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

[Brett Sokolow <>]

How can we say that these cases truly belong with the courts when the prosecution and conviction rates for known offender assaults involving college students are abysmal?  When there is a conviction, the sentences are uselessly short and we frequently release dangerous offenders who reoffend.  That's just a license to perpetrate, because the threat of prosecution isn't a valid deterrent.  Why should a victim be forced to choose only a public process, where prosecuting an offender requires a loss of privacy?  How can an alcohol-related assault produce proof beyond a reasonable doubt if the victim is too intoxicated to recall all details?  Same with rape drugs.  I'm not saying the campus process is ideal, but all those who think the courts are a better alternative don't work in the legal system.  Campuses aren't hearing crimes when they subject sexual misconduct to "tribunals," they are remedying civil rights violations.  Campuses have no business adjudicating crimes, but they can and must address discrimination.  Rape happens to be both a crime and a form of sex discrimination.  Because of this overlap, we should somehow prefer that colleges abdicate their remedial duties (that they have for all other forms of discrimination), and leave it to the courts to remedy?  Courts punish offenders, they don't remedy the effects of discrimination on the victim.  Those who oppose campus "tribunals" seem to miss this key aspect of why the campus process is so relevant and necessary.  

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

President & CEO, The NCHERM Group LLC

Executive Director, The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association 

Executive Director, The Association of Title IX Administrators 

Publisher, Student Affairs eNews 

116 E. King St.
Malvern, PA 19355-2969
Tel. (610) 993-0229 
Fax (610) 993-0228

The NCHERM Group, LLC serves as legal counsel/advisor to 35 campuses

From: Liz Seccuro <>
Date: Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:51 AM
To: Dave Kennedy <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: Response to April 17th Wall Street Journal piece

Agree, Dave.  Excellent posting.  Ms. Grossman indeed misses all of the points you so deftly point out.  And to denounce VAWA and Title IX just because her son suffered so mightily - no.  This is why we need to move away from these tribunals (I speak as a survivor) and keep these cases where they belong - with Police, in the Courts.  

To be so jejeune as to not recognize that a prior consensual relationship never negates the possibility of sexual assault is horrifying and that the Wall Street Journal has given her a huge platform (not as a feminist or mother, but as an attorney, really) to once again throw the shades of victim-blaming and not believing those who report is frightening.  It will just poison an already jaded American society where we don't believe, we shame, etc.  And great timing for the WSJ in light of the two very prominent gang-rape suicide victims in Canada and America, and this close on the heels of Steubenville.

I would have like for her to have gone all in and named said college.  Why not?

On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Dave Kennedy <> wrote:

Hello all--

I wrote a blog post responding to the article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal regarding the way sexual assault is handled on campus. I'd love to hear your thoughts. http://cjcdave.wordpress.com/2013/04/18/response_to_wall_street_journal/. The worst part is that I actually believe there are many problems with the judicial system. Ms. Grossman just misses all of them. 

I hope all is well.

Best,

Dave 

Dave Kennedy, JD
President, College Judicial Consultants
(617) 287-8782
http://www.CollegeJudicialConsultants.com

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/CollegeJudicialConsultants
Twitter: @cjcdave

cjcdave.wordpress.com

--

Liz Seccuro

Author/Journalist/Speaker
mobile: 571.216.7950
Tweet: www.twitter.com/LizSeccuro

Facebook: Crash Into Me

Web:  www.lizseccuro.com