With universities mishandling cases of sexual assault headlining more than ever, the question that seems to be arising is if schools should even be handling sexual assault cases.
Many see this as a simple, black and white topic: schools should not handle cases of sexual assault — only police should. There are many people in government that share this belief which has led to the creation of several bills that would make it so that schools can’t investigate reports, such as the Safe Campus Act of 2015 (HR 3403). However, many aspects of sexual assault cases are in a grey area and need to be looked at through that scope.
First and foremost, the reason that survivors have the option to report to their universities is because of Title IX, which is a federal law that protects civil liberties to ensure gender equality in schools. Title IX gives the survivor options, which ultimately put the survivor back in control of the situation. This is incredibly important because sexual violence is rarely about sex and is more about power. During a sexual assault, the aggressor takes the power away from the survivor. Title IX works to restore that power by giving the survivor the option to report to their schools, rather than the police.
When a school is investigating a report of sexual assault, they are not looking to punish someone criminally. This means that schools are not required to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard that our justice system uses in criminal cases. Instead, schools are investigating on a civil level which means that they use the preponderance of evidence standard used in civil suits.
To break this down for those who are unclear of criminal justice terminology, beyond a reasonable doubt is the method used in criminal cases and means that there is an abundance of evidence which all can be understood through logic to mean a specific outcome (where the person committed the crime or not). Preponderance of evidence is the method used in civil suits and means that there may not be a large amount of physical evidence, but there is enough evidence to reasonably come to the conclusion that an event took place.
Many protest schools using the preponderance of evidence standard because they claim that it is not fair to those found responsible under an investigation that used this standard. Please note the word “responsible” rather than “guilty.” This term is used because schools are not criminally charging the individual with anything, but are stating that there is enough evidence to point to the fact the individual did in fact do something. Preponderance of evidence is used because schools have a responsibility to create and ensure a safe, healthy environment for their students to learn in.
Another thing that people don’t think of when they say that schools shouldn’t handle reports of sexual assault are the other services that Title IX provides. When an alleged assault is reported to Title IX, other than opening an investigation, at the request of the survivor they can change classes or dorms to get away from their attacker as well as have a No Contact Order or a No Trespassing Order put in place. These are simple things to help a survivor feel safe again that would not be able to happen if schools were not allowed to investigate reports.
Many state that schools are not “equipped” to handle sexual assault reports because of the fact that it is a criminal act. But I challenge this statement with the fact that schools handle other “criminal” reports such a theft, physical assault and drug use without having to involve the police — why should sexual assault cases be treated any differently? While I will be the first to agree that universities desperately need to re-evaluate how they handle reports, it is so important to stress the fact that survivors should not be forced to report to police if they want to report their assault. Especially when we have a justice system that is more likely to put a person in jail for being in possession of a plant then it is for a person raping someone.
