Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

the chronicle of higher ed did not fully explain the significance of the OCR 
ruling in the harvard case - please distribute this as well.

Wendy Murphy


OCR ISSUES RULING IN HARVARD "CORROBORATION RULE" CASE 

Since August of last year, the Department of Education's Office for Civil 
Rights (OCR) has been investigating Harvard because of its new rule requiring 
sexual assault victims on campus to produce "sufficient independent 
corroboration" as a prerequisite to a full investigation and adjudicatory 
resolution of their claims.  Since the inception of OCR's investigation, 
Harvard has substantially revised its policy.  When revisions were complete, 
OCR issued its ruling finding no violation of Title IX and "closing the case" 
on April 1, 2003.

By "closing the case" and concluding after the revisions were completed that 
the current iteration of the policy did not constitute a violation of Title 
IX, OCR did not rule that Harvard's policy was lawful when first enacted.  To 
the contrary.  The best way to assess the significance of OCR's final ruling 
is to understand the overall coercive impact of OCR durign its investigation 
by comparing and contrasting the policy as it was first enacted in May of 
2002 to the current policy.

The new rule generated a great deal of controversy when it was announced in 
the spring of 2002.  Hundreds of students protested not only the new policy 
but the covert manner by which the policy was enacted because the faculty was 
asked to approve the new rule without being told what they were voting for.  

When Harvard insisted despite the protests that it was appropriate to require 
campus rape victims to produce "sufficient independent corroboration" as a 
prerequisite to a full investigation and adjudicatory resolution of their 
claims, students filed a formal complaint with OCR in June 2002.  The 
complaint was accepted for formal investigation in August 2002 on the 
students' request that OCR decide the narrow issue whether the 
"corroboration" rule violates Title IX's requirement that student rape 
victims have access to "prompt and equitable" grievance procedures.

Since the initiation of its formal investigation, Harvard has had a lot of 
time to clarify and modify the rule.   Harvard has not only changed the 
meaning of "corroboration" but has developed new educational and support 
programs for students. 

These are the specific ways in which Harvard's policy has "evolved" during 
OCR's investigation:

1-Instead of "sufficient independent corroboration," Harvard now states they 
require only a list of "supporting information."  The elimination of the word 
"independent" is important because it means a student can "self-support" her 
claim by, for example, telling a friend she was raped.  The elimination of 
the word "sufficient" is also important because it means no person at Harvard 
has discretion to weigh or determine whether the "supporting information" 
rises to a level "worthy" of Harvard's adjudicatory resources.  It is 
important to note that the change in the language evolved from "sufficient 
independent corroboration" in June 2002, to "corroborating information" in 
September 2002 and finally to "supporting information" later in the fall of 
2002.  This reflects OCR's position that the use of the word "corroboration" 
in the title of the standard was unacceptable and that "supporting 
information" need not necessarily rise to the level of "corroborative" 
evidence.

2-The original policy proposed that if a student victim could produce NO 
supporting information, Harvard could decline to take any steps to respond to 
the complaint - including refusing to require even that the accused student 
submit a response. 
 
The new policy provides that Harvard must, at a minimum, obtain a written 
responsive statement from the accused student.  This is the case even if the 
victim produces absolutely nothing but her word and even if a long time has 
passed since the incident.

3-The original policy proposed that if a student victim produced insufficient 
"independent" corroborating information, the administration could exercise 
basically unchecked discretion not to forward the complaint to the Ad Board.  

The new policy provides that after the accused student submits a statement, 
the entire matter must be provided to the full Adjudicatory Board for their 
review and for placement in their files.  The Ad Board's role as a repository 
of all sexual assault complaints, irrespective of "supportive information," 
helps to ensure that the magnitude of the problem as well as the identities 
of repeat offenders will be identified, and that compliance with the Clery 
Act will not be affected.  Simply put, there is no longer a concern that 
Harvard can decline to report publicly the true number of sexual assaults 
under the Campus Reporting Act - because all complaints must be disclosed and 
counted regardless of the availability of "supporting information."

4-The original policy was announced by Harvard as applying only to sexual 
assault and sexual assault-based discrimination cases.  This placed a 
disproportionately unjust burden on women suffering a gender-based form of 
violence by subjecting them to a higher degree of scrutiny than that which 
was imposed on other "types" of students.

Harvard recently announced that, under its revised policy, students reporting 
any form of discrimination, based on race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, 
religion, etc., - are all subject to the same requirement of "supporting 
information."

5-The original policy made no mention of the need to educate the Ad Board on 
the nature of sexual assault, the proper approach to investigations, etc.

Harvard has since created the "Leaning Committee," headed by Professor 
Jennifer Leaning, which is focused on education and related issues around 
campus sexual assault policies.  Harvard also hired Susan Marine as a source 
of education, counseling and programming information regarding student 
services, etc.  

While it is problematic that there is no formal approach to providing 
students with legal advocacy, students are working together to form their own 
resource groups to ensure the availability of zealous "legal advocacy" for 
victims. 

It is also problematic that Harvard retains the authority to refuse to 
conduct a "full investigation" and adjudicatory hearing of claims based on 
the word, alone, of a student reporting rape or discrimination based on race, 
sexual orientation, religion, etc.  Even with the new revisions in place, 
Harvard has embraced a disciplinary system by which the least serious acts of 
discrimination may well receive the most resources in terms of "full 
investigations" and Ad Board hearings simply because they are more likely to 
be bolstered by "supporting information."  Students would be wise to monitor 
Harvard's implementation of this revised rule to ensure that it works to 
protect all students on campus from discrimination and harassment.

Students can and should build coalitions on campus and work together to 
ensure that campus disciplinary policies and procedures are fair and 
effective.  At a minimum, students should create their own data-gathering 
services, conduct their own annual surveys and create their own annual 
"report cards" revealing Harvard's response to all forms of discrimination 
and harassment on campus.  In this way, students can help to ensure not only 
that the public will receive honest information about the problems and risks 
students face at Harvard, but that the educational environment is respectful 
of the constitutionally guaranteed right of all students to an equal 
educational opportunity.

Wendy J. Murphy
Visiting Scholar, Harvard Law School
Attorney for the students in the Harvard OCR matter
>From 
>
>  Fri Apr  4 10:10:30 2003
Return-Path: 
<>
Delivered-To: 

Received: from mail.virginia.edu (mail.Virginia.EDU [128.143.2.9])
        by list.mail.Virginia.EDU (Postfix) with SMTP id B2EFB2D347D
        for 
<>;
        Fri,  4 Apr 2003 10:10:30 -0500 (EST)
Received: from smtp.mail.virginia.edu by mail.virginia.edu id aa25657;
          4 Apr 2003 10:08 EST
Received: from cnk2r.virginia.edu (d-128-207-143.bootp.Virginia.EDU
        [128.143.207.143])
        by smtp.mail.Virginia.EDU (8.11.7/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h34F8Tl03870
        for 
<>;
 Fri, 4 Apr 2003 10:08:29 -0500
Message-Id: 
<>
X-Sender: 

X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:11:37 -0500
To: 

From: Julie Dodd 
<>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: Position Announcement-ODU
X-BeenThere: 

X-Mailman-Version: 2.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: <sapc.list.mail.Virginia.EDU>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://list.mail.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/sapc>,
        
<mailto:?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://list.mail.Virginia.EDU/pipermail/sapc>
List-Post: 
<mailto:>
List-Help: 
<mailto:?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://list.mail.Virginia.EDU/mailman/listinfo/sapc>,
        
<mailto:?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 15:10:31 -0000

Dear Colleagues,

Please share the following position announcement.  Thank you!

Julie

Julie L. Dodd, Director
Women's Center
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA  23529
Email:  

Telephone:  757-683-4109
Fax:  757-683-4119
http://www.odu.edu/womenscenter




OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY FACULTY JOB OPENINGS
JOB ANNOUNCEMENT
WOMEN'S CENTER
4/3/03

Assistant Director/S.A.F.E. Coordinator, GP034Women's Center

Position Vacancy: Assistant Director/S.A.F.E. Program Coordinator, Women's
Center.  Position develops, coordinates, presents, and assesses educational
programs and services for students designed to promote gender equity and
eliminate sexism, enhance safety and decrease vulnerability to sexual
violence, and facilitate the academic success of adult women students.
Responsibilities include managing a comprehensive sexual assault prevention
and education program and providing advocacy, crisis intervention, and
referrals for students

  Minimum Qualifications:  Required: Master's degree in Women's Studies,
Higher Education, Counseling, or related field; demonstrated ability to
develop, coordinate, and present programs; considerable knowledge of
contemporary women's and gender issues including sexual assault-related
issues; excellent communication skills; demonstrated ability to collaborate
with diverse populations; basic knowledge of student development theory and
needs of adult women students required.  Preferred: Experience in higher
education setting; experience in a sexual assault program; experience in
crisis intervention, advocacy, and referral; and basic supervisory
experience preferred.  Review of applications will begin on April 21 and
continue until filled.  Please send cover letter addressing qualifications,
resume, and contact information for three references to: Julie L. Dodd,
Director, Women's Center, 1000 Webb University Center, Norfolk, VA 23529.
Old Dominion University is an equal opportunity, affirmative action
employer and requires compliance with the Immigration Reform and Control
Act of 1986.