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

[Wendy <>]

That's too bad - but whoever put Laura up to it should apologize.

Wendy J. Murphy, JD

New England Law|Boston

154 Stuart Street

Boston, MA  02116

617-422-7410

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:56 PM, "S. Daniel Carter" <> wrote:

On 8/26/13 3:55 PM, "" <> wrote:

I'm glad that Laura Dunn has been a great spokesperson - I wish she

would now speak out about the dangers of SaVE.

Laura was actually a leading proponent of SaVE. She contributed to the legislative language, and was an outspoken proponent of its passage including at a press conference earlier this year with U.S. House Minority Leader Pelosi which you can watch at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfhK8GHJCis. Her comments can be seen beginning at the 11 minute mark, and Pelosi mentions her in the opening remarks.

I'd like to see those early cases from 1992 - maybe Dan can post the

significant language from those early cases so we can compare what was

said about rape back then to what OCR is saying now.

I can do better than that, I’ve attached the case resolution notice letter from 1994. On page 2 the letter states “Sexual harassment in the educational setting includes unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, or other sex-based verbal or physical conduct.” On page 4 OCR additionally says that a “fundamental flaw” exists in the institution’s sexual harassment procedures because they “do not treat sexual assault as a form of sexual harassment.”

It's interesting that OCR was so clear in 1992 - and was stating openly

that rape was a Title IX issue because during my 2002 case against

Harvard, high ranking authorities there, including Larry Summers and

even people who claim to be experts in the field - expressed no

understanding back then of how rape was related to Title IX.

You won’t get an argument from me on this point. The main challenge was that even though OCR was holding institutions to these expectations they weren’t extensively promoting them. This was why the Dear Colleague Letter was needed.

Finally - I'm sorry Dan but you could not be more wrong when you say

it's no big deal to educate people on campus *who will DECIDE sexual

assault cases* on the state criminal law definition of "non-consent."  

What is the possible value of teaching people on campus criminal law

standards when they ONLY need to understand civil rights standards?

I was not an especially strong proponent of this language, it came in during the collaborative drafting process, but do not see that it is any different than the provisions that require institutions to educate students about potential criminal consequences for alcohol and other drug abuse. The institution’s conduct standards are not tied to those of the criminal law as a result. The value of both is that students are informed of one potential consequence of their actions, that of the criminal justice system.

S. Daniel Carter

Director of 32 National Campus Safety Initiative

VTV Family Outreach Foundation

P.O. Box 230024 * Centreville, VA  20120

Office: 202-684-6471

http://www.32ncsi.org/

<04291994.pdf>