Category: Trauma Informed

Trauma-Informed: A Cancer on Our Nation’s Legal System

Post author By Edward Bartlett
Post date January 14, 2021

SAVE

January 14, 2021

In recent years, a trendy new investigative approach has been pushed both on college campuses and in the criminal justice system. Called “Trauma-informed,” it claims that sexual assault and domestic violence victims are so traumatized by the experience that they are unable to provide a coherent account of the assault.

Which means that every allegation must be taken at face value as truthful, and investigators are not supposed to challenge or question their statements. And every complainant is called a “victim.”

But “trauma-informed” is factually dishonest, because researchers have found that victims of trauma often have an enhanced recall of the details of the event. “Trauma-informed” ideology also eliminates the presumption of innocence, and turns investigators into therapists and social workers. This leads to wrongful findings of guilt.

Nonetheless, trauma-informed activists continue to push forward. Recently the International Association of Chiefs of Police issued a solicitation to do trauma-informed training, making the misleading claim that, “Victim-centered, trauma-informed approaches to crime can support victim recovery and engagement with the criminal justice system.”

Let’s all speak out on the dishonesty behind the “trauma-informed” movement. Contact the IACP and let them know what you think. Here’s the link: https://www.theiacp.org/contact-us

Please try to be polite.

Investigations Law & Justice Sexual Assault Trauma Informed

The Metastasizing Cancer of Trauma-Informed Justice

Post author By Deanna Brown
Post date January 12, 2021

Sunday 10 January 2021
by Wendy McElroy

“Trauma-informed Justice” has percolated in academia and activism for decades. It is now knocking on the door of local police departments to demand changes that could upend the basics of how people relate to law enforcement. The approach converts the police into social workers or therapists and erases the due process upon which traditional Western justice hinges. It also increases the odds of wrongful convictions.

Trauma-informed justice—sometimes called “victim-centered” justice—involves an interview methodology in which the police prioritize empathy for an accuser who is automatically considered to be a victim. Rooted in trauma-informed feminist therapy of the 1960s, the methodology is especially favored for allegations of sexual abuse, such as domestic violence, where the accusers who come forward are overwhelmingly female. The methodology was refined by Russell Strand, U.S. Military Police School, who offered the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI) as a way to question presumed victims without making them relive an assault.

According to trauma-informed trainers, the police should conduct investigations according to three broad principles.

The accuser is automatically assumed to be a victim even before any verification process occurs; the accused is automatically assumed to be guilty based on nothing more than an allegation. This dynamic reflects a core belief of the #Metoo movement: “Believe All Women.” The leading proponent of the trauma-informed approach is the End Violence Against Women International (EVAWI) group which argues that “believing” accusers “is the starting point for a fair and thorough investigation.” If EVAWI is taken literally, however, then further investigation seems to be unnecessary. An accusation is proof of guilt is grounds for conviction. Why investigate?
Contradictions, memory gaps, and inconsistencies in an accuser’s testimony are symptoms of deep trauma and should not be seen as disprobative. A much-quoted guide to trauma-informed justice states, “Trauma victims often omit, exaggerate, or make up information when trying to make sense of what happened to them or to fill gaps in memory.” The true flaw in the process is said to be the police department’s approach which depends on what is called “peripheral information”–for example, a suspect’s description and the time or place of an alleged attack. Instead, the police should focus on eliciting non-linear information from the accuser by establishing trust and interpreting her memories.
Factors that cast doubt on the allegation, such as an accuser’s history of false allegations or drug use, are not to be considered. This creates an enormous problem if the case goes to trial, of course. The Arizona Governor’s Commission to Prevent Violence Against Women issued a letter to Arizona’s criminal justice agencies to explain, “In cases that proceed to trial, defense counsel likely could impugn investigators and claim that alternative versions of the crime were ignored and/or errors were made during the investigation as a result of confirmation bias created by the ‘belief’ element of the Start By Believing campaign.”

Trauma-informed advocates abandon the ethical code of conduct spelled out by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Article 10, Presentation of Evidence states, “The law enforcement officer shall be concerned equally in the prosecution of the wrong-doer and the defense of the innocent. He shall ascertain what constitutes evidence and shall present such evidence impartially and without malice.” By this standard, everyone and their testimonies are to be treated equally.

Trauma-informed justice destroys the due process upon which Western criminal justice rests. The central principle of due process: an accused is innocent until proven guilty either by a standard of “clear and convincing evidence” or “beyond a reasonable doubt.” There must be proof before there is guilt and, as a matter of logic if not of justice, the accuser bears the burden of proof because she is the one making an affirmative statement. Start by Believing inverts this principle and logic, eliminating Western justice in the process.

Unfortunately, the trauma-informed approach is gaining momentum with training courses for law enforcement seeming to spring up everywhere. Most are held at universities where trauma-informed procedures have dominated Title IX investigations for the last decade; these investigations address allegations of sexual misconduct on campus and a “believe the women” ideology dominates. The spread of FETI is yet another instance of social-justice policies spilling from campuses out onto Main Street.

Other factors contribute to the spread. A revolution in how law enforcement is perceived has occurred, with “Defund the Police!” being one of the loudest aspects. A righteous indignation at police brutality and immunity is fueling a rebellion against the status quo of law enforcement. Trauma-informed justice also grows because it is still grassroots; activists go directly to law enforcement agencies. This makes it largely invisible in the media and to the public from which it encounters little resistance.

This needs to change. Trauma-informed justice must be opposed on three grounds: ethically, on the science, and on practicality.

The ethical case against trauma-informed justice has been made already: it introduces systemic bias into what should be an evidence-based, honest, and impartial process; it embeds unequal treatment under the law; it increases the likelihood of false convictions. It is unfair.

The increased likelihood of false convictions needs to be stressed because the trauma and tragedy of false convictions is often ignored or diminished. This will proliferate because trauma-informed politics encourages law enforcement to become de facto advocates for an accuser and presume the guilt of an accused.

A commonly stated goal of the trauma-informed approach is to secure a “successful prosecution”, which refers to securing a conviction but makes no comment on whether the defendant may be innocent. After all, Start by Believing declares all accuseds to be immediately and automatically guilty, which obviates the need to discuss their possible innocence. When the police pre-emptively decide that an accused is guilty, research shows what common sense suspects. The police look for supporting evidence and tend to dismiss counter information due to confirmation bias. Again, wrongful convictions become more likely, especially since EVAWI instructs investigators on how to assist prosecutors in countering “potential defense strategies.”

Another reason trauma-informed justice gains ground: law enforcement is asked to listen “to the science.” The science of traumatized people remembering events in a disjointed or inconsistent manner is presented as “settled.” This is not true. Unbiased studies contradict trauma-informed claims. Daniel Reisberg’s “Emotion’s (Varied) Impact on Memory for Sexual Misconduct” found, for example, “These data suggest that traumatic events are likely to be well remembered.” At bare minimum, the nature of traumatized memories is a matter for vigorous debate and untested ideology-based theories should not be fixed into policy.

The current standard police procedure is called the Reid method. It has three steps: factual analysis, interviewing, and interrogation. The factual analysis eliminates suspects and develops leads. Interviewing elicits investigative and behavioral information through non-accusatory dialogue with accusers, suspects, and witnesses; the interview has nine well-defined stages. Interrogation involves subjecting a confirmed suspect to accusations in which the investigator claims to know the person is guilty and angles for a confession. Police investigations may be imperfect but they have been tested and streamlined by time, with legal challenges providing protections to those being questioned.

In its “Report on the Use of the Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview (FETI) Technique” (2015), the United States Air Force Office of Special Investigations summarized its reluctance to replace an established protocol with trauma-informed techniques. “We believe it would be inappropriate and irresponsible to discontinue the use of a robust, well-studied, effective, and empirically-validated interviewing method that is supported by the latest scientific research (the Cognitive Interview), in favor of an interviewing method that is loosely-constructed, is based on flawed science, makes unfounded claims about its effectiveness, and has never once been tested, studied, researched or validated.”

Social workers and therapists may need to Start By Believing the person they seek to heal. But the police are not mental health workers; they deal in cold, hard facts that have no gender or race. Investigators need to discern what is true or false about a situation rather than respond emotionally to it. In the process, some officers make mistakes and some act with malice; officers are human beings with all the flaws of shared humanity. The incompetence or malfeasance of individuals must be remedied but neither one is an indictment of the principles of Western justice. Turning accusations into convictions only makes prisoners of innocent people.

Content / Editorials / The Metastasizing Cancer of Trauma-Informed Justice – ifeminists.com

Believe the Victim Campus Title IX Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations

PR: Campus Administrators Need to Restore Impartial Investigations, or Face a Surge in Costly Lawsuits

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 11, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Campus Administrators Need to Restore Impartial Investigations, or Face a Surge in Costly Lawsuits

WASHINGTON / August 11, 2020 – SAVE has published an analysis that documents a dramatic increase in judicial decisions against universities involving biased investigations of sexual assault allegations. In 2014-2016, the average number of lawsuits alleging faulty campus investigations averaged three decisions per year. In 2020, that number is projected to reach 30 judicial decisions against colleges and universities, a 10-fold increase in the span of a few years.

Such investigations go by a variety of names: “trauma-informed,” “Start By Believing,” and “victim-centered.” These investigative approaches discount the presumption of innocence and begin with the assumption that the complainant is being fully truthful. As a result, exculpatory evidence is often discounted or ignored.

Five examples illustrate the due process deficiencies that judges considered in the university lawsuits:

In Neal v. Colorado State University-Pueblo, the university opened an investigation into a male student after a classmate saw a hickey on that student’s girlfriend’s neck during class. The girlfriend swore to the university the sex was consensual, but the university decided to “investigate” anyway. The university gave the male student less than 24-hour notice to the hearing and refused to give him a copy of the investigative report.
In Doe v. Regents of University of California, a female student accused a male student of sexual assault without providing any witnesses or evidence. Without any investigation, the university put the male student on interim suspension and then did not allow him access to the investigative report once one was created.
In Doe v. Purdue University, the university withheld the investigative report, which included a made-up “confession” by the accused student.
In Doe v. Brandeis University, the institution refused to interview the accused student’s witnesses, refused to inform him of what he was being investigated for, and refused to allow him to review the investigative report.
In Doe v. Syracuse University, the accused student alleged that the university trained its investigators that “perpetrators of sexual assault are supposedly rational actors who plan, practice, and become habitual rapists and sexual predators… [and that] inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account [is] evidence that her testimony is truthful, because of alleged trauma.”

On May 6, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new regulation that would require campus investigations to be impartial and free of bias. In response, the State of New York filed a lawsuit requesting a Preliminary Injunction against the Title IX regulation (1). SAVE then filed an Amicus Brief highlighting the fact that, “The Regulations require that any coordinator, investigator, decision-maker, or any person designated to facilitate an informal resolution process be free from conflict of interest or bias.” (2) The SAVE Brief urged the Court to reject the New York complaint.

This past Sunday, Judge John Koeltl issued a ruling denying the State of New York request (3). In the opinion, the judge favorably quoted a key provision from the new regulation:

During an investigation of a formal complaint, the school must “[p]rovide both parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation that is directly related to the allegations raised in a formal complaint, including the evidence upon which the recipient does not intend to rely in reaching a determination regarding responsibility and inculpatory or exculpatory evidence whether obtained from a party or other source, so that each party can meaningfully respond.” (page 12)

The new Title IX regulation is slated to take effect this coming Friday, August 14 (4). SAVE urges campus administrators to carefully review investigative policies and procedures to assure compliance with the new regulation.

The SAVE analysis, “University Administrators Need to Assure Impartial and Fair Investigations, or Face Legal Consequences,” is available online (5).

Links:

Campus Investigations Start By Believing Title IX Trauma Informed

University Administrators Need to Assure Impartial and Fair Investigations, or Face Legal Consequences

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 10, 2020

August 10, 2020

The past decade has witnessed a veritable explosion in accused-student Title IX litigation, with over 180 judicial decisions rendered to date that are unfavorable to the university. These lawsuits have exposed universities to costly settlements (and a judgment, in one case)[1], not to mention the attorneys’ fees that likely exceed $100,000 per case[2].

One of the most frequently litigated issues in these lawsuits is whether the investigation into alleged sexual misconduct was biased against the accused student. These guilt-presuming investigations are known by a variety of names, such as “trauma-informed,”[3] “Start By Believing,” or “victim-centered.”

An impartial investigation is in the interest of both the accused and accusing student. Hence the Department of Education’s Title IX regulations, scheduled to take effect on August 14, require, among other things, fair and impartial investigations:[4]

“A recipient must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process, receive training on….. how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias… recipient also must ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence….Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment.” [key words in italics]

SAVE hosts an Interactive Spreadsheet that provides a detailed analysis of 138 lawsuits against universities in which the accused student prevailed.[5] Among the 138 cases, the Spreadsheet lists 69 judicial decisions for which the university’s investigation was biased against the accused student – listed in reverse chronological order in the Appendix.

Almost all of the cases come from the trial court level. Of interest, roughly half — 39 — of these opinions involved private universities. There has been a substantial increase in judicial decisions involving biased investigations over the years, suggesting courts’ growing wariness of university procedures:

2014: 3 cases
2015: 2 cases
2016: 5 cases
2017: 14 cases
2018: 15 cases
2019: 15 cases
2020 (six months): 15 cases

At the current pace, the number of lawsuits decided against universities is projected to reach 30 by the end of 2020.

Five of these cases illustrate the often egregious due process violations that the judges considered:

In Neal v. Colorado State Univ.-Pueblo, No. 16-CV-873-RM-CBS, 2017 WL 633045 (D. Colo. Feb. 16, 2017), the university opened an investigation into a male student after a classmate saw a hickey on that student’s girlfriend’s neck during class. The girlfriend swore to the university the sex was consensual, but the university decided to “investigate” anyway. The university gave the male student less than 24-hour notice to the hearing and refused to give him a copy of the investigative report.
In Doe v. Regents of Univ. of California, 28 Cal. App. 5th 44, 238 Cal. Rptr. 3d 843 (2018), a female student accused a male student of sexual assault without providing any witnesses or evidence. Without any investigation, the university put the male student on interim suspension and then did not allow him access to the investigative report once one was created.
In Doe v. Purdue Univ., 928 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2019), the university withheld the investigative report, which included a made-up confession by the accused student.
In Doe v. Brandeis Univ., 177 F. Supp. 3d 561 (D. Mass. 2016), the university refused to interview the accused student’s witnesses, refused to inform him of what he was being investigated for, and refused to allow him to review the investigative report.
In Doe v. Syracuse Univ., 440 F. Supp. 3d 158, 159 (N.D.N.Y. 2020), the accused student alleged that the university trained its investigators that “perpetrators of sexual assault are supposedly rational actors who plan, practice, and become habitual rapists and sexual predators… [and that] inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account [is] evidence that her testimony is truthful, because of alleged trauma” (internal quotations and citations omitted).

Universities that do not currently conduct impartial and objective investigations should promptly revise their policies and training procedures, both in order to be in compliance with the new Title IX regulation and to avoid costly litigation. Most importantly, they should provide these protections because it is the right thing to do.

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

Appendix

Listing of Judicial Decisions Against Universities Involving Biased Investigations, 2014 to Mid-2020

No.	Case Caption	Citation/Case Number	Date of Opinion	Judge	Court
1	John Doe v. Oberlin College	No. 19-3342	29-Jun-20	Kethledge, Raymond	U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
2	John Doe v. Purdue University, et al.	2020 WL 2839177	1-Jun-20	Springmann, Theresa	U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. Indiana
3	John Doe v. University of the Sciences	2020 WL 2786840	29-May-20	Sanchez, Juan R.	U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
4	Tariq Venegas v. Carleton College	Case number: 19-cv-01878	1-May-20	Davis, Michael	U.S. District Court, Minnesota
5	John Doe v. Colgate University	2020 WL 2079439	30-Apr-20	Scullin, Frederick Jr.	U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. New York
6	John Doe v. Syracuse University	2020 WL 2079513	30-Apr-20	McAvoy, Thomas	U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. New York
7	J. Lee v. University of New Mexico, et al.	2020 WL 1515381	30-Mar-20	Browning, James	U.S. District Court, New Mexico
8	Hannah Rullo v. University of Pittsburgh	2020 WL 1472422	26-Mar-20	Kelly, Maureen	U.S. District Court, Western Dist. Pennsylvania
9	Jacob Doe v. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University	2020 WL 1309461	19-Mar-20	Dillon, Elizabeth	U.S. District Court, Western Dist. Virginia
10	John Doe v. Rollins College	Case number: 6:18-cv-01069	9-Mar-20	Dalton, Roy	U.S. District Court, Middle Dist. Florida
11	Kemari Averett v. Shirley Ann Hardy et al.	2020 WL 1033543	3-Mar-20	Hale, David	U.S. District Court, Western Dist. Kentucky
12	Feibleman v. Trustees of Columbia University in City of New York	2020 WL 882429	24-Feb-20	Caproni, Valerie	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist. New York
13	John Doe v. Syracuse University, et al.	2020 WL 871250	21-Feb-20	Sannes, Brenda K.	U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. New York
14	John Doe v. University of Maine System, et al.	2020 WL 981702	20-Feb-20	Torresen, Nancy	U.S. District Court, Maine
15	John Doe v. University of South Alabama, et al.	2020 WL 759895	14-Feb-20	Granade, Callie	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist. Alabama
16	Unknown Party v. Arizona Board of Regents	2019 WL 7282027	27-Dec-19	Lanza, Dominic W.	U.S. District Court, Arizona
17	John Doe v. Tracy Haas, et al.	427 F.Supp.3d 336	9-Dec-19	Hurley, Denis	U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist. New York
18	John Harnois v. UMass-Dartmouth, et al. (pro se)	2019 WL 5551743	28-Oct-19	Stearns, Richard	U.S. District Court, Massachusetts
19	John Doe v. Quinnipiac University, et al.	404 F.Supp.3d 643	10-Jul-19	Arterton, Janet Bond	U.S. District Court, Connecticut
20	John Doe v. Purdue University, et al.	928 F.3d 652	28-Jun-19	Barrett, Amy Coney	U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
21	John Doe v. California Institute of Technology	Case Number: BS171416	20-Jun-19	Strobel, Mary	Los Angeles (CA) Superior Court
22	John Doe v. Rhodes College	Case Number: 2:19-cv-02336	14-Jun-19	Fowlkes, John Jr.	U.S. District Court, Tennessee, Western Dist.
23	John Doe v. Northern Michigan University, et al.	2019 WL 2269721	28-May-19	Quist, Gordon	U.S. District Court, Michigan, Western Dist.
24	John Doe v. Syracuse University	2019 WL 2021026	8-May-19	Hurd, David	U.S. District Court, New York, Northern Dist.
25	John Doe v. Westmont College, et al.	34 Cal.App.5th 622	23-Apr-19	Tangeman, Martin	California Appeals Court, Second Dist., Div. Six
26	Jack Montague v. Yale University	Case Number: 3:16-cv-00885	29-Mar-19	Covello, Albert	U.S. District Court, Connecticut
27	William Norris v. University of Colorado	362 F.Supp.3d 1001	21-Feb-19	Babcock, Lewis	U.S. District Court, Colorado
28	David Jia v. University of Miami, et al.	Case Number: 1:17-cv-20018	12-Feb-19	Gayles, Darrin	U.S. District Court, Florida, Southern Dist.
29	Jacob Oliver v. University of Texas-Southwestern Medical School	2019 WL 536376	11-Feb-19	Boyle, Jane	U.S. District Court, Texas, Northern Dist.
30	John Doe v. Rollins College	352 F.Supp.3d 1205	16-Jan-19	Dalton, Roy	U.S. District Court, Middle District, Florida
31	John Doe v. University of South Florida St Petersburg	Case Number: 17-0028AP-88B	21-Dec-18	Day, Jack	Circuit Court, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Florida
32	Erik Powell v. Montana State University, et al.	2018 WL 6728061	21-Dec-18	Haddon, Sam	U.S. District Court, Montana
33	John Doe v. University of Southern Mississippi, et al.	Case Number: 2:18-cv-00153	26-Sep-18	Starrett, Keith	U.S. District Court, Mississippi, Southern Dist.
34	John Doe v. Brown University	327 F.Supp.3d 397	27-Aug-18	McConnell, John	U.S. District Court, Rhode Island
35	John Doe v. Ohio State University	323 F.Supp.3d 962	20-Aug-18	Smith, George	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist., Ohio
36	John Doe v. Johnson & Wales University	Case Number 1:18-cv-00106	24-May-18	McConnell, John	U.S. District Court, Rhode Island
37	Jane Roe v. Javaune Adams-Gaston, et al.	2018 WL 5306768	17-Apr-18	Sargus, Edmund Jr.	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist, Ohio
38	John Doe v. Regents of the University of California	Case Number: BS172217	5-Apr-18	Chalfant, James	Los Angeles (CA) Superior Court
39	John Doe v. University of Oregon, et al.	2018 WL 1474531	26-Mar-18	Aiken, Ann	U.S. District Court, Oregon
40	John Doe v. Marymount University, et al.	297 F.Supp.3d 573	14-Mar-18	Ellis, T.S. III	U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist., Virginia
41	Jason Schaumleffel v. Muskingum University, et al.	2018 WL 1173043	6-Mar-18	Smith, George	U.S. District Court, Southern District, Ohio
42	Tyler Gischel v. University of Cincinnati, et al.	302 F.Supp.3d 961	5-Feb-18	Dlott, Susan	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist., Ohio
43	John Doe v. Miami University	882 F.3d 579	2-Feb-18	Moore, Karen	U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
44	John Doe v. Rider University	2018 WL 466225	17-Jan-18	Martinotti, Brian	U.S. District Court, New Jersey
45	John Doe v. The Pennsylvania State University	2018 WL 317934	8-Jan-18	Brann, Matthew	U.S. District Court, Middle Dist. Pennsylvania
46	John Doe v. Regents of the University of California	Case Number: 17CV03053	22-Dec-17	Geck, Donna	Santa Barbara County (CA) Superior Court
47	Kathak Saravanan v. Drexel University	2017 WL 5659821	24-Nov-17	Kearney, Mark	U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist., Pennsylvania
48	Matthew Rolph v. Hobart and William Smith Colleges	271 F.Supp.3d 386	20-Sep-17	Wolford, Elizabeth	U.S. District Court, Western Dist., New York
49	John Doe v. The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania	270 F.Supp.3d 799	13-Sep-17	Padova, John	U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist., Pennsylvania
50	John Doe v. Case Western Reserve University, et al.	2017 WL 3840418	1-Sep-17	Nugent, Donald	U.S. District Court, Northern Dist., Ohio
51	Frank Gulyas v. Appalachian State, et al.	2017 WL 3710083	28-Aug-17	Voorhees, Richard	U.S. District Court, West. District, North Carolina
52	John Nokes v. Miami University	2017 WL 3674910	25-Aug-17	Barrett, Michael	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist., Ohio
53	Cameron Jackson v. Liberty University, et al.	2017 WL 3326972	3-Aug-17	Moon, Norman	U.S. District Court, Western Dist. Virginia
54	Nicholas Mancini v. Rollins College	2017 WL 3088102	20-Jul-17	Dalton, Roy	U.S. District Court, Middle Dist. Florda
55	In the Matter of John Doe v. Skidmore College	59 N.Y.S.3d 509	13-Jul-17	Garry, Elizabeth	Appellate Division (NY) Third Department
56	Koh Tsuruta v. Augustana University	2017 WL 11318533	16-Jun-17	Schreier, Karen	U.S. District Court, South Dakota
57	John Doe v. University of Notre Dame	2017 WL 1836939	8-May-17	Simon, Philip	U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. Indiana
58	Grant Neal v. Colorado State University-Pueblo	2017 WL 633045	16-Feb-17	Schaffer, Craig	U.S. District Court, Colorado
59	John Doe v. Western New England University	228 F.Supp.3d 154	11-Jan-17	Ponsor, Michael	U.S. District Court, Massachusetts
60	John Doe v. Brown University	210 F.Supp.3d 310	28-Sep-16	Smith, William	U.S. District Court, Rhode Island
61	John Doe v. Columbia University	831 F.3d 46	29-Jul-16	Laval, Pierre	U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
62	John Doe v. Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University	Case Number: 16-cv-3531	20-May-16	Pauley, William	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist. New York
63	John Doe v. University of Southern California	246 Cal.App.4th 221	5-Apr-16	Collins, Aubrey	CA Court of Appeals Second District, Division Four
64	John Doe v. Brown University	166 F.Supp.3d 177	22-Feb-16	Smith, William	U.S. District Court, Rhode Island
65	John Doe v. Washington and Lee University	2015 WL 4647996	5-Aug-15	Moon, Norman	U.S. District Court, Western Dist. Virginia
66	Drew Sterrett v. Heather Cowan, et al.	85 F.Supp.3d 916	4-Feb-15	Hood, Denise	U.S. District Court, Eastern Dist. Michigan
67	Abrar Faiaz v. Colgate University	64 F.Supp.3d 336	24-Nov-14	Baxter, Andrew	U.S. District Court, Northern Dist. New York
68	Benjamin King v. DePauw University	2014 WL 4197507	22-Aug-14	Lawrence, William	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist. Indiana
69	Dezmine Wells v. Xavier University	7 F.Supp.3d 746	12-Mar-14	Spiegel, Arthur	U.S. District Court, Southern Dist. Ohio

[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/09/25/jury-sides-former-boston-college-student-accused-sexual-assault

[2] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/10/03/students-look-federal-courts-challenge-title-ix-proceedings

[3] https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2019/09/20/fake-claims-of-rape-due-to-trauma-under-scrutiny/

[4] 34 CFR §106.45(b)(1)

[5] http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/complaints-and-lawsuits/lawsuit-analysis/

Campus Department of Education Title IX Trauma Informed

Why TIX and Trauma-Informed Investigations Don’t Mix

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 5, 2020

As Universities put finishing touches on their Title IX policies, SAVE is advising university counsel to assure Title IX investigations do not rely on methods that are victim-centered, where investigators are encouraged to “Start By Believing”.

When investigators start by believing the accusing party, in effect, they are disbelieving the responding party. This leaves no room for
Presumption of Innocence in campus adjudications.

These trauma-informed methods are inadvisable for four reasons:

• The Final Rule requires all Title IX administrators are trained on…how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias…”

• Recent judicial decisions rule against trauma-informed investigations. In a decision against Syracuse University, a federal judge noted: “Plaintiff alleges that the investigation relied on ‘trauma informed techniques’ that ‘turn unreliable evidence into its opposite,’ such that inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account. . .becomes evidence that her testimony is truthful”.

• A lack of scientific basis noted in several peer-reviewed articles surrounds trauma-informed investigations. Journalist Emily Yoffe has described these methods as “junk science”.

• Leading Title IX Groups, such as ATIXA, FACE, and SAVE have been critical of these types of investigations, noting lack of fairness and due process for all parties. In addition, 158 professors and legal experts endorsed an Open Letter critical of the use of trauma-informed methods.

SAVE notes “trauma-informed” may be useful in the context of providing counseling and mental health services. But trauma-informed philosophy serves to bias the investigative process, rendering campus adjudications unreliable.

SAVE encourages you to contact the provost at your alma mater or local college and encourage their oversight to assure the university does not include trauma-informed investigations for their TIX proceedings.

Campus Investigations Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Trauma Informed

PR: Four Reasons Why General Counsel Should Not Allow ‘Trauma-Informed’ Investigations for Title IX Cases

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 3, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

Four Reasons Why General Counsel Should Not Allow ‘Trauma-Informed’ Investigations for Title IX Cases

WASHINGTON / August 3, 2020 – With less than two weeks remaining before the effective date of the new Title IX regulation, SAVE is advising university counsel to review institutional polices to assure Title IX investigations do not rely on flawed “trauma-informed” methods. The use of such investigative approaches, sometimes referred to as “victim-centered” or “Start By Believing,” is inadvisable for four reasons:

Regulatory Requirements: “Trauma-informed” means the investigator presumes that the complainant has experienced significant physical and psychological trauma, and interprets the complainant’s statements through that lens. This presumption is inconsistent with the text of the new Title IX regulation, which reads:

“A recipient must ensure that Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any persons who facilitate an informal resolution process, receive training on….. how to serve impartially, including avoiding prejudgment of the facts at issue, conflicts of interest, and bias… recipient also must ensure that investigators receive training on issues of relevance to create an investigative report that fairly summarizes relevant evidence….Any materials used to train Title IX Coordinators, investigators, decision-makers, and any person who facilitates an informal resolution process, must not rely on sex stereotypes and must promote impartial investigations and adjudications of formal complaints of sexual harassment.” [key words in italics] (1)

Case Law: In a growing number of lawsuits, judges have issued rulings against universities because of their use of trauma-informed investigations. In a recent judicial decision against Syracuse University, the federal judge noted: “Plaintiff alleges that the investigation relied on ‘trauma informed techniques’ that ‘turn unreliable evidence into its opposite,’ such that inconsistency in the alleged female victim’s account . . . becomes evidence that her testimony is truthful” (2).

Brooklyn College professor KC Johnson has summarized a number of these cases (3): “In a lawsuit against Penn, the court cited the university’s trauma-informed training as a key reason why the complaint survived a motion to dismiss. During the Brown university bench trial, the decisive vote in the adjudication panel testified that she ignored exculpatory text messages because of the training she had received. Ole Miss’ trauma-informed training suggested that an accuser lying could be seen as a sign of the accused student’s guilt. And at Johnson & Wales, the university was so disinclined to make public the contents of its training that it refused a request by the accused student’s lawyer to see it before the hearing.”

Lack of a Scientific Basis: Several peer-reviewed articles have discredited the scientific basis of trauma-informed investigations: Deborah Davis and Elizabeth Loftus: “Title IX and “Trauma-Focused” Investigations: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” (4); Sonja Brubacher and Martine Powell: “Best-Practice Interviewing Spans Many Contexts” (5); and Christian Meissner and Adrienne Lyles: “The summary of Training Investigators in Evidence-Based Approaches to Interviewing.” (6)

Journalist Emily Yaffe has described trauma-informed methods as “junk science.” (7) A compilation of other scientific critiques of trauma-informed is available online (8).

Criticized by Leading Title IX Groups: Several organizations have issued reports and statements that are critical of trauma-informed investigations: ATIXA: “ Trauma-Informed Training and the Neurobiology of Trauma;” (9) FACE: “Trauma-Informed Theories Disguised as Evidence”(10) SAVE: “Believe the Victim: The Transformation of Justice;” (11) In addition, 158 professors and legal experts endorsed an Open Letter that is critical of the use of trauma-informed methods (12).

A UCLA working group appointed by former California governor Jerry Brown concluded, “The use of trauma-informed approaches to evaluating evidence can lead adjudicators to overlook significant inconsistencies on the part of complainants in a manner that is incompatible with due process protections for the respondent.” (13)

“Trauma-informed” may be useful in the context of providing counseling and mental health services. But trauma-informed philosophy serves to bias the investigative process, rendering campus adjudications unreliable.

Links:

Campus Sexual Assault Trauma Informed

PR: Impartial and Fair Investigations at Risk in Four States Eyeing ‘Trauma-Informed’ Methods

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 24, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart
Telephone: 513-479-3335
Email: info@saveservices.org

Impartial and Fair Investigations at Risk in Four States Eyeing ‘Trauma-Informed’ Methods

WASHINGTON / March 25, 2020 – Proposed legislation in New Hampshire, Massachusetts, California, and Hawaii would require universities to use controversial “trauma-informed” methods for investigations of allegations of campus sexual assault. Investigative reporter Emily Yoffe has concluded that “trauma-informed” methods represent a form of “junk science.” (1)

Numerous judicial opinions have found “trauma-informed” investigations presume the guilt of the accused and violate due process (2). In Norris v University of Colorado, Boulder, the university’s motion-to-dismiss was denied as the Plaintiff argued that a trauma-informed approach reflected bias by university investigators (3). In Doe v Syracuse University, the court criticized the university’s apparent bias based on “the influence on university officials of trauma-informed training”(4).

Even though the Department of Education’s April 2014 Q&A on Title IX and Sexual Violence with language about “effects of trauma, including neurobiological changes” was officially withdrawn in September 2017, “Trauma-informed” concepts are featured in bills currently being debated in four states across the country:

— New Hampshire SB679 mentions “trauma-informed response” six times and mandates the policy that institutions of higher education use regarding sexual misconduct must be “trauma-informed.”(5)

— Massachusetts H4418 requires an individual who participates in the implementation of an institution of higher education’s disciplinary process for addressing complaints of sexual misconduct be trained on “the effects of trauma, including any neurological impact on a person.”(6)

— Hawaii SB2311 requires “training on the impact of trauma” and “training on the neurobiological and psychological impact of trauma, stereotypes surrounding the causes and impact of trauma, and the components of trauma-informed care.”(7)

— California SB493 includes three provisions where “trauma-informed practices” are required: during the investigation of complaints, and training for the gender-equity officer and other employees engaged in the grievance procedures must be on “trauma-informed investigatory and hearing practices.”(8)

Three major organizations that provide training to campus investigators have cautioned against the use of “trauma-informed” methods. In July 2019, law firm Holland & Knight issued a white paper warning clients that content of training will be analyzed closely, and training for investigators and adjudicators, including trauma-informed training, should be presented in a manner that is fully balanced, does not rely on sex-stereotypes, and promotes fairness and equity for both complainants and respondents (9). In August 2019, the Association of Title IX Administrators (ATIXA) released a statement to avoid the use of theories on the neurobiology of trauma to substitute for evidence (10). Likewise, End Violence Against Women International (“EVAWI”) recently issued a report that admits, “there is a legitimate concern that the scientific literature is currently being misinterpreted and misapplied in some trainings, and this can yield inaccuracies and inappropriate conclusions during the course of a sexual assault investigation.”(11)

The use of trauma-informed practices in providing mental health services to rape victims is appropriate and useful. But relying on quasi-scientific theories for campus investigations raises concerns about fairness and objectivity. More information on the scientific and legal problems with such “victim-centered” investigations is available on the SAVE website (12).

Citations:

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is leading the national policy movement for fairness, due process and the presumption of innocence: http://www.saveservices.org/

Start By Believing Trauma Informed

Commentary on EVAWI’s Revised Report on the Neurobiology of Trauma

Post author By saveadmin
Post date March 9, 2020

In 2016, End Violence Against Women, Inc. (EVAWI) published a report titled, “Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims.”[1] Noting several scientific flaws, Dr. Sujeeta Bhatt and I published a detailed critique of the EVAWI report last September.[2]

In response, EVAWI made numerous revisions to their report, published under a new title, “Becoming Trauma-Informed: Learning and Appropriately Applying the Neurobiology of Trauma to Victim Interviews.”[3] The present commentary reviews EVAWI’s latest version.

My expertise lies in the domain of science-based investigative interviewing, not in the neurobiology of trauma. Co-authoring a response to the EVAWI 2016 paper sensitized me to some of the challenges faced by those responsible for investigating and adjudicating instances of sexual discrimination under Title IX (as a civil offense) as well as those responsible for investigating charges of sexual violence (as a criminal offense). Rape kits languish in police stations and those who assert that they have been sexually assaulted often are not believed and/or their complaints not investigated.

Responding to our criticisms, EVAWI’s revised report recognizes that not all victims of sexual assault display the symptoms described. For example, EVAWI now acknowledges, “the same event might be experienced as traumatic to one person but not another” (p. 15). Trauma-informed interview training should also provide an understanding of the neurobiology of resilience (a topic not addressed in the new EVAWI report), since not all those who are sexually assaulted are traumatized. Doing so may help an interviewer approach an alleged victim with fewer assumptions, which is critical to any investigation. Equally important, the authors point out that it is not “the investigator’s role to determine whether someone has experienced trauma” (p. 18).

The EVAWI report asserts that “traditional strategies don’t work with trauma victims” (p. 6). EVAWI appears to be referring to the often-accusatorial approaches used by American police investigators (e.g., the ‘Reid method’) or the question-and-answer tactics used by attorneys. These persons tend to assume that memories are best recalled in response to closed-ended questions, and that apparent resistance to answering questions indicates deception or a lack of cooperation.

What science has shown for the past several decades is that empowering an interview subject to tell their story with as few interruptions as possible is more likely to elicit reliable information, whether the subject be a victim, witness, source, or suspect. One method of such elicitation is the Cognitive Interview, developed by Ron Fisher and Edward Geiselman in the 1980s. The efficacy of the Cognitive Interview approach has been demonstrated in both laboratory and field conditions — see reviews by Memon, Meissner, and Fraser[4] and Dodier and Otgaar[5]. Although the revised EVAWI report does not explicitly reference the Cognitive Interview method, its description of a good interview approach (p. 7) closely tracks with that methodology.

As appears happens in both science and policy, we swing from one side of an issue to the other. Because some victims of sexual assault have been neglected by the criminal justice system, victim advocates often assert that alleged victims should be assumed to be telling the truth (“start by believing”) and not be challenged in their account. In my view, the latter risks a bias against the alleged perpetrator. All bias is problematic, and an investigator is most likely to uncover the truth when the investigator treats both alleged victim and alleged attacker with respect and empathy.

Science resides in neutral ground. My experience with proponents of trauma-informed interviewing leads me to believe that we will find the best science via engagement with each other – certainly, there are opportunities to address grievances on many fronts. Change happens when people on all sides of an issue work together.

Citations:

[1] https://www.evawintl.org/Library/Detail.aspx?ItemID=842

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

[3] https://www.evawintl.org/library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=1364

[4] Memon, Meissner, and Fraser [2010], “The cognitive interview: A meta-analytic review and study space analysis of the past 25 years.”

[5] Dodier and Otgaar [2019], “The forensic and clinical relevance of evidence-based investigative interview methods in historical sexual abuse cases”.

Investigations Trauma Informed Victim-Centered Investigations Violence Against Women Act

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

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 29, 2019

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

Trauma Informed

Trauma and the Daubert Standard

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 10, 2019

Plaintiffs claiming they were wrongly expelled for false allegations of sexual misconduct in colleges and universities have repeatedly challenged so-called “trauma informed” interview techniques. Their challenges most often fail: three times in the Federal District Court of Colorado and once each in the Southern District Court of Iowa, the Southern District of Ohio, and District of New Jersey.[1] Even where students achieve some measure of success, courts have warned, “To the extent that … bias against plaintiff stemmed from a purely ‘pro-victim’ orientation [in methods such as ‘trauma-informed’ techniques], that bias did not violate Title IX or the Equal Protection Clause.”[2]

Trauma Informed Methods and Evidence

“Trauma-informed” interview techniques, also sometimes called “cognitive interviewing techniques” or “forensic experiential trauma interview,” are extremely controversial. They were widely adopted by the early 2010s in the military, in law enforcement, and among college administrators.

The champions of these techniques claim that trauma alters human memory: If you’ve experienced “trauma,” you may not have coherent memories and should be treated differently as a witness. As a court summarized one social worker’s claims of expertise in this area:

Faced with trauma, victims go into survival mode and other parts of the brain shut down. Normal questioning is linear and works on the cognitive part of the brain and is based on cause and effect from the beginning of an event to the end. When somebody has been traumatized, … [u]nfortunately, when memory is stored in that way, it is being stored in a fragmented fashion. An initial statement can therefore be fragmented and a victim will fill in the blanks later.[3]

But how to tell “fragmented” memory from evasive, untruthful testimony? Or “filling in the blanks” from “making stuff up”?

Training slides from the University of Mississippi allegedly instructed Title IX officers: “when Complainants withhold exculpatory details or lie to an investigator or the hearing panel, the lies should be considered a side effect of an assault.”[4] This is a recipe for transforming evidence of innocence into its opposite. It is also outright suppressing evidence.

Major Reggie Yager, an Air Force Judge Advocate who took part in the creation of military Special Victim’s Counsel, argues that this also confuses treatment and justice. There is a difference when it comes to the task of caring for alleged victims and the task of justly condemning an accused.[5] Someone seeking help at a crisis center should undoubtedly be met with a presumption of belief. Every effort should be made to “err on the side of caution and be more inclusive.”[6] But tribunals of judgment cannot serve as adjuncts to victim support services and treatment. They must abide by “standards … for punishing people”—among others, the presumption of innocence.[7] Presuming accusations are true is the opposite. Excusing or excluding exculpatory evidence has no place.

Critics of trauma-informed approaches take a more straight forward approach. They simply condemn it as junk science.[8]

Putting Trauma-Informed Techniques to the Daubert Test

Courts have rarely tested “trauma-informed” techniques under the standards required for expert testimony, known as “Daubert” standards.[9] These standards are not very rigorous. Experts usually must be very, very bad for a court to throw them out.[10]

At least one court has expressed skepticism about broad claims made about “trauma” and the human brain. In a putative class action against a Los Angeles school district, the named plaintiffs had suffered undeniably heart-breaking, violent tragedies, and they alleged additional trauma from “extreme poverty, homelessness, and other socioeconomic hardship; and discrimination and racism” (among other sources). Trauma, they argued, caused underperformance in school, and they demanded a court order to force their school system to train all teachers and staff about how trauma affected their “ability to learn, think, read, concentrate, and communicate.”[11]

The court rejected their request. An expert in the neurological effects of trauma supported their demand, but the court remarked only that this was “somewhat novel” and doubted whether “trauma-informed” theories could support disability-rights claims.[12]

On the other hand, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a guilty verdict for crimes arising from spousal abuse and methamphetamine possession after an expert had testified about trauma-informed techniques. The defendant objected to the expert’s reliance on the “trauma-informed” method known as FETI (Forensic Experiential Trauma Interview).[13] The court brushed the objection aside but did not endorse FETI. The victim had “not substantially change[d] her account … did not recant her story, and … was largely corroborated by her eldest daughter.”[14] Whatever the expert’s commitment to trauma-informed method, the actual evidence did not support one of its basic premises—that trauma of the victim impairs the ability to tell a coherent truth. This witness did not need to “fill in the blanks.”

Dueling Experts on Trauma?

Throwing out an expert completely is very difficult. Usually, most parties therefore rebut dubious expert testimony with an expert of their own. This is sometimes called “dueling experts.” One problem, however, is that there is almost no way to challenge the purported expertise that a campus court might invoke.

At the University of Oregon, college administrators relied on expert reports in a case of escalating and changing allegations of misconduct against the accused. One expert supposedly explained how “trauma can affect victims’ memories in a way that could explain the inconsistencies.”[15] The campus judiciary did not allow the accused student to see the expert report, let alone refute it.

An example of dueling experts is a Pennsylvania case currently addressing “trauma-informed” theories of memory and historical sex abuse. Campers at a Cape Cod summer camp have sued as adults, alleging that the camp permitted them to be sexually abused by an older boy. The case will turn on the credibility of plaintiffs’ testimony about events from many years in the past.[16]

Both sides are calling experts. The plaintiffs called a Dr. Pittman, who is expected to testify that sexual trauma may cause Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (which few would find remarkable). But he is also expected to testify about some of the most controversial “trauma-informed” approaches to evidence, for example that the plaintiffs’ allegedly inconsistent account of events can be explained by their trauma.

The court refused to exclude Dr. Pittman, but it also strictly disallowed him from opining about the credibility of specific factual allegations.[17] In addition, the court emphasized that the summer camp could call its own rebuttal expert, who is expected to refute “the idea that traumatic memories may be subconsciously suppressed but accurately recovered many years later.”[18] The plaintiffs, for their part, moved to exclude him.

The court has set up what is called a “Daubert hearing” to decide the parameters of what these experts may testify to and what they may not in front of the jury. The court’s eventual decision may be the first to squarely addresses both the exclusion or admissibility of expertise on “trauma-informed” approaches to testimony and evidence.

Citations

[1] Rossley v. Drake Univ., 342 F. Supp. 3d 904 (S.D. Iowa 2018); Norris v. Univ. of Colo., 362 F. Supp. 3d 1001, 1013 (D. Colo. 2019); Doe v. Univ. of Denver, Civil Action No. 17-cv-01962-PAB-KMT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141523 (D. Colo. Aug. 20, 2019); Messeri v. Univ. of Colo., Civil Action No. 18-cv-2658-WJM-SKC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 162010 (D. Colo. Sep. 23, 2019); Doe v. Univ. of Cincinnati, No. 1:16cv987, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51833, at *8 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 28, 2018); Doe v. Rider Univ., Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-4882-BRM-DEA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7592, at *29 (D.N.J. Jan. 17, 2018). Doe v. Syracuse Univ., No. 5:18-CV-377, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77580, at*20 (N.D.N.Y. May 8, 2019), Norris v. Univ. of Colo., 362 F. Supp. 3d 1001, 1012-13 (D. Colo. 2019), and Doe v. Univ. of Or., No. 6:17-cv-01103-AA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49431, at *47 (D. Or. Mar. 26, 2018). In two of those cases, the court clearly warned that showing bias in favor of alleged victims is not the same as gender bias are exceptions (indicating weakness in the plaintiff’s case for any eventual summary judgment). In Doe v. Syracuse Univ., No. 5:18-CV-377, the Plaintiff on a motion to dismiss had put in his complaint OCR training materials from 2014 promoting trauma-informed techniques to ensure ” to ensure “the protection of girls and women”—i.e., not only to protect alleged victims in gender neutral terms.

[2] Doe v. Univ. of Or., No. 6:17-cv-01103-AA, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49431, at *47 (D. Or. Mar. 26, 2018).

[3] People v. Gonzalez, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2756, at *9 (Cal. App. 5th Dist. April 24, 2018)

[4] John Doe v. University of Miss., No. 3:18-cv-00063 at *19 (S.D.Miss. Jul. 24, 2018)

[5] Reggie Yager, What’s Missing from Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, 68, avail. at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2697788.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Emily Yoffe, The Bad Science behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault, The Atlantic, September 8, 2017, available at https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/; Sujeet Bhatt and Susan Brandon, A Review of ‘Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims:’ Are We Trading One Prejudice for Another? http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Review-of-Neurobiology-of-Trauma-9.1.2019.docx.

[9] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993)

[10] The Supreme Court has said that where “experts testimony lies within the range where experts might reasonably differ … the jury must decide among the conflicting views of different experts.” Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 153, 119 S. Ct. 1167, 1177 (1999)

[11] P.P. v. Compton Unified Sch. Dist., 135 F. Supp. 3d 1126, 1130-1133 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

[12] Id. at 1142-1148.

[13] People v. Gonzalez, No. F073128, 2018 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2756 (Apr. 24, 2018).

[14] Id. at *13, *15.

[15] Doe v. Univ. of Or., 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49431 *, 2018 WL 1474531 (D. Or. March 26, 2018)

[16] R.D. v. Shohola, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136556 (M.D. Pa. August 13, 2019).

[17] Id. at *19.

[18] Id. at *24.