VAWA/Title IX For Alumni Volunteers

[DeltaBetaBaby]

I'm involved with it and receive training in my university role, but have never heard talk of it in my organization (though admittedly, I'm only a very minor adviser). I am actually surprised that FIPG isn't leading a charge on this.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I am actually surprised that FIPG isn't leading a charge on this.

I wouldn't think the FIPG would have a ton of exposure here. It would be an awfully hard sale to convince a jury of some sort of organizational liability for an individual or even group of individuals' decision to participate in a sexual assault. But then again, as organizations, we have to admit the stats don't paint a pretty picture. We could probably soldier on, business as usual, or we can try to do the decent thing and change problem cultures.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I wouldn't think the FIPG would have a ton of exposure here. It would be an awfully hard sale to convince a jury of some sort of organizational liability for an individual or even group of individuals' decision to participate in a sexual assault. But then again, as organizations, we have to admit the stats don't paint a pretty picture. We could probably soldier on, business as usual, or we can try to do the decent thing and change problem cultures.

Seeing just how many campus sexual assaults involve alcohol, I would think an organization violating alcohol or drug policies could be considered responsible, no? Or is that too circuitous a path?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Seeing just how many campus sexual assaults involve alcohol, I would think an organization violating alcohol or drug policies could be considered responsible, no? Or is that too circuitous a path?

I'd say it depends. You'd have to do a very good job connecting the use of the alcohol to the offending behavior. It has to be a better connection than the sexual assault simply being one member's choice. You'd probably have to have some larger conspiracy and further be able to prove it--for Title IX or for civil purposes, by a preponderance of the evidence. [some editorializing--I hate that we use legal phrases like "preponderance of the evidence" and have this quasi-legal setting, but rules of evidence don't apply, hearsay can be evidence, etc., this leads potentially to some bad results]

But the fact that XYZ was having a party, that alcohol was made available and said member of XYZ did commit a sexual assault is probably not going to be enough for an organization to be found responsible.

Reaction to the event is also pretty critical. For example, if it is found that the response to a potential sexual assault in the chapter is an emergency meeting is called to get everyone's story straight to try and portray the alleged victim as someone who was in possession of her faculties who fully consented to the contact when that wasn't the case, I imagine the chapter could probably be found to be at fault here--if not for just the assault, but for creating a hostile environment.

If, on the other hand, a concerned brother contacts the President, who contacts the adviser, who contacts the Student Conduct Office to initiate an investigation, it's probably going to be much harder to conclude that the organization is responsible.

With Title IX around, fraternity chapters really need to do their best to have access to legal counsel. Alumni/ae advisory panels should always have a position for General Counsel to assist when these issues arise. Female organizations need to think about these things too as female-on-male sexual assault does exist and is mostly not reported, but as sexual assault awareness awareness increases as it is with this generation, the reporting of these sorts of incidents is sure to increase.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But the fact that XYZ was having a party, that alcohol was made available and said member of XYZ did commit a sexual assault is probably not going to be enough for an organization to be found responsible.

I was thinking more along the lines of "underage victim was drinking alcohol furnished by XYZ."

In any case, I found it very interesting that Title IX doesn't actually specify who is a mandatory reporter, so each university must make that decision on its own. The language of the act, however, says (paraphrasing) that the university must address sexual assaults reported to anyone the student could reasonably consider to be acting on behalf of the university.

It seems most schools are erring on the side of all faculty and virtually all staff that interact with students, including student activities advisers, but I haven't heard of any requiring training of non-staff who serve as volunteer advisers. And of course, there are pros and cons to such a mandate, as well. I would think, at the very least, that house mothers would be treated as mandatory reporters, as they are akin to RA's at most schools.

[ThetaPrincess24]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

It seems most schools are erring on the side of all faculty and virtually all staff that interact with students, including student activities advisers, but I haven't heard of any requiring training of non-staff who serve as volunteer advisers. And of course, there are pros and cons to such a mandate, as well. I

I can't give specifics, but from working in risk management, there are some universities out there that are trying to get fraternity/sorority advisors to be mandatory reporters, even though they are volunteers with varying degrees of involvement & interactions with their chapters.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by ThetaPrincess24

I can't give specifics, but from working in risk management, there are some universities out there that are trying to get fraternity/sorority advisors to be mandatory reporters, even though they are volunteers with varying degrees of involvement & interactions with their chapters.

Personally, I think it's better that they are not. Having a trusted adult to talk to in confidence could be very important to some students.

I think it's good that they be well-informed on the options available to students and trained to provide appropriate support and guidance, but I feel that a mandatory reporting requirement may deter their ability to provide that support.

As it stands right now, if a member of the chapter I work with were to come to me to discuss a private manner, I would not be able to do so.

[amIblue?]

Originally Posted by ThetaPrincess24

I can't give specifics, but from working in risk management, there are some universities out there that are trying to get fraternity/sorority advisors to be mandatory reporters, even though they are volunteers with varying degrees of involvement & interactions with their chapters.

I recently received correspondence that advisers at my campus are considered "campus security authorities" and are thus required to report certain crimes that I either directly observe or hear second hand such as sexual assault, domestic abuse, or stalking. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about it, especially outside direct observation.

[Sciencewoman]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I'm involved with it and receive training in my university role, but have never heard talk of it in my organization (though admittedly, I'm only a very minor adviser). I am actually surprised that FIPG isn't leading a charge on this.

I have to complete an annual university webinar, due to my role as a faculty advisor, but I think Gamma Phi needs to ensure that the many local advisors who weren't at the summer leadership institute have access to the materials shared. They may be on-line, but I haven't looked yet.