Breaking: Faculty approves recommendations on handling of sexual assault cases

University faculty members unanimously voted to approve a set of recommendations on the handling of sexual misconduct by the Faculty Advisory Committee on Policy this afternoon.

The four major changes inaugurated through the vote are to allow equal rights of appeal to both the accuser and those found guilty, to remove student presence from the adjudication panel, toreduce the burden of proof for sexual assault cases from “clear and persuasive” to “preponderance of evidence” and to allow both complainants and respondents to appoint an adviser from outside the University community.

These changes take into account legislation from the Clery Act, the Violence Against Women Act and Title IX, a law prohibiting sex-based discrimination in educational institutions that receive federal funds.The University is currently one of the 55 institutions underinvestigation for violating Title IX.

Although a motion to postpone the vote and allow additional discussion time received some support from faculty members, who filled the ranks of Nassau Hall on Monday afternoon, Dean of the Faculty Deborah Prentice said that the University was under time pressure to comply with explicit legal demands made by the Office for Civil Rights over the summer.

“We truly believe that these are very good, positive and compliant changes to our procedures,” she explained, saying they were very carefully thought out by the FACP. Prentice also said, however, that these changes do not necessary need to be the last word.

Of these four major changes, altering the adjudication process so that no students are appointed to the disciplinary panel is the only policy that is not yet mandatory, an FACP member said. However, the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights has strongly encouraged the change due to growing evidence that victims are less likely to come forward if they know that a fellow student will be on the disciplinary panel. Another complication of having students on the panel is that it may prevent cases from being handled over academic vacation periods.

A faculty member pointed out that allowing both parties in a sexual assault case to adopt an external adviser beyond the University community may tilt the process in favor of those students with the financial means to hire expensive legal representation. In response, an FCUP member said that the demand was placed by the Violence Against Women Act to expand representative possibilities for both parties to persons of any kind, including lawyers.

A faculty member noted that the given suggestions were devised both to handle legal compliance and to offer a more deliberative, reflective process through a committee on sexual misconduct appointed by University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83. This would allow community membersto further consider the values of the University community and potentially allow for changes that would still comply with legal regulations.

"We’re constrained to follow statutory law," classics professor Andrew Ford said in response to the vote. "This is not the place to debate the wisdom of those policies."

A number of faculty members leaving the meeting commented that it was the longest faculty meeting they had ever attended and that the verve of the discussion resembled that of a town hall.

Eisgruber thanked the faculty committee for convening during the summer, andthe Council of the Princeton University Community will now consider revisions to “Rights, Rules, Responsibilities” in accordance with the committee's recommendations.