A 17-page document released by the University this semester represents a significant shift in how sexual assault is addressed on campus.
After the Obama administration sent a letter last spring reminding universities of federal Title IX requirements for preventing and addressing sexual harassment, Columbia began the complex process of changing its sexual assault response policies. The results are meaningful, according to a number of students active in the sexual assault awareness movement, and include a specific Title IX Investigator to conduct on-campus investigations.
The changes have begun amid a growing national consensus that universities have not responded adequately to sexual crimes committed on their campuses, and following concerns raised by Columbia students last year.
Melissa Tihinen, senior manager at the Office for Student Services for Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct, emphasized that the University has not been unique in its response.
“It’s not just that Columbia was all of a sudden responding in a certain way,” she said. “Campuses around the country are abuzz trying to respond and figure out exactly what will work for their campuses around the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter.”
Policy overhaul
First to be changed were the names of both the University’s grievance policy and the office dealing with reports of sexual assault. Previously called the University’s “Sexual Assault Policy,” the new 17-page document now bears the title “Gender Based Misconduct Policies for Students.” In addition, what students have known as the Office for Disciplinary Procedures for Sexual Assault is now the Office for Student Services for Gender-Based and Sexual Misconduct.
That name change, which many have called cumbersome, reflects the broader scope of the new policy, which applies to students at Columbia, Barnard, and Teachers College. The policy encompasses five categories of behavior: sexual assault, gender-based harassment, sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, and stalking, whereas the previous policy dealt only with sexual assault.
And, more importantly to those involved with the policy, the University also hired Rosalie Siler to fill the newly created position of Title IX Investigator. Siler acts as a third party to conduct the investigations that were previously performed by the hearing panels in sexual assault cases.
Siler also fills in the gaps that students have previously had to fill themselves. In the past, the complainant and the respondent accused of violating procedure were each responsible for gathering their own witnesses and evidence to present in front of a panel. Now, Siler compiles an extensive investigative report by “talking with every person involved, which may include some witnesses, the person who filed the complaint, the person who’s accused of violating the policy, gathering relevant documentation … or communications, or correspondence that might be relevant,” she said.
After finishing the report, Siler says she often seeks expert advice to translate technical concepts before presenting the document.
“It’s really to make sure that I’ve understood everything in the report and whoever reads the report can understand all of the documentation,” she said.
One volunteer at the Rape Crisis/Anti-Violence Support Center said she thinks many of the changes have made the process easier for students to navigate.
“I think [having the Title IX Investigator compile the report] is helpful because prior to that, the onus was really put on the student, and I imagine that a lot of students wouldn’t really know how to go about collecting that kind of evidence or knowing how to present it,” said the volunteer, who requested to remain anonymous because Rape Crisis Center volunteers have been asked not to speak to news media.
According to Tihinen, the presence of the investigative report has also cut down on the lengths of the hearings themselves—something that she believes everyone appreciates.
“What the respondent and complainant are doing is providing a brief statement at the beginning [of the hearing],” she said. “But they no longer have to go through all the details from start to finish.”
More reporting, less confidentiality
Another significant change deals with students’ confidentiality during the investigation. Tihinen’s office can now proceed with a case even if one or both parties opt not to participate, and the new policy even welcomes third parties to report violations. Under the previous procedures, DPSA would only pursue a case if the complainant came forward and voluntarily filed a report.
While Tihinen said she always tries to respect complainants’ wishes for confidentiality, there are cases where this is not possible—namely if there has been “greater community impact” or if she is concerned a respondent might be a serial offender. Tihinen added that in circumstances when she does proceed without an active complainant, she gives the student multiple opportunities to become involved throughout the process, in case he or she changes their mind.
The introduction of third party complaints was necessary because the new policy created many more mandatory reporters—people who are required to report any policy violation of which they become aware. This means that if a student confides in his or her resident adviser or academic adviser, for example, those people would be obligated to report any potential Title IX violations.
Now, the only confidential resources are counselors at Counseling and Psychological Services, clergy members with the Office of the University Chaplain, medical staff, and Rape Crisis/Anti-Violence Support Center staff and volunteers.
Tihinen says that at this point, all staff members with immediate connections to students have received training on what to do if a student tells them about a policy violation, and the deans who make the final decisions on disciplinary actions and sanctions have been trained as well. She hopes to extend the training to all members of the University faculty in the near future.
Lauren Herold, CC ’12, who campaigns against sexual violence on campus, said she feels it could be “unfortunate” if a violation is reported when a survivor is not ready to go through a formal process, but she also understood that the expansion of mandatory reporters was a requirement from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
“It might deter some students from confiding in people they trust like RAs, professors, but I hope that it will funnel more people to places like the Rape Crisis Center or CPS, which are confidential resources,” Herold said.
According to Tihinen, when anyone reports a violation to her office, the first thing she does is meet with the complainant so that she can take his or her wishes into account before deciding whether or not to proceed with the process—which includes more avenues for moving forward than before.
“I want to make sure they [the complainants] know the policy provides for a non-retaliation clause,” Tihinen said. “If they want certain interim measures or if they would feel more comfortable on campus in a different residence hall or in a different class, we work on those.”
Varied resolutions
After Tihinen’s initial conversation with a complainant, there are several paths a case can take. Under the new policy, all types of violations can warrant a full investigation and go before a hearing panel.
Students can also choose to go through mediation in cases that do not involve sexual assault or other violence. The University provides mediation services through the Ombuds Office or the Law School clinic. Mediation is unique because both parties must agree to engage in it and both must agree to the resolution. In addition, either student can choose to enact the formal process and move the case to a hearing panel at any time.
A third option for resolving issues of policy violation involves mandatory training for the respondent or respondents. Tihinen explained that in cases with a public community impact, education is often a good solution.
Herold finds this use of the policy particularly encouraging. She was excited to see that the policy had “been utilized recently to address the culture that allows people to harass others on College Walk or put up offensive fliers.”
Herold, for one, is optimistic about the impact the policy has had thus far.
“I think it’s amazing that there is this administrative support for anti-violence education that was not there before,” Herold said. “A lot of the changes that have been argued for are finally being implemented. By no means is the policy perfect, but I’m excited to see it moving in the right direction.”
COMMENTS
Comments will be moderated in accordance with our comment policy