Child Custody Victims Violence

Moms Who Kills Their Kids

Moms Who Kill Their Kids


February 28, 2024

SAVE has previously reported on mothers who attacked other women to steal their unborn babies. A more widespread problem is mothers who kill their children. Globally, 72% of infant murders are by their mothers.

Many of these cases occur in the middle of a custody dispute. These women apparently believed they “own” their children. These six cases, all in the United States, were reported in February, 2024:

1. Mom in custody battle kills four kids and herself in house fire, Missouri reports say

Pruessner was reportedly involved in court battles with the two fathers of her four children. Mom burned her kids to death rather than share custody with the father.  She was a college professor.

2. Kansas City mother is accused of killing her infant by putting her in the oven

The mother told the baby’s grandmother that she put the 1-month-old “in the oven instead of the crib,” according to court records.

3. Lilly mother accused of killing son

Bowser heard voices telling her to smother her 5-year-old child.

4. Family reacts to deaths of 3-year-old twins, mother jumping off I-95

Officials haven’t released the identities of the children and the woman but family members identified the woman as 42-year-old Shirlene N. Alcime and the children as Milinddjy and Milender.

5. Mother arrested for murder after 4-year-old daughter found dead in Southern California

The cause of death was reported as ‘combined effects of strangulation and sharp force,’ according to the autopsy report.

6. Mum who left toddler alone in playpen for 10 days pleads guilty to aggravated murder

This wasn’t intentional homicide, but rather the most egregious negligent homicide imaginable.

Victims Violence

Mothers Commit 72% of All Infant Homicides

Mothers Commit 72% of All Infant Homicides


April 4, 2023

A comprehensive review of child homicides around the world reached this conclusion:

“The 12 countries with detailed data on parent as perpetrators showed mothers commit the majority of parental homicides of children under 1 year (71.7% (IQR: 50.2–75.7)).”

To illustrate the extent of the problem, below are the results of a Google search that looked for news stories about American mothers who killed their children in the last 12 months:

  1. Texas mother charged with capital murder after three children found dead, two injured:
  2. Mother accused of killing three children in Massachusetts. The district attorney said the incident, in which a 5-year-old girl, a 3-old-boy and a 8-month-old boy were killed, was “an unimaginable, senseless tragedy.”
  3. Georgia mother charged with kids’ murders during house fire denied bond; father pleas for help:
  4. 3 children allegedly killed by mother in West Hills, possibly with help of 16-year-old son, identified:
  5. Mother charged in deaths of her 2 toddlers found stabbed multiple times in bathtub:
  6. Mom Accused of Shooting Her 2 Sons in Bucks County Home:
  7. Gresham woman kills 2 young children, herself in midst of custody battle:
  8. Mother that killed her kids ran illegal daycare in Connecticut:
  9. Mother accused of killing her 2 children in Little Haiti:
  10. Arrest reports detail horrific scene inside home where children were stabbed:
  11. Cary mother charged with murdering 2 children had multiple previous reports of neglect:
  12. Mom Accused of Killing Kids in Idaho Says She Has an Alibi:
Campus Due Process Free Speech Law & Justice Victims

Abolish the Constitution? College Administrators Need to Shore Up Due Process and Free Speech, Or Face Dire Consequences


Rebecca Stewart: 513-479-3335


Abolish the Constitution? College Administrators Need to Shore Up Due Process and Free Speech, Or Face Dire Consequences

WASHINGTON / December 14, 2021 – Students at Yale University (1) and the University of Florida (2) have signed petitions calling for the “abolition” of the United States Constitution. Students explained their support for the petition by saying, “There are a lot of outdated things in there that nowadays aren’t accepted” and the Constitution “wasn’t written for the 21st century.”

The petitions highlight an erosion of support for bedrock constitutional protections such as due process. As a result, administrators are seeing an increase in campus vigilantism, which ignores the presumption of innocence for the accused. Following are three recent cases:

  • A former student at SUNY-Purchase filed a lawsuit against the college, charging the school failed to protect him from student harassment over an alleged sexual assault incident (3).
  • Last month a group of Syracuse University protesters swarmed the front of a college fraternity, chanting the name of an alleged offender and demanding, “Kick him out, kick him out. ‘Alleged’ my ass, ‘alleged’ my ass.” (4)
  • At the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, the student newspaper ran an article describing three male students as “admitted rapists,” despite the fact that the three had won their Title IX case and the local prosecutor declined to press charges. As a result, the institution agreed to pay $450,000 in response to a defamation lawsuit (5).

Free speech is also under attack.

A recent survey of students at 159 leading colleges conducted by College Pulse, FIRE, and RealClear Education reveals that only 16% of institutions received a “Green” rating, meaning that institutional policies “do not seriously threaten speech.” (6) One student at Arizona State University confided, “As an English major, just about every class I’ve taken has touched on the ‘dangers’ of white people and whiteness….As a student, I don’t feel comfortable calling this what it is: a racist ideology.”

Faculty members are seeing a curtailment of their free speech rights as well, giving rise to groups such as the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (7) and Princetonians for Free Speech (8).

Due process and free speech are bulwarks of a democratic and free society. College administrators who acquiesce to campus activists are likely to face dire consequences including continued declines in student enrollments (9), shrinking budget allocations (10), decreased alumni contributions (11), and costly lawsuits (12).


Domestic Violence Victims Violence Against Women Act

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Congressional Research Service Warns Against Turning VAWA into the ‘Anti-Nagging’ Law

Coalition to End Domestic Violence

November 2, 2021

Nagging has long been recognized as an annoyance in intimate partner relationships. But nagging was never seen as a legal matter.

In recent years, domestic violence activists have replaced “nagging” with a new term: “coercive control.” The CDC reports that each year, men are more likely than women to be victims of coercive control by their partners:[1]

  • Males: 17.3 million victims
  • Females: 12.7 million victims

These numbers do not come as a surprise to most. The question is, Do we really want to turn nagging into a legal offense?

The recent House bill, H.R. 1620, dramatically expands the definition of domestic violence to include “verbal” and “psychological” abuse. But the bill never defines what these words mean.

Tellingly, VAWA activists emphasize examples of male abuse, but seldom if ever cite examples of female-perpetrated coercive control. Shouldn’t we be calling out the dishonesty and bias?

CRC Weighs In

In its most recent analysis of the Violence Against Women Act,[2] the Congressional Research Service commented on the controversy.

Noting that adding “coercive control” to the VAWA reauthorization would “expand the number of individuals who are eligible for support from VAWA grantees,” the CRC issued this stern warning:

“some argue that a violent physical act is qualitatively different from other forms of abuse such as economic abuse, and legal definitions should reflect that distinction. Further, defining domestic violence as a pattern of behavior seemingly excludes isolated domestic violence incidents that do not involve a pattern of behavior. The proposed definition could exclude isolated incidents of domestic violence that do not meet the pattern of behavior standard.”

The CRC report also cites the Supreme Court’s United States v. Castleman decision, which ruled that the crime of domestic violence must be defined as the “use or attempted use of physical force.” Justice Scalia further argued, “when everything is domestic violence, nothing is.”

Mockery and Betrayal

So we need to ask, Do we really want to turn VAWA into the federal “anti-nagging“ law? Do we want to divert limited VAWA funds away from the men and women who are victims of severe, physical abuse?

This would represent a mockery of the anti-violence effort and a historic betrayal of victims.


[1]  Tables 4.9 and 4.10.

[2] , pages 5-6.

VAWA Inclusion Mandate Victims Violence Against Women Act

VAWA: Are Missing and Murdered Indigenous Men in US Being Ignored?

Are Missing and Murdered Indigenous Men in US Being Ignored?

By Cecily Hilleary

Voice of America News

WASHINGTON – Hub Binion Williamson, 34, was last seen in April near Hardin, Montana, about 12 miles away from his home on the Crow Indian Reservation.  It was a trip he made almost daily, said his cousin Rachel Reddog. Along the way, she said he stopped at his aunt’s house for a drink of water.  After that, he vanished without a trace, leaving his family devastated.

“It’s like having a huge splinter in your foot,” Reddog said. “Things just aren’t the same.”

Williamson is one of thousands of American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) men and boys who are missing or murdered in the U.S. but capture little media attention in the shadow of the greater campaign seeking justice for missing and murdered indigenous women (MMIW).

Faulty reporting

Lissa Yellowbird-Chase, a member of the Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation on the Fort Berthold Indian Reservation in North Dakota, steps in where tribal police have failed to locate the missing.

“I can tell you from what I’ve witnessed personally, that men are murdered and missing more than the women,” she said. “But not all their deaths are reported.”

Medical examiners, she explained, trying to avoid the burdensome paperwork required in homicide cases, may note the cause of death as “overdose” or “alcohol-related” for both men and women.

Several federal agencies collect homicide data, but reporting is mostly voluntary.  Federal law requires police to report all missing juveniles to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) but not adults.

Currently, only 47 tribes have access to NCIC.

In 2018, the FBI reported more than 9,900 adult and juvenile Native Americans were missing, but did not break them down by gender.

A better-known database is the Justice Department’s (DOJ) National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs) that tracks missing, unidentified and unclaimed persons and allows police, medical examiners and families of the missing to post, search and update cases at no charge.  But participation is voluntary, and its data is also incomplete.

As of late September 2019, NaMus listed 404 missing Native Americans — 250 males and 154 females.

Meskee Yatsayte, a Navajo citizen who tracks and shares information on the missing and murdered on Facebook, believes these numbers represent the tip of the iceberg.

“Everybody is talking about MMIW, and that’s good. But our men and boys are missing and murdered in way higher in numbers,” Yatsayte said. “In the Navajo Nation alone, 57 persons are currently missing. Thirty-seven of them are men.”

Legislative remedies

A number of bills have been introduced that would address these issues:

Savanna’s Act would improve tribal access to national databases and require DOJ to develop national guidelines for handling missing and murdered Native Americans and report statistics annually to Congress.

The Bridging Agency Data Gaps & Ensuring Safety (BADGES) for Native Communities Act would improve sharing of law enforcement agency data and boost officer recruitment and retention.

The Not Invisible Act of 2019 would require the DOJ to allocate more resources toward missing and murdered Native Americans based on input from local, tribal and federal leaders.

Congresswoman Deb Haaland, a Democrat from the Laguna Pueblo in New Mexico, has introduced amendments to the Violence Against Women’s Act (VAWA), which expired in February and is pending reauthorization, that would provide victim advocate services to urban Indians.

In the interim, advocates are calling on the MMIW movement to change their acronym to MMIR — “Missing and Murdered Indigenous Relatives.”

Victims Violence Against Women Act

‘Discarded’ Abuse Victim Speaks Out: VAWA Bill Reveals How Victimhood Professionals Exploit Victims

‘Discarded’ Abuse Victim Speaks Out: VAWA Bill Reveals How Victimhood Professionals Exploit Victims

Wendy McElroy

April 24, 2021

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is currently in the Senate awaiting debate and reauthorization. VAWA is the federal touchstone for how sexual abuse, especially domestic violence (DV), is addressed and funded nationwide. It has vastly expanded from its 1994 roots and epitomizes not only the inevitable drift of government toward greater power but also the dynamics of how the victimhood industry abets in and weaponizes this power.

Much of current politics devolves to the question of who has a right to speak for the victim. Speaking for victims is a massive industry through which politicians and advocates can achieve immense status and wealth. They can also implement unrelated agendas as long as they are attached to cries of racism or rape. No wonder there is stiff competition among victimhood professionals for who has the right to speak for victims so that they can acquire tax-funding and the weight of law. In the jostle for power and podium, however, the victims themselves are often lost in the shuffle so that no one seems to speak for them, except out of self-interest.

VAWA is an example of victimhood professionals and legislators damaging the very people they claim to protect. It expresses the ground game of most if not all social justice campaigns?

A social justice campaign begins by sculpting the definitions of what constitutes DV and who is viewed as a “victim” in order to make them useful to the “correct” narrative and policies. Whoever controls the definitions wins the argument.

The House VAWA bill H.R. 1620 amends Section 40002 of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (34 U.S.C. 12291). The bill defines DV as:

“a pattern of behavior involving the use or attempted use of physical, sexual, verbal, psychological, economic, or technological abuse or any other coercive behavior committed, enabled, or solicited to gain or maintain power and control over a victim.”

This vague and expansive definition would include lover’s quarrels (verbal abuse), threats of leaving the relationship (psychological), imposing a budget (economic), and sending emails repeatedly after a break-up (technological). It criminalizes common, nonviolent behavior so that government and law enforcement can intervene in the minutia of relationships to benefit one side. An example of an amendment: “Sexual contact is not a necessary component of such a relationship.”

Over time, VAWA’s has deeply embedded “the personal is political” into DV policies and law. The underlying theory of this slogan is that all actions and attitudes, however personal they may seem, have political significance; they occur within the political framework of an oppressive culture and impact society. Almost in self-defense, therefore, society has a ‘right’ to encourage—if not mandate—‘proper’ actions and attitudes; it has a ‘right’ to discourage improper ones, by law if necessary. This is the stripped-down core of political correctness and purpose of the social justice warrior….

Armed with obedient definitions, the next step toward social justice is to create a hysteria to establish the urgency of action. A common way to do this is to cherry-pick statistics that paint an alarming picture. Consider the VAWA section headed “Title IX, Safety for Indian Women,” especially on Native American women’s safety. It opens, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime.”

The statistic comes from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), “Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men.” But VAWA makes a curious omission. Immediately after the 84.3 percent figure cited, the NIPSVS reads, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native men (81.6 percent) have experienced violence in their lifetime.” This is only 2.7 percent less violence than women but this data is ignored. If VAWA cares for “victims,” why the conspicuous omission?

The short answer: the omitted data do not support the social justice narrative or the goal of assisting the oppressed class of “women.” The dismal does not come from the ignorance of advocates or from indifference toward male suffering; they fear presenting an accurate picture. If a balanced discussion of sexual violence occurred, then their preferred group would lose its monopoly on victimhood; advocates would lose funding, status, and power.

Instead, they selectively use stats to declare a DV epidemic against women and to demand legislation. Often, the next step in a social justice campaign is to have carefully selected victims testify in public about their suffering. The testimonials serve at least three purposes other than stoking hysteria. They allow advocates to ride a wave of moral and emotional outrage that sidesteps the need for reasoned arguments. They silence critics who appear to be callous and indifferent to the revealed agony of women if they ask questions. They also push aside inconvenient victims who interrupt the desired narrative; not all of these victims are male.

If the foregoing analysis sounds cynical, it is partly because I am one of the discarded victims. I am legally blind in my right eye due to a severe DV beating I experienced in my 20s. But I do not agree with the ideology, goals, methodology, or conclusions of VAWA. And I am convinced that my experience would have been much worse if I had been processed by the victimhood industry. For one thing, they would have insisted on that my blindness were caused by the system and culture. I knew it had been caused by one man—not by all men, not by society—by one man. I am not the voice VAWA advocates want to hear; I am one of the voices they need to silence. As such, VAWA and other DV advocates have been cynical toward me simply because I want to speak the truth of my own experience.

The victimhood complex is a huge network of bureaucracy that directly results from “the personal is political.” But the personal cannot be found in a government agency. People will never be empowered by bureaucrats; people are empowered by speaking themselves.

Excerpted from: 

Press Release Victims Violence Violence Against Women Act

Press Release: Anti-Violence Bill Loses Focus on Victims, Many Claim


Contact: Teri Stoddard

Anti-Violence Bill Loses Focus on Victims, Many Claim

WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 — A growing number of groups, including Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, are criticizing the proposed reauthorization bill of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for losing sight of the law’s original intended purpose: to help victims of domestic violence. These concerns were highlighted during the recent February 2 meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Concerned Women for America, the largest women’s organization in the country, noted in a February 1 group letter that the Leahy-Crapo bill will “actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims.”

Victim-advocacy group Survivors in Action decries what it calls the “DV run-around” in which victims are shunted from hotlines to shelters to social service agencies, never receiving the services they need.

Sen. Charles Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, deplored the fact that VAWA bill S. 1925 “creates so many new programs for underserved populations that it risks losing the focus on helping victims.” (1)

Even Judiciary Committee chairman Patrick Leahy acknowledged criticism that the VAWA bill is “trying to protect too many victims.” Following debate, Sen. Leahy’s proposed bill was approved by a slim 10-8 margin and was forwarded to the full Senate for consideration.

Vague and over-broad definitions of abuse found in the current law undermine key Constitutional protections for the accused, as well:

“If we want to stop the cycle of violence and help real victims, the Violence Against Women Act must rein in sweeping definitions, improve accountability, and recognize that women are as likely as men to be physically abusive with their partners,” explains SAVE spokesman Philip W. Cook.

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is proposing consideration of the Partner Violence Reduction Act (2), which accords priority to persons with evidence of physical violence.

Congressman Ted Poe, co-chair of the Victim’s Rights Caucus, has suggested changing the name of VAWA to the Domestic Violence Act, in order to recognize that partner abuse affects members of both sexes (3).

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments is a victim-advocacy organization working for evidence-based solutions to partner abuse:


Campus Office for Civil Rights Sex Stereotyping Title IX Title IX Equity Project Victims

PR: Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335


Hinting at Sex Bias, Federal Judge Slaps Down RPI for Circumventing New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / October 26, 2020 – A federal judge has ruled against Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute for utilizing its old Title IX policy for a case that was adjudicated after the August 14 effective date of the new regulation. The decision is widely seen as a rebuke to RPI, both because it reversed a decision by college administrators, and because of the strong language used in the opinion (1).

In this case, John Doe and Jane Roe had a sexual encounter while under the strong influence of alcohol. Echoing the familiar he-said, she-said pattern, Doe alleged that Roe pressured him to put his hands around her neck and engage in unprotected sex. In contrast, Roe claimed that his hands were placed on her neck in a non-sexual way, and that the sexual activity was non-consensual.

Doe and Roe filed Title IX complaints against each other with school officials.

During the campus adjudication, RPI applied different standards against the two parties, deciding that “Doe’s complaint against Roe was insufficiently substantiated because he failed to prove that he did not voluntarily consume alcohol and did not initiate sexual contact with Roe.” As a result, the college made a determination in favor of Roe.

Doe then filed a lawsuit in the New York Northern District Court. In his October 16 ruling, Judge David Hurd suggested that sex bias was at work: “[T]he female’s complaint proceeded without issue, the male’s was struck down in part on grounds not contemplated anywhere in the policy’s definition of consent. That inequitable treatment provides not inconsiderable evidence that gender was a motivating factor in RPI’s treatment of Doe.”

Relying on unusually strong language, the court commented that “whatever answer may come to the question of how to secure the rights of an accusing woman and an accused man, that answer cannot be that all men are guilty. Neither can it be that all women are victims.” Doe had presented strong evidence that “RPI has come down on the opposite side of that truth,” the court concluded.

Sex discrimination against male students appears to be widespread on college campuses. Recently, George Washington University ordered 23 student groups to amend their constitutions to comply with the school’s nondiscrimination policy. These groups include Girls Who Code, Queens Movement, and female-only service groups (2).

Other forms of sex discrimination include female-only services (3), female-specific scholarships (4), one-sided gender studies courses (5), and sex stereotyping (6).

This appears to be the first judicial ruling regarding the applicability of the new Title IX regulation. Judge Hurd’s decision can be viewed online (7).


DED Sexual Assault Directive Office for Civil Rights Victims

PR: Sexual Assault Survivors Reveal Widespread Mistreatment at the Hands of Campus ‘Kangaroo Courts’


Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335


Sexual Assault Survivors Reveal Widespread Mistreatment at the Hands of Campus “Kangaroo Courts”

WASHINGTON / August 25, 2020 – Over the past nine years, male and female victims of campus sexual assault have reported numerous instances of mistreatment and neglect by university officials.  The persistent problem led survivors to file complaints to the federal Office for Civil Rights.  Over the past decade, complaints to the OCR increased over four-fold, from 17,724 (2000-2010) to 80,739 (2011-2020). [1] The problem is reflected in the growing number of lawsuits filed against universities, with 650 claims filed to date. [2]

Both female and male victims of sexual assault have been shortchanged by their universities.

One female student at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater charged, “I don’t think anybody should be treated the way that I was. It was worse than the assault, a lot worse. I regret with everything, coming forward and saying anything.” [3]

A male victim at Drexel University reported his sexual assault to campus administrators at least seven times, but the university never acted on his complaint. He stated one university official dismissed his rape claim as “ludicrous.” [4]

Penn State, Michigan State, and the University of Southern California (USC) have been in the news in recent months for gross mistreatment of victims:

  • At Penn State, the Office for Civil Rights identified several cases in which the university, after receiving a complaint of sexual assault, delayed its investigation for so long that the complainant chose to abandon the process.  The OCR report noted, “(T)here are serious inadequacies in how the University treats both complainants and respondents in cases of alleged sexual harassment that need correction in order to bring the University into compliance with Title IX.” [5]
  •  Michigan State is facing a possible U.S. Supreme Court challenge after three former students petitioned the court to review their Title IX case and reverse the lower appellate court decision. The original lawsuit cited lack of adequate response to their reports of sexual assault. [6]
  • The University of Southern California is facing a federal lawsuit after California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court decision and overturned a male student’s expulsion, ruling that his Title IX proceeding was “unfair.” The student, a former USC football star, is now forging ahead with a seven-count federal lawsuit on the grounds of “breach of contract, infliction of emotional distress, negligence and selective enforcement of Title IX.” [7]

A SAVE analysis documents seven ways by which the new Title IX regulation supports and assists complainants. [8]

  1. Establishes a legally enforceable duty of universities to respond to such cases in a timely manner.
  2. Requires the school to investigate allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and harassment.
  3. Requires the school to offer complainants supportive measures, such as class or dorm reassignments or no-contact orders, even if an investigation is not initiated.
  4. Defines the procedures to properly investigate and adjudicate such complaints.
  5. Promotes victim autonomy by allowing the complainant to participate in dispute resolution or withdraw a complaint, if desired.
  6. Ensures complainants are not required to disclose any confidential medical, psychological, or similar records.
  7. Discourages minor complaints that tend to dilute the availability of resources and harm the credibility of future victims.

Universities now have a legally enforceable duty to respond to victim complaints in a timely and thorough manner and to investigate allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence and harassment. No longer should any survivor of sexual assault have to experience mistreatment and neglect from university administrators.










Campus Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Victims

PR: Survivors, Accused Students, and Faculty Bid ‘Farewell’ to Campus Kangaroo Courts; Welcome New Title IX Regulation


Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335


Survivors, Accused Students, and Faculty Bid ‘Farewell’ to Campus Kangaroo Courts; Welcome New Title IX Regulation

WASHINGTON / August 18, 2020 – Sexual assault survivors, accused students, and faculty members are welcoming the new Title IX regulation, which took effect this past Friday on college campuses across the nation. Title IX is the federal law that bans sex discrimination at schools receiving federal funds. The new regulation replaces a 2011 Department of Education policy that sparked national controversy, hundreds of lawsuits, and thousands of federal complaints.

Sexual assault survivors are applauding the new regulation because it provides a detailed and legally enforceable framework for colleges to investigate and adjudicate allegations of sexual assault. Under the old policy, some victims reported the ‘brush-off’ treatment they received was more traumatic than the original assault (1).

Many of these victims complained to the federal Office for Civil Rights. As a result, the number of sex discrimination complaints increased over four-fold, from 17,724 (2000-2010) to 80,739 (2011-2020). (2)  Male victims of sexual assault are anticipating that their complaints also will taken more seriously by campus administrators.

Accused students will benefit from a restoration of fundamental due process rights, which include the right to an impartial investigation and an unbiased adjudication. Over the years, hundreds of wrongfully accused students have sued their universities. On July 29, for example, a federal appeals court reversed a lower court decision and reinstated sex discrimination charges brought by David Schwake against Arizona State University (3). The Schwake decision brings the number of judicial decisions in favor of students accused of sexual misconduct to 184. (4)

Faculty members, who found their free speech rights curtailed by expansive definitions of sexual assault, welcomed the new Rule, as well. The National Association of Scholars decried how faculty members had been “denied the chance to respond to complaints, the right to confront and question witnesses, and even the right to be presumed innocent.” (5)

On August 9, Judge John Koeltl issued a ruling that allowed the regulation to be implemented as planned on August 14. Highlighting the long-awaited improvements for all parties, the Judge noted the regulations will “benefit both complainants and respondents by providing procedural guidance for grievance procedures,” and promised complainants “greater assurance” that decisions “will not be overturned because the process did not comply with due process.” (6)

The new Rule has been praised by a wide range of stakeholders, including the Independent Women’s Forum (7), National Association of  Criminal Defense Attorneys (8), Harvard law professor Jeannie Suk Gersen (9), former ACLU president Nadine Strossen (10), former Virginia governor Douglas Wilder (11), and others (12).

Staci Sleigh-Layman, Title IX Coordinator at Central Washington University, explains, “These new changes give a lot of credibility and due process and equal kind of attention to the person accused as well as the person coming forward… they put in place a process that seeks to provide due process for both sides.” (13)