#YouToo

It takes a lot of work, energy, reflection, training, and continuing education to craft and execute an effective process to investigate and adjudicate complaints about sexual harassment, sexual assault, and a range of what we call Title IX offenses. It is much easier to be critical of these processes. After the Dear Colleague Letter was released by the Department of Education in 2011, sexual assault survivors were emboldened to come forward and challenge their campuses to do better. Colleges were supposed to manage these complaints effectively before then, but many were not doing so sufficiently, so the Department of Education clearly spelled out expectations. At their core, Universities were being told that sexual assault was the most egregious form of gender discrimination. These students were often left to navigate an impossible learning and social environment before, during, and after reporting a grievance.

At Trinity University, we looked at our hearing model and made a seismic shift. The traditional hearing model pits one student against another in a hearing in front of a panel where sensitive and intrusive questions are posed as facts are gathered and credibility is weighed. This can be extremely traumatizing. We switched our model to an investigative process in 2014. Under this model, we have about 25 trained faculty and staff members who serve in different roles in investigations. Each student is appointed a process advisor, there are two appointed investigators, and two others serve, with a student from the Student Conduct Panel, as a hearing panel. (This is our administrative process. The criminal process is handled by TUPD.) The new model shifts the perception of a University-influenced format to one that is represented from an array of members from our campus community.

Certain values are reflected in our process. First, students are only asked to share their accounts once in the investigative interview. Second, the idea is to collect all of the information, have it reviewed by all parties, and prepare a summary report with recommendations. The work is front-loaded and not done in a hearing setting that mirrors a trial. Third, the hearing places the investigators on the hot seat, where the panel asks them to clarify their conclusions and recommendations, mostly eliminating the adversarial hearing model previously used. Fourth, the process is evidence based. While there is always some level of credibility assessment, investigators are trained that it isn't what they think, or feel, but what they know as they draw their conclusions.

Additionally the process is designed to be fair, transparent, and compassionate. Students may include support persons (friends or parents), attorneys, and their process advisors. There are no "got ya" moments, and there is acknowledgement that reporting and responding students each face certain levels of trauma for very different reasons. Reporting students worry that they won't be believed. Responding students worry that they are assumed guilty because of the sexual politics around sexual assault on campus. And in the end, while we want students and their families to assess the process for how it is conducted, many, naturally, assess the process based on the outcome. It is not uncommon that those who agree with the outcome typically find the process, while not easy, to be quite fair. Those who disagree feel less positive. But those who experience it, more and more, understand how decisions are made. We coach students that the outcome doesn't affirm nor invalidate what has happened. The outcome is really about whether or not there is sufficient evidence that a violation took place, or not. There is more, and policies and procedures are available on-line. Campuses, including ours, have a duty to constantly review policies and procedures as well as campus climate. This is evolving and not static.

After The Dear Colleague Letter (now rescinded), it didn't take long before accused students felt their rights were being trampled. In some cases they were. So there was a backlash. This was seen in the new guidelines issued under the current administration through Betsy DeVos, somewhat of a departure from the Obama-Biden era that categorized assault as gender discrimination.The pendulum swung.

While all of these things were making the news and exploding, it was entertainers and politicians that were lobbing grenades at campuses for their "kangaroo courts". Outsiders had simplistic views of these complex issues. First, they would say that the police, not universities, should handle cases. That is absurd because the legal process and criminal standard is so high that it would basically say survivors had no chance to continue their education in a non-discriminatory environment. The administrative process is about rules. Campuses wouldn't allow a physical assault, peddling drugs, and hazing - all illegal acts. Second, the popular notion that schools were sweeping things under the rug was ridiculous in the era of social media. If schools were doing this, they were horrible at it.

And then... Harvey Weinstein happened. Bill Cosby happened. Matt Lauer happened, Al Franken and Roy Moore happened. And the genital-grabbing President of the United States happened. The dishonor roll is LONG and growing. So while Claire McKaskill and others were rooting out problems on campuses, which by-and-large, were developing fair and sensitive processes, the people in government and entertainment were the worst unchecked offenders. Thank goodness for the #MeToo movement for revealing not only their boorish behavior of many men but for throwing open the door on the hypocrisy of those who made colleges the scapegoats of sexual crimes and an overly sexualized culture.

Now, the Brett Kavanaugh case reveals even further double standards. While the new DeVos rules require charge letters, extend investigation times, and hint at a higher standard of evidence, our government ignores the same guidelines and works to schedule a congressional hearing, with no clear procedures, and that likely will re-traumatize the accuser in the most public of settings, and tramples the rights of the accused, regardless of what position one takes on this. The government can't even follow the basic tenets they are proscribing to others. Christine Blasey-Ford is right to wants a proper investigation before she is hauled out in front of the nation to be interrogated in televised partisan hearing. 

The people with power and influence in national tone-setting, in Washington and Hollywood, have passed judgment on colleges and their students and bemoaned a broken system. Many of these people, in their glass houses, create the laws and a culture that deposits sexual discrimination at the doorstep of our universities. Given their horrific behavior, their audacity to criticize colleges, when at the same time their own houses are in disarray, is troubling and two-faced. Perhaps they should stop preaching and try listening and learning. Though we are imperfect, to be sure, taking lessons from American campuses may be a good place for them to start.