How do Colleges Train People to Judge Campus Sex Offense Cases?
I assumed it had something to do with throwing people in a lake to see if they sink but KC Johnson of Minding the Campus has the real story.
How Judges of Campus Sex Offenses Are ‘Trained’
I’ve written frequently about the unfair, guilt-presuming processes that colleges and universities from Harvard to Occidental use when deciding sexual assault cases. But a second trend has occurred largely outside the public eye. As they have “reformed” their sexual assault procedures, colleges and universities also have increasingly instituted training programs for members of these disciplinary panels—a practice not used for panelists that hear other forms of campus discipline. Because virtually no training material has been made public, it’s impossible to determine how many schools specifically train sexual assault panels. But the demand is a consistent one among anti-due process advocates.
It seems plausible to infer that these “training” materials increase the likelihood that panelists will come back with guilty findings, but for the most part, it must remain an inference: to the best of my knowledge, no university has publicly posted its training materials. One school’s—Stanford’s—was obtained by FIRE, and contained such astonishing guidance as an accused student acting “persuasive and logical” could be interpreted as a sign of guilt. Portions of a second school’s—Duke’s—appeared as a result of the McLeod litigation, and did nothing to reassure concerns about unfairness.
A more general set of model guidelines now has appeared. Developed by the University of Pennsylvania’s general counsel and director of office of student conduct (with “appreciated assistance” from the director of the school’s Women’s Center) and “intended for adaptation by individual academic institutions” as a “template” for the post-Dear Colleague letter university, the model guidelines confirm that the special training sexual assault panelists receive only compounds the due process problems on this issue.
Comments
Almost 20 years ago this very training was given.
I was falsely accused of sexual assault at my University.
At one point the a hearing board member (there were 5) said: “You seem unusually calm. That concerns us.”
(I’m paraphrasing from the haze of memory)
But the gist was that because I was calm, that I did not lose my cool, did not show anger, did not cry and lament my lot in life, that I looked guilty.
I asked (something akin to) : “You’ve all received training in what to look for in a person guilty of this crime?”
I got several nods.
I asked: “What whould those actions, reactions or characterisitcs be?”
The head of the hearing board answered: “Unusually calm. Detached. Like it did not matter to you what you did. Angry and resentful. Like you felt entitled to the sex and were angry that you were being punished for it. Sad and distraught. Like you knew you were guilty and were feeling remorseful that you were caught. Things like that.”
(again this is all paraphrasing and from memory)
I replied : “So, if I remain calm and present my case and side of things in a logical manner that makes me look guilty. If I am rightfully angry that I have been falsely accused and I show that, it makes me look guilty. If I have had this life altering event hit me hard and am barely holding it together, and am watching my life being torn apart and am sad, then THAT makes me look guilty. Is that right?”
Again – I get nods.
I ask: “Ok, can anyone tell me, from what you’re training taught you – and clearly I can’t display it now as it would be obvious I was faking – can anyone tell me what moods, demeanor, or actions I would display that would indicate innocence?”
They looked PISSED. And I was told that it was not my place to question them.
But, since I could see which way the wind was blowing, and figured I needed to stick to my guns I went further.
“Ok, can anyone tell me what moods, demeanor, or actions the accuser would display if she were lying?”
The response I got was something like: “Very few women lie about this.”
And I repeated my question – and the answer I got, again, was it was not my place to question them and their training.
IOW – ANY actions I took, ANY demeanor I displayed, ANY emotions I showed, or a lack thereof indicated my guilt, and none exonerated me.
IOW – ANY actions my accuser took, demeanor she displayed or emotions she showed displayed her sincerity, her genuine victimhood, and confirmed she’d been sexually assaulted.
Head they win, tails I lose.
And this was 18 years ago.
While this may now be coming to light, I can promise you, it’s been in the training manuals and been a part of the hearing board process for a very long time.
To further add – but without writing a book:
My false accuser was allowed to bring in two friends to testify. They were not brought in one at a time, they came in with her, sat with her, and participated the entire time.
When it was their official time to “testify” I could not tell one voice from the other – they all talked over each other, adding to the story, changing the story, correcting each other – and all of this was deemed to be ok.
Read that again: my accuser changed her story in mid-stream, got corrected, added new stuff, along with her friends, and that was A-ok.
I had to listen to this via taped testimony – and could barely tell who was speaking.
When I brought this up, the corrections and the changes – I was told that “due to the trauma and stress” of her ordeal it was normal behavior (again, the training).
Now – imagine if **I** had changed my story, added to it, or been corrected – does anyone think it would have been excused or explained away?
Plus – as an added bonus: I brought in a friend to testify – the hearing board simply asked: “Was he there that night?”
I said “no”
And they disallowed him to speak – AT ALL.
When I pointed out that neither of my false accusers friends had been there that night either, and they were allowed to testify, they shook it over as “different”
And this was almost 20 years ago. This has been the trend and the actual conduct of such boards for quite some time.