Category: Victims

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

Post author By saveadmin
Post date August 18, 2020

PRESS RELEASE

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)

Links:

Accountability Campus Civil Rights Department of Education Discrimination Due Process False Allegations Investigations Office for Civil Rights Press Release Sex Education Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Training Victims Violence

Double Jeopardy: SAVE Calls on College Administrators to Assure Due Process Protections for Black Students in Title IX Proceedings

Post author By saveadmin
Post date July 28, 2020

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

Double Jeopardy: SAVE Calls on College Administrators to Assure Due Process Protections for Black Students in Title IX Proceedings

WASHINGTON / July 28, 2020 – SAVE recently released a study that shows black male students face a type of “double jeopardy” by virtue of being male and black. (1) Analyses show although black male students are far outnumbered on college campuses, they are four times more likely than white students to file lawsuits alleging their rights were violated in Title IX proceedings (2), and at one university OCR investigated for racial discrimination, black male students were accused of 50% of the sexual violence reported to the university yet they comprised only 4.2% of the student population. (3)

In 2015, Harvard Law Professor Janet Halley raised an alarm to the U.S. Senate HELP committee that, “the rate of complaints and sanctions against male students of color is unreasonably high.” (4) She advised school administrators to, “not only to secure sex equality but also to be on the lookout for racial bias and racially disproportionate impact and for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity – not only against complainants but also against the accused.” (5)

Her powerful words were ignored. Over the past 5 years numerous black males have been caught up in campus Title IX proceedings. Their lawsuits often claim a lack of due process in the procedures.

Grant Neal, a black student athlete, was suspended by Colorado State University – Pueblo for a rape his white partner denied ever happened. (6) Two black males students accused of sexually assaulting a fellow student recently settled a lawsuit against University of Findlay for racial, gender and ethnic discrimination. (7) Nikki Yovino was sentenced to a year in prison for making false rape accusations against two black Sacred Heart University football players whose lives were ruined by her accusations. (8) These are just a few examples.

Wheaton College in suburban Chicago, a major stop along the Underground Railroad, recently dismissed Chaplain Tim Blackmon, its first nonwhite chaplain in its 155-year history. Blackmon claims Wheaton’s Title IX office failed to investigate a previous Title IX complaint against him in a “clear misuse of the Title IX investigative process,” and he was “completely blind-sided by this Title IX investigation.” Blackmon’s attorney believes the professor’s race heavily factored into his firing, and that Wheaton was looking for an excuse to sever its relationship with its first African American chaplain and return to being a predominantly white educational institution. (9)

The impact to black male students and faculty could be even greater than any data or media reports imply since only those who can afford a costly litigation file lawsuits and make the news. More data is needed, but anecdotally black males are disproportionately harmed in campus Title IX proceedings.

SAVE recently spoke with Republican and Democrat offices in the House and Senate regarding this issue. Virtually all staffers agreed members of Congress are concerned about harm to black students and supportive of ways to offer protections to all students, including those of color.

The new Title IX regulation offers necessary due process protections that black students need. By complying with the regulation, college administrators will protect the rights of all students and address the serious problem that black men are accused and punished at unreasonably high rates. At a time when activists on college campuses are clamoring that Black Lives Matter, college administrators should assure they are doing everything they can to help their black students.

Citations:

SAVE is leading the policy movement for fairness and due process on campus: http://www.saveservices.org/

Uncategorized Victims

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

Post author By saveadmin
Post date June 4, 2020

Native American Boys: Forgotten Victims

by Wendy McElroy | Jun 3, 2020

A recent study by the Nebraska State Patrol and the Commission on Indian Affairs should change how the media and lawmakers view violence against Native Americans. They should look carefully at male victims, but it is far from clear that they will.

The Omaha World-Herald offer s a surprising statistic , “The greatest percentage of Native American missing persons are boys age 17 or younger, accounting for 73.3% of all Native American missing persons in Nebraska.” In fact, they account for 59.6% of missing people in the state. The data is even the more remarkable because it resulted from LB 154, a state bill to “require a report on missing Native American women in Nebraska.” The 21-line bill that authorizes the study mentions “Native American women” six times; men and boys are not mentioned at all.

At long last, male victims of violence may receive the same attention as female ones. Or will they?

Some telling comments conclude the study. Under “Important Related Information,” it states, “During the period of this investigation…there have been several tragic events involving young Native women in Nebraska: the cases of Ashlea Aldrich and Esther Wolfe. These alleged crimes against Native women make plain” why the study and “its ongoing follow through are vitally important.” State Senator Tom Brewer, who co-sponsored LB 154, is quoted: “We need all law enforcement to communicate and work together to address the exploitation and victimization of Native women.” The concluding words of Judi M. Gaiashkibos, Executive Director, Nebraska Commission on Indian Affairs, speaks only of “women and children” and laments “actions and policies” that “have displaced women from their traditional roles in communities and governance and diminished their status…leaving them vulnerable to violence.”

Men and boys are nowhere. Nor does the media seemingly note even the possibility of male victims. A Lincoln Journal Star article that anticipated LB 154 was entitled “Senators want to step up investigations of missing or abused Native women.” And a word commonly applied to violence against Native American women is “epidemic.” These women deserve every bit of attention and compassion they receive, but so do males.

Lawmakers also ignore male victims. The latest Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), which awaits reauthorization, is an example. It sets the national standard on how sexual abuse is handled, including “Standardized protocols for…missing and murdered Indians.” (Sec. 904) Native American women is one of the Act’s core issues with TITLE IX—Safety for Indian Women addressing the problem. Title IX opens, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native women, or 84.3 percent, have experienced violence in their lifetime”—a statistic drawn from a National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey entitled “Violence Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and Men.”

The statistic is appalling, but VAWA makes a curious omission in quoting it. Immediately after the 84.3 percent figure, the Survey cited reads, “More than 4 in 5 American Indian and Alaska Native men (81.6 percent) have experienced violence in their lifetime.” In other words, Native American men experience only 2.7 percent less violence than women. A few lines later, the Survey states “55.5 percent” of women and “43.2 percent” of men “have experienced physical violence by an intimate partner,” figures that differ by 12.3 percent. And, yet, this data does not make it into VAWA.

It is difficult to avoid concluding that VAWA slants important evidence in order to champion female victims and dismiss male ones. In theory, the programs VAWA administers are available to both sexes even though the language is gendered for females. In practice, VAWA is widely accused of making only a tiny portion of its considerable resources available to men.

The plight of male victims must be well known to lawmakers who appear to be passionate about issues like domestic violence (DV). A 2019 article in Indian Country Today, “Breaking the silence on violence against Native American men” cites “a recent study by the National Institute of Justice”; it reported that “more than 1.4 million American Indian and Alaska Native men have experienced violence in their lifetime.” The total may be an understatement. Males victims of DV ”are often reluctant to seek help or tell friends or family out of embarrassment and/or fear of not being believed. They may worry that they—and not their partner—will be blamed for the abuse.”

The blind eye to male victims is not limited to Native Americans, however, but pervades most discussions of DV. Consider the VAWA provision that allows battered immigrants to petition for legal status. In 2016, Attorney Gerald Nowotny called out the provision’s unfairness to men. Nowotny wrote, “The irony is that when it comes to the perception of domestic abuse, the focus is almost exclusively on men as the perpetrators of violence and abuse. The statistical reality is that more men than women are victims of intimate partner physical violence and psychological aggression.” Nowotny’s assessment derived from a 2010 national survey by the Centers for Disease Control and U.S. Department of Justice that found more men than women experienced physical violence from an intimate partner and over 40% of severe physical violence.

But the assumption of mainstream media and lawmakers seems unshakable: men commit violence against women; men are not victims. What if this gender bias were a racial one? What if VAWA was the Violence Against Whites Act? There would be and there should be outrage. The same people should be as outraged as by the suffering of men who too often remain silent for fear of being ridiculed or not believed. In this regard, male victims today resemble female ones from decades ago; they are revictimized by a system that does want to hear their voices.

Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Victims Violence Against Women Act

HEROES Coronavirus Bill is Chock-Full of Domestic Violence Provisions

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 14, 2020

The coronavirus relief bill, the HEROES Act, HR 6800, was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. The bill proposes $3 trillion (with a ‘T’) in new federal expenditures.

There is little evidence that coronavirus stay-at-home policies are causing a “surge” or “spike” in domestic violence cases. Nonetheless, the HEROES Act bill contains numerous domestic violence and sexual assault provisions that would increase spending by $170 million. Many of the provisions are budget-focused, while others would mandate policy changes in existing programs.

These provisions are listed below.

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

Office On Violence Against Women

Violence against women prevention and prosecution programs

For an additional amount for “Violence Against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs”, $100,000,000, to remain available until expended, of which—

(1) $30,000,000 is for grants to combat violence against women, as authorized by part T of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Acts of 1968;

(2) $15,000,000 is for transitional housing assistance grants for victims of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, or sexual assault, as authorized by section 40299 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322; “1994 Act”);

(3) $15,000,000 is for sexual assault victims assistance, as authorized by section 41601 of the 1994 Act;

(4) $10,000,000 is for rural domestic violence and child abuse enforcement assistance grants, as authorized by section 40295 of the 1994 Act;

(5) $10,000,000 is for legal assistance for victims, as authorized by section 1201 of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (Public Law 106–386; “2000 Act”);

(6) $4,000,000 is for grants to assist tribal governments in exercising special domestic violence criminal jurisdiction, as authorized by section 904 of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013; and

(7) $16,000,000 is for grants to support families in the justice system, as authorized by section 1301 of the 2000 Act:

Indian Health Service

(4) $20,000,000 shall be used to address the needs of domestic violence victims and homeless individuals and families;

Children and Families Services Programs

(1) $50,000,000 for Family Violence Prevention and Services grants as authorized by section 303(a) and 303(b) of the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act with such funds available to grantees without regard to matching requirements under section 306(c)(4) of such Act, of which $2,000,000 shall be for the National Domestic Violence Hotline:

Community Planning And Development

That funds made available under this heading in this Act and under this heading in title XII of division B of the CARES Act (Public Law 116–136) may be used for eligible activities the Secretary determines to be critical in order to assist survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking or to assist homeless youth, age 24 and under:

Public And Indian Housing

$1,000,000,000 shall be used for incremental rental voucher assistance under section 8(o) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 for use by individuals and families who are—homeless, as defined under section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a)); at risk of homelessness, as defined under section 401(1) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360(1)); or fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking:

SEC. 40306. GRANTS TO ASSIST LOW-INCOME WOMEN AND SURVIVORS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN OBTAINING QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDERS.

(a) Authorization Of Grant Awards.—The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Director of the Women’s Bureau and in conjunction with the Assistant Secretary of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, shall award grants, on a competitive basis, to eligible entities to enable such entities to assist low-income women and survivors of domestic violence in obtaining qualified domestic relations orders and ensuring that those women actually obtain the benefits to which they are entitled through those orders.

(b) Definition Of Eligible Entity.—In this section, the term “eligible entity” means a community-based organization with proven experience and expertise in serving women and the financial and retirement needs of women.

(c) Application.—An eligible entity that desires to receive a grant under this section shall submit an application to the Secretary of Labor at such time, in such manner, and accompanied by such information as the Secretary of Labor may require.

(d) Minimum Grant Amount.—The Secretary of Labor shall award grants under this section in amounts of not less than $250,000.

(e) Use Of Funds.—An eligible entity that receives a grant under this section shall use the grant funds to develop programs to offer help to low-income women or survivors of domestic violence who need assistance in preparing, obtaining, and effectuating a qualified domestic relations order.

EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE VOUCHER PROGRAM

DATORY PREFERENCES.—Each public housing agency administering assistance under this section shall provide preference for such assistance to eligible families that are—

(i) homeless (as such term is defined in section 103(a) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11302(a));

(ii) at risk of homelessness (as such term is defined in section 401 of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11360); or

(iii) fleeing, or attempting to flee, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking.

TITLE I—PROVISIONS RELATING TO STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL, AND PRIVATE SECTOR WORKERS

(5) ESSENTIAL WORK.—The term “essential work” means any work that—

(A) is performed during the period that begins on January 27, 2020 and ends 60 days after the last day of the COVID–19 Public Health Emergency;

(B) is not performed while teleworking from a residence;

(i) regular in-person interactions with—

(I) patients;

(II) the public; or

(III) coworkers of the individual performing the work; or

(ii) regular physical handling of items that were handled by, or are to be handled by—

(I) patients;

(II) the public; or

(III) coworkers of the individual performing the work; and

(D) is in any of the following areas:

(i) First responder work, in the public sector or private sector, including services in response to emergencies that have the potential to cause death or serious bodily injury, such as police, fire, emergency medical, protective, child maltreatment, domestic violence, and correctional services (including activities carried out by employees in fire protection activities, as defined in section 3(y) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 203(y)) and activities of law enforcement officers, as defined in section 1204(6) of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10284(6)).

(xi) Social services work, including social work, case management, social and human services, child welfare, family services, shelter and services for people who have experienced intimate partner violence or sexual assault, services for individuals who are homeless, child services, community food and housing services, and other emergency social services.

Campus Dating Violence Department of Education Domestic Violence Due Process Investigations Office for Civil Rights Sexual Assault Sexual Harassment Title IX Victims

PR: New Sexual Assault Regulation Will Benefit Victims, For Numerous Reasons

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 8, 2020

Contact: Rebecca Stewart

Telephone: 513-479-3335

Email: info@saveservices.org

New Sexual Assault Regulation Will Benefit Victims, For Numerous Reasons

WASHINGTON / May 8, 2020 – SAVE is today releasing an analysis that enumerates the many ways by which the newly released Title IX regulation will benefit victims of campus sexual assault. Title IX is the federal law that bans sex discrimination in schools. The new regulation was released on Wednesday by the Department of Education (1).

Titled, “Analysis: New Title IX Regulation Will Support and Assist Complainants in Multiple Ways,” the SAVE report identifies seven broad ways that the new federal regulation benefits victims and survivors:

Establishes a legally enforceable duty of universities to respond to such cases in a timely manner.
Requires the school to investigate allegations of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and harassment.
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.
Defines the procedures to properly investigate and adjudicate such complaints.
Promotes victim autonomy by allowing the complainant to participate in dispute resolution or withdraw a complaint if desired.
Ensures complainants are not required to disclose any confidential medical, psychological, or similar records.
Discourages minor complaints that tend to dilute the availability of resources and harm the credibility of future victims.

Nashville attorney Michelle Owens provides examples of lawsuits from her own practice that fall into the category of minor and trivial complaints:

A student who was charged under Title IX for allegedly touching a girl on her head. This was not on a date or in a romantic setting.
One client was charged for sexual misconduct for touching a student on her elbow at a dance because he was trying to move her out of the way of another person.
One male student was charged for giving an honest compliment to a friend on her outfit.

The new SAVE document identifies 28 legally enforceable provisions in the new regulation that will benefit and support victims. Three examples of these provisions are: “Complainants are assured that unwelcome conduct that is severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive will not be tolerated at their institution;” “Complainants are assured that respondents that are deemed an immediate threat to safety will be removed from campus;” and “Complainants must be provided an advisor free of charge to conduct cross-examination on their behalf.”

SAVE has identified numerous cases in which campus disciplinary committees, sometimes derisively referred to as “kangaroo courts,” have shortchanged victims (2). The Independent Women’s Forum argues that “Survivors should praise efforts to ensure that disciplinary decisions are not overturned by courts or regarded as illegitimate in the court of public opinion.” (3)

There is no evidence that the previous campus policies have succeeded in reducing campus sexual assault. A recent report from the American Association of Universities revealed an actual increase in campus sexual assaults from 2015 to 2019 (4).

The SAVE analysis is available online: http://www.saveservices.org/2020/05/analysis-new-title-ix-regulation-will-support-and-assist-complainants-in-multiple-ways/

Links:

Accountability Campus Civil Rights Department of Justice Discrimination Law Enforcement Office for Civil Rights Press Release Research Training Victims

PR: Expert Panel Calls on Lawmakers to Bring an End to Campus ‘Kangaroo Court’ Investigations

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 11, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

Expert Panel Calls on Lawmakers to Bring an End to Campus ‘Kangaroo Court’ Investigations

WASHINGTON / October 11, 2016 – Warning “victim-centered” investigations are “inconsistent with basic notions of fairness and justice,” an Expert Panel has issued a report calling on lawmakers to end such approaches in campus sexual assault cases (1). The Expert Panel was convened in observance of Wrongful Conviction Day on October 4 and addressed the growing problem of “victim-centered” investigations at colleges and in the criminal justice system.

“Victim-centered” methods abandon traditional notions of impartiality and objectivity, and instead call on investigators to presume that “all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by investigative findings,” as one report enjoins (2). Such recommendations represent a negation of the long-held tenet of the presumption of innocence, and are likely to lead to wrongful determinations of guilt.

One of the expert panelists was Michael Conzachi, a former homicide detective and police academy instructor. Conzachi sharply criticized the University of Texas-Austin document Blueprint for Campus Police, saying its recommendations to remove inconsistent statements and exculpatory information from investigational reports represent a potential violation of laws that bar evidence concealment and tampering.

E. Everett Bartlett, president of the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, reported that many lawsuits by accused students against universities now include allegations of investigational impropriety. He identified nine categories of investigational biases claimed in campus lawsuits such as Overt bias/Predetermination of guilt and Inadequate investigator qualifications.

SAVE has developed a model bill titled the Campus Equality, Fairness, and Transparency Act (CEFTA). The bill mandates the use of “justice-centered” investigations that would require campus investigators to “discharge their duties with objectivity and impartiality” (3).

Accountability Accusing U. Affirmative Consent Due Process Press Release Rape-Culture Hysteria Victims

PR: American Law Institute Pulls the Plug on Affirmative Consent

Post author By saveadmin
Post date May 23, 2016

Contact: Gina Lauterio
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: glauterio@saveservices.org

American Law Institute Pulls the Plug on Affirmative Consent

WASHINGTON / May 23, 2016 – By a resounding margin, members of the American Law Institute voted down a controversial “affirmative consent” standard being considered for the group’s proposed Model Penal Code for Sexual Assault. Instead, the ALI membership approved a definition proposed by attorney Margaret Love that states, “’Consent’ means a person’s willingness to engage in a specific act of sexual penetration or sexual contact. Consent may be expressed or it may be inferred from behavior, including words and conduct—both action and inaction—in the context of all the circumstances.” (1)

The historic vote took place at the ALI annual conference on May 17 in Washington, DC. After two hours of at times acrimonious debate, approximately four-fifths of the 500 members present voted to remove the affirmative consent language (2). Leading judges, law professors, and practicing attorneys comprise the membership of ALI, which develops model laws for adoption at the state level.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had sharply criticized the proposed affirmative consent policy, charging the ALI draft used “the bludgeon of criminal sanctions to impose the new and yet untested concept of ‘affirmative consent’ upon society.” (3)

The affirmative consent standard has been struck down in two state-level decisions, as well.

In August, Judge Carol McCoy ruled the University of Tennessee-Chattanooga’s affirmative consent policy “erroneously shifted the burden of proof” to the defendant. The administrative judge noted that “requiring the accused to affirmatively provide consent… is flawed and untenable if due process is to be afforded to the accused.” (4)

Last month the Massachusetts District Court ruled against the Brandeis University affirmative consent policy, saying “it is absurd to suggest that it makes no difference whatsoever whether the other party is a total stranger or a long-term partner in an apparently happy relationship.” (5)

Decrying the rigidity and intrusiveness of the affirmative consent approach, Newsday columnist Cathy Young asks, “While there’s still time, we should stop and ask just how much government we really want in the bedroom.” (6) More information about affirmative consent can be found on the SAVE website (7).

(1) https://www.ali.org/media/filer_public/19/a4/19a45dd8-da30-44d5-a4a1-5bb3992a3521/mpcsa-language-52016.pdf
(2) http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a-mess-law-group-rejects-affirmative-consent/article/2591692
(3) http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/NACDL-Comments-Draft-6-MPC-Sexual-Assault.pdf
(4) https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/memorandum-mock.pdf
(5) https://kcjohnson.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/brandeis-decision.pdf
(6) http://www.newsday.com/opinion/columnists/cathy-young/the-risks-of-affirmative-consent-1.11819583
(7) http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/affirmative-consent/

SAVE is working for evidence-based, constitutionally sound solutions to campus sexual assault: www.saveservices.org

Accountability Discrimination Domestic Violence False Allegations Press Release Research Uncategorized Victims

PR: Cocoon of Dishonesty: SAVE Warns Lawmakers about False Information from Domestic Violence Groups

Post author By saveadmin
Post date January 6, 2014

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Cocoon of Dishonesty: SAVE Warns Lawmakers about False Information from Domestic Violence Groups

WASHINGTON / January 6, 2014 – A leading victim-advocacy organization is advising lawmakers to be wary of claims made by domestic violence groups seeking to enact new laws. Stop Abusive and Violent Environments – SAVE — is issuing the warning after the Washington Post’s Fact Checker reported that a claim made by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder turned out to be based on a false statement made by a leading domestic violence researcher.

In 2009, Holder made the startling claim that “intimate partner homicide is the leading cause of death for African-American women ages 15 to 45.” Holder’s statement was taken word-for-word from a 2003 study published by Jacquelyn Campbell, a well-known researcher at the Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing.

But Campbell’s statement turned out to be wrong, leading the Washington Post to say the claim could qualify for its notorious “Four Pinocchios” rating: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/12/18/holders-2009-claim-that-intimate-partner-homicide-is-the-leading-cause-of-death-for-african-american-women/

SAVE has identified many other examples of misrepresentations by domestic violence groups.

In the past year, SAVE reviewed the Fact Sheets of seven leading domestic violence organizations for accuracy and completeness. Based on the review, SAVE assigned a letter grade to the information sheet. In each of the 7 cases, the group’s Fact Sheet received a failing grade: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/truth/

SAVE then contacted organizational leaders to advise them about the flawed information. To date, none of the 7 groups has corrected the erroneous statements.

False information is also found in the Findings of proposed bills designed to combat domestic violence. For example, the proposed federal International Violence Against Women Act contains 16 findings, of which only 3 could be verified to be truthful. All the remaining findings were found to be one-sided, misleading, or false: http://www.saveservices.org/dvlp/policy-briefings/i-vawa-2013-findings/

“Victims of partner abuse are not served when domestic violence groups knowingly disseminate one-sided and false information,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Lawmakers should assure that anti-abuse programs are based on reason and science, not a biased gender ideology.”

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

Discrimination Domestic Violence Press Release Research VAWA Inclusion Mandate Victim-Centered Investigations Victims Violence Against Women Act

PR: SAVE Encourages Domestic Violence Groups to Warn At-Risk Victims

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 29, 2013

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

SAVE Encourages Domestic Violence Groups to Warn At-Risk Victims

WASHINGTON / October 29, 2013 – Stop Abusive and Violent Environments, a leading domestic violence advocacy group, is urging anti-abuse service organizations to update their websites and training materials so persons at high risk of partner violence are warned to take necessary protective measures.

SAVE has identified three risk factors that dramatically multiply a person’s chance of injury and death:

Separated: Persons who are separated face a risk of partner violence that is 50 times higher than the rate of married individuals: Married: 0.9/1,000. Separated: 49.0/1,000.
Mutual violence: A CDC survey found that injury is more than twice as likely when the violence is mutual — 28.4% — compared to unidirectional violence — 11.6%.
Female-initiated violence: Female initiation of violence is the leading reason for the woman becoming injured by her partner, according to research by Dr. Sandra Stith.

A review of existing online Fact Sheets reveals some groups, such as the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, do warn persons about the first risk factor.

But SAVE’s analysis has failed to identify a single group that is warning persons about the risks of mutual or female-initiated violence. As a result, at-risk persons do not take special precautions to deter violence. And policymakers may be unaware of the need for programs designed to address these worrisome situations.

To date, SAVE has reviewed Fact Sheets produced by the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Futures Without Violence, New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence, NY City Mayor’s Office to Combat Domestic Violence, and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. SAVE evaluated their statements according to 10 objective criteria of accuracy, balance, and completeness: http://www.saveservices.org/camp/truth/

In the future, SAVE plans to review the educational materials of other organizations

“SAVE applauds the work of domestic violence groups that warn persons about the risks of separating from an abusive partner,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “But why aren’t these groups also highlighting the risks of mutual and female-initiated abuse?”

Each year, approximately 1,200 Americans were killed by their intimate partners.

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

Domestic Violence Press Release Research Victims

PR: Fatal Error: Flawed Fact Sheets Place Women at Risk

Post author By saveadmin
Post date October 16, 2013

PRESS RELEASE

Contact: Teri Stoddard
Telephone: 301-801-0608
Email: tstoddard@saveservices.org

Fatal Error: Flawed Fact Sheets Place Women at Risk

WASHINGTON / October 16, 2013 – Leading domestic violence organizations are disseminating partner abuse information that is inaccurate, misleading, and serve to place women at risk, according to SAVE, a national victim-advocacy organization.

SAVE reviewed the online Fact Sheets of the National Network to End Domestic Violence, Futures Without Violence, and the New York State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence. SAVE evaluated their statements according to 10 objective criteria of accuracy, balance, and completeness. The review unearthed numerous factual errors (1).

The most serious omission was a lack of mention of mutual partner violence. According to a research summary by the Partner Abuse State of the Knowledge project, nearly three out of five — 58% — incidents of partner aggression are mutual (2). But the three Fact Sheets were entirely silent regarding this widespread scenario.

A Centers for Disease Control survey found that injury was more than twice as likely when the violence is reciprocal — 28.4% — compared to unidirectional violence — 11.6% (3). In some cases, these injuries proved fatal.

The Fact Sheet review also revealed the extent of female-initiated violence is often downplayed. As a result of these distortions, needed services and protections are not available. In the end, women caught in same-sex abusive relationships and male victims in heterosexual relationships become marginalized.

“If we ignore the problem of mutual abuse, victims and offenders often will have nowhere to turn for help,” notes SAVE spokesperson Sheryle Hutter. “Whenever we read about a woman killed by her intimate partner, we should asking if a full understanding of the problem could have prevented the tragedy.”

Each year, approximately 1,500 Americans are killed by their intimate partners, a large majority of whom are female. SAVE urges domestic violence groups to disseminate information that is based on current scientific research (4).

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

http://www.saveservices.org/camp/truth/
Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling. Rates of bi-directional vs. uni-directional intimate partner violence: A comprehensive review. Partner Abuse Vol. 3, No. 2, 2012. http://www.springerpub.com/content/journals/PA-KnowledgeBase-41410.pdf
Whitaker DJ et al. Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 97, No. 5, 2007.
http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Seven-Facts-Every-American-Should-Know-About-DV.pdf