- A sexual assault must be reported within 180 days to qualify for a judicial hearing
- Mediation between the victim and offender is not an option
- Both parties receive the judicial outcome notification and have the option to appeal
- A victim can remain confidential for the entire hearing process
- Sexual violence is now defined in the policy
A sexual harassment and assault policy approved Friday gives accusers the protection of confidentiality, but limits the time frame within which alleged victims can bring forward a case to 180 days.
The 21-page document, approved Friday by the Faculty Senate, allows alleged victims to remain anonymous and explicitly forbids victims and offenders from mediating sexual abuses. An alleged victim can bring a case forward after the 180-day mark with "good cause," according to the policy.
Chair of the Faculty Senate’s executive committee Michael Castleberry said the policy modernized the University’s case procedures to provide more “emotional protection” for alleged victims. The previous policy, last amended in 2005, forced complainants to disclose their identities at the formal hearing stage.
“The whole idea that a woman who has been sexually assaulted has to go in and confront the accuser hurts the healing process. The University’s code has to reflect those kinds of changes,” Castleberry said.
Deputy Title IX Coordinator Tara Pereira, who helped craft the policy over the last year, said she hopes more victims will report sexual abuses with the added emphasis on privacy.
Pereira said victims might be more comfortable coming forward if they did not fear retaliation or feel pressured to release information, though she said the anonymity could hinder the University’s ability to proceed with a hearing.
“It’s really hard to be victim survivor and go into a process where you are not in power,” Pereira said. In cases where underage drinking is involved, she added, a victim is “not likely” to face alcohol violation charges if a sexual harassment occurs – a factor she hopes will increase reports.
Three female students reported four sexual abuses on or near campus in the first two weeks of the semester. All of the situations involved alcohol.
Department of Education data shows that nearly 20 percent of women who attend college are victims of attempted or actual sexual assaults. About 95 percent of campus rapes go unreported.
The total number of reported on-campus sex offenses reached 12 cases in 2010, the most recently available yearlong University Police Department statistics.
The policy is an interim, allowing the Faculty Senate time to revise or review the procedures before instituting permanent measures. It also spells out GW’s in-house statute of limitations for sexual assaults and sexual harassment for the first time.
The University's procedures for reviewing allegations came under scrutiny in 2011, when a then-freshman sued GW, saying he was wrongfully found guilty of sexual assault. He alleged that the University refused to consider relevant evidence that proved him innocent. The lawsuit was settled out of court.
Vice Provost for Diversity and Inclusion Terri Harris Reed helped shape the interim policy over the last year, negotiating with Department of Education officials on specifics like minimum wait time for a trial to be heard. The department also called for schools to bar cases from being settled through mediation between the accused and accuser.
“That’s what every university is doing," Reed said. "They didn’t change the regulation, they said: This is how we’re going to evaluate you.”
A decade ago, the Faculty Senate sparred on the sexual harassment policy, voting down previous versions out of concern that professors who discuss sexual topics in class could face sanctions.
Pereira hopes the policy will help increase reporting numbers for a crime she called the most under-reported in the world.
“The policies are clearer, the resources are clearer and there are more people with their eyes directly on this type of issue,” Pereira said.
Senior Yasemin Ayarci said she was frustrated by the University's GW Today statement that tied sexual harassment to alcohol but was pleased to see the interim policy taking a stronger stance on sexual harassment prevention and accountability.
“It definitely looks great on paper, but I want to see the policy laid out in action,” said Ayarci, who co-hosted a sexual harassment awareness event Sept. 12. “I hope GW takes a larger emphasis on educating college students on sexual harassment and violence.”
How can you possibly prove your innocence if you do not even know who your accuser is?
It’s called a kangaroo court. A real favorite back in the glory days of “Soviet Russia” and a favorite of tin-pot 3rd world regimes.
“The whole idea that a woman who has been sexually assaulted has to go in and confront the accuser hurts the healing process. The University’s code has to reflect those kinds of changes.”
The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused to confront the witnesses against them. Painful or not, this would seem to be reasonable for sexual assault cases at GW.
“But…but…but…it’s not a court of law!” (GW response).
Fine, if you think I’m guilty, call the police.
At least then I can call upon legal counsel of my choice, there are investigative procedures laid out in the Constitution and reflected in local law that they must follow, and I, with or through my attorney, get to perform discovery on the accuser and their supporting witnesses.
Not so at GW. I only had one minor run in with the then-SJS, was blamed for helping to egg on a fight that allegedly happened in the hallway of my floor while I was SLEEPING. First of all, I knew nothing about it, and nobody could prove I was in the hallway. But they also wouldn’t tell me who said I was there. I met with someone over there and they quickly figured out that I had no idea what had happened. They had to drop it eventually, and I have no idea what, if anything, the penalty would have been for this alleged disorderly conduct.
If this had happened on the “outside”, it would have been far different. First, the police cannot write a summons for disorderly conduct that they did not witness. An individual would have to file a citizens complaint, which in itself can be discouraged by the police if it does not serve a valid interest or the claim is weak. And the accused individual gets to know the identity of the complainant, depose and perform discovery on them, and face them in court, if it goes that way.
I would hate to deal with this organization for something far more serious.
This was all brought about by the Obama Administration’s Department of Education which issued the “Dear Colleague” letter that said that universities would not be in compliance with Title IX unless they stripped Sixth Amendment style protections from their codes of conduct.
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.html
Yeah, the Obama admin’s efforts on this led Penn to lower the burden of proof in sex assault cases from “clear and convincing evidence” to “preponderance of evidence.” Translation: if 51% of the evidence suggests a sexual assault occurred, the accuser is deemed guilty. This is far lower than the standard in criminal matters (beyond a reasonable doubt). It’s time for Universities to step aside and let the real authorities handle sexual assault cases: law enforcement agencies and the courts.
This is an extremely irresponsible article by Matthew. It glosses over the lawsuit with a couple quick sentences. The truth is that the lawsuit found systematic discrimition in SJS procedures run by Pereira. As part of the settlement, therefore, GW had to change things. By promoting Pereira and instituting these new policies it is apparent that they are going backwards.
The fact that the supposed victims will not face alcohol violations if they allege assault is asking for more false accusations, which is what started the lawsuit. Second, if victims really want a healing process they would ask to face their accusers. If we want to do more to stop sexual assaults, we also have to do more to stop wrongful allegations.
The idea that the victim should be in power said by Pereira is delusional. This is what is driving the change when it’s legally suppossed to be to stop a disciminatary, unfair process. This misinterpretation of the court-forced changes is criminal. The wrongful coverage of this in the Harchet in this article and others is also troubling. The Hatchet shouldn’t act as forum for press releases for the University, they should describe what is actually going on. Priya and her staff need to be schooled on journalism.
Jon Franklin, do some research before you start in on false reporting – methodologically rigorous research finds false reporting rates to range between 2% – 8% (http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf) – comparable with any other crime.
As for the notion that “if victims really want a healing process, they would ask to face their accusers”..I think you mean perpetrators/attackers. Regardless, I ask you to attempt for even one moment to think of how a victim would feel having to face someone who violated them like that. It’s a terrifying experience. Many victims experience symptoms of PTSD even recounting what happened to a third party – imagine how it feels to come face to face with the person who perpetrated the act that caused these symptoms.
Beyond being insensitive, this apparent victim-blaming mentality is the very reason these changes need to happen. One of the top reasons college-aged victims don’t report is fear of social alienation and rejection due to societal tendencies to victim-blame. If a survivor feels as though he/she would be thrown to the wolves (metaphorically speaking) if they were not able to maintain confidentiality, the assault may never be reported.
The majority of rapes are perpetrated by a minority – according to a study of around 2,000 male students, conducted at a mid-size urban university (sounds familiar, eh?), 76 respondents accounted for 439 campus rapes. Look up David Lisak’s research on the “undetected rapist” for more information about trends in campus perpetration.
The idea that the victim should be in power, as expressed by Pereira, is the furthest thing from delusional. Rape is a crime of power and control – the perpetrator commits the act of violence as a way to exert dominance. Regaining control is paramount for survivors of sexual violence.
Your comment assumes that an actual rape has occurred and that the accusation is not false. The problem is that without a fair process, your assumption is baseless.
Couldn’t agree more. I think anybody found “guilty” of sexual assault should have the book thrown at them. But the process to determine guilt should be legitimate, not smoke and mirrors.
“Rape is a crime of power and control – the perpetrator commits the act of violence as a way to exert dominance.”
No its not. The reasons for rape are many and complex. The power and control message is political propaganda.
I think this is telling.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2204712/Woman-falsely-claimed-raped-men-regretted-having-sex-jailed-years.html?ICO=most_read_module
So, the solution to poor procedures, resulting in discrimination, in the past is to encourage false accusations by violating constitutional rights? If this is the best that the minds teaching our students can come up with, then why is anyone wasting their money at this institution when the staff is so obviously incompetent?
“95 percent of campus rapes go unreported”
BS misphrasing. Likely based on surveys where people allege they were raped (regardless of truth) versus the number of allegations.
We don’t know the number of campus rapes, so we can not comment on how many are reported.