Feds’ approach leaves victims more vulnerable
Karla Miller has been a counselor to rape survivors, run a rape-crisis center in Iowa City, administered polygraph tests to accused rapists and conducted risk assessments on the propensity to re-offend. She serves as an expert witness on sexual assaults. Since she began in this field, she has witnessed a sea change in the way education officials understand and respond to sexual assaults, thanks in large part to former President Obama’s elevation of college sex-abuses as a civil rights issue under Title IX.
Now Miller and others who work on sexual misconduct prevention and response are horrified to see President Trump’s Department of Education fixing to dismantle those Obama-era policies. The changes afoot would both redefine sexual harassment and make universities and colleges less accountable for how they handle reports of it. Miller says such proposals “are based on ignorance of victims, perpetrators, and the dynamic of sexual abuse.”
One in five women and about 6 percent of men are sexually assaulted or are victims of attempted assaults while in college, according to a report for the National Institute of Justice. One in four girls is sexually abused before age 18. Obama’s 2011 directive came in the wake of some high-profile cases of universities dropping the ball on assault allegations against faculty or students. It required investigations to be more thorough and gave the policies teeth by threatening to cut federal funds to institutions that didn’t comply.
But facing pushback on behalf of some educational institutions and accused men, Trump’s Education Secretary Betsy DeVos last fall rescinded the Obama administration directive outlining schools’ responsibilities. The DOE contends that, “The lack of clear regulatory standards has contributed to processes that have not been fair to all parties involved.”
Accordingly, the Trump administration would give more rights to accused students and reduce colleges’ and universities’ liability for sex abuses.
Obama’s policy replaced the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in legal convictions with a “preponderance of evidence standard” to determine if an accused student had committed misconduct warranting suspension or expulsion. But the new DOE regulations would allow institutions to choose one standard or the other.
They’d likely choose the tougher standard so few cases would meet the threshold, argues Miller. Linda Stewart Kroon, director of the Women’s Resource and Action Center at the University of Iowa, and Kerri True-Funk, associate director of the Iowa Coalition Against Sexual Assault, note that’s a higher standard than is required in civil court proceedings. Kroon said it would likely make it even rarer for perpetrators to be held accountable.
In place of punitive action, schools would be encouraged to offer victims more support, including mediation sessions where they and their accused offenders could question each other— something the Obama directive had rejected as traumatic or intimidating.
Under the new DOE plan, schools would be in violation only if they had been “deliberately indifferent,” about addressing allegations of misconduct “when they had actual knowledge” of what was happening, rather than should have reasonably known. That leaves a lot of room for error.
The Obama administration defined sexual harassment as “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature.” The new regulations redefine it as “so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive that it denies a person access to the school’s education program or activity.”
That would make enforcement more arbitrary, especially since some middleand high-school officials don’t understand that Title IX applies to more than sports, worries True-Funk. Many are not properly training or designating officials to handle such cases, she said.
“We already see appallingly small numbers of perpetrators actually held accountable in meaningful ways,” Kroon said. “I don’t see how the reported proposed new guidelines can reasonably be construed to be a step forward in making campuses safer.”
No, they’re two steps back.