U. redefines sexual misconduct

The first meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community met at 4:30 p.m. in the Friend Center Auditorium on Monday. After an introductory speech given by the new Dean of the College Valerie Smith, Provost Chris Eisgruber ’83 took the podium to discuss changes to the language in the University’s sexual misconduct policies.

“There were ways our procedures were quite complicated,” Eisgruber said, noting that appeals of accusations had to go through a number of different committees. “What we are bringing to you today are some changes to the rules of conduct that govern the entire university community.”

The University was prompted to make changes to the language in the section of “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” with regard to sexual harassment and sexual assault after the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights sent out a “Dear Colleague” letter to colleges and universities on April 4, 2011. According to Eisgruber, the letter contained guidance on institutional obligations with regard to student-on-student sexual misconduct and harassment.

Though the letter does not have the force of law, Eisgruber thought it was important to act to make sure Princeton was in compliance, because the letter enumerated the government’s current interpretation of the law.

“When that [letter] came in, it was unclear what if anything Princeton ought to be doing,” Eisgruber said. As a result, he convened a working group not only to ensure the University’s compliance with federal law, but also to use the letter as an opportunity to improve the University’s procedures for dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct.

Eisgruber said the changes made by the working group — co-chaired by Vice President for Campus Life Cynthia Cherrey and General Counsel Peter McDonough — made extensive changes that were more in the nature of clarifications and definitions than substantive changes.

The 2011 version of “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” specifically defines different degrees of sexual misconduct in greater detail than the 2010 version; for example, sexual misconduct is defined as “sexual assault, exploitation and harassment, as well as sexually inappropriate conduct.” It defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature” and gives three specific criteria. Sexually inappropriate behavior is defined as conduct that “takes unjust or abusive advantage of another or that is inappropriate. Examples may include stalking, lewdness, voyeurism or obscene gestures.”

Sexual assault is defined as “any sexual physical contact that involves the use or threat of force or violence or any other form of coercion or intimidation” or “any sexual physical contact with a person who is unable to consent due to incapacity or impairment, mental or physical. ‘Incapacity’ or ‘impairment’ normally includes but is not limited to being asleep or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.”

The document also defines rape as “sexual assault involving an act of penetration”; it includes both “stranger rape” and “acquaintance rape,” in which the assailant and victim know each other. The description of sexual assault is identical in the 2011 and 2010 versions, except for the addition of “Rape is an especially serious attempt.” In another revision, the 2011 version indicates that the group investigating sexual misconduct will aim to conclude its process within 45 working days.

Anthropology professor Lawrence Rosen, a member on the committee, asked whether the specificity of the language might prove problematic, noting the “level of anatomical detail the provisions go into.” Eisgruber said that he thought the new clarifications struck the right balance between generality and specificity.

“I am very pleased with the outcome of this process,” Eisgruber said. “There are some contexts where specificity is favored. We thought it was very important to make clear that these were kinds of conduct that would subject you to very serious punishment.”

The meeting concluded with an update by Cherrey on the implementation of the recommendations by the Working Group on Campus Social and Residential Life. She noted that four committees were being formed to address the recommendations: one on orientation, one on leadership, one on campus-wide events and one on residential life.

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

Cherrey also said that the policy group charged with outlining the methods by which the recently announced freshman rush ban will be enforced will be established “in the next week or so.”

Cherrey said that there is a long list of students who have emailed her their names to be considered for the committee after President Tilghman’s email was sent out announcing the ban.

Senior writer Henry Rome contributed reporting.