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

FSA has recently established a specialized Clery Team to exclusively handle these types of cases. We expect a formal announcement about this, and a new complaint process for victims and whistleblowers to be forthcoming. The first public aspect of this process is an e-mail address, , that may be used for filing complaints.

THIS WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON UNDERREPORTED AND UNREDRESSED SEXUAL ASSAULTS

Frankly, what we really need is a change in federal law to eliminate the liability disparity that incentivizes schools to side with offenders.  I don't like suing schools, and most of my clients want to retain a good relationship with their alma mater, so I'm not saying we need MORE lawsuits.  I'm arguing for liability detente - everyone should have the same POTENTIAL to sue. Then there will be fewer actual suits because schools will, in fact, be more fair.

This is an interesting issue, but it has nothing to do with SaVE. 

OF COURSE IT DOES.  SAVE IS DISTRACTING FROM THE REAL ISSUES THAT TIP THE INCENTIVES IN FAVOR OF SCHOOLS SIDING WITH PERPETRATORS BY FURTHER LEGITIMIZING THE UNFAIR THINGS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF VICTIMS FOR MANY YEARS

While we crafted SaVE to move things forward, we had significant input from front-line practitioners and wanted it to be something institutions could support especially those who have embraced the promising practices it promotes. Exactly what institutions are you accusing of having impure motives in supporting it, and exactly what have they done?

I ASKED SENATOR CASEY TO DISCLOSE ALL LOBBYISTS FOR ELITE SCHOOLS - AND HOW MUCH MONEY THEY HAVE SPENT PUSHING THIS BILL THROUGH AND MANIPULATING THE LANGUAGE.  THE BILL DOES NOTHING FOR VICTIMS THAT ISN'T ALREADY REQUIRED AND DOES SEVERAL THINGS THAT BENEFIT SCHOOLS BY WATERING DOWN THE DCL.

Why else would Congress pass a law about the judicial proceedings that must be used to redress violence against women, but not make them equally applicable to all forms of targeted violence on campus?

I would note that Congress first did this 20 years ago in enacting the original Campus Sexual Assault Victims’ Bill of Rights. This is hardly anything new, and it has not caused any major problems in that time. If anything, for most of these 20 years there was much more done to address victims’ rights and education requirements under this law than Title IX. Congress acted then, and again now because of the particular severity of sexual violence, and quite frankly a practical lack of other good remedies – notwithstanding OCR’s recent stepped up actions which actually didn’t begin until after SaVE was first developed and introduced.

THAT IT ISN'T NEW IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO DO SOMETHING HARMFUL AND TO CONTINUE TO SUBJUGATE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN THE CIVIL RIGHTS HIERARCHY.  I CAN'T AGREE THAT SEXUAL VIOLENCE IS "MORE SEVERE" THAN RACIST VIOLENCE.  

Finally, with respect to “final results” I was able to make contact with the legislative counsel who assisted Congressman Ramstad with putting that in 20 years ago. He had about at as little recollection about that as I did, but thought it probably came about as a result of conversations with House and Senate committee staff. This is common, and this type of conversation has had a large role to play in SaVE’s evolution as well. There is no special or other overriding meaning to it, we just kept it in so that terms understood from the existing law could carryover. The intent is that it means the same thing as resolution. We can work on either clarifying this, or it may even be possible to change the wording as a “technical amendment” during any conference proceedings. I assure you there is no intent to permit proceedings to carry on for years.

THERE WAS NO NEED TO ADD THIS LANGUAGE TO SaVE.  IT ADDS NO VALUE AND OFFERS GREAT POTENTIAL FOR HARM TO VICTIMS FOR ALL THE REASONS I'VE MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY.

WENDY MURPHY

NEW ENGLAND LAW|BOSTON