Author: saveadmin

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: Policy Needs to be Driven by Solid Facts, not Fluffy Ideology

The Violence Against Women Act is up for reauthorization this year. And like previous years, VAWA is currently caught up in a partisan cross-fire with dueling versions of the law: Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s S. 2843 and Sen. Joni Ernst’s S. 2920.

Part of the problem is that VAWA has become caught up in a broader political and ideological debate. If we want to curb domestic violence and sexual assault, we need to start with a factual understanding of the problem. These are four key facts to help resolve the current political stalemate:

1. THREE MAIN CAUSES OF PARTNER VIOLENCE

Extensive research points to three main causes of domestic violence:

  1. Substance abuse[1]
  2. Mental health problems[2]
  3. Marital separation:[3]

2. PARTNER VIOLENCE RATES HAVE FALLEN DRAMATICALLY

The federal Centers for Disease Control does an annual survey known as the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey – NISVS. In 2011, the NISVS reported 6.5% of men and 6.3% of women had been on the receiving end of partner aggression in the previous 12 months.[4]

By 2018, these numbers had dropped by about half – 3.8% of men and 2.9% of women reported being domestic violence victims in the previous year.[5]

3. NO EVIDENCE THAT VAWA HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THESE DECLINES

Persons who have examined the trend-lines conclude that VAWA-funded programs cannot take the credit for declines in partner abuse:

  • “Between 2000 and 2010, rates of domestic violence actually fell less than the drop in the overall crime rate – at a time when VAWA was pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the criminal system.” — Leigh Goodmark, University of Maryland Law School
  • “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” — Angela Moore Parmley, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice

It’s not difficult to identify the reasons for VAWA’s lack of effectiveness. The language of VAWA does not say a word about addressing the causes of intimate partner violence: substance abuse, mental health problems, or marital separation.[6]

4. MEN ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE THE VICTIMS

Take a second look at the NISVS numbers shown under Number 2. above. In 2011, domestic violence was essentially an equal opportunity problem between the sexes. Then look at the numbers from the 2018 report – a 3.8% male victimization rate versus a 2.9% female victimization rate

In short, men now are 31% more likely to be victims than women.

LIKELY EFFECTS OF CURRENT VAWA BILLS ON OVER-CRIMINALIZATION

Many persons believe that VAWA has contributed to the problem of over-criminalization in America:

  1. Overly broad definitions of domestic violence
  2. Restraining orders issued without due process
  3. Exclusive reliance on mandatory arrest and mandatory prosecution policies
  4. Limited role of diversion programs

With the key facts in mind, let’s look at the two bills being considered in the Senate from the over-criminalization perspective:

Feinstein Bill, S. 2843

Good provisions:

  • Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
  • Adds new section on alternative criminal justice response that would encourage use of restorative justice approaches (Sec. 102)
  • Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)

Bad provisions:

  • Expands the definition of domestic violence to include verbal, psychological, economic, and technological abuse. Does not provide a definition of verbal or psychological abuse.
  • Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
  • Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: The bill’s support for alternative criminal justice response is a welcome step. The most troubling aspect of S. 2843 is its expanded definitions of domestic violence. Although the language of the bill states the verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse definitions only apply to victim services, it is likely that such definitions will “bleed” into state-level definitions, especially for issuance of restraining orders.

Ernst Bill, S. 2920

Good provisions:

  • Discourages use of bench warrants for complainants who refuse to cooperate (Sec. 101)
  • Removes “pro-arrest” language (Sec. 102)
  • Recognizes value of addressing substance abuse and mental health problems (Sec. 501)
  • Defines due process rights of defendants in Indian courts (Sec. 804)

Bad provisions:

  • Expands definitions of elder abuse (Sec. 204)
  • Promotes use of “trauma-informed,” guilt-presuming investigations (Sec. 205)
  • Does not mention use of alternative justice approaches
  • Does not distinguish between a “victim” and a “complainant.”

Overall Assessment: Definitions are more constrained than S. 2843, but the bill’s other provisions do not satisfactorily address the problem of over-criminalization.

Citations:

[1] “Substance abuse has been found to co-occur in 40-60% of IPV incidents across studies.” https://www.asam.org/resources/publications/magazine/read/article/2014/10/06/intimate-partner-violence-and-co-occurring-substance-abuse-addiction

[2] Dutton MA: Intimate partner violence, PTSD, and adverse health outcomes. J of Interpersonal Violence, 2006.

[3] https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ipv9310.pdf.

[4]http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

[5] https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf

[6] SAVE: How Effective are Domestic Violence Programs in Stopping Partner Abuse? http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Why-DV-Programs-Fail-to-Stop-Abuse

Categories
Title IX

Betsy DeVos is not backing down on proposal to rein in ‘kangaroo courts’

‘If everything is harassment, then nothing is’

 

A year after the Department of Education proposed changes to regulations on campus sexual misconduct investigations – and nine months after the public comment period closed – the final regulations have yet to be released.

Opponents of due process in Title IX proceedings are still trying to weaken the proposal, scheduling meetings with the Office of Management and Budget until the week before Christmas.

If anyone was concerned that Secretary Betsy DeVos* was buckling under the pressure from the “Believe Survivors” lobby and its allies across the mainstream media, she dispelled those concerns in a speech to the Independent Women’s Forum, which gave her its “Woman of Valor” award Wednesday.

Brooklyn College Prof. KC Johnson, who chronicles Title IX litigation, pointed out that DeVos’s remarks “don’t suggest an intent to weaken” the proposed changes despite the long-delayed release of the final rules.

DeVos connected her department’s work to rein in “kangaroo courts” with her guiding principle that “government is generally not the solution to any problem,” especially in education:

So, we are working to dismantle the government social engineering in education, including the previous administration’s staggering overreach on Title IX. …

Justice demands humility, prudence, and truth. And the truth is: the so-called “guidance” by the prior administration [the “Dear Colleague” letters] failed too many students.

Here is what we know happens: a student says he or she was sexually assaulted on campus. If he or she isn’t urged to keep quiet or discouraged from reporting it to local law enforcement, the case goes to a school administrator. The accused may or may not be told of the allegations. If there is a hearing, both the accuser and the accused may or may not be allowed legal representation.

Whatever evidence is presented may or may not be shown to all parties. Whatever witnesses—if even allowed to be called—may or may not be cross-examined. And government dictated that schools must use the lowest standard of proof.

And now this campus official—who may or may not have any training in adjudicating sexual misconduct—is expected to render a judgement. A judgement that changes lives.

The department’s proposed regulation will “simply balance” the scales of justice, not tilt them, as opponents characterize it, she continued. It requires “basic due process protections” while offering schools “a menu of things schools … to help survivors heal from trauma and continue their education.”

DeVos connected Title IX overreach to the speech police on campus, which seek to “enforce ambiguous and incredibly broad definitions of assault and harassment”:

Too many cases involve students and faculty who faced investigation and punishment for only speaking their minds or teaching their classes.

Any perceived offense can become a full-blown Title IX investigation.

But if everything is harassment, then nothing is.

Punishing speech protected by the First Amendment trivializes actual harassment. Harassment codes which trample freedom of speech derail the primary mission of a school—of learning… [sic] that is, to pursue truth.

DeVos noted the University of Michigan has permanently shuttered its bias response team to settle a First Amendment lawsuit, but she expressed incredulity that the taxpayer-funded university “still employs 76 diversity-related administrators who cost taxpayers and students more than 10 million dollars in compensation every year. They focus on every kind of diversity except a diversity of ideas.”

The Trump administration stands against the “teams of speech bullies with the power to punish perpetrators of hurt feelings” at more than 200 colleges across the country, she said.

“Feelings are important, but learning isn’t about feelings. It’s about thinking. … This Administration won’t let students be silenced. We stand with their right to speak and with their right to learn truth.”

Read her full remarks.

*Disclosure

Categories
Title IX Equity Project

Public university quietly removes ‘women only’ from workout event following Title IX warning

‘After-the-fact, superficial adjustments pretending to suddenly be all inclusive’

 

Mark Perry’s side hustle of bugging universities that don’t employ him has borne fruit again.

The University of Michigan-Flint economist likes to send warning letters to Title IX and equity officials when he sees their schools offering events or programs that exclude participants based on gender. Sometimes he files federal complaints.

His most recent target, California State University-Long Beach, retroactively revised an ongoing event sponsored by its Student Recreation and Wellness Center that was advertised as “women only.”

Both Perry and The College Fix learned about the Oct. 16 “Women’s Night on the Strength Floor” from a self-identified student at CSULB last week. It was organized by the student government, the unnamed student wrote in an email:

I was unaware of this event and when I went to workout [sic] at the gym in the main area, I was denied access because I was a male. I was told that this is a time for only woman [sic] to work out and that it ends at 6PM.

He didn’t want to speak out publicly against the event, fearing “I will be targeted on campus.”

MORE: Stanford adds male-focused gym hours after women-only complaint

Perry took the ball from there. The same day he notified Larisa Hamada, assistant vice president of equity and diversity, that the center was advertising a women-only event. The original listing said “this program will continue at the same time for the rest of the semester. The floor will be closed for women only.”

In an email to Hamada copied to The Fix, Perry said the gender restriction in a university space was banned by Title IX:

I am aware of a specific male individual at your university, who wants to remain anonymous, who was preventing from using this public space during the most recent “Women’s Night on the Strength Floor,” which is a clear act of sex discrimination that violates Title IX.

He noted Stanford University offered “women-only” workout hours last year until Fix coverage prompted it to add men-only hours. That was the correct response to its “obvious and flagrant violation of Title IX’s prohibition of sex discrimination,” Perry told Hamada.

CSULB has only one option if it wants to legally continue offering a “Women’s Night,” and that is offering a “Men’s Night” for the same amount of time on the floor, he wrote. Perry warned that he would file a Title IX complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights if he did not hear back.

Perry told The Fix and the unidentified CSULB student Wednesday night that CSULB was playing the “Cover Your Ass” game, deleting an Oct. 15 tweet advertising the event. Unfortunately for the university, it was archived. Perry also took a screenshot of the original Facebook post (both below).

MORE: Schools offering women-only scholarships may violate Title IX

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CSULBgym.png

MORE: Scholarship and award opened to men after Title IX complaint

The Facebook post for the Oct. 16 event has been revised with no notice. It now advertises a “Womxn & Ally Night” that is “open to all genders” – but was not four weeks ago when it happened.

The banner on the rec center homepage for ongoing events also reflects the new purportedly inclusive wording (first image below).

A cached version of the page from early Wednesday morning (second image below) shows that this particular image from the slider did not exist, suggesting the university did not advertise the ongoing event for an indeterminate period following Perry’s complaint. Every other image in the current slider is available in the cached version.

MORE: Stanford bans men from workout space to protect women

But Perry said even these after-the-fact revisions still appear to violate Title IX:

Notice how the strength floor is NOT really open to all genders now, it’s only open to those who participate in the all-women (most likely) program. So it’s still not really open to men, because it will be unwelcoming and hostile to men, and I think CSULB knows this and they’ll be able to continue with “business as usual” (women only program) while pretending to comply with Title IX.

Regardless, CSULB’s quiet revisions show “how universities openly and brazenly engage in gender discrimination assuming nobody will call them on it,” he continued. “They just blatantly violate Title IX until they get caught and then make some after-the-fact, superficial adjustments pretending to suddenly be all inclusive of all genders so they don’t jeopardize their federal funding.”

The Fix has asked CSULB to explain what prompted it to change both ongoing and past promos for the event, and to respond to Perry’s criticism that the revised events still promote an “unwelcoming and hostile” environment for men.

MORE: Most colleges ‘facially violate’ Title IX with women-only scholarships

Categories
Campus Due Process False Allegations Violence Against Women Act

Violence Against Women Act: Eating Its Own Tail?

On April 4 the House of Representatives passed its version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization – H.R. 1585 – and forwarded the bill to the Senate for consideration. Seven months later, no Senate bill has been introduced, much less voted upon.

It’s not for a lack of trying. So what’s going on here?

Three top-tier issues are consuming much of negotiators’ time and energy:

  1. Definitions of Domestic Violence — The House bill dramatically expands the definition of domestic violence to include emotional abuse, verbal abuse, technological abuse, and financial abuse. Just imagine what would happen if every time a woman gives her husband the “silent treatment,” he calls the police?
  2. Over-Criminalization – Following passage of the First Step Act in December 2018, many, but not all Senators believe we need to rein in mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies. And instead, pay more attention to the proven causes of partner abuse: mental health problems, alcohol abuse, and marital conflict.
  3. LGBT Issues – Following passage of the Equality Act in the House of Representatives – H.R. 5 – Senate Democrats are being pressured to include similar provisions in VAWA. But Republicans are unlikely to agree to this.

As if these top-tier concerns didn’t constitute enough of a Gordian Knot, the Senate is also wrestling with a host of second-tier issues:

  1. Lack of evidence of the effectiveness of VAWA programs in reducing abuse rates
  2. Due process for the accused
  3. Harmful effects on families
  4. Immigration fraud
  5. Problem of campus “Kangaroo Courts” (VAWA Title III)
  6. Neglect of male victims – According to the CDC, men are more likely to be victims in the previous 12 months than women
  7. False allegations
  8. Waste, fraud, and abuse
  9. Onerous budgetary demands on federal and state governments
  10. Ideological biases – The dubious notion that domestic violence is “all about power and control”

At this point, the most likely scenario is a straight-line reauthorization of VAWA through the 2020 elections.

That will give lawmakers an opportunity to re-think the issues and fashion a “Fresh Start” bill that eschews “power and control” ideology, respects the Constitution, and addresses the proven causes of domestic violence.

Categories
Campus Press Release

PR: 25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

25 Worst Colleges for Campus Due Process

WASHINGTON / November 7, 2019 – Today SAVE, a leading campus due process organization, is releasing a list of the 25 worst colleges and university for campus fairness and due process. The colleges were selected based on a detailed review of dozens of lawsuits by students accused of sexual assault, and subsequently expelled or suspended by their university, in which the judge later issued a ruling at least partly favorable to the student (1).

The lawsuits feature a jarring range of due process violations such as a 7-hour hearing; judge-jury-executioner style investigations; exclusion of exculpatory evidence; public defamations; a made-up confession; failure to consider previous false allegations by the accuser; reliance on a flawed ‘affirmative consent’ standard; a fabricated tape recording; a victim treated as a perpetrator; and a case in which the supposed “victim” repeatedly insisted she was not a victim.

The lawsuits call to mind the guilt-presuming methods featured in Franz Kafka’s novel, The Trial,  the corrupt show trials exposed in Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago, and recent satires in which campus disciplinary committees are derided as “Kangaroo Courts.”

Following are the 25 colleges identified with deficient campus procedures:

  • California: University of California-Santa Barbara and University of Southern California, Los Angeles
  • Colorado: Colorado State University, Pueblo
  • Connecticut: Quinnipiac University, Hamden and Yale University, New Haven
  • District of Columbia: George Washington University, Washington, DC
  • Florida: University of Miami
  • Georgia: Georgia Tech University, Atlanta
  • Indiana: Purdue University, West Lafayette
  • Massachusetts: Brandeis University, Waltham; Amherst College; and Boston College, Newton
  • Michigan: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  • Mississippi: University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg
  • New York: Columbia University, New York
  • Ohio: University of Cincinnati
  • Oregon: University of Oregon, Eugene
  • Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University, Centre County
  • Rhode Island: Brown University, Providence
  • South Dakota: Augustana University, Sioux Falls
  • Tennessee: Rhodes College, Memphis; University of Tennessee-Knoxville
  • Texas: University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas
  • Virginia: James Madison University, Harrisonburg
  • Vermont: Middlebury College

Descriptions of each of the lawsuits, including links to the judicial opinions, are available online (2).  SAVE urges students considering attendance at these colleges to identify other institutions with a record of respect for constitutionally rooted due process measures.

The Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is expected to issue new Title IX regulations that will strengthen due process protections on college campuses (3).

Citations:

  1. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/
  2. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/restore-fairness/25-worst-colleges-for-campus-due-process/
  3. https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eoDetails?rrid=129772

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

Categories
Campus Investigations Title IX

PR: To Minimize Liability Threat, SAVE Urges Immediate Discontinuation of Trauma-Informed Investigations

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

To Minimize Liability Threat, SAVE Urges Immediate Discontinuation of Trauma-Informed Investigations

WASHINGTON / November 4, 2019 – A scientific article published last week has strongly criticized the use of “trauma-informed’ investigations on college campuses. Trauma-informed methods attribute inconsistencies and contradictions in a complainant’s statements to the trauma she allegedly experienced (1). Titled “Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing” (2), the article provides a detailed analysis of the research basis for the use of trauma-informed methods by Title IX investigators.

Written by Iowa State University professors Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles, the article concludes:

— “We know of no scientific studies that support this contention of neurobiological response differences between perpetrators and victims.”

— “A search of the available research literature yielded no published, peer-reviewed studies on the efficacy or effectiveness of FETI.” Forensic Experiential Trauma Interviews, known as “FETI,” are a trauma-informed method widely used on college campuses.

The Meissner and Lyles analysis was the third article published in recent months that analyzed and refuted trauma-informed precepts. In September, the Center for Prosecutor Integrity issued a report on trauma-informed concepts that concluded, “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.” (3)

A third article specifically warned of the liability risk of Title IX administrators attending such guilt-presuming training courses: “You will need to assess whether you can afford to have a non-empirical, biased training on your resume in this age of litigation,” according to the Association of Title IX Administrators (4).

The use of trauma-informed and other unproven investigative methods places universities at liability risk. A 2017 analysis of 130 lawsuits against universities found investigative failures were the most commonly listed allegation (5). A 2019 analysis of lawsuits in which the judge ruled against the university identified dozens of cases in which biased investigations were listed as significant allegations of fact (6).

Investigative journalist Emily Yoffee has written about trauma-informed philosophy, “The spread of an inaccurate science of trauma is an object lesson in how good intentions can overtake critical thinking, to potentially harmful effect….University professors and administrators should understand this. And they, of all people, should identify and call out junk science.” (7)

Citations:

  1. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/sa/trauma-informed/
  2. Christian A. Meissner, Adrienne M. Lyles. Title IX Investigations: The Importance of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 2019.
  3. http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx
  4. https://cdn.atixa.org/website-media/atixa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/20123741/2019-ATIXA-Trauma-Position-Statement-Final-Version.pdf
  5. https://www.proskauer.com/report/title-ix-report-the-accused-08-28-2017
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/

7. The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/

Categories
Title IX

Training for Title IX investigators lacks tested, effective techniques

Date:
October 28, 2019
Source:
Iowa State University
Summary:
Interviews are the central component of any Title IX investigation, but new research finds the techniques investigators are using may not be the most effective. Researchers evaluated the available training programs for investigators and identified techniques and suggested practices at odds with science-based interviewing strategies.

Interviews are the central component of any Title IX investigation, but new research finds the techniques investigators are using may not be the most effective.

Iowa State University researchers Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles evaluated the available training programs for investigators and identified techniques and suggested practices at odds with science-based interviewing strategies. Lyles, associate director of Equal Opportunity, senior deputy Title IX coordinator and associate teaching professor in philosophy at Iowa State, says the findings, published in the Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, are consistent with her experience.

“The training is not comprehensive. Many of the programs I attended were offered by for-profit companies and law firms,” Lyles said. “The law firms focused on how to avoid litigation and the for-profit companies were very generic and not evidence- or research-based practice.”

Lyles and Meissner, a professor of psychology, started working together to address these weaknesses and recommend a set of evidence-based practices for Title IX investigative interviews. Meissner leads an international research team developing interview methods for the FBI, CIA and other law enforcement agencies to reduce false confessions and effectively gather information. He says the techniques work in any type of investigation.

“The goal of any investigative interview, regardless of who you are interviewing, is to gather a complete and accurate recollection from a subject in a manner that will move an investigation forward,” Meissner said. “These techniques are very effective at providing people an opportunity to tell their story absent any preconceptions or biases on behalf of the investigator.”

Building rapport, trust

Title IX procedures are in place to protect students from discrimination and harassment, Lyles said, and the process and purpose are very different from the criminal justice system. There is a greater focus on education rather than punishment. To ensure due process and neutrality, she says investigators must be impartial when interviewing the complainant, respondent and witnesses. Ultimately, investigators must assess the credibility of a complaint and determine if there is a violation of Title IX policy.

Some of the training programs Lyles and Meissner examined suggest that investigators can determine the veracity of a Title IX complaint by watching the behavior of the respondent during the interview. The researchers say there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of such an approach. They also found no scientific evidence that victims and perpetrators have different neurobiological responses to the same event, as some programs claimed.

Meissner says using evidence-based techniques can help investigators build rapport and trust to elicit as much information as possible and facilitate memory recall. It is important for Title IX investigators to get a complete and detailed account during the initial interview so the individuals involved do not have to tell their story multiple times. By asking the right questions and using evidence strategically, Meissner says they can accomplish those goals.

“By asking open-ended questions, investigators avoid inserting any bias,” Meissner said. “If they have information from social media, video surveillance and witnesses, they can use that evidence strategically to assess credibility of the subject and verify the information they have collected.”

Recommendations for investigators

In the paper, Meissner and Lyles outline the following recommendations for developing evidence-based interviewing best practices for Title IX investigations:

  • Limit bias during the interview: Investigators should utilize interview approaches to limit biased or leading questions and not presume the respondent engaged in misconduct.
  • Develop rapport and facilitate cooperation: An empathic, nonjudgmental and collaborative approach can facilitate conversation and reduce reluctance to cooperate.
  • Enhance retrieval of accurate information from memory: Research has consistently shown the value of open-ended questions, followed by relevant probe questions (who, what, when, why).
  • Use strategic questions to assess credibility: Asking subjects for verifiable details and using strategic questioning approaches that facilitate memory and reporting can significantly improve assessments of credibility.

Lyles says Iowa State has developed a standard practice guide incorporating science-based investigative interviewing techniques. By sharing this information, she hopes other schools will do the same.

“We’re trying to create some standards for good investigative practice,” Lyles said. “As investigators we are neutral fact-finders. We do not advocate for any party. It is our job to be impartial and unbiased. It is important that the process not advantage or disadvantage any party.”

Story Source:

Materials provided by Iowa State University. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Categories
Investigations Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations Violence Against Women Act

VAWA Fresh Start: ‘Trauma-Informed’ Provisions in VAWA are Junk Science

The House version of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization – H.R. 1585 – features a Demonstration Program on Trauma-Informed Training for Law Enforcement. Section 206 states:

The Attorney General shall award grants on a competitive basis to eligible entities to carry out the demonstration program under this section by implementing evidence-based or promising policies and practices to incorporate trauma-informed techniques.

“Trauma-informed” theorizes that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault are so traumatized by the experience that they are unable to recall key details of the incident, and may offer contradictory accounts.

Despite its intuitive appeal, scientific research reaches a very different conclusion. According to neuroscientists Sujeeta Bhatt and Susan Brandon:[1]

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.

Now, a second article has come out that highlights the dubious science behind trauma-informed. The article is written by Iowa State University researchers Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles, who are leading an international research team to develop interview methods for the FBI and CIA to reduce false confessions. The article summary emphasizes:[2]

Some of the training programs Lyles and Meissner examined suggest that investigators can determine the veracity of a Title IX complaint by watching the behavior of the respondent during the interview. The researchers say there is no evidence to support the effectiveness of such an approach. They also found no scientific evidence that victims and perpetrators have different neurobiological responses to the same event, as some programs claimed. [emphasis added]

Rather than relying on hocus-pocus notions of “trauma-informed,” Meissner urges:

By asking open-ended questions, investigators avoid inserting any bias. If they have information from social media, video surveillance and witnesses, they can use that evidence strategically to assess credibility of the subject and verify the information they have collected.

For years, the Violence Against Women Act has been based on unproven criminal justice theories and gender ideology. So it’s no surprise there is no evidence of VAWA’s effectiveness. This time, we have a historic opportunity to take a Fresh Start. We need to assure that VAWA respects Constitutional principles, avoids bias, and is based on solid science.

Citations:

[1] http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx

[2] Training for Title IX Investigators Lacks Tested, Effective Techniques. Science News. October 28, 2019. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/10/191028093945.htm

Categories
Title IX

NAS Commends President Trump’s Executive Orders: No More Law by Dear Colleague Letter

Last week President Trump signed two Executive Orders that significantly curb our current rule by bureaucracy – now also known as the Administrative State. The National Association of Scholars commends President Trump for these orders, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents” and  “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication.”

The Orders will have implications for colleges and universities and in particular for campus Title IX offices, which have mushroomed alongside expanding governmental agencies.

Title IX refers to the 1972 federal law banning sex discrimination in schools receiving federal funds. Title IX also served as the pretext for vast administrative expansions under the Clinton and Obama administrations. The Clinton administration announced that “nondiscrimination” meant parity in funding for female and male athletics; Obama declared that sexual violence should be treated as sex discrimination. In both instances, these Presidents introduced significant policy changes by administrative fiat, sidestepping the legislature and skirting the formal rule-making process required by the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA)—ultimately avoiding democratic input and accountability.

The Obama Title IX directive was especially egregious: Through a 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, the Obama Education Department effectively ordered campus Title IX Offices to investigate and punish alleged sex offenders without due process protections for the accused. As a result, nearly 500 students denied justice are now filing lawsuits against their colleges and universities, claiming they were wrongly accused and denied their due process rights. President Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos rescinded the Letter in 2017 and is expected next month to issue new regulations, which did receive public comment and input.

President Trump’s Executive Orders take direct aim at this practice of law by Dear Colleague Letter – or law by any such informal document that skips the steps necessary for democratic legitimacy. The first Order, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Improved Agency Guidance Documents, requires that any guidance statement from a federal agency be publicly posted and accessible in an online agency database, with the clarification that it is not binding law. The second Order, “Promoting the Rule of Law Through Transparency and Fairness in Civil Administrative Enforcement and Adjudication, allows agency enforcement action only when those affected have had the opportunity to respond to such action and when the public has had prior notice of the agency’s jurisdiction and standards for legal conduct.

Much attention has been paid to judicial activism, where judges read their preferred policies into statutes or the Constitution, resulting in law by judicial fiat. But law by bureaucracy is just as pernicious and perhaps more insidious. The bureaucracy, unlike the judiciary, is often nameless and faceless.  The result in both cases is the same, of course: Depriving citizens of a government of, by, and for the people.  NAS supports measures to prevent this and thanks President Trump for this executive action.

Categories
Violence Against Women Act

The Long March to Turn Every American into a Victim of Domestic ‘Violence’

When the Violence Against Women Act was first passed in 1994, pretty much everybody agreed with the dictionary definition of violence: a “behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.” Accordingly, the original version of VAWA defined domestic violence (DV) as “felony or misdemeanor crimes of violence committed by a current or former spouse or intimate partner of the victim.”

Then the advocates went to work at the state level. Before long, terms like “fearful” and “afraid” began to pop up in statutory definitions. Some states went even further:

  • New Jersey: Any intrusion into your “well-being”
  • Illinois: “interference with personal liberty”
  • California, Delaware, Michigan, Montana, and Virginia: The mere feeling of “apprehension” of harm qualifies you as a victim of domestic abuse

But the victim advocates weren’t satisfied. So they convinced the DOJ Office of Violence Against Women to publish this sweeping definition:

A “pattern of abusive behavior in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and control over another intimate partner.  Domestic violence can be physical, sexual, emotional, economic, or psychological actions or threats of actions that influence another person. This includes any behaviors that intimidate, manipulate, humiliate, isolate, frighten, terrorize, coerce, threaten, blame, hurt, injure, or wound someone.”

This unauthorized characterization later was removed from the OVW website.

During the 2013 VAWA reauthorization, the DV advocates succeeded in expanding the law’s definition to encompass “dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking.”

But the advocates weren’t done.

During the current VAWA reauthorization, they expanded “domestic violence” even more. H.R. 1585 enumerates the following as types of domestic violence: Verbal abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, and technological abuse. “Verbal” and “emotional” abuse are not defined in the bill.

When you think about it, the possibilities are endless. Do a Google search, you’ll find information about “silence abuse.” According to the National Domestic Violence Hotline, “spiritual abuse” is reportedly “no less difficult to endure than any other kind of abuse.”

So what happens when domestic violence becomes so elastic and amorphous that every American becomes classified as a victim?

  1. A serious problem becomes trivialized — if everything is domestic violence, nothing is domestic violence.
  2. Scarce resources become diverted away from the neediest victims.
  3. All-encompassing definitions open the door to government intrusion into trivial matters and encourage false allegations.

As part of the VAWA Fresh Start, we need to consider the harmful effects of the decades-long push to expand and water-down definitions. We need to ponder whether the trend is helping or hurting the real victims of domestic violence.