Most sexual assaults are not reported. Sexual assaults reported to campus security are rarely reported to the police. Colleges are left to investigate and respond according to their own, often lenient or ill-defined, standards. Victims of unreported sexual assault rarely receive appropriate post-trauma care.
The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act would require that college campuses respond to reports of sexual violence in a responsible manner.
Support the Campus SaVE Act. This bill recently gained more sponsors. The seven Senators supporting the bill (in chronological order):
- Robert Casey (D-PA), 4/14/2011
- Patty Murray (D-WA), 4/14/2011
- Olympia Snowe (R-ME), 6/9/2011
- Richard Durbin (D-IL), 6/14/2011
- Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), 6/21/2011
- Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), 6/23/2011
- Jon Tester (D-MT), 6/27/2011
Write to your U.S. Senator to ask them to co-sponsor this non-partisan bill. Congratulate your Senator if they have already showed support with sponsorship.
Help Stop Sexual Violence on Campus with AAUW’s Senator contact form.
24 Comments
“The Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (SaVE) Act would require that college campuses respond to reports of sexual violence in a responsible manner.”
Not entirely. It asks schools to use the “preponderance of evidence” standard in disciplinary proceedings, which is a thoroughly unfair way for a school to act in assessing what is often alleged criminal behavior. Criminal charges deserve criminal standards of guilt.
Reports of criminal actions made to institutes of higher education are not “criminal charges.”
The Higher Education Act of 1965 will be amended to include:
emphasis added.
But these institutional disciplinary actions are often based on what is, in effect, criminal behavior, i.e. “domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking”. The students being disciplined here are being disciplined for a reason, and that reason is behavior that is, in actuality, criminal. Those things are all crimes.
Using the preponderance standard in those instances is patently unjust.
What is the compelling reason for colleges to deal with crimes using a different standard of guilt?
“colleges” are not a court of law.
Agreed. However, their point is to discipline students when an infraction has occurred. In cases where the infractions are serious enough to constitute an accusation of criminal conduct, I fail to see why the standards of guilt are different than the existing ones in the US justice system.
What compelling reason does a college have to use the preponderance standard in cases where a violation is tantamount to a criminal action?
A civil court of law may use a preponderance standard in cases where a violation is tantamount to a criminal action.
A college, like a civil court of law, is not a criminal court of law.
A college is not any court of law. To quote Ami (below)
Then why a MANDATE for the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases? I just don’t understand that. Some cases are more serious, and require a higher standard of evidence because of their serious implications and consequences.
A university tribunal, acting in a function similar to a civil court in that it is imposing institutional civil penalties, that applies the preponderance standard sans 5th amendment protections in a case where the implication is criminal behavior is violating the spirit of Boyd v. US.
Campus SaVE does not require that colleges and universities impose institutional civil penalties.
The implications and consequences may be of the college’s or university’s own selection.
What Logic said – colleges and universities are not courts of law. The disciplinary procedures at most colleges and universities result from students violating some sort of code of conduct, regardless of the legality of the actions. Even if violations include criminal acts, they’re not the legal system and they’re not going to treat violations like crimes – that is not their job, but the job of the criminal justice system.
“that is not their job, but the job of the criminal justice system”
Agreed. Therefore it would be best to allow the criminal justice system to handle criminal acts, and then impose additional institutional penalties based on the findings of the criminal justice system.
The criminal justice system is always allowed to handle criminal acts.
What you have just described is the civil claims court system. Victims of crime may seek civil remedies following a criminal conviction of the perpetrator. Victims of crime may also seek civil remedies without the conviction of the perpetrator.
If I understand davenj’s concern correctly, it is also outlined in an article from The Atlantic:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/the-save-act-trading-liberty-for-security-on-campus/237833/
It would appear as though the primary concern is that if this act were to pass, it could be used to effectively levy criminal charges against a person, but without all the protections that formally levying criminal charges normally gives to the accused.
This seems like a pretty big concern. The percentage of false accusations is low, but it is easy for me to imagine many cases of honest mistaken identity wherein it is easy to find a “preponderance of evidence” for just about anyone in attendance at a given party, or who was in the area at a given time, or who has a shaky alibi for one specific night etc.. Disciplining the wrong person doesn’t do anybody any good.
It is sad, the rest of the bill – as the article states – is all but a no-brainer. Including rape/assault/stalking in campus criminal statistics would be immensely useful information.
The preponderance of evidence standard may be used in a civil court of law where the violation at hand is tantamount to a criminal action.
A civil court of law may not levy criminal charges, effectively or ineffectively.
A college campus, now and after the passing of the campus SaVE act may not levy criminal charges, effectively or ineffectively.
Given space concerns, just treat this as a response to all three posts:
Colleges should not function as, nor are they equipped to function as, civil courts, which still contain a variety of legal protections for defendants, not least of which the 5th Amendment.
As colleges are not criminal or civil courts, they should not be pursuing punitive measures in these regards.
This is not to say colleges ought not have honor codes, but these honor codes should be created to cover areas not covered by criminal and civil courts.
Colleges do not now, and will not under Campus SaVE, function as civil courts.
Campus SaVE does not require that colleges pursue punitive measures. Many colleges currently carry out punitive measures of their own selection.
Campus SaVE requires that colleges explain to their students how the college will handle certain areas covered by criminal and civil courts.
Then why does the act mandate the “preponderance of evidence” standard?
http://www.securityoncampus.org/pdf/SaVEsummary.pdf
“Proceedings shall be conducted by officials trained on sexual assault and other intimate
partner violence issues, and shall use the preponderance of the evidence standard (which is
“more likely than not” and the standard used by civil courts in the United States).”
This is required institutional procedure if I’m reading it correctly.
To require that college campuses respond to reports of sexual violence in a responsible manner.
But the preponderance standard is irresponsible, and amounts to institutions being forced to follow the standard that civil courts were actually forced not to follow in Boyd v. US.
Colleges do not now, and will not under Campus SaVE, have a right to function as civil courts.
Campus SaVE will not require colleges to follow a standard that Boyd v. US decided against.
Then why a MANDATE for the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases? I just don’t understand that. Some cases are more serious, and require a higher standard of evidence because of their serious implications and consequences.
A university tribunal, acting in a function similar to a civil court in that it is imposing institutional civil penalties, that applies the preponderance standard sans 5th amendment protections in a case where the implication is criminal behavior is violating the spirit of Boyd v. US.
Campus SaVE does not require that colleges and universities impose institutional civil penalties.
The implications and consequences may be of the college’s or university’s own selection.
“The implications and consequences may be of the college’s or university’s own selection.”
True, but by mandating an evidence standard that is unsuitable for criminal or civil accusations, it seems that this would force universities to NOT apply penalties based on these findings, as to do so would be unjust.
Plus, if the consequences are of the university’s own selection, why ought not the standard of evidence be subject to the same control?
Hmm… The Atlantic article seems concerned that the finding of “guilty” of rape in a school might translate (maybe as evidence) to a criminal court. I am not versed on the topic, so I’ll assume for the purpose of discussion that it can’t be.
We are still saying that the weakest standard of evidence is sufficient to expel an alleged offender from school. Yes, this would go a long way towards punishing rapists, but it would come at the cost of disciplining (drastically, to the point of destroying or putting a person’s future in jeopardy) at least some innocent people.
Now, the above might not be all that new, though the SaVE act would certainly cause it to be more widely/”properly” implemented. Added in to this is a definition of “healthy relationship” and an emphasis on bystander intervention, which means not only can victims accuse people based on a “preponderance” of evidence, anybody can.
I like the idea of this act, but in its current form (as I understand it), it just feels like a witch hunt waiting to happen.
Campus SaVE does not require that colleges pursue punitive measures. Many colleges currently carry out punitive measures of their own selection.