Follow us on Instagram
Try our daily mini crossword
Play our latest news quiz
Download our new app on iOS/Android!

A chance to lead on addressing sexual misconduct

The University is finally taking steps to address a policy that should have been discussed and updated years ago: its policy and procedures on sexual misconduct, an umbrella term encompassing sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. Like many others, I welcome this new standard and proposed update to Princeton’s Rights, Rules, Responsibilities as a significant improvement in policy, even if it is imperfect and insufficient, as last week’s editorial outlined.

This past Sunday, the Undergraduate Student Government held a town hall to shed light on the many changes that are likely to be implemented. Most are actually mandated by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR), a fact that most students didn’t initially realize. The OCR released a report and new guidelines on sexual misconduct on campuses this summer outlining what Princeton and the other 70+ universities under federal investigation must do to be in compliance with Title IX. The federally mandated changes include: lowering the standard of evidence from “clear and persuasive” (highly probable) to a “preponderance” (more likely than not) level, no students on the adjudicatory panel, parity of appeal rights for the complainant and respondent, trained investigators as fact finders and adjudicators, and outside advisors allowed during all meetings. Some of the concerns raised about aspects of the new policy at the town hall meeting, including the lower burden of proof, would have to be taken up federally and not by the University committee. (Personally, while I applaud the federal government’s actions, in both the executive and legislative branches, for trying to tackle the country’s ubiquitous college sexual assault problem, I do acknowledge that not all of the new standards are ideal. But neither has been the status quo. Ultimately, our criminal justice system, as well as college procedures regarding sexual assault, must also be overhauled.)

ADVERTISEMENT

But Princeton’s issues surrounding sexual assault will not disappear with the adoption of these new standards. Among other issues, there remains the issue of the University’s perceived reluctance to acknowledge that a real problem has existed and its reserved attitude towards these much-needed changes. Once this new policy is in place, the University should seize this opportunity to become a leader. The University must continue to seek out and adopt the best policies for its students, to increase discussion and understanding of the issues at hand, and to create a more transparent reporting and adjudication process.

The University may seem like it is embracing these changes with open arms given how quickly everything is now being passed. After all, the OCR only released its recommendations in July. But the Title IX case against Princeton was filed almost four years ago, in 2010. In April 2011, the Department of Education mandated the “preponderance of evidence” standard. However, Princeton administrators believed that any student disciplinary proceeding was not subject to the Title IX requirement but rather could be held to a “clear and persuasive” standard. At the time, Princeton made very little effort to overhaul its policies, save for a redefinition of terms.

Meanwhile, other universities began changing their policies. At Dartmouth, for example, the administration undertook a major overhaul, appointing independent investigators. Princeton administrators could see that policy changes at other schools hadn’t “raised many red flags” or created major problems, according to The Daily Princetonian. However, the article explained, Princeton is still “the last institution in the Ivy League to adopt these changes.” Princeton did little, as a recent Washington Post op ed by a current Princeton graduate student highlights. It is only under the threat of the “nuclear option,” as it was called at the town hall, of losing all federal funding, that policy changes are finally being implemented.

The University must continue to look for further ways to improve its policy and procedures within the guidelines and possibly in some cases by going beyond the federally mandated requirements. This can include, but certainly isn’t limited to, appointing or subsidizing counsel to maintain parity despite socioeconomic background, defining and clarifying more terms including “consent” and “incapacitation” and hiring fully independent investigators, not ones governed by the Dean of Undergraduate Students staff or something similar. While University officials may truly want to assist student victims of sexual misconduct, they also, understandably but unfortunately, have a vested interest in maintaining the University’s image and reputation. There continues to be an incentive for Princeton, and every university for that matter, to underreport situations of sexual misconduct.

In addition, the University can and must do more to improve how students view sexual interactions. The town hall demonstrated a great divide between male and female students on the issue and wide misconceptions about the old and new standards. More discussions need to occur on campus to narrow the different perceptions between some males and females so that we can do a better job of preventing sexual misconduct before it occurs. Rush Limbaugh’s take, one heard many times before, on these new college policies was to ask rhetorically, “How many guys, in your own experience with women, have seen that ‘no’ means ‘yes’ if you know how to spot it?” A debate on policy changes and social mores needs to continue both on campus and nationally. The University must implement more educational programs on the issue and show that it is willing to be a leader among peer institutions in this area and not the slow adopter it has been so far.

The first action the University can take, and something the deans at the town hall alluded that they were hoping to do, is to increase transparency regarding the policies, new and old. Sunday’s town hall was a great start, and the planned faculty-student Committee on Sexual Misconduct is potentially another. For example, some students seemed surprised to find out that the records of individuals “convicted” of sexual misconduct are never released, unless subpoenaed in a court. And given that sometimes, as another student highlighted, students don’t come forward because they don’t want someone to be permanently punished, clarifying this reality could help bring justice to issues of sexual misconduct across campus. Knowing all the ins and outs and the definitions (especially since they often differ from criminal definitions) is essential to making these policy changes effective and the best they can be until further policy and cultural changes are made both at the University and nationally.

ADVERTISEMENT

Marni Morse is a sophomore from Washington, D.C. She can be reached at mlmorse@princeton.edu.

Subscribe
Get the best of ‘the Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »