Categories
Title IX

New Title IX regulations are coming. FIRE’s newest report shows why reform is desperately needed.

December 11, 2019

REPORT: 7 in 10 top universities do not expressly guarantee the presumption of innocence in campus sexual misconduct proceedings.
ZERO surveyed institutions guarantee all basic due process protections, or even those required under the Department of Education’s proposed Title IX regulations.
Almost 9 in 10 universities earned a D or an F for sexual misconduct policies; proposed regulations would raise grades to C or better.
PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 11, 2019 — Innocent until proven guilty? Not on college campuses.

Top universities fail to provide students accused of campus misconduct with fair procedures, according to a new report from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

With new Department of Education regulations on Title IX enforcement expected soon, FIRE’s report shows that colleges currently fail to provide students with even the most basic due process protections. This means that many colleges’ policies may have to be revised significantly after the regulations go into effect.

“Would you feel comfortable defending yourself without information about what you supposedly did wrong? Would you trust a jury that didn’t get a chance to see all the evidence? You shouldn’t — but college students across the country routinely face these troubling circumstances,” said FIRE’s Susan Kruth, lead author of the report. “Disciplinary procedures at top universities aren’t fundamentally fair because they don’t guarantee even the most basic safeguards against incorrect conclusions.”

“Spotlight on Due Process 2019–2020” examines policies at 53 top national universities to see how many of 10 fundamental procedural safeguards they guarantee students. These include basic protections familiar to all Americans, such as the presumption of innocence, the right to impartial fact-finders, and the right to appeal. Of the 53 universities studied, 49 receive an overall D or F grade for guaranteeing no more than 4 of those 10 safeguards.

Most institutions maintain one set of policies for charges of sexual misconduct and another for all other non-academic misconduct, such as theft or physical assault. Notably, of the 22 institutions that received an F grade for their sexual misconduct policies, 17 have been sued by accused students over the lack of fair procedure.

Less than 30% of top universities expressly guarantee the presumption of innocence in all serious non-academic misconduct cases, and less than 60% explicitly require that fact-finders — the institution’s version of a jury — be impartial. Only 28% guarantee a meaningful hearing, where each party may see and hear the evidence being presented to fact-finders by the opposing party, before a finding of responsibility.

Although universities do not guarantee their students fair disciplinary procedures, it’s clear that students overwhelmingly want them to. Each element in FIRE’s report is supported by a majority of college students surveyed by YouGov for FIRE in 2018 about their views on campus due process protections:

85% of students think their accused classmates should be presumed innocent until proven guilty, but only 28% of America’s top universities explicitly guarantee students that protection.
Although three-quarters of students support cross-examination, only 1 in 10 institutions guarantees students or their representatives a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
This landscape may shift if the proposed Department of Education regulations on Title IX — the 1972 law that prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational programs — are enacted. Today, 87% of institutions receive a D or F grade for their failure to protect the due process rights of students accused of sexual misconduct. Enacting only the proposed regulations would raise surveyed universities’ grades to a C or better.

“All over the country, students accused of misconduct on campus routinely face life-altering consequences without any of the procedural protections one would expect in such serious cases,” said Samantha Harris, FIRE vice president for procedural advocacy. “It looks like the Department of Education’s new regulations will ensure greater due process for students involved in certain types of cases, but universities should already be providing these important protections in all cases of serious non-academic misconduct.”

“Spotlight on Due Process 2019–2020” can be read in full on FIRE’s website. For more information about FIRE’s student survey, see “Proceeding Accordingly: What Students Think about Due Process on Campus.”

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of students and faculty members at America’s colleges and universities. These rights include freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience — the essential qualities of liberty.

CONTACT:

Daniel Burnett, Assistant Director of Communications, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.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

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
Title IX

School rewrites apparent female-only scholarship advertisement after College Fix inquiry

It was purportedly an ‘editorial error’
A majority-women private college recently advertised a new scholarship as being only available to females before claiming that the single-sex designation was a mistake. When pressed, the school would not explain how the mistake was made and whether or not it was wrongly advertised elsewhere.
Ursuline College, a Roman Catholic school located in Ohio, boasts that more than 90 percent of its undergraduate students are female. It offers a variety of scholarships to undergraduate students. The school advertised what appears to be its newest scholarship, Say Amen to College, on Sept. 19 on its website.
The original press release, a screenshot of which The College Fix archived, stipulated that it would be awarded to “female graduates of five Greater Cleveland Catholic high schools.” Recipients receive full tuition for the college’s 2020-2021 school year. The scholarship is renewable for up to three years.
The College Fix reached out to the college to inquire about the legality of the scholarship, asking if the school had any concerns that it violated federal Title IX regulations, which prohibit sex discrimination. A recent study found that a majority of American colleges and universities “facially violate” federal law by offering female-only aid.
Campus spokeswoman Ann McGuire responded by stating that The College Fix had “uncovered an editorial error on my part.”
“Ursuline College’s Say Amen scholarships are indeed available to students from the five high schools listed, who meet the requirements, regardless of gender,” she said. McGuire told The Fix that she had edited the press release to reflect this.
“Ursuline prohibits harassment and discrimination on the basis of certain characteristics, including sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, or any other basis prohibited by federal, state, or local laws,” McGuire continued, adding: “Ursuline is a women focused college, meaning we accept men but, for our undergraduate program, we direct our marketing efforts at women. We do not have special outreach programs for male students but we do market our graduate programs to both women and men.”
Pressed further on why she had initially believed “Say Amen to College” was a female-only scholarship, as well as whether or not the scholarship was advertised as female-only anywhere else, McGuire replied: “Alas, it was my mistake in the news release. All corrected now.”
McGuire did not respond to multiple follow-up emails concerning the scholarship. Deborah Kamat, the school’s Title IX coordinator, eventually responded via email: “As noted, your question has been asked and answered. The College has no further response to provide to you at this time.”
McGuire had also dodged Fix inquiries regarding another Ursuline scholarship that looks to be reserved for females, the “Alumnae Scholarship.” The grant, providing up to $1000 in financial aid, stipulates in its description that the recipient “must be the child or niece of an Ursuline College or St. Johns College alumnae.” The word “alumnae” is the plural of “alumna,” meaning a female graduate.
The Fix‘s report on the recent study of purported Title IX violations involving female-only scholarships found far more gender-specific scholarships are reserved for women than men. For instance, of the 36 states reviewed in that report, Arizona had 161 female-only scholarships, while only three were reserved for men; California had 117 women-only grants, and four for men; and Florida had 112 female-only scholarships and seven male-only ones.
In total, only 16 percent of the schools studied were considered “non-discriminatory.”
Categories
Title IX

More Title IX Lawsuits by Accusers and Accused

Istockphoto.com/LIgorko

Universities and colleges are increasingly experiencing legal challenges to their institutions’ Title IX enforcement processes, a trend that higher education law experts say is a natural reaction to proceedings that declare “winners” and “losers.”

The societal pressures from the Me Too movement and repercussions from the Obama administration’s 2011 guidance for how colleges should adjudicate sex assault cases have led to more civil complaints from both alleged victims and accused perpetrators of sexual misconduct who feel they were treated unfairly during Title IX hearing processes. Legal challenges in federal courts exploded following the guidance, which called on universities and colleges to vigorously root out campus sexual assault and harassment with a preponderance of evidence standard, leaving officials to determine if “it is more likely than not that sexual harassment or violence occurred.”

More than one-fourth of 305 Title IX claims analyzed in a 2015 study by United Educators (UE) were challenged by students who either filed lawsuits in the federal courts or lodged complaints through the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR). There’s a consensus among higher education and legal experts that students are increasingly claiming flawed hearings or unfair disciplinary sanctions as a result of procedural failings at their universities, said Jake Sapp, Title IX coordinator and institutional compliance officer at Austin College in Sherman, Tex.

UE, one of the largest insurance providers for postsecondary institutions, also reported that sexual assault was the top liability for colleges and universities in 2018. Payouts resulting from Title IX procedural challenges, which went primarily to victims of sexual assault, surpassed the legal costs of large risks such as wrongful death or negligence and wrongful termination, according to the report.

“Across the board, you have to think that it’s in the back of every administrator’s mind,” Sapp said. “It would be negligent to not be thinking, ‘Am I following the law?’ Especially in such a gray area … If they’re not thinking about lawsuits, they ought to be.”

Civil Claims

Accused students in particular are more frequently turning to federal courts to claim due process violations during Title IX proceedings at public institutions, Sapp said. He noted that while students at publicly funded universities have due process rights in Title IX proceedings and can sue the institutions for violations, students at private institutions don’t have much chance of success at making such claims.

Other accused students have filed suit because of an “erroneous outcome” in their hearing because a disciplinary panel was allegedly biased against them. The students sometimes cite the Obama-era guidance itself, or societal pressures from the Me Too movement as the bases of the bias. Some students file what Laura Dunn, a renowned attorney for campus sexual assault survivors, called a “reverse Title IX” gender-discrimination claim, where male students will argue their university’s process is biased against men. Nearly all accused students in the 2015 UE report were male.

Language in Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s proposed Title IX rule changes, which were published in November 2018 and are awaiting release, would allow for more of these types of civil lawsuits brought by accused students, said B. Ever Hanna, policy director for End Rape on Campus, an advocacy organization for survivors of sexual violence.

The proposed regulations say that Title IX administrators’ “treatment of both complainant and respondent could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex” and “a respondent can be unjustifiably separated from his or her education on the basis of sex, in violation of Title IX, if the recipient does not investigate and adjudicate using fair procedures before imposing discipline.”

Josh Richards, an attorney who represents colleges and universities in Title IX matters, said legal challenges are inevitable in such emotionally fraught proceedings.

“When you make a campus responsible for adjudicating a dispute between two students, you set up a system where there’s a winner and loser … the loser seeks to vindicate the rights that they feel the school did not vindicate in court,” he said.

In the wake of the shifting Title IX rhetoric of the Trump administration, which rescinded the Obama-era guidance in 2017, more students are aware of Title IX and the ways it can be enforced, said Michael Dolce, a Florida-based attorney who represents victims of sex crimes. With more accused students looking to turn to the courts, there’s also been increased demand for attorneys to defend them, Dolce said.

“A lot of criminal defense lawyers are specifically advertising that they represent the accused in Title IX cases,” he said. “Pick any university in the country and go five miles from there, and you will find lawyers who advertise defending the accused. That wasn’t the case 10 years ago.”

Settling complaints from alleged victims in court cost colleges and universities an average of $350,000 in the years following the Obama guidance, and some settlements reached $1 million, UE reported in an analysis of Title IX claims from 2011 to 2015 at 1,600 institutions. This does not include legal defense expenses, which can cost colleges and universities millions before settlements are even reached, according to UE’s 2015 report.

Claims settled with a student accused of sexual misconduct cost universities less in damages on average — around $20,000 to $30,000, Dunn said. These settlements typically cover the accused student’s losses in tuition and housing from periods when they were suspended or expelled from the institution, whereas a sexual assault victim could claim more monetary relief for the loss of educational access and post-traumatic stress, she said.

The high cost of addressing sexual misconduct on campus has become a lose-lose situation for universities and can even possibly put some institutions out of business, said Peter Lake, director of Stetson University’s Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy.

“If you don’t deal with sexual violence, you’re going to get sued. If you deal with sexual violence, you’re going to be sued,” Lake said.

Richards said most of these lawsuits are dismissed by federal judges early on in the process if a judge concludes that the university did follow Title IX procedures under its own written rules and Department of Education regulations, and they very rarely proceed to trial.

Some lawsuits challenging Title IX procedure result in a “redo” of the hearing process led by the university if a judge finds that there was gender discrimination against either student, Dunn said.

But fewer cases brought by the accused are being dismissed due to the “judicial activism” of some judges, Lake said.

“Federal courts are being very activist now in asserting themselves as the courts of appeal over the college court — whether they want to admit it or not,” he said.

Undisclosed Settlements

A consequence of this new legal landscape is that universities are settling civil lawsuits filed by students accused of sexual harassment. The settlements are not typically publicized. The identities of students involved in Title IX proceedings are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The federal law, commonly known as FERPA, also prevents students’ disciplinary records from being shared without their consent, but Title IX requires that the victims of sexual violence and harassment are made aware of sanctions against the perpetrators.

One lawsuit filed against Yale University by a student accused of sexual misconduct was dismissed by a judge in the U.S. District Court of Connecticut on April 25, 2018, after the two sides reached an undisclosed agreement. The student, who was identified in news reports as Daniel Tenreiro-Braschi, was suspended for two semesters after being accused of sexual assault. Yale’s University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct determined he groped two female students in 2016 and was “creating a hostile academic environment,” according to the 53-page complaint.

Tenreiro-Braschi claimed an unfair hearing and bias on the part of the committee. He maintained that members of the committee had professional connections to the accusers’ parents, who were Yale faculty and notable alumni. His suit also claimed the independent fact finder assigned to his case included “unrelated hearsay and derogatory character statements” in her investigation and that the two accusers had listened to each other’s testimony and coordinated responses to the committees’ questions.

Tenreiro-Braschi, a junior at the time, demanded to be “reinstated as a student in good standing and permitted to begin classes during the spring 2018 semester … [and his] disciplinary record be expunged; the record of expulsion be removed from his education file; and any record of the complaint be permanently destroyed,” the complaint states.

Tenreiro-Braschi was listed in the Yale College 2019 graduation ceremony program, the New Haven Register reported.

“Yale doesn’t comment on or acknowledge the existence of sexual misconduct cases,” wrote Yale director of media relations Karen Peart in an email. “All decisions regarding discipline are based on the facts known at the time.”

While the terms of any settlement Tenreiro-Braschi may have reached with Yale are unknown, lawsuits that end in private settlements do occur, Hanna said. And despite guilt or innocence, an accused student could be reinstated at the university without the knowledge of their accuser, Hanna said.

“When there are settlements, the hoarding and sealing of that information makes it hard for victims,” Hanna said. “The community can’t be informed about what happened. Anecdotally, we’ve heard from people who are survivors [that] the person who harmed them does go through this process and is permitted to come back on campus and permitted to graduate, and the survivor doesn’t even know about it.”

The Title IX procedures in place on campuses that attempt to provide victims an alternative to the often slow-moving and strenuous criminal justice system are leading to an even more strenuous process for all parties involved in the federal courts, Lake said.

“The pressure now is to avoid getting in situations where [institutions] go before the court,” Lake said. “If colleges get into too many situations where they have to litigate, they’ll go out of business.”

Some institutions offer “alternative” or “early” resolution models for victims of harassment, which could entail the accused student and accuser mediating the issues or incident that caused the Title IX complaint, Sapp said. These are informal procedures for violations that fall short of sexual violence and could provide a “learning experience” rather than sanctions for the accused, he said. There is a consensus that resolution models should not be used in cases of sexual assault, Hanna said.

In some cases, restorative justice works with certain students, Dolce said.

“It could be immaturity or bad cultural upbringing that leads to harassment,” he said. “There’s a world of difference between that and the ability to lay hands on somebody.”

RAINN’s position is that “restorative justice” options are an easy out for universities and allow perpetrators to avoid actual consequences for their actions, said Camille Cooper, vice president of public policy for RAINN, the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network and sexual assault hotline. End Rape on Campus argues that the process can work for students who were harassed but not assaulted, Hanna said. Both organizations agree that universities should tread carefully when offering alternative resolution methods so as not to coerce victims to accept a process they are not comfortable with, or that could retraumatize them.

“Resolutions are one thing that can work,” Hanna said. “They don’t always, and we have seen and heard many times about survivors feeling pushed into mediation or resolution. We’ve heard stories of Title IX coordinators or advocates saying, ‘This is going to be the only way to get what you want.’”

These methods provide a way for colleges and universities to avoid civil litigation challenging Title IX proceedings and could end up being positive for all parties, Richards said.

“Many schools are setting up these models … because they’ve had the time to see how these adversarial models play out,” he said. “They’re agreed upon by the parties and don’t result in these sorts of winners and losers scenarios.”

Categories
Discrimination Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Federal Office for Civil Rights Launches Investigations of Title IX Discrimination Complaints by Male Students

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Federal Office for Civil Rights Launches Investigations of Title IX Discrimination Complaints by Male Students

WASHINGTON / July 9, 2019 – Following hundreds of lawsuits by male students alleging disparate and unfair treatment by institutions of higher education (1), the federal Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has begun to open investigations into some of these cases. The OCR is known to be conducting 24 investigations at universities in the following states: CA, CO, CT, FL, GA, IL, IN, MA, MI, NC, NJ, RI, SC, TN TX, and WI. The cases have been opened by the OCR Regional Offices located in Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, District of Columbia, New York, and San Francisco (2).

The most common complaint involves allegations of denial of benefits. One of these investigations is targeting the University of Michigan, which sponsors 11 scholarships, support groups, and medical treatment programs that exclude male students, in direct violation of Title IX sex-discrimination mandates (3).

A smaller number of complaints involves due process infractions. Two weeks ago, for example, it was announced that the OCR opened an investigation against Northwestern University for failing to provide due process protections for two men accused of sexual misconduct. One student accused the university of engaging in the sex-biased practice of “believe the victim.” (4)

The OCR already has closed investigations that found in favor of male students at Wesley College, Delaware, and Tulane University. In August 2018, OCR opened an investigation of Tulane’s six scholarships reserved for women. Four months later, Tulane entered into a resolution agreement with the OCR, agreeing to ensure that financial assistance is fairly distributed to both male and female students (5).

A recent analysis of scholarships at 115 of the nation’s largest universities revealed widespread discriminatory policies. Among 1,161 sex-specific scholarships, 91.6% were reserved for female students, with only 8.4% designated for male students (6).

Title IX is the federal law designed to prevent sex-based discrimination in educational institutions that received federal financial assistance. Information on how to file an OCR complaint is available on the SAVE website (7).

Citations:

  1. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/e/2PACX-1vQNJ5mtRNzFHhValDrCcSBkafZEDuvF5z9qmYneXCi0UD2NUaffHsd5g4zlmnIhP3MINYpURNfVwSZK/pubhtml#
  2. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/ocr-investigations/
  3. https://www.aei.org/publication/an-update-on-my-efforts-to-advance-civil-rights-equity-and-justice-and-end-discrimination-in-higher-education/
  4. https://dailynorthwestern.com/2019/06/21/campus/federal-officials-are-investigating-northwesterns-title-ix-process-after-two-men-allege-gender-bias-and-failure-of-due-process/?fbclid=IwAR3HdfBNb2IgF_XxAhWbflipeXvKoKs9AOxBwTpjb61XEUQ2SNdRoTY3mpw
  5. https://pjmedia.com/trending/female-lawyer-gets-tulane-university-to-stop-discriminating-against-men/
  6. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/scholarships/
  7. http://www.saveservices.org/equity/file-ocr-complaint/

The SAVE Title IX Equity Project is working to assure that the Title IX law is fairly and consistently applied and enforced: www.saveservices.org/equity

Categories
Title IX Title IX Equity Project

PR: Widespread Sex Discrimination Found in College Scholarship Programs

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Widespread Sex Discrimination Found in College Scholarship Programs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citations:

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

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

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

Categories
Campus Press Release Sexual Assault Title IX

PR: SAVE Urges Massachusetts Lawmakers to End Campus Rape Tribunals

Contact: Chris Perry

Telephone: 301-801-0608

Email: cperry@saveservices.org

 

SAVE Urges Massachusetts Lawmakers to End Campus Rape Tribunals

 

WASHINGTON / April 10, 2017 – The current system of campus-based adjudications for sexual assault has turned out to be inefficient, unfair, and in some cases harmful, according to a report released by the non-profit group, Stop Abusive and Violent Environments. The report, “Six-Year Experiment in Campus Jurisprudence Fails to Make the Grade,” was issued on the six-year anniversary of the controversial “Dear Colleague Letter” on sexual violence, first issued by the Department of Education on April 4, 2011.

 

The “Dear Colleague Letter” has not led to respectful, fair, and prompt resolutions. Rather, complaints to the Office for Civil Rights and federal lawsuits that identify flawed campus procedures increased six-fold after the Department of Education letter was released.

 

The SAVE report identifies numerous cases in which identified victims of sexual assault claimed their colleges failed to appropriately investigate, adjudicate, and sanction their complaints. In one case, a female student charged that campus authorities at Harvard University showed “deliberate indifference” to her sexual assault claim. Her claim focused not only on the school’s initial response, but also on the University’s failure to respond “to her multiple reports that she was subjected to continuous, retaliatory harassment by [John] Doe and his friends.”

 

Numerous accused students have filed federal lawsuits as well. In one recent case, a judge criticized Brandeis University for “appear[ing] to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process.” Among the 51 known lawsuits filed by accused students since 2012, a majority of the rulings from federal judges have been decided at least partly in favor of the expelled student.

 

The Massachusetts legislature is currently considering S.706 and H.632 which would codify many provisions of the “Dear Colleague Letter.” Instead, SAVE urges the enactment of the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act. CEFTA aims to protect all students by encouraging the referral of campus rape cases to law enforcement officials and providing due process: http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/cefta/.

 

Identified victims and accused students share a common, over-riding interest in assuring the investigative and adjudicatory process is conducted in a respectful, prompt, and fair manner in order to reach reliable outcomes.

 

The SAVE report can be viewed here: http://www.saveservices.org/reports/.

 

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