Universities Under Investigation Re: Handling Sexual Assault
 

The federal Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights announced today that 55 institutions of higher learning are being investigated for possible Title IX investigations related to their handling of sexual assault and rape allegations. The institutions are:

Arizona State University
Butte-Glen Community College District
Occidental College
University of California (Berkeley)
University of Southern California
Regis University
University of Colorado (Boulder)
University of Colorado (Denver)
University of Denver
University of Connecticut
Catholic University
Florida State University
Emory University
University of Hawaii (Manoa)
University of Idaho
Knox College
University of Chicago
Indiana University (Bloomington)
Vincennes University
Amherst College
Boston University
Emersen College
Harvard (college and law school)
University of Massachusetts (Amherst)
Frostburg State University
Michigan State University
University of Michigan (Ann Arbor)
Guilford College
University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill)
Minot State University
Dartmouth College
Princeton University
CUNY (Hunter)
Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Sarah Lawrence College
SUNY (Binghamton)
Denison University
Ohio State University
Wittenberg University
Oklahoma State University
Carnegie Mellon University
Franklin and Marshall College
Pennsylvania State University
Swarthmore College
Temple University
Vanderbilt University
Southern Methodist University
University of Texas (Pan American)
College of William and Mary
University of Virginia
Washington State University
University of Wisconsin (Whitewater)
Bethany College
West Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine

The first thing that struck me when I read through this list was how diverse all of these schools are. Big, small, public, private...clearly sexual assault issues are not limited to one type of institution.

The first thing that struck me was that there are no historically black colleges on the list.

Interesting. Any theories on that?

I daren't.

Two ways (at the least) to look at absence of HBCUs:

1. HBCUs are relatively fewer in number, many HBCUs have institutional problems and a lot to lose, and therefore HBCUs have stricter policies on certain matters including sexual assault and rape.

2. Sexual assault and rape tends to be silenced, in general, and such silencing is even more likely in predominantly racial and ethnic minority communities like HBCUs. The absence of HBCUs could mean there is a voice that is not yet heard.

A "link" to one of the news outlet reports on this story :


http://www.newson6.com/story/2540400...use-complaints

No women's colleges on the list, either. What I take from the list is that there really isn't any set of institutions that handles this problem well. The institutions are in a catch-22 because of the responsibilities they have toward both accusers and the accused.

Good point, Low C Flat.

I believe in innocent until proven guilty (I know, this is difficult) for the accused. I also know of 3 people over the past 10 years who were accused of sexual assault or rape and the schools were pressured to punish (including expulsion) the accused despite weak evidence including one situation where the accuser joked about possibly being a liar. The schools felt trapped.

I don't believe the standard for "guilt" should be anywhere near that of the formal judicial system. If the accused is assumed innocent, the accuser is therefore assumed to be lying. Why doesn't the accuser get the benefit of the doubt? You cannot simultaneously believe in the innocence of both parties. If it's his word against hers, SOMEONE is lying.

Now, do I think we should just go around kicking people out of school every time there is an accusation? No. But I think, in a university setting, the burden of proof should be much more akin to that of a civil trial, i.e. 51%, and that they should be able to look at things like patterns of behavior, e.g. if someone is accused three times but none of them can be "proven," you need to look at why this individual keeps getting accused.

Some of these schools supposedly failed to give the alleged victim the complete ability to speak out, failed to inform the alleged victim of her or his rights, and failed to protect the victim.

Victims deserve all of these things (they don't negate the legal aspect of offender innocence until proven guilt) so I am interested in the details of the schools' failures.

The issue is the "specialness" of a college campus. If a college chooses to take action against a student based on their investigation, that is fine, *but* that should be completely separate from whether a criminal investigation occurs. I have no problem with the concept of a Campus Security, but they should *not* have police powers. We would *never* allow Security at a shopping mall to give different justice based on whether one or both of the people involved is a shopper.

If a woman reports a rape, it shouldn't matter whether the event happened on campus, off campus, whether the attacker is a student or whether the woman is.

:mad::mad::mad:

I don't agree. People can have different memories of the same event, especially when alcohol is involved. If you're describing your memory honestly, that's not lying, even if a neutral third-party witness would have recounted things differently.

Campus Police are real police officers. The problem is that many times there is poor oversight of these cases. I read the NYT article about the Jameis Winston case recently. FSU completely botched that investigation, and it is hard to give them the benefit of the doubt that they weren't protecting their star athlete. Students have no option other than the campus police to pursue justice. If those institutions want to abdugate their responsibilities, other local authorities should be allowed to take over.

On some campuses, Campus Police are real officers.

The problem is, a campus judicial board is not a real court of law.

Our country has a criminal justice system for a reason. I cannot comprehend why campuses are expected to conduct their own separate judicial process.

Yes, some campuses have campus police who are sworn police officers. Some campuses have "campus/public safety/security" who are civilian security patrols. Some campuses have a "campus police/public safety/security" combination of sworn police officers and civilian security patrols.

I agree with AGDee.

Issues often arise because people (including students) often do not know the protocol. Campus police often do not have the same abilities as the city police and sheriff's departments and the level of deference to the city law enforcement can vary by the school and city. The campus civilian security patrols definitely do not have the same abilities and therefore have to defer to the city police and sheriff's offices. This process can be complicated for campus crimes including sexual assault and rape. It can be a difficult process of protecting the campus and students while protecting the institution (legally, etc), not ruffling feathers in the local police and sheriff's departments, and not losing jobs among campus police/campus security/public safety.

I totally agree. Whoever decided on this system really screwed up. The Campus police, even when real police should be a division under the local city police. Actual crimes should NEVER be adjudicated by a college review board except as an adjunct to criminal proceedings.

The criminal justice system is not tasked with protecting the victims in any way. If the college can do that, they should.

The problem with using a civil litigation burden of proof is mixing that with criminal-style penalties. Civil penalties are typically monetary awards paid to the other party, with maybe some injunctive relief or the like. And, of course, if this were to be treated as a civil action, then it's alleged victim vs. alleged assailant. But if the result of the proceeding could be the university taking disciplinary action, that is more akin to criminal penalties, and I think the higher burden of proof should apply, and it should university vs. alleged assailant.

Johns Hopkins University needs to be added to the list of schools being investigated.

Here's a nice link for everyone asking why a university would investigate at all:

http://powderroom.jezebel.com/three-...1572268737/all

Yes, a societal problem. But if the law said they can't prosecute, then how can the school take action? If the rapists fought the school, wouldn't the argument "You can't suspend me because even the district attorney said there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute" be sufficient to prevent the school from taking action?

Is it similar (like a school's version) to the burden of proof for a civil suit versus a criminal suit? The school can investigate and punish on the bases of upholding school policies and campus safety. Schools have their own committees and councils that handle campus concerns. The evidence needed to be punished will vary by school and is more along the lines of "just in case" rather than the same hard evidence required for criminal prosecution.

I would think that the school wouldn't be prevented from taking action - students have been suspended/expelled for much less serious crimes than sexual assault. The big problem for these schools in cases such as these is the potential for lawsuits… from both sides.

I know there are cases where a complete mishandling of the complaint has occurred, but for the most part, I think these schools feel stuck. I've read about some of the individual cases, and in at least a handful of them, the schools are not being accused of gross negligence. Well, they are, but on the surface, it's not a reasonable complaint; not one that should earn a student huge dollar amounts in damages, anyway.

No. Schools can kick people out as they see fit, as long as their policies aren't violating laws themselves (e.g. targeting a protected class). You don't have a constitutional right to attend college.

Yup. Though breaking housing contracts on the school's side can be screwy in some states.

Really? So I can pay full tuition, room & board and for absolutely no reason at all, they can just say "Sorry, you're done, leave"? Are they legally obligated to return your fees?

Nope. Schools have a lot of power over students that people aren't aware of. When you attend you agree to go by the handbook which essentially says you can be booted for anything in a lot of places.

I sat on my university's disciplinary committee for 2 years and I did participate in a sexual assault case. It was an extremely difficult situation and the victim was very hesitant to come forward at all and did so only after being pressured by numerous sources months after the fact. After almost 10 hours of questioning/testimony and deliberation we found in favor of the accused. There was a separate case filed with the city/state on the matter and we were instructed that our decision was in no way, shape, or form going to have any bearing on that case or vice versa. And even then it wasn't a case of whether the law was violated, it was solely whether or not school policy was violated. I know the parents of the victim were very upset with our decision, but the bottom line is that until you are put in that position where you have to choose guilty or innocent you can't judge that decision. Sure we could have exhausted days more of questioning and deliberation and investigation but the bottom line is that it is really a matter for the police/legal system and not the university to decide.

Schools lack the necessary resources to fully investigate many claims, yes I feel they should create a safe place to promote learning. But it is not the school's duty to police people, they should take the necessary steps to remove obvious threats but to me its silly to think they could possibly handle serious investigations into sexual assault in the same capacity as local law enforcement.

And to comment about victim rights...Before I was contacted about joining the committee I had no idea that it existed nor the process for reporting any of the violations that came to it. I knew how to report if something was stolen etc but my first instinct would never be to contact campus security or the school, it would be to contact the freaking police!

I know none of what I said excuses the behavior but I think its unreasonable to think a school could better deal with a case of sexual assault than the local law enforcement.

Why reporting to the police isn't the solution to the college rape problem:

http://jezebel.com/why-reporting-to-...leg-1578988324

I just stumbled upon this thread, and being an FSU alum wanted to read my fellow greekchatters opinions. The one thing I came away with is that we form the best opinions when we avail ourselves of different views. Just as some will think that FSU leapt to the defense of their star quarterback, the NYT's has it's own moneymaking agenda, and picks and chooses the information it uses to construct articles. Don't take any news reported by any source verbatim. I have linked the official response by FSU to the NYT article and I am trying to find the police transcripts, which paint a different picture than the media portrays. If I find them, I will post the link.

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2014/4...jameis-winston

http://fsunytimes.fsu.edu/

Found the case files. Here is the link:

http://ncaa.blog.chatsports.com/file...-Case-File.pdf

And for those who don't have the inclination to read all 243 pages, this is a link to a synopsis of the files. I do not know the analyst personally, so cannot attest to his accuracy, and being an FSU fan, he has a certain bias. I read the complete files when they were first released, but I will withhold my opinion, because I don't want to introduce bias. i do hope some of you will read and discuss.

http://www.tomahawknation.com/2013/1...tion-documents

This needs to be QFT.

On of my peeves with the Winston case and the New York Times piece is the accusation that Florida State and the TPD protected him because he was their star football player. This narrative doesn't fit with the facts, but it's an easy sell to folks because using 20/20 hindsight is just human nature. When the alleged assault and initial investigation took place, Jameis Winston wasn't the star quarterback/Heisman contender that he was when the accusations were made public. He was a just another football player on the team, although the fans who follow recruiting closely would recognize his name.

In July of last year (after the Winston alleged assault but before it became public) the TPD charged Greg Dent, who was expected to be a starting receiver with the Seminoles, with sexual assault and the team suspended and then dismissed him.

Does it make sense that the police and the University would protect an unproven player while contemporaneously hanging a star out to dry immediately? No, it doesn't, but the media does love to sell their narrative to an unsuspecting public.

Does it really matter whether it was malice or incompetence? The bottom line here is that they did a shitty job of investigating.

Did you have a chance to read the case files yet?

I don't know that they did or didn't, because we don't have all the facts. The school is constrained by very strict confidentiality rules (designed to protect victims) and the TPD is constrained by our legal system - ie, they need probable cause to arrest Winston. The accuser's attorney is under no such constraints and can lob accusations to the media.

The police report very clearly states that the investigation reached a point where the accuser was unsure of whether she wanted to go forward with a complaint. They left the case open, pending a time when the accuser might change her mind. The accuser's attorney has disputed this claim by TPD but has offered nothing to back it up.

From the initial police report: "This case is being suspended at this time due to a lack of cooperation from the victim. If the victim decides to press charges, the case will be pursued."

The second link pretty clearly undermines your point that you don't want to introduce bias. That guy picks apart the inconsistencies of the victim's statements and her friends, while completely and totally ignoring those of Winston and his friends.

In any case, the problem comes in with things like p84. Why would a police investigator need to go through the athletic office to talk to Winston or his friends? Why are members of the athletic staff claiming to serve as representatives of the football players involved?

Did you read the police report, or just the news article (complete with glaring factual errors) that you linked to? The police would never be able to get a conviction against those guys.