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

[Howard Kallem <>]

I agree with Brett’s thoughtful response.  However, while the amount of time remaining before the complainant graduates should not be the default length of a suspension, it may be an appropriate consideration in some cases.  For example, consider a situation in which the complaint arose out of a relationship between the parties.  The incident happened two years ago, when the parties were both in their first year, but the complaint is first made when they become juniors.  There have been no other reports or discoverable incidents involving the respondent, at least suggesting that the incident may have been confined to or have arisen from the dynamics of the relationship.  There could certainly be other factors to consider in determining the length of any suspension – perhaps, as Brett suggests, based on input from the BIT.

 

Howie Kallem

Director, Title IX Compliance

 

From: Brett Sokolow [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 9:40 PM
To: Howard Kallem <>; Seguin, Angela DiNunzio <>;
Subject: Re: Educational Sanctions in Sexual Misconduct Cases

 

I think there’s a potential mistranslation going with respect to suspension best practices. It should not be a default to suspend the responding party until the reporting party graduates, because that is not an automatic assurance that the responding party is not a risk to the community thereafter. It also results in inconsistent sanctions depending on whether the responding party chooses a victim early in their college career, or one who is soon to graduate. Why incentivize preying upon victims who are about to graduate?

 

However, just because measuring suspension by the enrollment duration of the reporting party is not a best practice, that’s not a good reason to impose shorter sanctions, either. The emerging practices seem to focus in on a minimum amount of time set for each suspension, with the potential to return if conditions are met, such as demonstrating to the community (or the campus BIT) that it is safe for the responding party to return.

 

Rather than setting specific conditions (or classes, or courses, or writing assignments) for doing so, I personally prefer to let the responding party come up with their own plan of reform and rehabilitation, adhere to it, and then use it to demonstrate that allowing return is a reasonable decision. Maybe it will be, maybe it won’t, but since suspensions legally need to be proportionate to the severity of the violation, the only reason suspensions should be getting shorter is if sexual transgressions are becoming less egregious.

 

Regardless, I think we should consider using our behavioral intervention teams to help with the risk assessment of whether a responding party is safe to return. We’ve invested so much in making these teams proficient at determining who is a threat to the university, and return from suspension should only be possible when someone is determined to be a minimal or remote risk, at most.

 

Regards, 

Brett A. Sokolow

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.


Attorney-at-Law

President & CEO, The NCHERM Group LLC

Founder & Board Chair, The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association

Executive Director, The Association of Title IX Administrators 

Publisher, Student Affairs eNews, Title IX Today

 

1109 Lancaster Avenue

Berwyn, PA 19312

Tel. (610) 993-0229 


Fax (610) 993-0228

 

 

The NCHERM Group, LLC serves as legal counsel/advisor to 75 campuses and is the leading investigations firm serving higher education.

 

This e-mail message is from a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. It is not intended for transmission to, or receipt by, any unauthorized persons. If you have received this electronic mail transmission in error, do not read it. Please delete it from your system without copying it, and notify the sender by reply e-mail at  or by calling 610.993.0229, so that our address record can be corrected.

 

 

 

From: <> on behalf of Howard Kallem <>
Reply-To: Howard Kallem <>
Date: Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:31 AM
To: "Seguin, Angela DiNunzio" <>, "" <>
Subject: RE: Educational Sanctions in Sexual Misconduct Cases

 

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