Scenario: A Student is Assaulted by Another Student in her Graduate Department

Maria, a first year female graduate student, is the only woman of color in her entire academic department. She has become close friends with her advisor’s administrative assistant. Maria comes in late one morning, uncharacteristically disheveled and quiet. She reluctantly tells the administrative assistant that the previous night, after a department happy hour, one of the other students in the department offered her a ride home.

He took her to his apartment rather than to hers, poured her an alcoholic drink, and then suddenly kissed her and tried forcefully to have sex with her. Maria fled the apartment. As she stood outside trying to call an Uber, he yelled down to her saying he was going to tell everyone she had come on to him and he was “really uncomfortable with the things she had done and said in his apartment.” She got home safely, but now feels terrified that other people in the department will find out and blame her. Unsure what to do or think about it, she just goes on to her afternoon class.

That day over lunch, the administrative assistant tells two close colleagues all the details of what Maria told her. They discuss the situation with two other colleagues at the table who are from another academic department. They collectively decide that the offending student, a well-liked guy who is also the nephew of the department chair, was probably just a little drunk and misjudged Maria’s often flirty behavior. Also, none of them want to be the one to file the necessary paperwork, out of fear of personal or professional retaliation.

Implications and Considerations:

The administrative assistant should have let Maria know up front about her responsibility to notify the university of such abuse. If a staff member thinks a student is about to disclose gender-based violence the staff member could say, “I am really glad you feel comfortable talking to me and I want to support you. First, though, I need to be clear that if you tell me about your/another student’s experience with intimate partner violence, sexual violence, or stalking, I have to report that to the school so they can offer you support, and help you and others stay safe.” For more information on staff responsibilities, see 'Designate Each Employee's Reporting Status' for definitions and guidance.

A staff member who is reminding a student of their duty to notify the institution can inform the student of exactly what information and details are required by the institution’s form. This information should include the nature, date, time, and general location of the incident, and the identities of the victim/survivor(s) and alleged perpetrator(s). The student can therefore decide what to share and what to withhold.

The administrative assistant should have training so they know how to handle a disclosure of violence before they are ever faced with the situation. As part of all-staff training, employees should be instructed on how to inform students of the confidential and non-confidential resources available to them on campus and in the community. Employees should also connect students with a confidential resource on campus who can provide them details about all of their Title IX and Clery rights and reporting options.

Employees should have regular, ongoing training so that the information with which they are provided is current, accurate, and fresh on their minds.

Even though Maria did not specifically request confidentiality from the staff member (which the staff member could not have granted anyway), the staff member should not share personal details about any case related to IPV or sexual violence with any other person, except to submit the required paperwork, directly and immediately, to their supervisor and the Title IX office.

If a staff member has knowledge of a private situation involving a student following a disclosure, and someone asks them for details or wants to discuss the case, the staff member should refuse to discuss the case and only share the relevant information with their supervisor.

When notifying the institution, a non-confidential staff member must share all details they know about the situation based on the student’s disclosure. Following their fulfillment of the duty to notify, the staff member is still responsible for protecting the privacy of the reporting student and not sharing identifying information with other parties. The staff member violated Maria’s privacy by sharing information with colleagues other than their supervisor and the Title IX office. Employees should know whether or not they are a non-confidential staff member with an obligation to notify the university of IPV, sexual violence, and stalking. A school must inform employees of their responsibilities and of the importance of informing students of their responsibilities.

The administrative assistant should have relayed the information immediately to her supervisor and to the Title IX office. The matter should never be addressed exclusively by staff/faculty within the department without informing Title IX staff at the school. (When a responsible employee knows or reasonably should know of possible IPV, stalking, or sexual violence, the Office for Civil Rights deems a school to have notice of the violence. The school must take immediate and appropriate steps to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred, or risk investigation and fines by the OCR.)

The response to Maria’s abuse needs to be timely, appropriate, sensitive, and respectful. In this scenario, the staff members’ discussion of confidential matters and decision not to notify the university of the sexual abuse was, instead, inappropriate (only those with a ‘need to know’ should be given information on a student’s personal situation), insensitive (victim-blaming), and disrespectful (not confidential).

Scenario: Transgender Students’ Access to Services

Gavin, a rising masculine-identified junior, matriculated as a feminine-identified student two years ago. He has since come out as transgender and now openly expresses his gender identity by living as a man. On a school-sponsored, study-away trip in California, Gavin is sexually harassed and groped on the chest and genitals by two drunk fellow students in a nightclub.

Gavin, acting on the advice of his close friends and in accordance with study-away policy, contacts Dr. Spencer, the faculty member who is accompanying the students in California. Dr. Spencer tells Gavin that because he is male, the school’s sexual misconduct policy does not apply to him, and the university "can’t really help." Dr. Spencer states that Gavin can go to the counseling center when he returns to campus to see if he can "find a counselor who might understand his reaction to the situation better." Discouraged, Gavin relies on his close friends for help but begins to have panic attacks that interfere with his studies. A few months after returning to campus, Gavin seeks support from a counselor, who appropriately refers him to the campus gender violence advocate and to the Title IX Coordinator. Gavin requests that the Title IX Coordinator not formally investigate the matter, but instead assist Gavin in mediating the incident with the two students who groped him.

Implications and Considerations

Policies should be written so as to be inclusive of all victim’s/survivor’s gender identities, relationship statuses, etc. When creating and revising policies, it is critical to have input from students whose voices are often marginalized. Special care should be taken to invite marginalized students to share their experiences and to influence policy, as well as to affirm and support them during the feedback process.

First responders (Campus Security Advisors), responsible employees, counselors, advocates, Title IX staff, law enforcement, Resident Advisors, medical staff) should receive specific training on not assuming a victim’s/survivor’s gender identity, sexual orientation, relationship status, ability, immigration status, etc.

The experience and input of first responders is important in policy creation and revision, as first responders can easily identify gaps in services and reflect accurate experiences of student victims/survivors.

Conducting an annual or biannual case review amongst interested parties can assist in adequately evaluating gaps in services and policies.

Policies should clearly and prominently state that students of all genders and gender identities are protected under Title IX and the Clery Act, including female, male, transgender, genderqueer, and gender non-conforming victims/survivors.

• INSERT NEW T9 LANGUAGE FOR OUT OF STATE STUFF

Scenario: IPV Between Married Students

A married couple, Maggie and Rob, are both enrolled in the same graduate program. They matriculated two years ago after moving here from Canada with their two children (ages 3 and 5).

Maggie, who uses a wheelchair, was able to obtain wheelchair accessible, on-campus housing. After a successful first year, Maggie starts to show up late to classes and fails to turn in much of her work.

Another graduate student who lives next door to the couple in student housing witnesses an altercation in which Rob kicks and punches Maggie in the stomach and screams at and pushes their older child. When Rob angrily drives off, the neighbor knocks on their door and encourages Maggie, who is doubled over and sobbing, to take the kids and go to the local emergency department.

At the ED, a formal report is made to campus law enforcement and to the Department of Social Services. The university, which does not currently employ a licensed counselor who can respond comprehensively to an incident of IPV, learns that the abuse is ongoing and that Rob has hidden the family’s passports and visas so that Maggie and their children are unable to leave the country. Maggie states that “everything is fine” and that she does not wish to press charges.

Implications and Considerations

Physical violence has occurred and therefore there is a higher risk of danger and lethality. Maggie should be immediately offered the opportunity to connect with an IPV professional to participate in the process of safety planning.

Maggie should be made aware of the option for a university no-contact order, even though at this time she is declining to participate in any investigation or adjudication process through the school.

Maggie should be offered all reasonable accommodations as an IPV victim/survivor whether or not she chooses to pursue the police report or an institutional investigation process.

If needed, free wheelchair-accommodating transportation to access off campus services should be provided to her by the institution.

Once Maggie has received the needed medical care, she should be informed of her rights under Title IX and the Clery Act, and referred to an IPV professional on campus or in the community who can provide her ongoing emotional support.

Maggie's declining grades and class participation have been influenced by the abuse she has suffered. Various professionals in academic affairs should meet with Maggie (and her advocate, if Maggie wishes) as soon as possible to come up with a plan to provide her with the accommodations needed for her to remain fully involved in her studies.

Appropriate referrals for Maggie might include: Disability Services, Visa Services, Residence Life, Academic Affairs/Deans, her professors, Student Conduct, law enforcement, local IPV agency, local court advocate, Student Health Services, etc.

Professionals involved in assisting with accommodations for Maggie (professors, Disability Services, Visa Services, etc.) should only be told as much as they need to know to assist her adequately - even staff members who have a ‘need to know’ do not need every detail of the family's situation.

Scenario: Third Party Report of a Serial Perpetrator

Sharon has been experiencing stalking, harassment and sexual violence from her recent ex for over six months. Fed up with trying to convince Sharon to report the abuse, her roommate Delia goes against Sharon’s wishes and reports the ongoing IPV to the Student Conduct office.

Sharon, the victim/survivor, reluctantly agrees to come in to talk to the Dean in the Student Conduct office. Sharon requests that the university not investigate the report, as the perpetrator is a well-known and well-liked athlete, and Sharon is very afraid of physical and/or social retaliation from her ex's teammates. Sharon reluctantly shares that she "knows for a fact that (her ex) used to do the same terrible things to a previous girlfriend (who is also a current student)."

Implications and Considerations

The Dean and other frontline staff responding to the initial report of IPV should validate Sharon's and Delia's feelings, normalize their concerns and explain the conduct proceedings, the no-retaliation policy, the Amnesty Policy and the Responsible Action policy.

Clear, transparent communication is integral to victims’/survivors’ trust in the system, is a cornerstone of a trauma-informed approach, ensures survivors are more likely to participate in the process, and helps to minimize feelings of anger and betrayal related to the process.

Thoughtful response should happen without delay in order to maximize safety for all involved. A no-contact order should be offered to Sharon, even if she decides not to file a police report or participate in the Student Conduct office's potential investigation.

Sharon should not be pressured into filing formal reports with the university and/or law enforcement, but should be fully informed of all her Title IX-related options for reporting and support. She should also be informed that the institution may have to move forward with an investigation if the responding party’s actions constitute a significant threat to the campus community, but that all reporting parties can choose their level of participation throughout the process.

Title IX coordinators should only override requests for no action when the potential threat to overall community safety outweighs the negative impact on the survivor. Per the Office of Civil Rights, in situations in which a student requests no action and the Title IX Coordinator overrides that request, the decision should generally involve:

An increased risk of the alleged perpetrator committing additional acts of violence, An increased risk of future violence in a similar circumstance, or An increased level of danger such as the presence of a weapon. Confidentiality and privacy should be thoroughly explained throughout the process and honored in every interaction, both in person and in writing. The reporting party should be informed about what specific information must be released, to whom, and why.

If Sharon shares the name of the other victim/survivor, a Title IX investigator should reach out to her and invite her to come in, while protecting Sharon’s privacy. Responding staff, such as advocates, Title IX staff, investigators and law enforcement, should utilize trauma-informed response skills with Sharon while remaining a neutral party in the investigation.

Reporting and responding parties should receive written notification of their rights as well as information on the conduct proceedings and appellate procedures (if applicable).

Scenario: Accused Student Appeals Based on New Evidence

Henry, a junior, has been found responsible by the school’s conduct office for cyberstalking and physical and sexual assault against another current student. His sanction is expulsion from the institution. Henry appeals the decision.

He states there is new evidence in his case that could influence the school’s decision to expel him. He states he finally found emails sent among the reporting party, a friend and himself that imply consent and would influence the school to reverse his sanction.

Implications and Considerations

If the case is heard again on appeal, the student who reported Henry’s behavior should be notified in writing of the request for appeal and the office’s decision following the presentation of the new evidence.

If the case is revisited on appeal, the reporting party should not be compelled to participate in the appeals process, but should be offered the opportunity to respond to the details of the new evidence in writing or in person.

During the period in which a school is reviewing an appeal, campus No Contact Orders should remain in place and reporting parties should continue to be offered safety planning as well as academic and other accommodations.

The Office for Civil Rights recommends that an institution allow at least one level of institutional appeal to be heard by an individual or group who have received specific training in IPV and other forms of gender-based violence.

Each Institution must describe the appellate procedures (if appeals are permitted) early in the process, including:

Grounds for appeal [see below] Standards of review The person/entity that will decide appeals The applicable, reasonably prompt time frames. Grounds for Appeal

Parties should not be able to appeal a disciplinary proceeding result simply because they do not agree with the outcome. Appeals must be based on:

Allegations that the party was denied some substantive or procedural due process right guaranteed to them or other right outlined in these policies, or Presentation of information that was unknown or unknowable at the time of the original investigation. Both parties have a right to appeal and those rights should be clearly specified in the final decision letter.

Require that both the reporting party and the responding party shall be simultaneously informed, in writing, of the following:

The procedures for the reporting party and the responding party to appeal the results of the proceeding Any change to the results When such results become final A finding of suspension or expulsion should not be “stayed” pending the outcome of an appeal. Expulsion is a permanent separation from the institution that involves denial of all student privileges, including entrance to the institution premises and matriculation. Henry’s expulsion should continue to be enforced during his appellate process.

If either suspension or expulsion is the final sanction, these should permanently recorded on a student’s transcript. The entry should indicate that a student was found responsible for IPV, stalking, and/or sexual violence. A transcript entry may be implemented on its own or in combination with another sanction. The institution maintains the right to withhold the awarding of a degree otherwise earned until the completion of any imposed sanctions.