Conference. At the grand hyatt hotel. If any of you are interested in health care, we will have a separate health care session. Either i was perfect or you this was not exciting at all. Thank you very much. It doesnt look like me at all. Im Randy Johnson at the u. S. Chamber of commerce, im just a lawyer, im not going to pretend to add to all the information people provided today. Im proud of this summit, its our fifth one. And my goal on this, five or six years ago, was, if we can bring together a lot of smart people and talk about a lot of technological advances, and move the beuhl forward a little bit on disease treatment, wellness programs, we can call it a day and go home. We earned our members dues. On a personal basis ive experienced a lot of i lost a sister, two sisters and a brother to cancer recently. Both under 70. I also had Prostate Cancer several years ago, i picked up a tid bit here in one of these meetings which gave me the information to reject a recommendation several doctors gave to me. And steered me in the proper direction. Listen to joe biden the other day on npr. And he what happened to the cancer moon shot. Its moving ahead. But we have information in silos. Havent we moved beyond that by now. Its a little frustrating when some of these issues keep getting repeted. We keep hammering away on it and hope we can move forward. I would be remiss not to mention we have another event. Were not buying lunch in between, there are good delis around the corner. Looking back and looking forward. Essentially its a way of saying, whats going on with the a aca. If we can establish that, maybe we can talk about solutions, as we go into this next year, regardless of who wins the white house, thats important. Jennifer lim for her help on this, and Hillary Crowe with the foundation. The labor and immigration division. Theyre great events. And thank you for all your work. I did mention, were going to form a company, as they get around the one child law over there. Were going to get a kickback on that. Thank you for coming, i hope you can stay around for the afternoon, its going to be a great event. A little more twist, a little more policy, a little more tips. I think youll find it interesting. Thank you for coming. Watch cspans live coverage of the third debate between Hillary Clinton and donald trump wednesday night. Our live debate preview starts at 7 30 p. M. Eastern. The briefing for the debate studio audience is at 8 30 p. M. Eastern. And the 90 minute debate is at 9 00 p. M. Eastern. Watch the debate live or on demand using your desktop, phone or tablet. Listen to live coverage of the debate with a free cspan radio app. Download it from the app store or google play. In the morning, a University Panel discusses American Election processes. Sylvia burwell will talk about the upcoming Affordable Care act open enrollment. Watch live at 10 20 a. M. East n eastern. Different approaches, universities are using to deal with Sexual Harassment and assault on campus. From Georgetown University law center, this is just under two hours. Okay, everybody if we can get start started. Im going to briefly introduce the folks on the panel and turn it over to them. This panel as you see in your materials is on harassment, abuse and fair process, we have nancy canalupo. Were happy to have nancy back. Along with william kidder, who is associate Vice President and chief of staff in the office of the president at sonoma state university. Theyre going to be presenting. Their paper is below the surface of the water. Sexual harassment by college faculty. We have brian pappas, who is he has a complicated title. Associate director of the adr program. His paper is abuse of freedom, balancing quality and efficiency in faculty title nine procedures. And then we have kelly bear who is director of the uc dave igs Family Protection and Legal Assistance clinic. Shes talking about the brainstorming about the Law School Clinics to provide assistance. We have alexander brodsky, who is a j. D. From yale. And shell be talking about a rising tide learning about fair disciplinary process from title ix. Where do you guys want to start . I think i am supposed to start. So bill and my paper was the idea of it was really anywhere yalted by bill. Because he was following several of the prominent faculty harassment cases that were occurring on institutions on the west coast and was head of the process at a former position. Similar to research that i had done some years ago, with regard to peer harassment. It quickly became obvious to us that there were several reasons why looking at the case law and the ocr investigations was not going to work in this context as it had in the peer harassment context. And so in the interest of time, im not going to go into all of the reasons, suffice it to say, we decided we needed to cast the net a bit wider. And we ultimately decided to look at three sources in an effort to map the problem of Sexual Harassment. In in the workplace, in educational institutions and occasionally in the criminal context specifically what we were looking at there was, we were looking at research on the ha harms to combat Sexual Violence. We looked at the incidence rate of faculty Sexual Harassment, particularly faculty Sexual Harassment of graduate students, ill explain that focus in a second and then finally we looked at the amount of serial harassment. A single harasser, who harasses multiple victims opinion our second category was looking at private lawsuits and ocr investigation resolutions. In cases that were brought by victims that had been harassed by faculty. There are close to 140 of these cases total. The third category was news stories regarding accusations of harassment by faculty, im going to talk about the social Science Research and the court cases and ocr investigations. The necessary steps schools should be taking to address knack you willty Sexual Harassment. Theres relatively little social science data the recent activity thats been spurred by the White House Task force to survey their students about Sexual Assault and Sexual Harassment on campus. Has started to gather some of this data. We have some faculty harassment on graduate students. And some of the large the Largest Survey thats been done as far as we know to date is the aau study. And so thats with 27 colleges and universities, Major Research institutions across the country. And you can see from the chart that the rates of Sexual Harassment reported by graduate students is quite high. Its especially high for transgender and gender none conforming folks. That is followed by women graduate students. You can see that harassment is happening at the hands of faculty or other university employees. Again, with the highest percentage of transgender and nonconforming students. And with women students next and men students last. I said earlier i would talk about why we are focusing on graduate students. And basically, we decided to focus on graduate students because our feeling. At least some of the social scientists involved in these surveys have articulated similar reasons. Our feeling was that graduate students are uniquely vulnerable to faculty harassment, and thats because of how closely they work with faculty. The length of time theyre often in their graduate programs and the importance of their relationships with faculty members in terms of the graduate students future careers. Were also aware that graduate students are quite literally the pipeline to the profession for almost all of the disciplines in academ academia. To the extent that certain groups of graduate students face more harassment and hostility, that is likely to affect the demographic demographics. The aau survey data is corroborated by some other smaller surveys or smaller or older surveys. The extent to which a few faculty members are harassing multiple students. So since we couldnt really find any studies on that question. We looked at studies on serial harassment and sexual aggression, which is a social science concept that measures similar kinds of conduct to Sexual Harassment. And there are only a few of those studies that deal with serial harassment in the workplace or with repeat sexual aggression between university stude students. Even though that body of research is relatively small, the studies that are available pretty much agree that serial harassers and assailants account for a lot of the Sexual Harassment and violence that is occurring out there. Mainly what the social Science Research doesnt capture for us, though as legal scholars and attorneys, is how much of what social scientists measure as sexually harassing or sexually aggressive conduct is sufficiently severe or pervasive enough to constitute Sexual Harassment as a legal matter. On the severe end of the Sexual Harassment spectrum, when were talking about Sexual Assaults, Sexual Violence this is not as much of a problem, because on the severe end one instance of Sexual Assault for instance is generally agreed to constitute Sexual Harassment sufficient to create a hostile environment as a legal matter. But one sexist remark in class or even several such remarks will not constitute hostile environment. It could conceivably show up as a data point in the social science surveys. To address the gap between the social Science Literature and legal standard, we look at the court cases brought by plaintiffs alleging Sexual Harassment by faculty involving a complaint or complaintses of faculty Sexual Harassment. We looked at 68 court cases and 65 ocr investigation resolution letters. All of which took place after 1998 when and we selected that date simply because thats the year that the Supreme Court decided the jebser case, which is sort of the modern era of title ix and Sexual Harassment. Of those 133 cases, we found 46 cases where a faculty member was accused of engaging in conduct where there is enough detail about the conduct where we determined there was a claim of severe or hostile environment that was directed at a student. We looked at the conduct alleged to see what the faculty harassment of the students looks like. You know, who exactly is it doing the harassment, who are they harassing. How are they harassing them, and how are others reacting to the harassment. We found a couple general themes. So the first is on the slide. 57 of these cases involved unwelcome sexual touching ranging from hugs and kisses to sexual groping. Coercive sexual intercourse, Forcible Rape and the kinds of physical assaults and psychologically abusive and controlling behavior that is often associated with domestic violence. Youre probably thinking, or you may be thinking well, thats probably more of that unwelcome touching is sort of incidental contact like someone putting their arm around someone or giving a student a hug who didnt welcome it. In fact, if you look at the other bars on this chart, you can see that the greatest the most sort of violent or most severe forms of Sexual Harassment actually get the most the most cases are in those categories. And we only had a few cases that we found where it was just Something Like a hug or a kiss or Something Like that. The other thing we saw, because im already out of time is with regard to serial harassment. So these this is the statistics on serial harassment, or the basic percentage on serial harassment was 62 of the cases involved serial harassers. And this you know, again, this was conduct that was alleged by the students or the plaintiffs in the cases. And this was very much weighted on the side of the court cases as opposed to the ocr cases. But it was a High Percentage in both areas. So with that, i will pass it along to bill. Thank you, everyone. I want to thank margaret and robin for hosting this important conference today. So this is sort of an odd partnership in some ways for a paper. Normally, i publish a little on the side in areas related to affirmative action. For me, sort of stretching outside my comfort zone. This is several orders of magnitude different than my previous efforts in that regard. In my administrative life. I have had this separate professional experience life, working for many years in a provosts office. Working as a chief compliance officer, over seeing a title ix office. Including the last two cases in the university of california system that went all the way to the board of regents. I dont discuss those two cases in this paper. It animates my reservoir of experience. And how i analyze the cases and work with nancy on this paper. Nancy talked about a couple spheres of evidence. One being the social science. We dont have time to get into that in great detail. There is some interesting social science in this area. Another being the cases and ocr complaints you used. Because these are all confidential. And unlike in almost all litigation, the fact that there was litigation is public, even if its a jane doe case. Even in those circumstances, most faculty misconduct cases, whether for Sexual Harassment or other kinds of misconduct are entirely outside the sphere of public knowledge. Except when there are media reports. So we looked at that as a separate sphere of Data Collection. These are just cases, big cases in the news in 2015 and 16. You know, we could have easily filled up 15 bullet points instead of five, if we had the time and the inclination. But just to kind of give you a flavor of whats been going on at many leading universities around the country. So to start with uc berkeley. They have basically had a total catastrophic meltdown over this issue over the last two years. For example, last summer, i was testifying in defending a faculty termination case in federal court. At the same time this whole controversy was playing out in summer 2015 on the Berkeley Campus. Marcy was on the short list for a nobel prize. He had a 20 year track record it looks like, at least of some degrees of complaints about his groping and unwelcome sexual advances, and so on. That was just one case where the anemic disciplinary response by the campus was regarded within the Uc Berkeley Community and within the Broader Community as morally repugnant, basically. Over 20 of the people, one was unfit to return to duty. Second case at uc berkeley, unfolded in the spring of 2016. That involved the dean of the uc berkeley law school. The second dean by the way at berkeley to resign amidst a Sexual Harassment scandal. Dean towdry had had an executive assistant, there was a title ix investigation against him, that substantiated violations, very anemic sanctions at least thus far. He received a 10 pay decrease a salary cut for one year, that was his initial sanction. Until the case blew up in the media. There was significant blow back within the community. He had allegedly put his hands on his waste. Sort of this repeated kissing and there is a third major case at berkeley, that involved the vice chancellor for research he was also found to have groped the breast of his middle manager. And engaged in other similar kinds of misconduct as was described by the law deemed. As if to punctuate or symbolize the cultural problems on the Berkeley Campus with respect to enforcement of ethical norms. The assistant vice chancellor that fleming was found to have sexually harassed. She herself had been fired for Sexual Harassment related conduct and she did that behavior after the conduct by vice chancellor fleming. Thats the berkeley case. Ill move more quickly through the others. Northwestern, we have some northwestern folks here at the conference who probably have a lot more facts on the ground about that. But professor ludlow in the Philosophy Department was alleged by two separate students, one graduate student, one undergraduate student to have had nonconsensual sex with those students. The first time around in the disciplinary process, he received a modest sanction of i think he was withheld a merit increase of 3,000. The Second Time Around as the case progressed and he lost his lawsuit against the students in the university. He resigned as he was circling the drain of a termination proceeding. University of west virginia, school of medicine. Its important in discussing this whole topic to make a mental note that in the stem sciences and in laboratory, scientific laboratories, there are particular constellations of vulnerabilities, with regard to Sexual Harassment of graduate students. Of under graduates, of post docs, and this is also true in a medical school context, the chair of the Neurosurgery Department he was found to have sexually harassed two staff nurses and an assistant at the medical school, that resulted in a 1. 3 million settlement, so they paid the 1. 3 million settlement, and yet the University Still maintained this individual, dr. Cohen as the Department Chair and did not sanction him. Yale university, we have several folks with yale ties here, i wont get into all the cases, one of the cases that came up in recent months is around his conduct toward a recent graduate, theres a lot of blogging about that in philosophy and ethics spheres. In other cases, the university of colorado, at boulder. In that case, there is an outside committee by the American Philosophical Association that found systemic abuse issues there, thats just kind of a slice of whats going on at some leading campuses. When will colleges and universities do fire faculty for Sexual Harassment, and those cases are litigated. What are the outcomes. Its a little hard to read, we have some print copies there, if you want to read the cases really its the weight of the cases and the pattern that matters more. By a 31 ratio. These are all cases involving tenured faculty. So if there are a lot of other cases we excluded that would have padded the stats. If we focus on these cases, basically by a three to one ratio, the universities have been able to successfully defend their termination of that faculty member. The common themes. Each of the cases that involve a university losing, its kind of like the tolstoy line about how happy families are alike, and unhappy families are each unhappy in their own way. Theres some salient due process issue or they didnt follow their own procedures, we can get into that more if we have time for q a. Those are the kind of evidence that we looked at. This is all driving to our conclusi conclusion. We dont have a comprehensive ability to everything is confidential. And we only can get pieces of that. Maybe based on the abf data about a fifth of cases are dismissed right out of the gate. One fifth are settled in the resolution process. Another fifth are in the Summary Judgment position. And only a small amount of cases are like in civil litigation would go to trial. The date de weve looked at both the uc data and impressionistically from other sources bears that out. A small fraction of the universe of cases that involve investigation. Those cases are a modest fraction of the total universe of cases that we think are whats going on. Many of these cases are never reported. To the issue of sanctions. Kind of came up with this constellation of factors. Some of this is rooted in sociological theory. It teaches us is when ethical norms are being transgressed, being violated. Thats the most conspicuous moment when the norms become most salient for the population. For the student population, other members of the Academic Community. Its those moments of a case like jeff marcy or Graham Fleming its most important for the Academic Community to communicate through disciplinary sanctions. A number of universities have an institutional culture. For example, at ucla, not speaking to their over all culture it is the case in the last 50 years, theyve never had a faculty termination proceeding theyve never had a termination proceeding, the same is true of Harvard University dating back to last week, but 1638, they have never had a faculty termination in that four year period. Theres a 19th century example where a professor killed another professor, but went to the gallos with his tenure intact. So in addition to the issue of leadership, the Research Shows that leadership is a salient factor in terms of creating a sense of confidence of enforcement of title ix, when there is a conspicuous absence it has the syndrome of other negative consequences. Underreporting of incidents. Retaliation to those who do report incidents. A chilly retention climate. This is especially so within stem fields. With respect to ocr and litigation, some of these very campuses that i talked about are the ones that you could characterize as being embattled on issues around Sexual Harassment and title ix, ill leave it at that. Am not trying to check my email i also want to thank the conveners, my remarks are really going to blend nicely with nancy and bills presentation. I need to start by commentary on my power point skills. I needed some language, but nonetheless, my power point skills, anyway. Widespread misconduct, ineffectual response. Complain ends are unhappy, because their complaints are not being taken seriously. Theyre feeling revictimized. On the other side of that, respondents and their supporters feel the ocr requirements are unlawful new rules, limited right to a hearing. I say the traditional setting in which they would have the other party present. And so you can see in the ocrs q a document from 20 . Can include an investigation toward a lower standard of proof what im arguing here is that faculty have arguably a greater property interest in continued employment. Especially since theres c contractual guarantees. They often receive less safeguards. Universities may be infringing on shared governance issues when they work to apply Administrative Solutions and create consistency with faculty processes. Theres potential there. And we need to design processes so that these things can exist. How do these processes relate my analysis of these examples its not easy looking at these processes and figuring out what happens when, how does this work . My audience for this material is frankly law faculty its hard to understand these issues with a lot of indepth study. We take our typical understanding of criminal law, we can end up with less than new answered understanding. Of how these processes Work Together. My goal is to have greater engagement of the entire my first slide, they did an excellent job of explaining misconduct. Im going to skip this one as well and talk about some research that i did, when i completed my dissertation, some examples that i learned from a variety of different faculty staff misconduct was much more prevalent. Much more Sexual Misconduct was not really on the radar, toward 2014, when my Data Collection concluded. I saw that switch. Heres a quote, i threatened to put a policy together banning faculty student relationships, you would have thought i called every faculty member on this campus a pedophile. I have students running around here, marking on a chalkboard naming the number of professors theyve bagged. One in particular, had a habit of inviting students to co author. When theyre on the job market. This offer always came with an invitation of sexual acts. If i say no, i will lose this professional opportunity. Ive had any number of the faculty members come to me theres a saying, in order for a tenured faculty member the student has to be dead at the time. Its a horrible saying, in some institutions its true something has to be that bad for something to go through the processes, for the claimant to see a positive outcome in their favor. I had many people share that quote with me. The first time i heard it, i was surprised. One of the issues you see when you get into the nittygritty of this work in terms of the universitys liability interest. I do think at the end of the day, its in the interest of the university, and i think being able to stand up and help them see that is important. So when we think about due process rights, students do have a property and liberty interest. Its less settled than that of faculty. They need some kind of notice, some kind of hearing, its not much different for faculty. Only circuits disagree on the extent of that. There are three models i see out there currently. Thats an investigation model, a hearing model, and a hybrid of the two. Under the investigation model, the administrator or investigator determines the sanctions. This is the satisfies the hearing requirement under ocr. And they use a preponderance standard. You have to meet certain standards for review. Contrast that with a hearing model. What you get from an investigation is a charge on the preponderance standard, with a hearing before a panel or administrator who determines the outcome of sanction. With an appeal to an administrator that must meet grounds for a review. Theyll use a little bit of both in order to effectuate a resolution. Now, i want to be clear with what im about to show. Im not saying the students should have less or faculty should have more. Im saying we need to be aware of these things, and i want an educated group looking at this, and seeing what ways can we do this. Lets look at indiana university. Theres more process for students. The investigation leads to a charge. They will get a hearing if they want one. The adviser is to remain silent. They do get confrontation through questions that the panel has to go through the panel to be asked. And then they use a preponderance standard. Faculty have an investigation model. This is the title 9 process. They can identify witnesses. Goes to a decisional officer who makes a decision issues the finals, you can appeal to a faculty board of review, or to the provosted chancellor, you have to meet the grounds. They also, include the grounds on the right. Witnesses arent called during this proceeding, theres no revisiting the findings of fact. Theres very little confrontation at that phase. But the silent adviser in this process, may read the partys statement. Now there also can be a faculty recommendation there. As youre going to see as i go to another example, that becomes more of an issue, how do these policies Work Together if an administrate everyone policy says this person should be dismissed and then you go to a faculty process in which theres a clear and convincing standard. How does that work. That leads us into some of the shared governance questions. At kansas, i had to disclose i went to the university of kansas. Students have more process than faculty, unless youre facing dismissile. Administrator finalizes this, they can appeal to a guaranteed hearing. They can directly or indirectly question any statement, its managed by the panel. The panel has the authority to tweak that and make sure its not revictimizing. The result is a recommendation confirmed by the vice provost. They request appeal the hearing, theres not going to be a hearing during that appeal. If its less than dismissal it can go to a faculty rights board. The board can proceed without a hearing. They can say, we dont need to have a hearing on this. The appellant has the burden of proof. The administration violated procedures that impacted rights. Theres no restriction on confrontation if they get to if that hearing is accepted. The result is a recommendation thats going to be confirmed or changed by the chancellor. In 2011, hes a faculty member at kansas who is found to have sexually harassed a student. The sanction going through the process, two weeks no play, denial of a yearly raise and pay for and complete the training. He appeals this to the faculty rights board, they say, we dont need to hear this and so he sues. The handbook said hed be able to go to a hearing. The hearing as the university of kansas argued this at the initial level was that opportunity to do that. And they won. They won at the appeals level. What we would normally conceive of that. No grounds for appeal required, provost must prove full confrontation, no restriction on councils participation. How do the how does the how do the processes square, if you have someone go through both. This is really the tension between the hearing and the investigation models. I think its interesting that we have lawyers being in charge of how this developed. It was more the administrators who did this flew their professional networks lauren adelmans work, are the processes were creating, if we look behind them, are we doing what the law wants them to do, are they simply vehicles for avoiding liability. Are they actually creating adherence to what the law wants . My evidence suggests a swing first toward formality. We want more, we want to avoids lawsuits. We want more traditional process. In in the wake of the Dear Colleague letter. We cant make that decision or even a recommendation, we can only decide if its worth a hearing, its insulting. Students and faculty cant serve on those panels until they have two hours of training on title 9 for me. There was push back between those offices. Title ix really changed dramatically in 2011. Im wondering, and im seeing a little bit of this a swing toward investigation. I want to talk about why, its hard to train panels to understand the nuances of this there are efficiency concerns. If you want to do this in a certain way, how do you provide a hearing to everyone. If you can provide a traditional hearing to everyone, what does that say about how many complaints are coming forward. Theres not a requirement to do this. The law does not require more than an administrative process. The law is clear that universities are under the same obligation as the courts the requirements are clear on the due process issues. You get you default to the greater risk here, and both are unacceptable. Are we getting to what will address the problem and not just playing with liability. The key is execution in my mind. And typically these have been Administrative University decisions often not codified because they change every year. To go through a full faculty review is difficult as youre creating best practices and i think its a good thing. The system is learning as it goes through. What happens when these processes conflict. The policy conflicts with title nine. It conflicts on the everybody den sherry standard. Thats what bill was talking about with his situation. He reaches an agreement on what the penalty is. Hes resigned and theyre going through a faculty process. Its very real the university didnt handle this well. Its interesting to see whats going to take place. The investigator presents the report, before a panel, you can meet individually with the panel. I want to highlight that, there are a lot of ways to get confrontation without it being revictimizing. The outcomes appealable also guarantees some traditional hearing form of confrontation. Faculty dont have that i was able to find them on a website that says formal investigation reports are written in a report, you may meet with the investigator separately and have your adviser present. And then you have an appeal to the vice provost on paper. Im not critical of them for not having it codified, it just wasnt easy to find. How do they Work Together. That Human Resource is requiring clear and convincing evidence the online policy doesnt reference that. Does that mean they didnt reference hr 76 suggests a simultaneous process, were talking about an offramp to a simultaneous process, if theres a procedural issue. Sexual misconduct is governed under their policy. This is so complicated that its not clear to me the shared governance went on in these investigations. Its hard not to any we need advisers to help you through. People can understand and help people understand what these steps are. What happens when they do conflict. If the title nine results result in dismissal, or does not. Thats interesting to me. Does that mean at berkeley they needed to negotiate the faculty process because agreeing to whatever sanction was imposed or how do they do that simultaneously. In kansas, the administration wanted to make the faculty processes conform but the faculty pushed back. Penn states hr policy gives the panel some control to say this is victimizing. I think requiring clear and convincing evidence we need this if we dont have this, were going to need procedural irregularities. Instead of a standard thats criminalize i criminalizing. Confrontation in the hearing. They even said, if you need more, there might be more required. Use of technology. Trog torys for people who choose not to attend. Posing questions throughout. I think more freedom for advisers would be helpful if those are trained advisers who understand these issues, it means theyre advocating on their behalf, but with an understanding of what this process is and how it works. I believe its possible for everybody d evidentiary standards. I dont believe its all or nothing. We need to care about perceptions, because procedural Justice Matters how do we get people to come forward to report that matters. Academic freedom tenure, we have a responsibility to report faculty predators. In some instances, they werent able to do anything about it. So they sort of pushed them to change what they were doing slightly. Maybe its not happening at the house, but at the coffee shop instead. I think law faculty have a very Important Role to play here. They have to understand the negative impact its hard to have a conversation about it when were talking about it on two different plains, i think its possible, but nationally, we need to think about how to have that conversation. Im not suggesting they need to be the same. I agree with the keynote earlier, different sanctions may require different processes im not the way i see this is that earlier, one of our presenters said, its not about the process, its about the harm. I agree with that, i think for people to see the harm, they need to understand that some of these processes are being used in different ways. For me, the entry point might be, lets look at the processes, and lets understand how this is impacting everybody and how we can make some decisions ourselves. Im happy to take questions. Even if its this one. Thank you. I want to echo everybodys thanks for coming to participate in this symposium today. I feel like i already have learned a lot and have ten new projects i want to work on and go home with the time i dont have. Im excited about that, i think what id like to do now is shift the conversation away from talking about staff and faculty harassment. I want to shift the conversation away from talking about student writes. Or students accused of misconduct start to think about what the rights are about the survivors ill work my way around to talk about what i see as a potential role for law faculty in some of these cases. I started thinking about this project after reading the harvard law and penn law open letters, discussing the rights of the accused students and the rights of the universities. Selfgovernance, academic need opens, what struck me as a clinician and as an attorney that previously represented Sexual Assault survivors i felt as though there was this missing piece, there was no discussion about the rights of those students. Theres discussion about the need for students and victims also have those same needs to council. Or the same needs to certain processes and procedural safeguards and rights. Thats where im at ill Start Talking about some specific legal needs of Sexual Assault. Talk about the work of current clinics. I think they may make a good fit. And talk about some additional rolls for those folks that are already at law schools and doing this work. For student survivors, a lot of whom are 18 or 19 years old. Brian did a great job talking about how complicated these cases are. I would say i agree, and would argue its complicated for faculty and staff procedures. Imagine what its like to be 18 or 19 years old and going through this. The third is kind of during the adjudication hearing. Well talk about each of those. The students ive been working with is information before they decide to report and the complete lack of confidential information. I have a lot of students i see at different schools who have ended up in a system that they made no informed consent decision to participate in. Im not going to get into that discussion except to say that as long as they exist, we have students that caught up in accidental disclosures, without having made the decision to engage in the system. Depending on your state, in california, if you go to the hospital to seek medical care for Sexual Assault, thats reported to the police. Some universities are now automatically reporting it to the police. Without any information, you may find yourself engaged in completely different systems and not fully understand your rights. By having the opportunity to talk to attorneys before you make those decisions. Before you decide who to talk to. A victim can learn about each system, the pros and cons, what kind of relief might be available to them, what kind of detriments might be provided to those systems. A lot of our student survivors experienced more harm during the process than the actual assault. People engaged in these systems do so deliberately. I think prior to reporting a comprehensive legal screening system is key. Thats because a lot of these different options are confusing and overlapping. They may implicate one another. For instance, the student who may need Financial Support through a student who may have immigration issues. Also may need to report to one or multiple systems. Student who wants to drop out of school and is worried about the impact on their grades or loans, may need to report to the university. I think comprehensive legal screening will allow students to understand or think through all of the ways in which their legal rights may be implicated by the assault that happens. I think the other thing that can happen is during that screening, they can receive detailed information about their options. Understanding that if you go to the police, this is what a Police Investigation looks like. In it every graphic gruesome detail, what the odds are that those rape kits will have any evidence thats used in any capacity, and whether or not theyll be tested. Until we tell students that, a lot of students feel betrayed when theyre told to do a, b, c, to some extent the campus process, depending on the individual campus youre on, understanding whether theyll be subject to crossexamination. This is true for student who is may be entrusted in restraining orders. If if you get a restraining order, it tends to be a much quicker hearing. How might that impact your campus investigation. What sort of questions will be posed to you during your crossexamination. Having all that information with a particular particularly looking at the privacy and safety concerns and thinking through those implications. Most of the campuses ive worked on advocates i have a great advocate i work with is getting frustrated. Her role is not to give legal advice. Shes more and more been put into a role because these situations are becoming so complicated. We need to work with advocates, but we need to recognize the limitation limitations we have. What are the chances of success to meet the goals that are actually identified by that client. Thats one of the first, i think thats key, to have access to qualified Legal Council before those reporting decisions are made or accidentally triggered. The second step is during investigations. Insuring investigations are appropriate. This both on i know everyone in this room has probably read reports about mistakes that campuses have made and how theyve done their investigations. The department of justice has come out and talked about missoula, montana and what happened. If you have an attorney with you, hopefully that is someone that may help mitigate some of those troubling trends. Instead of waiting for the report to come later, a victim to have to file a lawsuit against the university. Actually address those issues as they come up during the investigations. Some really obvious examples include students who have been asked to sign no prosecution letters. They believe that means theyve waived their right to prosecute. Theres no waiving away a crime you experienced. This was something Law Enforcement was doing, and again i think they thought it was well intentioned. We have a letter proving this victim doesnt want to move forward, nobody can blame us, for a lot of our student survivors, theyre not going to make that whether or not to engage with the criminal Justice System a day or two after the attack. Letting them know what the statute of limitations are, what their options are, i think is important. Polygraphs, we still have some Law Enforcement that are asking victims and survivors to do polygraphs, its not appropriate. In fact, its not allowed in most states, but its still happening. Having an attorney with a student during that time is important. I think like i said, within the campus, its important as well, when you have some campus administrators that perhaps well meaning, will have students, do you understand that youre potentially ruining the life of another student. Have you thought about this, or taken responsibility for your role in this. Dont you think this is part of a hookup culture or these well meaning but really very harmful victim blaming statements that appear in a lot of these investigations. Captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2008 captioning performed by vitac