Author: saveadmin

I Was a Victim of a ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigation

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 10, 2019

I am a former cadet at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. In July 2011, during summer training at Camp Buckner, I was taken to the military police station shortly after arriving back from a rigorous field training exercise. I was dehydrated, sleep deprived, and hadn’t eaten.

I was informed that I had been accused of sexual assault from an alleged incident that had occurred six months before. I then endured a two-year investigation that culminated in a general court martial where I essentially faced life in prison. Although I was found innocent of all the sexual charges, I was kicked out of the Academy in June 2013, the summer preceding my senior year.

While I do not know if West Point had formal victim-centered policies pertaining to sexual assault cases, I believe the Academy engaged in victim-centered practices throughout my investigation.

One of the hallmarks of victim-centered approaches is prioritizing the safety, privacy, and well-being of the “victim.”

Throughout the investigation, my accuser was treated with respect, while I was often treated with hostility. It became apparent early on that my personal well-being was not a priority. My accuser was assigned a victim advocate who escorted her around campus. She was afforded health and welfare checks to ensure that she was coping with the process.

I was never provided such support. In fact, my five-hour initial interrogation took place immediately after a multi-day field training exercise. The investigators essentially took advantage of my weakened state.

While I was afforded a full criminal investigation and trial, it was clear that there was a predetermination of guilt. During my initial interrogation, the interviewing agent was hostile, and used leading questions in an attempt to reshape my statements until they fit his preconceived narrative.

The agent’s questionable conduct was confirmed during the trial by witnesses. In her testimony, one cadet described her interview as a “frustrating and hostile environment.” She testified that “he would ask me what happened, but then he would tell me what to say. I would give an answer, and we would argue with me about my answer…I wanted to get out of there because it was so uncomfortable.” Another cadet stated that “the way [the agent] asked questions was really aggressive. He wouldn’t move on from a subject until he got what he wanted.”

Victim-centered practices often overlook the complainant’s inconsistent or untruthful statements, and attribute such inconsistencies to trauma.

At trial, my accuser committed perjury about the incident, but was later allowed to graduate without punishment. Testifying about the blood she claimed was left in the bedroom after our consensual sexual encounter, my accuser testified, “there were 4 or 5 streaks…24 inches wide, 6 inches deep blood streaks along the side of the bed.” She further testified that her roommates stated that they were “grossed out” by the blood. But all three of my accuser’s roommates denied seeing any blood in the room or making any such statements.

Sexual misconduct investigations are difficult for all parties involved and lives can be ruined if they are not handled properly. This is why it’s important for investigators and adjudicators to treat all parties impartially. Fundamental fairness is a cornerstone of our justice system. But victim-centered practices only focus on the well-being of one individual, the accuser.

The due process rights of accused students have fallen by the wayside because people fail to consider the impact these investigations have on accused individuals. Throughout my investigation I battled severe depression and even suicidal ideations, which continued for years after my investigation. I had to deal with the social stigma attached to my situation because people often presume guilt based on the seriousness of the allegations. I lost a lifelong dream of serving in the Army and the opportunity to finish my degree at a prestigious institution. My friends and family also suffered throughout my ordeal.

Sexual assault investigations should be approached impartially and fairly. While protecting alleged victims is important, it does not mean that we need to compromise the integrity of investigations by providing preferential treatment.

I was lucky to make it out alive. But many individuals don’t have the support network that I had or the resources to combat mishandled investigations. As a society, we should rely on the facts and maintain impartiality because lives are at stake.

Uncategorized

Smollett Case Reveals the Danger of DOJ’s “Start by Believing” Push

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 26, 2019

Wendy McElroy

Most people agree on one aspect of the Jussie Smollett farce: The Chicago Police Department did exemplary detective work. What would the investigation have looked like if the police had adhered to the admonition to “always believe the victim”?

Premature Assumptions Taken As Fact

“Believe the victim” is a moral mantra with a ferocious backlash against anyone who expresses disbelief. The emotional maelstrom surrounding the demand obscures what should be a focus of debate: What are the legal implications of unconditional belief? One is that police procedure would handle “victim” crimes, like rape or hate attacks, in a remarkably different manner than they do now.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has funded a blueprint for changing police procedure toward “victims,” which is being aggressively advocated in America and beyond. As a woman who did not report her own rape due to fear of a police ordeal, I know law enforcement needs to improve. But this is the wrong direction.

The blueprint comes from End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI)—an organization supported by the Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women.In the last several years, EVAWI has received over 20 grants from the DOJ for millions of dollars. The purpose is to “provide technical assistance on the law enforcement response to sexual assault and VAWA [Violence Against Women Act] forensic compliance.” EVAWI’s “Start by Believing” global campaign seeks to improve “criminal justice responses to sexual assault.”

Although the campaign applies specifically to sexual abuse, lines blur when alleged hate crimes involve slurs of f****t, as Smollett’s alleged attack did. As a practical matter, the police methodology used for one category of victim would become its approach to others. Start by Believing states, “Of course, these issues” of evolved police procedure “are relevant for any type of investigation.”

The police are to view all accusations as true, which removes the presumption of innocence from the accused and neutrality from the police.

The campaign’s Law Enforcement Action kit sketches the proposed restructuring of police ethics and procedure. The core of the kit is the manual “Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex,” which, like EVAWI’s Online Training Institute, was facilitated by DOJ grants. (Note: EVAWI’s kit speaks of “victims” or “suspects,” and it never uses the word “alleged.”)

The manual is a game-changer. And, as a woman who did not report her own rape due to fear of a police ordeal, I know law enforcement needs to improve. But “Start by Believing” is the wrong direction.

The police are to view all accusations as true, which removes the presumption of innocence from the accused and neutrality from the police. According to EVAWI, police are to “recreate the reality of the sexual assault from the victim’s perspective.” In doing so, the police report should “not highlight the changing statements made by the suspect.”

Cops Investigate, Not Decide Whether or Not to Believe

This contrasts with the current policy of seeking both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence, including shifts in story, which are made available both to the prosecution and to the defense. As attorney Scott Greenfield of the Simple Justice blog states, “Cops have no business believing or disbelieving. Crimes aren’t a matter of what one believes, but what the facts reveal.”

The victim is to be showcased; the suspect is to be discounted.

With EVAWI, the police investigator is an agent of the prosecutor rather than an independent fact finder. The stated goal is a “successful prosecution,” which means “an effective report must be prepared by the investigator in anticipation of potential defense strategies,” and it must include “the information necessary to undermine them.” The paper identifies the three main defense strategies to be countered: impeachment by omission, impeachment by contradiction, and motions to suppress.

Consider impeachment by contradiction. The kit tells police investigators to refrain from “a detailed, written summary of events” for any victim or witness who provides the particulars elsewhere. If inconsistencies arise between accounts, investigators should highlight those that “corroborate the victim’s statement.” Statements from the suspect should also feature “those that corroborate the victim’s account or provide an implausible or even absurd version of reality.” The victim is to be showcased; the suspect is to be discounted.

Ironically, the pro-prosecution approach may benefit the defense. UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh explains,

In cases that proceed to trial, defense counsel likely could impugn investigators and claim that alternative versions of the crime were ignored and/or errors were made during the investigation as a result of confirmation bias created by the “belief” element of the Start By Believing campaign.

Policing Is Objective, Not Subjective

Nevertheless, EVAWI takes a further plunge into the subjective. “Another strategy for effective report writing is to include details about what the victim was thinking and feeling—before, during, and after the sexual assault” in order “to see why the victim might have acted in ways that seem counter-intuitive.” If a woman appeared enthusiastic about sex, for example, her feeling of peer pressure could explain this behavior. Police work is to credit unverifiable accounts alongside hard evidence.

The possibility of a false allegation is also discounted despite due process being a constitutionally guaranteed right, with the neutral investigation of crime being its hallmark.

The Chicago Police Department “believed” Smollett in exactly the way it should have. His account of the crime was taken seriously, and every lead was followed. Red flags were not ignored, however; Smollett knew the position of a camera that should have captured the attack, for example, and the officers noted this unusual fact. Nevertheless, Smollett was classified as a “victim” until the “47th hour” when the police stopped believing.

What cases like Smollett require is more Chicago and less “always believe.”

This was the last hour of the two-day hold that police had on the Osundairo brothers, who finally claimed they had attacked Smollett at his request. The police then turned their focus to Smollett as the possible perpetrator of a hoax, not because they were anti-victim but because they were pro-fact. The investigation was textbook detective work.

It was also textbook police ethics, according to the Canons of Police Ethicsfrom the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Code of Ethics of the Council of International Investigators. The World Association of Detectives affirms, “We will be faithful and diligent…and to determine the true facts and render honest, unbiased reports in reference thereto.”

What cases like Smollett require is more Chicago and less “always believe.”

Wendy McElroy

Wendy McElroy is an individualist feminist and libertarian who has authored or edited over a dozen books as well as hundreds of articles
and essays. She has been published by such diverse venues as Penn State to Penthouse, FEE to Marie Claire. The founder of ifeminists.com, her
e-home is wendymcelroy.com.

Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: ‘We Got Our Man’ Syndrome: Exoneration of Otis Boone Reveals Perils of Victim-Centered Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 25, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘We Got Our Man’ Syndrome: Exoneration of Otis Boone Reveals Perils of Victim-Centered Investigations

WASHINGTON / March 25, 2019 – Last week Otis Boone was exonerated of his 2011 conviction for two cellphone robberies. After seven years behind bars, he was found “not guilty” at retrial. The wrongful conviction arose from flawed eyewitness identification procedures and use of a faulty “victim-centered” investigative methods.

The Ethics Code of the International Association of Chiefs of Police requires police detectives to “ascertain what constitutes evidence and shall present such evidence impartially and without malice.”

But “victim-centered” investigations instruct investigators to start with an initial presumption of guilt (1). The Start By Believing program openly tells detectives to “corroborate the victim’s account;” “minimize the risk of contradiction” among witness statements; and in the case of sexual assault investigations, make sure the sexual encounter does “not look like a consensual sexual experience.”

Such biased and dishonest practices represent an egregious form of police misconduct, notes the Center for Prosecutor Integrity (2).

According to Boone’s attorneys, the police detective ignored requests to interview witnesses who could have provided exculpatory information on Boone’s whereabouts at the time of the robberies (3). This highlights an unwillingness to conduct an impartial investigation.

Boone’s attorneys also highlighted that the detective failed to review prior interviews and information that cast doubt on the reliability of the identification procedure. This reveals the investigator failed to conduct a careful and thorough interview, reaching a premature conclusion of which suspect to prosecute, which has been dubbed the “We Got Our Man” syndrome.

Over 150 scholars and legal experts have endorsed an Open Letter calling for the abandonment of victim-centered practices (4). To date, 45 editorials have been published criticizing victim-centered approaches (5). SAVE recently launched an online petition to Stop Sham ‘Start By Believing’ Investigations (6).

In recent years the U.S. Department of Justice has awarded grants worth millions of dollars to promote Start By Believing methods (6).

Links:

http://www.saveservices.org/camp/sbb/
http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/start-by-believing-lawmakers-must-act-swiftly-to-root-out-police-misconduct-and-bias/
https://abc7ny.com/man-who-served-7-years-for-robbery-found-not-guilty-at-retrial/5205671/
http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/VCI-Open-Letter-7.20.18.pdf
http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/investigations/
https://www.change.org/p/congress-stop-sham-start-by-believing-investigations
https://www.evawintl.org/grants.aspx

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

Uncategorized

Missouri NAACP branch backs changes to Title IX process

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 16, 2019

3-15-19

COLUMBIA, Mo. (AP) — A Missouri branch of the NAACP on Friday announced support for legislation that would change how colleges and universities handle sexual assault complaints.

St. Louis County NAACP President John Gaskin III in a statement praised a House bill that supporters say is aimed at making procedures for handling Title IX complaints more fair for the accused. Title IX is a federal law that bans sex-based discrimination in education, including sexual harassment and rape.

“The denial of due process at Missouri’s colleges disproportionately impacts African American men,” Gaskin said, “And that’s why we call for immediate due process reforms.”

Universities and victims-rights advocates have criticized the legislation, saying it could dissuade victims from coming forward.

Republican Rep. Dean Dohrman’s bill would guarantee those involved in complaints the right to an attorney at their own expense and the right to cross-examine witnesses. If the measure becomes law, the university decision maker could be questioned and kicked off the case if they are biased or have a conflict of interest.

The bill also would require that colleges “refrain from using the term ‘survivor’ or any other term that presumes guilt” before a final decision is reached.

Cases could be appealed to the state Administrative Hearing Commission, where two of three sitting members have ties to supporters of the bill.

Gaskin also on Friday defended David Steward, a wealthy St. Louis businessman who is financially supporting a nonprofit that’s pushing the legislation.

Steward, who is black, previously served as a University of Missouri curator and now is a Washington University trustee.

Gaskin said opponents are trying to hurt Steward’s reputation “simply because he had the courage to stand up for civil rights on our college campuses.”

Sexual Assault

PR: New Tools Aim to Assist Defense Attorneys in Combating ‘Start By Believing’ Bias

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 15, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Tools Aim to Assist Defense Attorneys in Combating ‘Start By Believing’ Bias

WASHINGTON / March 15, 2019 – In response to a pledge taken by law enforcement officers and prosecutors across the country to “Start By Believing,”ⁱ Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) announces the release of a series of model cross-examination questions and jury voir dire questions. Developed with the input of veteran defense attorneys, these questions are intended to aid attorneys in exposing the biased results of investigations based on Start By Believing or other “victim-centered” methods. ⁱⁱ

Every defense attorney knows the frustration of losing a case where the defendant was clearly innocent, but the police detective failed to perform a thorough and unbiased investigation. A recent study confirms that “[a]n investigator’s belief that a person is guilty may be the reason innocent people get convicted.”ⁱⁱⁱ Defense attorneys should be aware that utilization of Start by Believing techniques is widespread and must be probed at trial.

For example, SBB-trained investigators conduct investigations that:

Begin with the premise that the complaining witness is telling the truth,
De-emphasize inconsistent complainant statements in order to “minimize the risk of contradiction,” and
Emphasize feelings over facts to sway the judge and jury in favor of complainants^iv

These types of investigations must be aggressively examined and exposed by asking such questions as:

You’ve seen investigations resulting from false allegations? If you “Start By Believing,” you might never discover those false allegations?;
You took steps to corroborate the complaining witness’ report, but you didn’t take steps to refute his/her statements?; and
You will agree that when you start your investigation by believing the complaining witness, that necessarily means that you’ve made a pre-judgment about the guilt of the accused?

SAVE has also developed several proposed voir dire questions to aid in vetting potential jurors. Defense attorneys should recognize that members of the general public have been exposed to Start By Believing concepts via the mass media, or school or workplace training^v.

Prosecutors may move forward with cases that have been improperly investigated. The City of Charleston, SC, recently settled with a college student wrongfully charged with rape.^vi “We don’t give up, even when an investigation is subpar,” the prosecutor admitted.^viiIn accordance with Start By Believing philosophy, the prosecutor accepted the poorly investigated claims of the purported victim at face value, at the expense of the rights of the accused. The student was later acquitted by a jury after only a few minutes’ deliberation.

It is only a matter of time before similar trials are conducted across the country, and defense attorneys should be prepared.

The full list of cross-examination and voir dire questions is available here: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cross-examination-voir-dire/ See more about SAVE’s national campaign to warn criminal defense attorneys, lawmakers, and others about the perils of Start By Believing: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/sbb/.

Citations:

i https://www.evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=789

ii http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cross-examination-voir-dire/

iii https://phys.org/news/2018-10-guilty-proven-innocent-police-perceptions.html

iv https://www.evawintl.org/library/Detail.aspx?ItemID=43

v https://www.startbybelieving.org/resources/#campaignmaterials

vi http://www.live5news.com/2019/02/21/city-charleston-pays-k-settle-false-arrest-suit/?outputType=amp

vii https://www.postandcourier.com/news/quick-not-guilty-verdict-for-ex-college-of-charleston-student/article_bc40e27e-e500-11e7-88a4-1b8b1c49ad0f.html

Violence Against Women Act

Plenty of Fireworks at Yesterday’s VAWA Hearing

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 14, 2019

The Violence Against Women Act reauthorization is churning ahead in Congress. Here’s the link to the House bill that was introduced last Thursday: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/democrats.judiciary.house.gov/files/documents/VAWA_2019_xml%20%28003%29–Final%20Text%20%28004%29_0.pdf

The bill resembles more of a utopian wish-list than a sensible approach to domestic violence. For starters, the bill defines “verbal, emotional, economic, or technological abuse” as domestic violence crimes. “Verbal” and “emotional” abuse are not defined, so essentially every American would become a perpetrator or victim of domestic violence, or both!

Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee held its mark-up session. Plenty of fireworks:

Ranking Member Doug Collins criticized Democrats for their efforts to “politicize and weaponize” the domestic violence issue, and described the VAWA bill as a “missed opportunity.”
Jim Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin observed, “We are straying further and further from [VAWA’s] original purpose.”

In the end, the Judiciary Committee voted 22-11 to approve the VAWA bill: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/433953-house-panel-approves-renewal-of-violence-against-women-act?fbclid=IwAR1nOa9iPwM9-u_29N87ePokS_xJPlh1JbrPFg1Q6fDu62CM6dxzCnEqi9o#.XIpJLF7-FxU.facebook

Politics is not a spectator sport. Call your Representative to share your concerns: 202-224- 3121

Uncategorized

PR: PRESUMED GUILTY: Dishonest and Unethical ‘Start By Believing’ Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 7, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

PRESUMED GUILTY: Dishonest and Unethical ‘Start By Believing’ Investigations

WASHINGTON / March 7, 2019 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is launching a national campaign to warn criminal defense attorneys, lawmakers, and others about the perils of Start By Believing (SBB) and other “victim-centered” investigative methods (1). SBB instructs law enforcement officers and prosecutors to take a “pledge” to “Start By Believing” complainants’ allegations. This flawed approach will likely lead to false arrests, malicious prosecutions, sham trials, and wrongful convictions.

Law-enforcement officials are ethically bound to conduct their investigations in an impartial, unbiased, and honest manner (2). In stark contrast, Start By Believing programs instruct investigators to start the probe with an “initial presumption” of guilt and engage in dishonest practices such as (3):

Deemphasizing inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements to “minimize the risk of contradiction.”
Slanting the investigative report to emphasize evidence that “corroborate[s] the victim’s account.”
Emphasizing feelings over facts to sway judge and jury in favor of complainants.

A Governor’s Commission in Arizona warned state law enforcement agencies in 2016 to avoid use of “Start By Believing” methods, correctly noting that “defense counsel likely could impugn investigators and claim that alternative versions of the crime were ignored and/or errors were made during the investigation as a result of confirmation bias created by the ‘belief’ element of the Start By Believing campaign.” (4)

Criminal defense attorney Scott Greenfield has ridiculed the Start By Believing movement, noting (5):

“We’ve reached a very weird place in law, a post-factual society, when a government official needs to guide police to rely on facts rather than beliefs in the performance of their duty. Weirder still that advocacy groups are taken seriously when they demand that facts be ignored in favor of their beliefs. But then, conviction of innocents isn’t their concern, anymore than police treating all people with respect. Confirmation bias is still bias, no matter how much you want to believe.”

To date, over 150 criminal defense attorneys and other legal experts have signed an Open Letter condemning the use of “victim-centered” methods such as Start By Believing (6). Attorneys who wish to co-sign the Open Statement should send their name, affiliation, city, and state to info@saveservices.org

Citations:

SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) is working for effective and fair solutions to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence: www.saveservices.org

Believe the Victim Campus

PR: ‘Start By Believing’ Investigations: Dishonest and Unethical

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 3, 2019

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

‘Start By Believing’ Investigations: Dishonest and Unethical

WASHINGTON / March 4, 2019 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is today launching a national campaign designed to alert college administrators, public officials, attorneys, and the public to the perils of Start By Believing and other “victim-centered” investigative methods.

Ethics codes call for investigators to conduct their investigations in an impartial, unbiased, and honest manner (1).

In contrast, Start By Believing programs instruct investigators to start the probe with an “initial presumption” of guilt and engage in dishonest practices such as (2):

Concealing inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements and “minimize the risk of contradiction.”
Making sure the sexual encounter does “not look like a consensual sexual experience”
Slanting the investigative report to focus on evidence that serves to “corroborate the victim’s account.”

Such methods are an anathema to the principles of fairness, due process, and the presumption of innocence.

Federal Title IX regulations require that college grievance procedures be “equitable” (3). Colleges that did not employ equitable investigative procedures in sexual assault cases have lost numerous lawsuits (4).

Over 150 professors and legal experts have signed an Open Letter criticizing the use of “victim-centered” methods such as Start By Believing (5). A formal complaint was filed with the Department of Justice in February 2018 regarding its funding of Start By Believing (6). One year later, a reply has not been received.

More information about SAVE’s #StartByListening or #StartByBelieving? campaign is available online (7).

Citations:

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

Uncategorized

Judge approves anti-male bias lawsuit against University of Colorado

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 26, 2019

Accuser broke confidentiality with no sanction

The University of Colorado-Boulder’s use of “trauma-informed” practices in sexual misconduct investigations are “plausible” evidence of bias against males, a federal court ruled last week.

It denied the taxpayer-funded university’s motion to dismiss Title IX and due process claims by William Norris, who was suspended and banned from campus after two disputed encounters with “Jane Doe” over a lengthy relationship.

Norris claimed the university made numerous procedural errors during its 2016 investigation of Doe’s claims from 2014 and 2015. He also faulted the Title IX officials’ backgrounds in women’s studies and public support of women’s advocacy groups, calling those a “conflict of interest” that prejudiced his investigation.

The officials’ backgrounds do not make them inherently biased, U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock said, but he found other reasons to question the fairness and impartiality of the proceeding against Norris.

The student has provided “at least some relevant information” to demonstrate that his gender-bias claims are plausible, the required standard in the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Babcock said. The judge also frowned upon “the timing of the notice” of investigation given to Norris and restrictions on his ability to review the investigation file.

“The court’s order made no findings that the University of Colorado or its employees engaged in any improper conduct,” university spokesperson Melanie Marquez Parra told The College Fix in an email. “The court could not receive evidence at this stage and only found the complaint sufficient for the case to proceed to discovery.”

Repeatedly used the wrong code to judge him

Norris and Roe had a year-and-a-half long friendship where “they would often kiss,” according to Babcock’s summary of the lawsuit. She later reported two sexual encounters as nonconsensual to the Boulder Police Department.

In response, Norris claimed he stopped moving his hand toward Roe’s genitals when she asked him to stop in spring 2014. He chose to stop their sexual intercourse in July 2015 due to feeling “guilty about cheating on his girlfriend,” who was also a “close friend” to Roe.

Roe claimed the day after the sex that she didn’t remember it. They didn’t talk again until six months later, when she accused him of rape.

CU-Boulder’s Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance appointed two investigators, Lauren Hasselbacher and Tessa Walker, to examine Roe’s allegations after it learned about her police report. The university found him responsible for the first but not second allegation by Roe.

MORE: CU-Boulder buys off professor who exposed kangaroo-court system

Title IX Coordinator Valerie Simons was the sole determiner of Norris’s sanction, which also included mandatory treatment from “a licensed sex offender provider” and Simons’ personal approval for Norris’s readmission. A jury exonerated Norris in October 2017, and he filed suit against the university nearly a year later.

The university botched Norris’s proceeding by applying a conduct code that wasn’t in effect during his first encounter with Doe.

CU-Boulder had removed sexual misconduct from the student conduct code between Norris and Roe’s disputed encounters. It created the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance in August 2014 and devised new procedures specifically for sexual misconduct, which did not allow appeals.

Though the 2013-2014 student conduct code gave Norris the right to appeal, this disclosure wasn’t mentioned in his 2016 sanctions letter. When she eventually granted Norris an appeal, Simons again ignored the 2013-2014 code, which requires a committee to review appeals. The Title IX coordinator reviewed her own determination instead.

“Multiple times during this process,” notifications sent to Norris wrongly cited the 2014-2015 code as applicable.

Wouldn’t show him investigation file before police interview

Norris faulted Title IX officials for making several decisions that favored Roe, including giving her “unlimited time to participate” while holding Norris to strict response times.

Investigators issued their “written evidence summary” before letting Norris review the investigation file or answer follow-up questions. Even when he reviewed it, an OIEC staffer was present and Norris wasn’t allowed to make copies.

In contrast, Roe was given the investigation file and told not to share it. She shared it with police and was not punished.

CU-Boulder only gave Norris a notice of investigation after he was interviewed by Boulder police, who gave him “incorrect details about Roe’s allegations.”

MORE: CU-Boulder pays accused student $15k, promises positive reference

Norris said this explains his “differing answers” to police and campus authorities, and Judge Babcock called this a “plausible claim that he did not receive adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard.”

The accused student “does not simply disagree” with the findings against him, as CU-Boulder claims, Babcock said: His lawsuit “sets forth a litany of grievances which he argues denied him of a fair and impartial process.”

In addition to the late notice and withholding of the investigation file, the university denied Norris a hearing and the right to cross-examine his accuser, stopped him from interviewing witnesses, hid all information about the committee that reviewed the investigative report, and let Simons conduct an “administrative review” of her own decision.

Joe Biden brought the ‘It’s On Us’ campaign to campus

Babcock also said the “public pressure” on the school to find accused men responsible for sexual misconduct could have played a role in the gender bias alleged by Norris.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights had released its “Dear Colleague” letter a few years earlier, which Norris alleges “minimized due process protections for the accused.”

OCR had also opened a Title IX investigation of CU-Boulder that was ongoing around the time of the first sexual encounter. The federal government also told schools to use a “trauma informed approach” in proceedings.

The university responded by hiring Simons, creating the new sexual misconduct code, and telling the campus it was “working hard to make the process as survivor-focused as possible.” Vice President Joe Biden delivered a speech at CU-Boulder for the White House “It’s On Us” campaign, and both Chancellor Philip DiStefano and Simons appeared in a video supporting the campaign.

The combination of all these occurrences with Norris’s claims of bias in his proceeding was enough for Babcock to let the lawsuit proceed. He cited the allegations that Simons “compared herself and the Investigators to judges sitting in a court of law,” should not have used a trauma-informed approach, and “overlooked inconsistencies of Roe’s account.”

Even if the public pressure side of the equation is not “sufficient” on its own, Norris has still plausibly alleged the university was biased against him, and thus deserves “access to discovery” to support his allegations, the judge said.

Judge allows TIX claim to move forward b/c of myriad procedural problems with Colorado’s investigation process, plus possible gender bias. Very, very interesting section on how ideological bgrd of inv’r might have tilted her to evaluate evidence unfairly.

Judge also allows due process claim to move forward: notes lack of notice/access to file & lack of an appeal. In most important due process section, this becomes the latest out-of-circuit district court to accept as persuasive the CA6 Doe v. Baum holding on x-examination.

Babcock dismissed the university’s defense of its procedures as meeting minimum requirements for “timely” notice and access to documents and “multiple opportunities to be heard throughout the investigation.”

He pointed out the university’s failure to investigate the first disputed sexual encounter with the conduct code that was in place at the time, and its repeated notices to Norris that listed the wrong code.

Simons and Hasselbecker, the investigator, were also involved in Title IX compliance and under the same public pressure to find accused men responsible as they carried out their duties.

“The University of Colorado has continuously evaluated and improved its policies to provide safety and support to those who experience sexual assault while simultaneously ensuring that everyone involved in an investigation has a genuine and meaningful opportunity to be heard,” spokesperson Parra told The Fix.

“We look forward to presenting evidence to the court showing that our employees who conduct and oversee investigations administer these processes fairly and in an unbiased manner that reflects our commitment to educational opportunity, equity, and the rule of law,” she said.

Uncategorized

Missouri Title IX overhaul gains steam, but faces uncertain future

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 26, 2019

UPDATED

Legislators voice support, but may wait for national Title IX changes to take effect

In November 2017, Holly Rehder published her #MeToo story in the St. Louis Post Dispatch.

“There’s power in telling. Whether you receive justice or not,” the Missouri state representative wrote, sharing her sexual abuse at the hands of her grandfather.

“For every person out there, young or old, what you are going through, or what you have been through, does not define you,” she urged readers. “Find your voice. Tell someone. Even if your abuser is someone you love. Their power lies in our silence.”

Alongside her experience, Rehder also supports stronger due-process protections for accused students in campus Title IX proceedings.

In a phone interview with The College Fix, the Republican opened up about why she’s cosponsoring legislation that would make significant overhauls to Title IX procedures.

She has been on multiple sides of the issue, both as a victim and as a parent. “We should never be, as Americans, accepting of removing due process – we are innocent until proven guilty,” Rehder said.

“Although I very much understand the other side of this and want people prosecuted when they have harmed someone, certainly there’s a way to do that … without removing someone else’s rights before they’ve even been convicted.”

Rehder said the mantra of believing all women is a disservice to victims such as herself. “I think it very much … diminishes what we’ve been through to just say we’re going to blanketly believe everyone.”

While the #MeToo movement has been hugely important to create new norms – to convince victims to speak up by default – it should not come at the cost of removing someone else’s rights before they’ve been convicted, she said.

This sentiment was echoed by other Republican female legislators who spoke with The Fix by phone.

“Title IX has been expanded to too many things that were not its original purpose,” Rep. Cindy O’Laughlin said. She cautioned against making universities judge and jury on this issue, stressing that a university “is not a court of law.”

O’Laughlin has four sons and worries about an environment that leads to manufactured complaints. “These cases should be turned over to the appropriate authorities,” she said.

While the House (HB 573) and Senate (SB 259) bills have backing from outspoken lawmakers such as Rehder, and the Republican Party holds majorities in both chambers and the governorship in the state, their immediate future is unclear because of parallel activity at the U.S. Department of Education.

A potential timeline for the bill could be two or three weeks before debate on the floor, but legislative leaders in the House are waiting for the release of new sexual misconduct rules from Education Secretary Betsy DeVos*, said Rep. Rebecca Roeber.

Rep. Peggy McGaugh believes the bills track with the federal government’s proposed revisions to Title IX procedures, but her supportive House colleagues may wait for the final federal regulations before proceeding with a vote.

She told The Fix she hopes other states will follow Missouri’s example if the bills become law. The sponsors of both previously expressed optimism to The Fix that they would pass.

The Department of Education’s proposed overhaul received significant public backlash in comments filed, and those sentiments are reflected by Missouri House Minority Leader Chrystal Quade.

“I am completely against” the state legislation to overhaul Title IX proceedings, the Democrat wrote in an email.

“This legislation destroys protections for sexual assault survivors, creates a terrible definition of consent that conflicts with federal law and also puts our federal financial aid in jeopardy,” Quade wrote. “We are watching it closely and will fight it every step of the way.”

One public advocacy group is citing the possible conflict between pending federal regulations and Missouri’s procedures if the legislation is signed into law.

“Our overarching concern” is that “changing the state law now runs the risk of having conflicting guidance or incompatibility between state and federal requirements,” Paul Wagner, executive director of the Council on Public Higher Education, wrote in an email to The Fix.

His organization is in dialogue with the bills’ sponsors. The General Assembly should “hold off on new legislation until the federal requirements are finalized, and then at that point the state can evaluate what it likes and doesn’t like about the federal rules the universities have to follow,” Wagner said.

It’s unclear whether the university system’s flagship campus would support or oppose the legislation. It appears to be opposed, judging by the comments of Donnell Young, assistant vice chancellor for student engagement and success.

“It could silence some students, one that was already afraid to go through the legal process anyway, but it can also stop them from going through a university process because they don’t want the double taxation of going through the process,” Young told The Columbia Tribune.

Young and Mizzou spokesman Christian Basi did not respond to multiple email inquiries about the university’s official stance on the bill.

MORE: Proposed legislation emphasizes due process

IMAGE: hollyrehder.com

*Disclosure.

Correction: The article previously misidentified an aspect of Rep. Rehder’s story. Her published story told of her abuse at the hands of her grandfather, not her father. It has been updated.