0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
1K vizualizări8 pagini
Suzanne Goldberg, special advisor to University President Lee Bollinger on sexual assault prevention and response, sent a letter Sept. 30 to students, addressing their policy proposals.
Titlu original
Goldberg response to students' proposed sexual assault policy changes
Suzanne Goldberg, special advisor to University President Lee Bollinger on sexual assault prevention and response, sent a letter Sept. 30 to students, addressing their policy proposals.
Suzanne Goldberg, special advisor to University President Lee Bollinger on sexual assault prevention and response, sent a letter Sept. 30 to students, addressing their policy proposals.
To the individual and organizational contributors to the September 9, 2014 letter to President Bollinger and others,
I am writing in my capacity as Special Advisor to President Bollinger on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response to follow up on your September 9, 2014 letter to President Bollinger and others setting out a number of your current priorities.
As you will see, although many of these issues are best addressed as part of an ongoing conversation and exchange of ideas, I thought it might be useful to offer initial reactions to the specific points you have raised and flag several that would benefit particularly from further discussion. For your convenience, the format I use below tracks your September 9 letter.
Prevention:
1. Ongoing consent education for returning students, including sophomore, junior, and senior undergraduates.
As you know, education has many dimensions.
The first steps in consent education have already been taken through President Bollingers communication of the Gender-Based Misconduct Policy to all students and follow-up decanal letters to many students throughout the University that set out, in detail, the definition of consent as well as the definitions of violations and consent under the Gender-Based Misconduct Policy.
Additional consent education comes through the ongoing poster-education campaign developed by Sexual Violence Response & Anti-Violence/Rape Crisis Support Center (SVR). Posters that focus on consent specifically are on display in hard copy and in electronic version on screens in all undergraduate and many graduate residence halls as well as in many areas within the University where students congregate. These educationally-oriented posters will be changed monthly and aim to educate and spark conversation. A version of the traffic-light consent-education theme in the initial poster was also featured in a pre-orientation video provided to all new students at Columbia College and SEAS, and a related tutorial was mandatory for new students and recommended to returning students at Barnard.
Additional consent and related education comes through many activities both student- sponsored and those organized by SVR, academic departments, and others throughout the school year, including in connection with President Bollingers upcoming Fun Run.
More consent education for all students is currently in development. I look forward to discussing this with you further.
2 2. Bystander intervention training annually for all members of special interest residential communities, including Special Interest Housing and Greek life.
Outreach has already begun to these and other communities for bystander intervention and other related training. Again, I will be happy to discuss this with you.
3. Work with graduate student and General Studies advocates to significantly improve the quality and relevance of school-specific prevention programming.
Initial outreach took place during the summer to both graduate schools and General Studies at the University and additional work is planned for this academic year. If there are specific advocates who would like to participate in developing this programming, I would appreciate their identifying themselves to me.
Adjudication
1. The role of deans as appellate officers.
I have already spoken with representative members of the Coalition Against Sexual Violence as well as numerous other students about this and have also addressed this concern in an update to the University community that you should have received earlier this month. I have included a relevant excerpt from that update at the end of this letter and reiterate here a couple of the points I have shared with Coalition representatives and others previous conversations.
I appreciate that you have not only raised concerns but also suggested alternatives. With respect to your suggestion that a special officer be designated within Sexual Violence Response to handle appeals, I would remind you that SVR is designed to support those who have experienced violence, including sexual violence, not to serve as a neutral arbiter in a disciplinary process. You have also suggested engaging arbitrators to review appeals. As with your suggestion regarding SVR, I am happy to discuss this further but it is not clear to me why individuals not otherwise affiliated with the University would be better positioned to handle appeals than deans, who have ultimate oversight over their students experiences, share a commitment to student health, safety and well-being, and are responsible for the operation of their schools.
2. Inclusion in the Gender-Based Misconduct Policy of a clear and explicit guarantee of residential, academic, and other accommodations for survivors of sexual violence.
On this point, I would refer you back to the policy provisions that address accommodations. I have also addressed this point in my earlier update to the University community and have included that portion of the commentary below.
The essential point both in the Policy and my update is that the Policy ensures that these accommodationsresidential, academic, and otherwiseare provided for all survivors of sexual violence as appropriate. In my view, which I have developed over the 3 course of many years in consultation with advocates, survivors, and others, a one-size- fits-all accommodations model would not be respectful of survivors agency or effective in responding to the range of student needs and preferences.
Accountability and Transparency
1. Release the aggregate data on sanctioning.
As you know, the first annual Report on Gender-Based Misconduct Prevention and Response was released last week. In your letter, you ask that this report be issued annually, which it will be. You also ask that information be released regarding multiple reports against the same person. I have included below an excerpt from my recent commentary related to the Report in which I directly address this point.
2. A written directive from President Bollinger to strengthen PACSA.
I will be happy to talk with you about your suggestions regarding strengthening PACSA.
3. Evaluation of experiences of complainants and respondents with the Gender-Based Misconduct Office.
An evaluation system will be put in place. I would be happy to talk with you further about your suggestions for what this evaluation might include and how best it should be administered and reviewed. Please see my additional note below.
4. A mandatory comprehensive review of the Gender-Based Misconduct Policy through PACSA.
Again, I will be happy to discuss your ideas about this.
5. A process by which students can provide formal feedback on their experiences with the Gender-Based Misconduct Office.
This request seems to overlap with the evaluation request above. I will be happy to discuss both. Please see my additional note below.
6. Creation of clear and concrete avenues for students to express concerns with the Gender- Based Misconduct Policy and resources at the University that respond to gender-based misconduct, including sexual violence.
I will also be happy to discuss your suggestions for this as well. Please see my additional note below.
On points 3, 5, and 6, I would also remind you that multiple mechanisms for feedback, ideas, suggestions, and more is already in place. On a personal note, I met with representative members of the Coalition Against Sexual Violence in August and invited 4 you to communicate your ideas and concerns directly to me. I have met with many other students as well and issued a similar invitation.
In addition, a much broader invitation has gone out to the entire Columbia community through the Gender-Based Misconduct Policy and other communications. This invitation, which appears on the Policys very first page, specifically identifies titleix@columbia.edu as an avenue through which students and others are invited to share their reactions, ideas, and concerns both about the Policy and other aspects of Columbias work on gender-based misconduct prevention and response.
As a reminder, here is the relevant text from the Policys Introduction: The Policy and Procedures have been prepared by University administration and reviewed by the Presidents Advisory Committee on Sexual Assault (PACSA), the Presidents Special Advisor for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response, and other University faculty. These groups, student groups and others may provide additional input throughout the coming academic year. Comments and questions, which are always welcome, may be directed to titleix@columbia.edu.
7. Having meetings be more inclusive of other stakeholders in this issue, by prioritizing the voices of survivors, students who have gone through the process, and advocates and activists who have been working on this issue, in addition to the Senators and student council members who are consistently present in these spaces.
As many of you know, shortly after I was appointed to the Special Advisor position, I invited members of the Coalition Against Sexual Violence, including members of No Red Tape and other student activist groups, to meet with me, and we had an extended meeting together. In addition, also in August, student representatives, including from the Coalition, were invited to a meeting to hear about the new policy shortly before it was released. In addition, President Bollinger held a meeting that included students from the Coalition on September 9. I have another meeting with Coalition members scheduled for later this week.
And, as you know, President Bollinger has indicated that he will continue talking with students directly, including survivors, students who have gone through the disciplinary process, activists, advocates or others as this work continues.
This is not a comprehensive list but instead a reminder that students from the Coalition as well as other groups have had a number of opportunities to offer their ideas and will continue to have opportunities to do so going forward.
I want to reinforce, as well, that there are many students and others at the University who have excellent ideas and energy to bring to these conversations, both in and outside of the No Red Tape, the broader Coalition of organizations that have signed the September 9 letter, and student government.
5 With reference to your proposal, as you know, not all survivors or their supporters choose to participate in the Coalition, to be public about their experiences, to go through the disciplinary process, or to engage in public activism or advocacy regarding sexual violence.
For this and other reasons, I invite and encourage all students as well as other community members to participate in the essential work of sharing ideas and contributing efforts to creating a climate at the University that does not tolerate gender- based misconduct, including sexual violence, in any form.
Finally, I want to reiterate my appreciation for your engagement with and attention to preventing and responding to sexual violence on campus and look forward to your continuing ideas, suggestions, and participation in helping to create an environment in which all students and other community members can flourish free from gender-based misconduct, including sexual violence.
Yours truly,
Professor Suzanne B. Goldberg Special Advisor to President Bollinger on Sexual Assault Prevention and Response
As noted above, here are excerpts related to several points discussed above. The excerpts are drawn from two recent updates that I have issued, both of which can be found on the Universitys Sexual Respect website (http://sexualrespect.columbia.edu/).
Regarding Adjudication Point 1 - the participation of deans in the disciplinary appeals process: (This excerpt is integrated with discussion of other University officials participation.)
Qualifications of Participants in Hearing, Sanctioning, and Appeals
Some students have asked about the qualifications of hearing panel members, sanctioning officers, and deans as participants in the process. One underlying question in some comments concerns whether these University employees might have a conflict of interest because of their roles within the University, including, for some, responsibility for fundraising and otherwise maintaining the reputation of their schools. Another underlying question has been whether individuals without formal legal training can be effective panelists or appellate decision-makers. Ill address both.
On the conflict of interest point, it may be useful to keep in mind that deans of schools and student affairs officers have as a central part of their role an interest in creating a learning and living environment free from gender-based misconduct as well as other harms. That is, deans, as well as student affairs officers, are fundamentally responsible for helping to shape an environment within their schools where students can learn, participate in extracurricular activities, and flourish more generally. Responsibility for determining sanctions 6 and handling appeals in gender-based misconduct cases flows directly from rather than conflicts with these roles and responsibilities. Likewise, a deans responsibility for fundraising strengthens the need for that individual to play an effective role in implementing the policy by handling appeals because a schools reputation is linked, in significant part, to the experiences of its students. For this reason, deans handle appeals in a range of disciplinary matters. This does not mean that a dean, or any of us, will be able to eliminate misconduct, including gender-based misconduct, all of the time. It does mean that a dean will necessarily take seriously his or her role in handling appeals and in overseeing communications with students aimed at preventing policy violations. Finally on this point, student affairs officers are, by virtue of their roles, most directly connected with the impact of gender-based misconduct on students and with programming that works toward prevention. And deans, likewise, have ultimate oversight over their students experiences. Consequently, within a University, these individuals and others who similarly are experienced with student affairs are best positioned to handle implementation of a policy and response to conduct that has such a significant impact on students experiences and lives. Questions regarding qualifications
Relatedly, the Universitys process for handling gender-based misconduct allegations is precisely that a university process.
For the reasons just mentioned, University officials who have a student-facing role and are responsible for significant aspects of student life at the University are, by virtue of their responsibility and experience, in the best position to implement the hearing and sanctioning roles in consultation with the Gender-Based Misconduct Office director. As the policy explains, each person with a formal role in the process, from investigators, to hearing panel members, sanctioning officers, and deans, receive specialized training to enable them to perform their roles with sensitivity and a commitment to fairness to all parties.
Regarding Adjudication Point 2 accommodations:
Second, some students have raised questions about why the policy does not mandate specific accommodations or sanctions in connection with violations. Here, several points may be useful to keep in mind: Regarding accommodations, students needs and interests in accommodations vary in relation to experiences with gender-based misconduct; a one-size-fits-all accommodations model would not be respectful of or effective in responding to the range of student needs and preferences. At the same time, the policy specifies possible accommodations and case managers will talk with individual students directly to help with this process. 7 Regarding sanctions, the University must, both by law and as a matter of fairness, handle each case individually rather than categorically impose a particular set of sanctions when a student is found responsible. The Director of the Gender-Based Misconduct Office has explained in meetings with students an additional point regarding implementation that I want to repeat here for all: The University will respond to the most egregious behaviors under the policy by imposing the most serious sanctions, including suspension or expulsion. Also, in addition to any other sanction (other than expulsion or revocation of degree), the policy mandates that any student found responsible for gender-based misconduct must receive education and/or training related to the violation at issue. The Gender-Based Misconduct Office tracks sanctions in all cases involving student respondents and provides consistent information related to sanctions imposed throughout the University. Regarding Accountability and Transparency Point 1 data in the first annual Report on Gender-Based Misconduct Prevention and Response:
Why doesnt the Report provide information about which sanctions were imposed on students found responsible for various violations or about the schools where respondents were found responsible?
There are several reasons for this approach. Most important is that the University wants students to be able to engage the disciplinary process without fear that the University will publicly disclose their individual case, either now or in the future.
As readers of the Report will see, during the 2013-14 academic year covered by the Report in each category of offense there are fewer than 10 respondents (i.e. students accused of violating the policy) in formal disciplinary proceedings involving a student accused of any form of gender-based misconduct. You can find this in Tables 3 and 4 on pages 11-12.
Given these small numbers, the University cannot release information about specific sanctions or respondents schools without potentially exposing the identity of these students and violating both the strong mandate of the Presidents Advisory Committee on Sexual Assault (PACSA) and its own commitment not to speak publicly about individual students involved in disciplinary proceedings.
The data in the Report thus are presented with this delicate balancing of confidentiality and transparency, as President Bollinger has said. For these reasons, the Report is not and cannot be an accounting of facts in individual cases but instead is an additional contribution to the important discussion of how we can best prevent and address all forms of gender-based misconduct, including sexual assault, in our community.
8 o Why doesnt the Report indicate when a respondent has been accused of gender- based misconduct by multiple complainants? The student confidentiality concerns are similar here. The University wants to encourage all students who experience sexual violence to seek help. It is vital that students not be discouraged or dissuaded from accessing resources, including the disciplinary process, out of concern that the University might some day comment publicly or release information that would identify their complaint. Given the small numbers of disciplinary proceedings, including for sexual assault, the likelihood that further detail about respondents identities could be used to identify expose complainants, respondents, or both, is very high.
Consider, for example, the number of disciplinary proceedings for Sexual Assault-Non- Consensual Intercourse: 8 in all. To identify which cases involved the same respondent, if any, runs a high risk of exposing individual students. Nevertheless, the Report does provide specific information about the respondents status: three were suspended for violating interim measures or are not currently enrolled at the University; four complaints are in the midst of investigation and disciplinary proceedings that have yet to reach conclusion; and one respondent was found not responsible by a hearing panel. (See Table 3 on p. 11).
Finally, while some of the academic literature shows that a small number of students deliberately commit serial offenses at their college or university, my own view is that it is a mistake to think this small group is responsible for all of the sexual violence that occurs on any college or university campus. Instead, as treating psychologists and other confidential counselors indicate, the array of factors that result in individuals perpetrating sexual assault and other non-consensual sexual contact is complex. This is not to say that serial perpetrators do not exist; rather, the point is that even if a campus, or a broader society, could remove those perpetrators from a community, sexual assault and other forms of gender-based misconduct would not cease to occur. (On this point, a future post to the Sexual Respect website will address issues related to perpetrators of sexual violence in greater depth.)