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

["S. Daniel Carter" <>]

Gillian,

The Campus SaVE Act has been debated previously at length. As you may have missed it, my response on the issues is below. I hope that this will not lead down the path of previous threads which have degenerated into personal attacks. If, however, Wendy, or anybody else, wants to engage in a policy debate I welcome that.

1.) The use of the term “prompt, fair, and impartial” rather than “prompt and equitable” along with not specifically mandating that institutions “use the preponderance of the evidence standard” was intended solely to not place the evidentiary standard in statute as a part of the Clery Act leaving this standard to be set by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights under Title IX. While this does not afford an additional level of protection it in no way diminishes the protections currently provided by Title IX, and only a future adjustment to Title IX guidelines could do so, something the Education Department has publicly indicated they will not do in response to the Clery amendments.

 

2.) The Clery Amendments require that institutions “provide a prompt…resolution” of any institutional “disciplinary action in cases of alleged domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking”. This is intended to apply a promptness requirement to the entire process, and is why the term “resolution” is used rather than “outcome” which is the term used to describe the initial results of any disciplinary action. As defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary “resolution” means “the act of finding an answer or solution to a conflict, problem, etc. : the act of resolving something”. Until the conflict is solved, as in there is no further disciplinary process, there is not resolution. Proposed regulations, expected to be published this month, reinforce that promptness is expected at all points.

 

3.) The Clery Amendments do not authorize institutions to use or not use any particular “standard of proof” rather they merely require that institutions disclose the standard they use. For cases subject to Title IX this will remain the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. This was restated in the White House “Not Alone” report.

 

4.) The Clery Amendments do not authorize institutions to “delay notifying victims” about changes to disciplinary decisions. This is currently the prerogative of institutions, under existing Title IX and Clery guidelines, and while granted these amendments do not remove this ability they certainly do nothing to authorize it. What the amendments do is specifically require institutions to notify victims of changes, a requirement not previously explicitly included in the guidelines.

 

5.) The coordination of ED with DOJ and HHS relates solely to the production of a report on “best practices” and has nothing to do with responding to individual cases or complaints.

 

6.) The Clery Amendments were carefully constructed to respect, to the extent possible, the wishes of victims rather than require institutions to act against their wishes which is why the explicit obligations of the provisions are triggered when an incident is “reported” rather than when officials “knew or should know” of an incident. The obligations to respond to discrimination remain unchanged.

 

7.) The Clery Amendments absolutely do not require institutions to “apply state criminal law standards” when responding to reports of sexual violence including instituting disciplinary action. To the contrary the Act will explicitly require institutions to use the terms for dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking as defined by VAWA and sexual assault as defined in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program as provided by 20 USC § 1092(f)(6)(A)(i) and (v) respectively. The only time institutions should reference state terminology is in “primary prevention and awareness programs” as provided for by 20 USC §1092(f)(8)(B)(i)(I) which requires institutions to merely disclose “the definition of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking in the applicable jurisdiction” and “the definition of consent, in reference to sexual activity, in the applicable jurisdiction”. This programming is separate and apart from the “annual training” to be provided to officials responsible for disciplinary action as provided by 20 USC §1092(f)(8)(B)(iv)(I)(bb) which involves different training elements including “how to conduct an investigation”.

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/

From: Gillian Greensite <>
Date: Friday, June 13, 2014 at 1:30 AM
To: Wendy Murphy <>
Cc: "Klein, Lauren (LB)" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [WRAC-L] George Will piece on rape and "privileges" on college campuses

I don't have a problem with Wendy Murphy's blunt language. I don't know if I agree with her analysis but her tone can't be a serious problem for those who have taken up the struggle to end rape. She was sharing a letter she wrote to the Boston Globe and her words should be read in that context. Her use of the term "rape privilege" was a critique. It's not news that groups who secure government funding often remain silent about things that matter. Nobody was targeted.

As a long time member of this listserv I hope it remains a place for professional development as desired by LB Klein as well as a place for the lively exchange of ideas and opinions. I'd like to see a response to Wendy Murphy's challenges rather than a retreat from the debate. 

Gillian  

On Jun 12, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Wendy wrote:

That's what George Will said - not me - and it's what advocates said in their petition to have him fired. 

What don't you understand about SaVE?

It requires schools to define violence against women using very onerous criminal law standards instead of civil rights standards. (nonconsent and force instead of "unwelcomeness").

It allows "final determinations" to be made years after a victim's complaint is made -

It allows a burden of proof more onerous than preponderance to be imposed - which inherently devalues women by declaring their word less weighty than all other classes of people on campus.

It eliminates the requirement of "equitable" treatment of violence against women.

All these weaker standards apply ONLY to civil rights violence against women. Civil rights violence against all other protected class categories will still be redressed under more protective and less burdensome standards.

These lists - like parents and students - have a right and need to know.

Wendy

Sent from my iPhone

On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:12 PM, "Klein, Lauren (LB)" <> wrote:

Hi Wendy (and SAPC listserv colleagues),

I understand that you are not in favor of Campus SaVE. You absolutely have a right to express your opinion and make arguments based on your analysis as an attorney. I'm not sure I understand your argument in this letter, but I respect your right to express it.

However, the tone you are using and your use of language such as "rape is a privilege" seems out of place on a listserv dedicated to sexual assault prevention and response professionals on college campuses.  Calling organizations that support survivors "useless" or that our opinions are rooted in "quid pro quo for piddly government grant dollars" is offensive to me. Calling for several members of this listserv to be fired seems to also cross a line.  While I do not share some of the opinions you have expressed on this listserv, I have not attacked you in this way and do not intend to.  If this is how you would like to express your disagreement, perhaps another medium would be a better fit, or perhaps this medium is no longer one that is serving its intended purpose consistent with the values of our profession.

I come to this listserv for professional guidance and take no umbrage at differences of opinion. I do not subscribe to this listserv to read abusive language or to receive alienating communication, especially in a setting to which I turn for solidarity and professional dialogue. I know that many of us are grappling with students or colleagues who have been triggered by George Will's piece or are struggling with continued denigration of our movement.  I am troubled to find this a space that continues to make us feel marginalized while we work to end sexual violence.  It seems that we are receiving communications on this listerv that are not about dialogue but about monologue or exerting power.  That seems antithetical to the purpose of our movement and our work.  

I hesitate to send this, but I feel if we as a professional field are not only pushing a heavy rock uphill in our work lives but are disempowered in our own space, we need to express that is not okay.  I am grateful for my colleagues who are working on or closely with campuses as we work to support survivors and end sexual violence. I know I am not alone in my concerns and that folks sometimes do not want to send emails on this list because they do not want to be targeted. That is troubling, and I know I am thinking about the potential of alternative spaces.  I am hopeful that we can think critically about the purpose of this space and the value of safer spaces. 

I'm happy to discuss this with anyone further off-list.

My best, 

LB

Lauren (LB) Klein, MSW, LMSW | Assistant Director for the Respect Program

Office of Health Promotion | Emory University Division of Campus Life

Phone: 404-727-1514| Fax: 404-712-1519 |

http://respect.emory.edu | 1525 Clifton Road, 103I, Atlanta, GA 30322

 

The Respect Program engages the Emory community to prevent & respond to sexual assault & relationship violence as part of the Office of Health Promotion which promotes flourishing and capacity building for a healthy Emory.

Confidentiality Statement:  The information in this electronic mail is sensitive, protected information intended only for the addressee(s). Please remember that the security of email cannot be guaranteed.  Any other person, including anyone who believes they might have received this due to an addressing error, is requested to notify the sender immediately by return electronic mail, and to delete this without further reading or retention. 

---

From: []
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2014 2:11 PM
To: ; ; ; ; ;
Subject: Re: [WRAC-L] George Will piece on rape and "privileges" on college campuses

Dear colleagues;

In response to today's Boston Globe piece by Joan Vennochi regarding advocacy groups calling for George Will to be fired because he wrote a recent piece about rape as a privilege - I sent in the following:

Dear Editor;

Joan Vennochi is right that anti-rape advocates should not be calling on George Will to be fired, but she's right for the wrong reason.  

George Will should not be fired because he is CORRECT that rape is a privilege on college campuses.

Rape is a privilege whenever law creates structured inequality based on gender - which has been the status quo in higher education for decades and was recently made worse by the enactment of an amendment to the federal Clery Act, known popularly as the Campus SaVE Act.  SaVE allows schools to treat violence against women under worse legal standards compared to violence against all other protected class categories such as race, national origin and religion.

Firing George Will for telling the truth won't change anything, though firing the heads of all the women's and victims groups that supported SaVE could make a real difference so long as they are replaced with people who won't compromise women's safety and equality by remaining silent about an offensive new federal law as a quid pro quo for piddly government grant dollars that enable them to run useless organizations.

Rather than punishing George Will for telling the truth, advocates should explain WHY what he said IS the truth - and why - if SaVE hadn't been enacted, it wouldn't be. 

Wendy Murphy

New England Law|Boston

617-422-7410 

---

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).