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

["Thompson, Stephen M." <>]

Hi Daniel

 

I appreciate your comments and your work in this field.   I do not agree that required investigations at the college/university level are a good thing for the reasons that I have addressed previously and my recent response to Brett.

 

Steve

 

Steve Thompson

Sexual Aggression Services Director

Central Michigan University

SAC 195

Mt. Pleasant, MI. 48859

Phone: 989-774-6677

http://www.stephenmthompson.com

http://www.sapa.cmich.edu

 

From: S. Daniel Carter [mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2011 4:48 PM
To: Thompson, Stephen M.
Cc: ; ; ; Lonna Davis; Diane Rosenfeld
Subject: Re: "Dear Colleague" (DCL) Clarification

 

Stephen,

 

SOC, Futures Without Violence, and Prof. Diane Rosenfeld raised this concern with OCR last month. I have a meeting with OCR next week to follow-up and hope to be able to report back to everybody soon.

 

In the meantime I'd refer everybody back to OCR's 2001 guidance, which is referenced extensively in the DCL. While it is clear an "investigation" is required, as I noted earlier today that doesn't necessarily mean interviewing the accused. One example they give is providing the accused's name to the Title IX coordinator to track any possible patterns.

*********************************************

S. Daniel Carter

Director of Public Policy

Security On Campus, Inc.

http://www.securityoncampus.org

e-mail:

On Jul 20, 2011, at 4:23 PM, "Thompson, Stephen M." <> wrote:

Hello Everyone

 

Many of you were aware that I had a meeting with Ms. Lynn Rosenthall, White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, Monday, July 18 in Washington, D.C..  The purpose was to discuss the way many university OCR’s and University Counsels were interpreting the “Dear Colleague” letter.  The concern centered around their interpreting the letter as mandating that when a sexual assault survivor discloses to anyone within the university, the OCR must get a report and do an investigation.   

 

The meeting began with me praising the intent of the letter to create a consequence for those universities that were not operating with the best interests of survivors.  Many of us know the stories of universities that have not responded to survivors and basically acted with “Deliberate Indifference” after a survivor disclosed and wanted action taken.  Ms. Rosenthall, who was one of the framers of the DCL, was unaware that by attempting to fix one problem, another was created for survivors at institutions that were survivor centered.  Following are the main points we discussed:

 

·         Deliberate indifference prompted much of this letter, however, some universities interpret the letter as mandating all disclosures be investigated.  This practice ignores survivor centered “waiver”.  With adult survivors there have been no successful university law suits where the university was sued for doing what the survivor wanted.  Meaning, if a survivor discloses an assault, but states he/she is not ready to report, universities are not sued for doing what they ask. 

 

·         Practitioners believe many universities are interpreting the DCL to mandate reporting at the expense of building a survivor centered safe campus culture that encourages disclosure. When survivors are not in control of the information flow, forced reporting after disclosure reduces the number of reported incidents by reducing the number of survivors who disclose.

 

·         Page 5, of DCL states that consent must be gotten before beginning an investigation.  Some universities civil rights officers are ignoring this and interpreting that they must do an investigation regardless of wishes of survivor. This practice is discriminatory in that survivors of other crimes are not forced to report if they disclose, whereas survivors of sexual assault could be forced to go through an investigation.   This guideline interpretation subjects survivors to potential emotional and mental distress, which could limit their ability to access services and to participate in the educational program.

 

 

·         OCR investigators know harassment, discrimination, and gender equity issues and investigative procedures; however, sex assault investigations are entirely different.   Trauma, survivor safety, the dynamics of the crime and legal consequences are different for SH and SA. Sexual harassment and discrimination are civil issues; sexual assault is criminal which brings rape shield and statute of limitations into play. Statutes of limitations in criminal cases acknowledges survivor trauma and delayed reporting.

 

 

We were in agreement on all of the above points. Ms. Rosenthall stated repeatedly that the intent of the framers was not to force adult survivors to report nor to empower OCR with mandatory investigations without consent of the survivor, and it is wrong to interpret it that way.   She will be meeting with the DOE and OCR to produce clarification.  Because our meeting was the first time she has heard of the interpretation problem, she asked that I request all who share this concern to email me a brief statement of support.  I will compile these and send them to her as documentation for her DOE and OCR meetings.  PLEASE send me a brief statement ASAP to .  Thank you all very much.

 

Steve

 

Steve Thompson

Sexual Aggression Services Director

Central Michigan University

SAC 195

Mt. Pleasant, MI. 48859

Phone: 989-774-6677

http://www.stephenmthompson.com

http://www.sapa.cmich.edu