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

“Best interests of the University community” and sexual assault policies

In the midst of formals and Lawnparties, I doubt many people have paid much attention to the round of changes to Princeton’s sexual assault policies the Council of the Princeton University Community finalized on Monday. These latest revisions primarily are in response to requested policy clarifications from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the Department of Education.

ADVERTISEMENT

Most of these changes are uncontroversial and quite beneficial to ensuring the fairness of the process. Under the changes explained in a cover letter to CPUC, students who face sexual and nonsexual charges related to the same incident — such as both an alleged sexual assault charge along with a property damage claim — would have to undergo only one joint judicial process instead of two. In addition, the definition of stalking is expanded to be more inclusive and accurate, by extending the policy to all complainants and not just those involving intimate partners.

Most importantly perhaps, rather than forcing every complaint to be taken through the University’s judicial process, the OCR is permitting more flexibility and a variety of elements can now be considered. While some of these factors seem unquestionably an improvement, like the “complainant’s articulated concerns” for the University not to pursue an investigation, the vagueness of other listed aspects, such as the “best interests of the University community,” are quite concerning.

According to the marked-up edits CPUC approved at Monday’s meeting, “OCR provides guidance indicating that we can balance the Complainant’s wishes along with other factors in determining whether to move forward with an investigation.” In response, the policy has thus been adjusted to permit the “complainant’s articulated concerns, the best interests of the University community, fair treatment of all individuals involved, and the University’s obligations under Title IX” to be considered in determining whether or not to move forward with an investigation and judgment. This list of criteria is spelled out three times in the new policy, in sections 1.9, 1.9.8, and 1.9.10.

This new flexibility could erode the policy’s protections against the University simply making a determination short of a full investigation and judicial action that it is in the “University community’s” best interest not to pursue a case. Many factors could be considered in the University community’s best interest, and they often compete with what is in the best interest of the complainant.

Justice to victims is best for the University community’s interests. Thus, going forward with investigating cases, so long as the complainant wishes to do so, is ideal. Hopefully the administration agrees that investigating reports of sexual assaults and convening a judicial review when found applicable are best for the community and thus would generally go forward with a case even under this new flexible criterion, unless there is some extenuating circumstance.

However, the potential exists for this new flexibility to be abused. Nationally, there is a trend for colleges to underreport sexual assault. Presumably, these schools believe underreporting renders them more desirable, safer campuses, even though this could be simply a sign of ignoring the problem.

ADVERTISEMENT

According to Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity Michele Minter at Monday’s CPUC meeting, all cases would still undergo a basic investigation before this decision would be made and then these listed criteria would be considered when determining whether or not to move forward. While this statement is somewhat comforting, it still doesn’t change the potential arbitrariness the current wording permits.

As Vice Provost Minter highlights, the flexibility provided by considering all these factors can do much good — such as allowing the University to pursue a case in the best interest of the overall safety of the community despite the complainant’s desire for no action, such as if there was some fear of a serial rapist, as studies show many college rapists are. But the possibility of good decisions under the new policy does not outweigh the opportunities for abuse. Simply spelling out in more explicit detail what the best interests of the University are in the actual policy can both help allow the positive outcomes and avoid possible missteps.

So long as the decision to bring a judicial proceeding is going to be made in a closed-door setting, as it really must be due to privacy concerns, by people who are ultimately subjective like any other individual, the criteria for making this determination should be specified in writing. This will limit the potential subjectivity and provide more transparency to the entire process. The University community must really understand what information is being weighed when the decision is made to move a case forward or not.

Spelling out exactly what factors should be considered is challenging, and doing so inherently limits flexibility in a potentially harmful way. However, it is possible to draft a clearer, more exhaustive list than “best interests of the University community,” and the benefits of this transparency outweigh the potential downfalls of slightly restricted flexibility.

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

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