, because women never abuse.” Again, not true. According to the CDC, lesbian couples, indicated in bold in the table, experience higher rates of abuse than among homosexual couples or heterosexual couples:[2]

MALES – Lifetime Gay Bisexual Heterosexual
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 24.0% 27.0% 26.3%
Any severe physical violence 16.4% [Number too small to report] 13.9%
Total 40.0% 27.0% 40.2%
FEMALES – Lifetime Lesbian Bisexual Heterosexual
Slapped, pushed, or shoved 36.3% 55.1% 29.8%
Any severe physical violence 29.4% 49.3% 23.6%
Total 65.7% 100.0% 53.4%

 

3. “Domestic violence is caused by men seeking to uphold their patriarchal power and control.” This statement is not only wrong, it’s ridiculous. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control has identified over 25 different causes of domestic violence.[3] These include individual, relationship, and community factors. Substance abuse, marital instability, psychological disorders, and other factors are known to often lead to domestic violence incidents.

 

Another common domestic violence myth is that the problem only involves Partner A hurting Partner B. But in 58% of cases, the abuse is mutual and bi-directional, such as, The woman slaps the man, and he shoves her back.[4]

SAVE has developed a Fact Sheet on Seven Key Facts About Domestic Violence.[5] SAVE also has published two Special Reports that further explore the problem of domestic violence myths:

  • Most DV Educational Programs Lack Accuracy, Balance, and Truthfulness[6]
  • Fifty Domestic Violence Myths[7]

Domestic violence programs and services need to be based on sound research and good evidence, not on ideologically driven myths.

 Citations:

[1] Centers for Disease Control. National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey: 2015 Data Brief – Updated Release. Tables 9 and 11. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

[2] CDC NISVS: 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation. Tables 6 and 7. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf

[3] Centers for Disease Control: Intimate Partner Violence: Risk and Protective Factors. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

[4] Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling. Rates of bi-directional vs. uni-directional intimate partner violence: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse Vol. 3, No. 2, 2012. http://www.springerpub.com/content/journals/PA-KnowledgeBase-41410.pdf

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Seven-Facts-About-DV-2.5.2019.pdf

[6] http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/SAVE-DV-Educational-Programs

[7] http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-50-DV-Myths.pdf

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Growing Consensus that VAWA’s Criminal Justice Approach Isn’t Working

For years, the focus of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) has been ramping up the criminal justice response — more restraining orders, more arrests, more prosecutors, more incarcerations. But this approach does not address the underlying causes of domestic violence: alcohol abuse, marital discord, and childhood emotional trauma.

SAVE has published numerous Special Reports that document the numerous fallacies and flaws of our current approach to domestic violence: http://www.saveservices.org/reports/

Now, that message is sinking in. Recently the HuffPost published an article expressing deep reservations about VAWA’s strong focus on criminal justice measures: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-violence-against-women-act_n_5c7d4097e4b0614614dd02b8

The article quotes University of Maryland law professor Leigh Goodmark:

“No reliable social science data ties the drop in the rates of intimate partner violence to criminalization or to increases in [VAWA] funding. Crime has declined and the funding to address intimate partner violence has increased, but the problem persists.”

SAVE invites you to read the HuffPost article and let your senators know your views on the issue — call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.