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

["T.S. Nelson" <>]

Thank you all for your comments and insights.  This has been one of the most interesting and helpful list serve discussions I've been involved with for a long time. 

 

Here's an update:

 

FYI...My recommendations to the school were as follows:

1. Validate the student for coming forward and confronting these past issues.  Strongly encourage him to seek counseling to further address these issues.

2. Given the school's existing policy/selection criteria "no sexual aggressors allowed in the program" the student should not be allowed to participate in the advocate training...OR, the school should change their policy and be prepared for any potential fall out, risk to others and liability. I do not recommend changing their policy.

 

3. Given the potential or proclivity for aggressors to re-offend (or for him to try to use the training as a way of working through his own issues, as we sometimes see with survivors) it does not seem like a good idea for this student to be representing the school to assist other students with regard to sexual assault (as an advocate or as an educator).  His sincerity and willingness to confront this issue is duly noted, but this does not seem like a good fit for all concerned. FYI... I would give the same feedback if a survivor wanted to become an advocate and the survivor still had unresolved trauma issues or was triggered by the training. It is not a good idea to use advocate training to work through personal issues.

 

4. Seek legal consult re: all of the above. 

 

Another note, I am concerned about this student’s well being too. This could be very difficult for him if the issue became public at the school. Not to mention, it could be quite damaging to the advocate program. 

 

For all of those reasons and many of the ones offered on the list serve, my recommendation is that the school do what is best for all concerned (the male student, survivors at the school, other students, the advocate program, and the school). 

 

In short, I have recommended that he not be allowed to continue with the advocate training but that he is validated for coming forward and addressing this issue which can be life changing for him.

 

Not sure what the school will decide, but that's my two cents.  Thanks again for your input on this topic.  Great discussion!

Terri Spahr Nelson

______________________________________________________________________________________

 

From: Brett Sokolow <>
To: Allison Bennett <>
Cc: "" <>
Sent: Thursday, March 8, 2012 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Title IX and advocate selection

Allison, this isn't directed at you, and forgive the frankness all, but this provokes a larger point I want to make.  Why would he make a good peer educator?  Do we so want to believe in the good guy paradigm that we'll foist it on the most likely candidate we can find just so that we feel better?  Why does he deserve our praise for his remorse when that ought to be the norm, not the exception.  Is he going to tell his story?  Will that normalize the behavior for some men in the audience?  Trigger victims?  Is there any research showing that perpetrator regret stories are an effective prevention modality?  If not, why do we persist in thinking that offers some form of useful educational moment?  I think we need to emphasize tools for what students should do, not what they should not. "I'm a recovering asshole" stories just aren't prevention, in my book.  

Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law

Managing Partner, The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (www.ncherm.org)

Executive Director, The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (www.nabita.org)

Executive Director, The Association of Title IX Administrators (www.atixa.org)

20 Callery Way 
Malvern, PA 19355-2969
Tel. (610) 993-0229 
Fax (610) 993-0228


"Best Practices for Campus Health and Safety"
NCHERM serves as legal counsel/advisor to 30 campuses

 

From: Allison Bennett <>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 10:27:51 -0600
To: Brett Sokolow <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: Title IX and advocate selection

An option might be to take him as a peer educator, rather than a peer advocate. For this developmental age, I think many survivors would struggle with feeling safe if they heard that there was someone who had admitted to perpetrating an assault acting as an advocate---but he might be able to be an outstanding peer educator.

Allison Bennett, LCSW-C
Coordinator, Sexual Assault Response and Prevention Program (SARPP)
University of Maryland, College Park
University Health Center, Room 2118D
College Park, MD 20742
(301) 314-9383 office


SARPP Advocate Office
University Health Center, Room 2118D

(301) 314-2222 (office)
(301) 741-3442 (Advocate Crisis Cell, available 24/7 for urgent assistance)


Statement of Confidentiality: The contents of this e-mail message and its attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) hereof. In addition, this e-mail transmission may be confidential and it may be subject to privilege. If you are not the named addressee, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, you are directed not to read, disclose, reproduce, distribute, disseminate, or otherwise use this transmission. Delivery of this message to any person other than the intended recipients is not intended in any way to waive privilege or confidentiality. If you have received this transmission in error, please alert the sender by reply e-mail; we also request that you immediately delete this message and its attachments, if any.

From: "Brett Sokolow" <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2012 7:50:57 PM
Subject: Re: Title IX and advocate selection

Since 91% of campus perpetrators are repeat offenders, we might be stamping our approval ("He's safe enough to be an advocate") on someone who is not safe at all.  Perhaps this is even his gambit to use the program to identify vulnerable women who've already been victimized, thinking they will be easier repeat prey.  This kind of social experimentation is, in my opinion, too risky for the potential (very remote) benefit that might accrue.  And, the other trainees (many of whom are usually survivors) may not (will not) feel comfortable training with a perpetrator.  

Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law

Managing Partner, The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (www.ncherm.org)

Executive Director, The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (www.nabita.org)

Executive Director, The Association of Title IX Administrators (www.atixa.org)

20 Callery Way 
Malvern, PA 19355-2969
Tel. (610) 993-0229 
Fax (610) 993-0228


"Best Practices for Campus Health and Safety"
NCHERM serves as legal counsel/advisor to 30 campuses

 

From: Laura Bennett <>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 09:33:43 -0600
To: "" <>, "T.S. Nelson" <>
Subject: RE: Title IX and advocate selection

Terri & all –

 

This may be an unpopular perspective, but I’ll put it out there. I think it may depend on the goals of the peer advocate program – if it is solely for victims/survivors, I understand and respect that students would not likely want someone with this in his/her past to serve as an advocate. If the purpose of the advocacy program is to provide advocacy for any student who is affected by sexual assault, someone with this could bring a lot to the table. A group I used to work with did take questions on a hotline from students who thought they may have committed an act of sexual or gender based assault or harassment. In those cases, this individual might be an invaluable resource. For example, he/she might be a great resource for someone who realized they may have committed an assault and isn’t sure what to do about it, or to serve as a support in a campus conduct proceeding for an accused student. While I don’t know the severity or details of the high school incident (so this point may or may not be relevant) this person might also offer to a campus community a good example of how you can learn and change behavior. While I don’t think it is a Title IX violation, I think that the standard of anyone with a history of sexual aggression may be a difficult standard to assess, knowing that a lot of sexual aggression may not be addressed/confronted or the individual may not be aware of having engaged in it. If I were the administrator in this case, I might consider would be to look for ways to utilize this student and his/her experience and perspective, but perhaps not put him/her in a position to be the one responding directly to a victim/survivor on a hotline.

 

-Laura

 

 

Laura Bennett

Student Conduct Officer

 

Harper College

1200 W. Algonquin Road

Palatine, IL 60067-7398

Phone: 847-925-6483

Fax: 847-925-6038

Email:

 

From: Brett Sokolow []
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2012 8:59 AM
To: T.S. Nelson
Cc:
Subject: Re: Title IX and advocate selection

 

Excluding him would not violate Title IX, in my opinion.

 

Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Attorney-at-Law

Managing Partner, The National Center for Higher Education Risk Management (www.ncherm.org)

Executive Director, The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association (www.nabita.org)

Executive Director, The Association of Title IX Administrators (www.atixa.org)

20 Callery Way 
Malvern, PA 19355-2969
Tel. (610) 993-0229 
Fax (610) 993-0228


"Best Practices for Campus Health and Safety"
NCHERM serves as legal counsel/advisor to 30 campuses

 

 

From: "T.S. Nelson" <>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2012 07:58:46 -0600
To: "" <>
Subject: Title IX and advocate selection

 

 

I have a question for the listserve. This issue came up when I was consulting with a college for their peer advocate training program.  I appreciate your feedback and look forward to the discussion this may generate.  Believe me, this was a first for me in 25+ years of doing this work!

 

The situation:

A male student who is participating in a college peer advocate training approached the facilitators after the first training indicating that when he was a sophomore in high school, he had an incident where he commited an act of sexual assault.  He acknowledged in his senior year of high school that it was sexual assault and made efforts to address his remorse for his actions to the victim. He would like to be a peer advocate for the college and feels he has a great deal to offer, particularly given his history and confronting his own actions of aggression from the past.  He was concerned however about whether or not he should disclose this information to the training group and what effect if might have on survivors if they knew his history. 

 

The dilemma:

The peer advocate policy/selection criteria indicates no one with a history of sexual aggression shall be considered as an advocate.  At face value, the answer seems obvious.  However, the school administrator wonders if this would be a violation of title IX by not allowing this student fair access to become an advocate if he is otherwise qualified.  The school is also wondering if he would be an asset to work with other potential sexual aggressors if/when they might call the school helpline.  The school is trying to determine how to make services available to students who may self-identify as sexual aggressors or someone who committed a sexual assault. 

 

Clearly, this presents many concerns.  I will hold off on giving my opinion or recommendation since I am looking forward to hearing from this group.

Thank you for your input.

Terri Spahr Nelson