Author: saveadmin

PR: 23 Cornell Law Profs Support Suspended Student in Sexual Assault Appeal

Post author By saveadmin
Post date April 3, 2018

Telephone: 301-801-0608

23 Cornell Law Profs Support Suspended Student in Sexual Assault Appeal

WASHINGTON / April 3, 2018 – Twenty-three Cornell Law School professors have requested to file an Amicus Brief in support of a student who was accused of campus sexual assault and later suspended. The Cornell statement is the fourth statement from law professors calling for the restoration of due process rights on campus.

Two Cornell students had a sexual encounter in August of 2016. The woman filed a complaint, claiming she had consumed too much alcohol to give valid consent. The university panel later recommended that the male student, “John Doe,” be suspended for two years. The student has now appealed the suspension to the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, which is the intermediary appeals court in that state.

The crux of the appeal is the right of a student to cross-examine his accuser. The male student submitted a series of questions to the university panel to be answered by the woman. But Cornell refused to forward any of the questions, thereby negating the student’s right to cross-examination.

The professors’ Statement of Interest notes, “we have an interest in ensuring that Cornell’s procedures are interpreted properly and applied fairly and faithfully. And, as is explained below, we believe that in this case, a Cornell disciplinary hearing panel failed to comply with an important procedural safeguard clearly set out in Cornell’s Title IX policy – the right of an accused student to have a disciplinary hearing panel conduct inquiry of his accuser about proper topics that he proposed.” (1)

The Cornell professors’ Motion to File Amicus Brief is the fourth public statement by law professors in support of due process in campus sexual assault cases. The other letters were filed by law professors from Harvard Law School (2), University of Pennsylvania (3), and from other universities (4).

In 86 cases, judges have ruled in favor of accused students who have filed lawsuits against their universities (5). SAVE anticipates that professors from other law schools will offer statements in support of campus due process.

Citations:

SAVE — Stop Abusive and Violent Environments — is working for effective and fair solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Campus Due Process Sexual Assault

PR: Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, Joined by Dozens of Federal and State Judges, Calls for Due Process in Campus Sex Proceedings

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 7, 2018

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg, Joined by Dozens of Federal and State Judges, Calls for Due Process in Campus Sex Proceedings

WASHINGTON / February 20, 2018 – In a recent interview for The Atlantic, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg affirmed the need for due process in campus sexual assault proceedings. In addition, Ginsburg clarified that due process protections are not incompatible with aspirations for gender equality.

Asked, “What about due process for the accused?”, Ginsburg gave this reply: “Well, that must not be ignored and it goes beyond sexual harassment. The person who is accused has a right to defend herself or himself, and we certainly should not lose sight of that. Recognizing that these are complaints that should be heard. There’s been criticism of some college codes of conduct for not giving the accused person a fair opportunity to be heard, and that’s one of the basic tenets of our system, as you know, everyone deserves a fair hearing.” [emphasis added]

When the interviewer sought clarification whether “some of those criticisms of the college codes valid?”, Ginsburg provided this unequivocal answer: “Do I think they are? Yes.”

Queried about her thoughts how to balance the values of due process against the principle of sex equality, Ginsburg explained, “It’s not one or the other. It’s both. We have a system of justice where people who are accused get due process, so it’s just applying to this field what we have applied generally.”

Ginsburg’s sentiments on this issue have been echoed in recent rulings issued by dozens of federal and state judges.

Since 2012, over 200 lawsuits by students accused of sexual assault have been filed against colleges and universities. The SAVE report, Lawsuits Against Universities for Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Misconduct Cases, documents that in a majority of cases, judges have ruled in favor of the accused students (1). To date, 79 of these lawsuits have resulted in decisions by state and federal judges against the defendant university (2).

Justice Ginsburg’s comments were published in the February 15, 2018 edition of The Atlantic (3).

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 Sexual Assault

Professors and Legal Experts Call for End to Guilt-Presuming ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 7, 2018

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Professors and Legal Experts Call for End to Guilt-Presuming ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

WASHINGTON / February 7, 2018 – Today 137 professors and legal experts are releasing an Open Letter that calls on college administrators, lawmakers, criminal justice agencies, and others to promptly end the use of so-called “victim-centered” investigations. Such investigations are fundamentally flawed because they presume the guilt of the accused. The professors come from leading colleges and universities around the country.

The letter traces the source of the “victim-centered” approach to the early 1990s when advocates began to call for “swift and unquestioning judgments about the facts of [sexual] harassment without standard evidentiary procedures with the chant ‘always believe the victim.’”

According to a Human Rights Watch report, a “victim-centered” approach means the investigator assumes “all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings.” The University of Texas School of Social Work’s Blueprint for Campus Police instructs investigators to anticipate legal defense strategies and urges that complainant inconsistencies be covered over by not recording a “detailed account of prior interview statements.” (1)

The Open Letter concludes, “By their very name, their ideology, and the methods they foster, ‘believe the victim’ concepts presume the guilt of an accused. This is the antithesis of the most rudimentary notions of justice. In directing investigators to corroborate allegations, ignore reporting inconsistencies, and undermine defenses, the ‘believe the victim’ movement threatens to subvert constitutionally-rooted due process protections.”

The use of biased victim-centered investigations on campus has given rise to numerous lawsuits by accused students alleging biased collection of evidence (2). In many cases, the judge has issued a ruling in favor of the accused student (3).

Victim-centered practices, sometimes referred to as “Start by Believing,” are becoming widespread in the criminal justice system, as well (4). In 2016 an Arizona governor’s commission issued a letter advising the state’s criminal justice agencies to reject “Start by Believing” investigative methods because their use “creates the possibility of real or perceived confirmation bias.” (5)

More information about “victim-centered” investigations is available (6). The Open Letter can be viewed online (7).

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

Lesson from the Michigan Sex Abuse Case: Campus Investigators Should Not Be Handling Felony Crimes

Post author By saveadmin
Post date February 5, 2018

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: info@saveservices.org

Lesson from the Michigan Sex Abuse Case:

Campus Investigators Should Not Be Handling Felony Crimes

WASHINGTON / February 5, 2018 – In the wake of the January 24 sentencing of Lawrence Nassar on multiple charges of sexual abuse of young gymnasts, SAVE is calling for an end to the practice of campus investigators handling felony level crimes. Such persons lack the training, expertise, and independence necessary to conduct such complex investigations.

Nassar was sentenced to 40 to 175 years in prison for sexual abuse. The seven-day hearing leading to Nassar’s sentencing brought more than 150 young women who publicly confronted him and spoke of their abuse (1).

According to an article published last week in The Atlantic, a credible allegation of sexual abuse was made to Michigan State University officials by former MSU student Amanda Thomashow in 2014 (2). She alleged that Nassar massaged her breasts and vaginal area during medical examinations to the point of sexual arousal. Such actions represent criminal activity under Michigan law.

But rather than referring the case to criminal investigators, the allegation was handled by the MSU Title IX coordinator, Kristine Moore. As part of its internal investigation, Moore sought out the opinions of four medical experts. All four had close ties to the university and Nassar.

At the conclusion of her interviews, Moore completed two reports. The first report, written for university administrators, cleared Nassar of the sexual harassment charge but concluded he was inflicting “unnecessary trauma” on his patients. The second report, provided to Thomashow, made no mention of the “unnecessary trauma” finding.

The Atlantic article concludes, “Because the 2014 investigation was conducted internally, conflict of interests may have influenced the outcome, allowing Nassar to continue his abuse for two more years.”

The MSU investigation came three years after the federal Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague Letter directing colleges to handle all allegations of sexual misconduct. Federal lawmakers have sharply criticized campus adjudications for shortchanging complainants and accused persons alike (3).

A recent Department of Education probe of MSU Title IX cases found that a “significant number of files” lacked investigative reports. In these cases, the federal probe couldn’t determine whether an investigation was completed or if MSU acted on the findings (4).

SAVE notes that investigations of alleged sexual offenses are fraught with complexities associated with the collection, analysis, and synthesis of sometimes conflicting information obtained from multiple sources. Many campus investigators only attend a weekend training course, leaving them woefully unqualified to handle such cases.

SAVE has developed a model bill, the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act, which encourages the referral of campus criminal cases to law enforcement authorities (5).

Links:

SAVE – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – is working for effective and fair solutions to campus sexual assault and harassment: www.saveservices.org

#MeToo Sexual Harassment

Women Around the World Warn of the Excesses of the #MeToo Movement

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 29, 2018

PRESS RELEASE

Email: info@saveservices.org

Women Around the World Warn of the Excesses of the #MeToo Movement

WASHINGTON / January 29, 2018 – Numerous leading women around the world – including media personalities, professors, and commentators – have spoken out against the excesses of the #MeToo movement. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) has compiled these statements for the benefit of lawmakers who may be considering legislation designed to address workplace sexual harassment (1).

These women come from all points on the political spectrum. Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet commented, for example, “My fairness concerns with the #MeToo phenomenon include the ready acceptance in many cases of anonymous complaints, and of claims made by women over conflicting claims by men, to terminate careers without any investigation of the facts.” (2)

Following are a few of the many statements critical of #MeToo:

Julia Hartley-Brewer: The #MeToo “hashtag claims to be about empowering women to speak out when actually it is turning women into perpetual victims.”
Wendy Kaminer: “#MeToo is the unthinking woman’s anti-harassment crusade.”
Faith Moore: #MeToo “is a betrayal of the women who’ve actually been raped or assaulted.”

Women from other countries have expressed their concerns in even stronger terms. These are a few examples:

Rita Panahi, Australia: “My greatest concern is that the #MeToo phenomenon creates a toxic narrative that casts every male as a potential predator and every female as a perpetual victim.”
Margaret Atwood, Canada: “In times of extremes, extremists win. Their ideology becomes a religion, anyone who doesn’t puppet their views is seen as an apostate, a heretic or a traitor, and moderates in the middle are annihilated.”
Nathalie Rothschild, Sweden: The #MeToo is “normalizing the kind of mob behavior that is the most negative aspect of internet culture, and how it is eroding the presumption of innocence.”

SAVE emphasizes that victims of sexual misconduct should feel free to speak out, they should be treated respectfully, and their claims should be investigated objectively and thoroughly (3). But #MeToo should not be allowed to turn into a modern-day vigilante movement that ignores due process and eradicates the presumption of innocence.

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

Junk Science Behind Trauma-Informed Theories

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 3, 2018

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Trauma-informed behavioral theories of sexual assault originated with anecdotal reports of how victims of forcible rape responded to their experiences. The concept of “rape trauma syndrome” (RTS) stemmed from a 1974 survey of 92 forcible rape victims’ self-reported symptoms.[1] Authors of the survey classified the symptoms into two stages: “fear or terror,” followed by efforts to “reorganize” their lives.[2]

The 1974 survey has been the focus of sharp criticism, highlighting “definitional problems, biased research samples,” and unreliability because “the inherent complexity of the phenomenon vitiate all attempts to establish empirically the causal relationship implicit in the concept of a rape trauma syndrome.”[3] The survey’s credibility is also compromised by its “failure to distinguish between victims of rapes, attempted rapes, and molestation.”[4] One legal expert concluded rape trauma syndrome is not “generally accepted by experts.”[5] Another found it “troubling” that theories of traumatic memory “continue to thrive as tenacious cultural memes” despite “very minimal” scientific support.[6]

But these criticisms have not deterred the accretion of even more symptoms putatively encompassed by “rape trauma syndrome,” creating a veritable chicken soup of quasi-diagnoses like “tonic immobility,” “fragmentation of memories,”[7] and “factual inconsistencies.”[8] One author predicted, “[i]f virtually any victim behavior is described as consistent with RTS, the term soon will have little meaning.”[9]

Despite research concluding that extreme stress may actually enhance the subsequent recall of stressful incidents,^[10] rape trauma theories have spawned an industry to teach investigators “trauma-informed” approaches. Rebecca Campbell, PhD, long-time victims’ advocate and psychology professor at Michigan State University, has popularized the “trauma-informed” approach through numerous publications^[11] and presentations to professional audiences across the country.

Campus investigators stand at the epicenter of trauma-informed concepts. Guidance from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights directed Title IX training to include “the effects of trauma, including neurobiological change”[12] — a phrase pregnant with hidden meaning. Although this guidance has been rescinded, many college Title IX programs continue to follow its admonitions.

The illusory evidence for trauma-informed theory is found in various training regimes, including a program on trauma-informed sexual assault investigation offered by the National Center for Campus Public Safety (NCCPS).[13] NCCPS’s Why Campuses Should Conduct Trauma-Informed Sexual Assault Investigations webinar repeats the same unsupported “trauma-informed” theories on memory fragmentation, and suggests it is normal for “victims” to engage in counterintuitive victim behavior such as communicating and “consensual sexual or social activities” with the alleged perpetrator.[14]

Journalist Emily Yoffe has characterized trauma-informed approaches as emblematic of “junk science:”

The result is not only a system in which some men are wrongly accused and wrongly punished. It is a system vulnerable to substantial backlash. University professors and administrators should understand this. And they, of all people, should identify and call out junk science.[15]

Harvard law professor Janet Halley has ridiculed the trauma-informed training employed by her university, noting the materials provide a “sixth grade level summary of selected neurobiological research” and are “100% aimed to convince them to believe complainants, precisely when they seem unreliable and incoherent.”^[16]

In sum, under the umbrella of “trauma-informed” theories, victims’ advocates not only recommend disregarding complainants’ inconsistencies or behavioral anomalies; they also insist such inconsistencies should be viewed as probative evidence of trauma. Illogically, this interpretation precludes consideration of a complainant’s incongruous statements or inconsistent behavior as evidence, resulting in an irrefutable argument that the victim’s fragmented or lost memories are certain evidence of trauma, with the implication that therefore the allegations are true.

[1] Ann Wolbert Burgess & Lynda Lytle Holmstrom, Rape Trauma Syndrome, 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 98 (1974).

[2] Julian D. Ford, Christine A. Courtois, Rape Trauma Syndrome, Prevention of PTSD, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (2015) http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rape-trauma-syndrome

[3] Giannelli, Paul C., Rape Trauma Syndrome, Faculty Publications, Paper 346, p. 271 (1997). http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/346

[4] Robert R. Lawrence, Checking the Allure of Increased Conviction Rates: The Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Rape Trauma Syndrome in Criminal Proceedings, 70 Va. L. Rev. 1657, 1678-1680 (1984)

[5] William O’Donohue, Gwendolyn C. Carlson, Lorraine T. Benuto & Natalie M. Bennett, Examining the Scientific Validity of Rape Trauma Syndrome, University of Nevada, Reno, Psychiatry, 21 Psych. & Law, Issue 6, 858-876, 860 (2014).

[6] Robert A. Nash and James Ost, ed., Concluding Remarks; Malleable knowledge about malleable memories, False and Distorted Memories, p. 159, Psychology Press (2016).

[7] Stephen Porter and Angela R. Birt, Is Traumatic Memory Special? Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 15 S101-S117, S101 (2001).

[8] Joanne Archambault (Ret.), Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims, p. 25 (2016) https://www.evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=842.

[9] Frazier and Borgida, Rape Trauma Syndrome: A Review of Case Law and Psychological Research, 16 Law & Hum. Behav. 293, 304-305 (1992).

[10] Richard McNally, Pres. and Fellows Harvard Col., Remembering Trauma, Harvard University Press, p. 180 (2005).

[11] See, for example, Campbell, R., Shaw, J., & Fehler-Cabral, G., Evaluation of a victim-centered, trauma-informed victim notification protocol for untested sexual assault kits (SAKs), Violence Against Women (April 24, 2017).

[12] Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence, p. 40 (2014), withdrawn by 2017 Dear Colleague Letter, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf; see archived 2014 Questions and Answers, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf

[13] National Center for Campus Public Safety, Not Alone Report, https://www.nccpsafety.org/resources/library/not-alone-report/.

[14] Jeffrey J. Nolan, J.D., Why Campuses Should Conduct Trauma-Informed Sexual Assault Investigations (webinar) Trauma-Informed Sexual Assault Investigation and Adjudication Institute, Slides 23, 24 (2016). https://www.nccpsafety.org/training-technical-assistance/webinars/why-campuses-should-conduct-trauma-informed-sexual-assault-investigations#embeds

[15] Emily Yoffe, The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault, The Atlantic, (Sept. 8, 2017) https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/

[16] Janet Halley, Trading the Megaphone for the Gavel in Title IX Enforcement, Harvard Law Review 128 Harv. L. Rev. F. 103 (Feb. 18, 2015) https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/

Campus Title IX Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: SAVE Calls for Major Reforms to Campus ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 1, 2018

Contact: Nasheia Conway

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: nconway@saveservices.org

Following USC ‘motherf—er’ Case, SAVE Calls for Major Reforms to Campus ‘Victim-Centered’ Investigations

WASHINGTON / January 12, 2018 – Superior Court Judge Elizabeth White recently issued a ruling regarding a sexual assault case in which she concluded the university’s investigative procedures lacked fairness and impartiality. Based on this case and similar ones at other universities, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is now calling on college administrators to end the practice of using guilt-presuming “victim-centered” investigations.

University of Southern California investigator Patrick Noonan submitted an investigative report that omitted more than 150 pages of communications between the parties. The investigator failed to interview the man’s roommate, despite the accused student’s request. Noonan also organized the numerous text messages in non-chronological order, rendering their meaning difficult to decipher.

Following a subsequent teleconference between the university officials and the accused student and his advisor, neither party hung up the line. Thereupon Noonan and the USC Title IX coordinator chatted between themselves, referring to the male student as a “motherfucker” and commenting that the accuser was “so cute and intelligent.”

The expelled student filed a lawsuit against the university. Not surprisingly, the judge concluded the accused student was a victim of a process that was not “fair, thorough, reliabl[y] neutral, and impartial.” http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/40537/

This week SAVE is releasing a new Special Report, “’Believe the Victim:’ The Transformation of Justice.” The report traces the evolution of the “victim-centered” movement over the past decade and documents its incompatibility with recognized investigative methods that are premised on objectivity, neutrality, and fairness. http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/SAVE-Believe-the-Victim.pdf

The report concludes, “Victim advocates’ efforts to assure serious consideration and respectful treatment for complainants are commendable. But demanding that investigators and adjudicators reflexively “believe the victim” places a priority on subjective feelings over objective evidence.”

A previous SAVE report documented how victim-centered investigations represent a liability risk for colleges and universities: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Victim-Centered-Investigations-and-Liability-Risk.pdf

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

Domestic Violence Violence Against Women Act

PR: Report: DV Programs May be Shortchanging Women

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 13, 2017

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Nasheia Conway

Email: nconway@saveservices.org

Report: “Domestic Violence Programs May Be Shortchanging Women”

WASHINGTON / December 13, 2017 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is today issuing a report that documents the ineffectiveness and unresponsiveness of the nation’s domestic violence programs, and reveals some of these policies may be harmful to women. SAVE calls upon Congressional lawmakers to assure that qualified persons are selected to draft the upcoming reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.

Current domestic violence laws were crafted by advocates who ascribe to the “power and control” model of domestic violence. The “patriarchal control” concept is inconsistent with research findings that women are often the initiators of partner violence (1), and cannot explain why rates of violence are higher among lesbian than heterosexual couples (2).

The power and control orientation has led to rigid domestic violence laws that foster mandatory arrest and no-drop prosecution policies, which are seen as unresponsive to the wishes and needs of women.

The report identifies 10 ways in which the nation’s domestic violence laws are shortchanging women:

No proof of effectiveness
Rigid arrest and prosecution policies place victims at risk
Mandatory prosecution ignores women’s wishes
Women lulled into a false sense of security
Aggressive criminal justice measures ensnare women
Heavy caseloads make it harder for victims to get help
Female abusers can’t get needed help
Shelters lack a therapeutic focus
Children removed from homes
Family dissolution

The report is supported by over 50 citations of scientific research studies, government surveys, and expert reports, and is available online (3).

Citations:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, Atlanta, Georgia. Tables 4.7 and 4.8. http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
NISVS, 2010 Findings on Victimization by Sexual Orientation, Tables 6 and 7. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_sofindings.pdf
http://www.saveservices.org/reports/

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

Accusing U. Campus

PR: SAVE Calls for an End to ‘Kangaroo Courts’

Post author By saveadmin
Post date December 4, 2017

Contact: Chris Perry

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: cperry@saveservices.org

With Growing Bipartisan Support for Campus Due Process, SAVE Calls for an End to ‘Kangaroo Courts’

WASHINGTON / December 4, 2017 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) is calling for the restoration of fairness and due process in campus sexual assault cases. SAVE is issuing this appeal in light of the resurgent bipartisan support for fair and equitable treatment of all students.

This recent bipartisan support includes California Governor Brown’s October 15, 2017 veto of a bill that would have codified the denial of key due process rights for accused students, such as the right to cross-examination and a presumption of innocence. In his veto message, Governor Brown highlighted the fact that accused students, “guilty or not, must be treated fairly and with the presumption of innocence until the facts speak otherwise.” (1)

On October 26, the House of Representatives Roundtable on Campus Sexual Assault convened a hearing during which Task Force members argued that fundamental fairness was essential (2):

Rep. Ann McLane Kuster (D-NH): “Too often conversations about these proceedings break down into two camps: those in support for the rights of the accused, and those who support protections for survivors of sexual assault. These are not mutually exclusive.”
Rep. Patrick Meehan (R-PA): We appreciate the “very delicate balance that exists in which all students have an expectation of the right to due process.”

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the PROSPER Act, a bill to reauthorize the Higher Education Act. The bill would guarantee several fundamental due process rights, including adequate written notice, a meaningful opportunity to admit or contest allegations, access to material evidence, and a prohibition on institutional conflicts of interest (3).

In light of these developments, SAVE urges state lawmakers to consider passage of the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA) (4), which contains many due process provisions similar to those in the PROSPER Act.

Presaging the rescission of the Department of Education’s 2011 policy on campus sexual violence, Secretary Betsy DeVos declared on September 7, “Through intimidation and coercion, the failed system has clearly pushed schools to overreach…It’s no wonder so many call these proceedings ‘kangaroo courts.’” (5)

Citations:

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

Campus Sexual Assault

PR: To Reduce Lawsuit Risk, Administrators Need to Implement New OCR Sexual Assault Guidelines

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 11, 2017

Contact: Chris Perry

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: cperry@saveservices.org

To Reduce Lawsuit Risk, Administrators Need to Implement New OCR Sexual Assault Guidelines

WASHINGTON / October 11, 2017 – Since the issuance of the federal Dear Colleague Letter in 2011, nearly 200 lawsuits have been filed by accused students alleging lack of due process. (1) Implementation of the Department of Education’s September 2017 Q & A on Campus Sexual Misconduct, which urges colleges to utilize equitable procedures to resolve allegations, are likely to reduce schools’ liability risk. (2)

These provisions from the 2017 Q&A are particularly relevant to lawsuit prevention:

“A school must adopt and publish grievance procedures that provide for ‘equitable’ resolution of complaints of sex discrimination, including sexual misconduct.” (Page 3)
The parties must have “meaningful access to evidence,” and the parties should have the “opportunity to respond” to investigation reports in writing or at a live hearing. (Page 5)
Schools should “avoid conflicts of interest and biases in the adjudicatory process.” (Page 5)

In addition, the new federal guidance notes, “If all parties voluntarily agree… the school may facilitate an informal resolution, including mediation, to assist the parties in reaching a voluntary resolution.” (Page 4). Voluntary resolutions can provide both parties with a satisfactory outcome and no reason to pursue future legal action.

In recent years, Courts have issued strongly worded rulings in favor of accused students. (3) Schools that fail to afford “equitable” procedures are exposing themselves to significant financial risk. In one case, the school paid a $245K settlement for the university’s ‘unfair and biased’ rape investigation. (4)

If schools are transparent with their procedures and offer true procedural safeguards to students, as laid out by the latest OCR guidance, the potential for successful civil lawsuits against the school will be diminished. SAVE recommends that administrators review their campus policies to ensure consistency with OCR’s new guidance, thus protecting all students and limiting their school’s liability.

Additional information can be found in SAVE’s Special Reports titled, “Victim-Centered Investigations: New Liability Risk for Colleges and Universities” (5) and “Lawsuits Against Universities for Alleged Mishandling of Sexual Misconduct Cases.” (6)

(1) https://titleixforall.knack.com/databases#due-process-lawsuits3/due-process-lawsuits/

(2) https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-title-ix-201709.pdf

(3)https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1CsFhy86oxh26SgTkTq9GV_BBrv5NAA5z9cv178Fjk3o/edit#gid=0

(4) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/17/montana-quarterback-receives-245k-settlement-for-universitys-unfair-and-biased-rape-investigation/?utm_term=.8eb6ead1d385

(5) http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Victim-Centered-Investigations-and-Liability-Risk.pdf

(6) http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Sexual-Misconduct-Lawsuits-Report2.pdf