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

[Howard Kallem <>]

I’m curious about your statement “I have been told by conduct colleagues that it is "no longer best practice" for the respondent's suspension to last for the period of time until the complainant graduates.“  I know there are pro’s and con’s to such an approach, but I’d be interested in where your information came from (pardon the dangling participle!).

 

Anyway, as to your main question, while this may not be a direct response, have you considered a restorative justice approach?  This doesn’t focus on particular sanctions, but on the process to be used to develop the sanctions – to give both parties and perhaps the community a voice in determining them.  The restorative justice approach can be used at various stages of the accountability process, including in setting the sanctions as well as when the respondent returns.  You can find more information at  http://www.skidmore.edu/campusrj/prism.php.

 

Howie Kallem

Director, Title IX Compliance

 

From: [mailto:] On Behalf Of Seguin, Angela DiNunzio
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:19 AM
To:
Subject: Educational Sanctions in Sexual Misconduct Cases

 

Hello SAPC Colleagues,

 

I will be attending a meeting next week focused on sanctions for respondents who are found responsible in the Sexual Misconduct process, but due to lower level of severity of the situation are put on deferred suspension, or suspended for a period of time and once that period runs out they return to campus.  The goal of the sanctioning process is to have respondents who fall into these categories be able to have a learning process that helps them to examine their own behavior and understand what needs to change.  Therefore, an assignment or experience is required of them as an educational part of their sanction.

 

In the past, sanctions have included reading a book or article and writing a paper about sexual or intimate partner violence, which some of us feel strongly is not necessarily going to have the impact intended.

 

At one point I looked into options in our local community agencies and suggested to the conduct office that for IPV, there is a counseling/education-oriented group intended for perpetrators that Delaware courts require perpetrators in criminal cases to attend.   I learned a lot about how the group is structured, ground rules, and what must be accomplished in order for perpetrators to be cleared by the agency with the court (and that the agency is willing to implement a similar process to work with respondents in our process).  To my knowledge, this option has never been utilized, but this one seemed a more fitting option.  I have no equivalent option to suggest in sexual assault situations.

 

Also, I have been told by conduct colleagues that it is "no longer best practice" for the respondent's suspension to last for the period of time until the complainant graduates.  So we are seeing outcomes with suspensions that do not take up that full period, which has been difficult for complainants.

 

Given my role as advocate, I do not have input in these sanctioning decisions and until now have not been invited to provide input into sanctioning options in our process.  So any information you all can provide would be incredibly helpful.  What are the best practices that your conduct offices are utilizing in order to have respondents learn?  What has been effective, and how is that measured?

 

Thanks,

Angela