So, that’s a really DUH statement, right? But this week I feel like it bears mentioning, as two schools with pretty decent sexual misconduct policies have failed students by not enforcing and adhering to the very policies they put into place.

In the past couple of months I’ve been writing about some great steps that Brown University has taken to reform their sexual assault policy and raise awareness on campus. But recently Brown has been in the news because of a lawsuit filed by a former student who says that after being accused of rape he was forced to leave the school without a proper investigation into the incident. He maintains that he was falsely accused and he settled with the complainant and agreed to leave the school only because he was threatened with criminal charges. However, I don’t know the details of this case, and can’t and won’t make any statements in regards to whether or not a rape occurred. But it is clear that the disciplinary process was mishandled:

After the student amended her complaint to include rape, Brown officials met with Mr. McCormick and presented him with a one-way ticket home to Wisconsin. According to the lawsuit, they denied his requests for a copy of the complaint against him and he was not given an opportunity to provide his version of events. He was told only that he faced a complaint of “sexual misconduct,” the lawsuit asserts.

…The lawsuit also asserts that a Brown dean arranged for Mr. McCormick to face an administrative hearing rather than have his case heard by a panel of peers, faculty and deans.

Let’s check out the rights that Brown’s disciplinary procedures guarantee to students charged with violating the code of conduct:

To be informed in writing of the charge(s) and alleged misconduct.

To be assumed not responsible of any alleged violations unless she/he is so found through the appropriate disciplinary hearing.

To have an advisor during a formal investigation, a hearing before the University Disciplinary Council, an administrative hearing, or a student organization hearing. The advisor may be any person of their choice within the University community who is not an attorney.

To have a reasonable length of time to prepare a response to any charges.

To be informed of the evidence upon which a charge is based and accorded an opportunity to offer a relevant response.

To be given every opportunity to articulate relevant concerns and issues, express salient opinions, and offer evidence before the hearing body or officer. (Students have the right to prepare a written statement in matters that may result in separation from the University.)

To be afforded confidentiality, in accordance with University practices and legal requirements.

To request that a hearing officer or member of a hearing body be disqualified on the grounds of personal bias.

To have a timely determination of the charges.

To appeal a decision.

To refrain from providing information that is self-incriminating.

Now granted, I don’t know when this policy was implemented and if this was the version of the policy that existed when the student was forced to leave the school in 2006, however the Times article notes that the former student has “said the university had failed to follow its own disciplinary policies.” I have no idea why in this particular case Brown decided to disregard their procedure (the article suggests perhaps because the complainant’s father was a Brown alum and donor) but they did a serious disservice to all their students in doing so. While we usually focus on the rights of the survivor, it’s also imperative to uphold the rights of the accused, both because it’s absolutely important to protect individual students and because when you disregard the rights of the accused you add fuel to the fire of those who want to paint campus rape hearings as unfair witch hunts.

On the other side of the spectrum is this sad story out of Columbia that Twe blogged about earlier today.  An anonymous survivor wrote a description of her traumatic journey through Columbia’s disciplinary procedure after she was sexually assaulted. She describes a number of serious issues with the way her case was handled, among them:

During the hearing itself, there were multiple errors committed by the panel that were actually more hurtful to my own case, including but not limited to the respondent’s submission of a statement that I had not seen before and illegitimate contact with the panel, probing and hurtful inquiries geared toward my witness and best friend, and the approval of all three of the respondent’s witnesses, none of whom I had ever met before beyond simple introductions.

There’s a lot going on here, and a number of things she describes do reflect flaws in Columbia’s policy, but let’s just compare one part of her reality to what’s exactly in Columbia’s disciplinary process:

Both the Complainant and the Respondent will be informed prior to the hearing of their rights to identify witnesses and documents. Witnesses’ names and a brief summary of their anticipated testimony will be submitted for transmission to the Hearing Panel at least two days in advance of the first session of the Hearing. Rebuttal witnesses, if any, may be identified and their names forwarded to the Manager during the Hearing process. Should the Hearing Panel determine that a witness’s testimony will be taken, a brief summary of the witness’s testimony will be sent to the other party when possible at least two days in advance of the witness’s appearance. Witnesses scheduled to appear will be advised of the process, as well as confidentiality requirements.

The policy is very clear about informing the “other party” of the witness’s testimony prior to their appearance. So why wasn’t procedure followed?

SAFER focuses on policy because we honestly, strongly believe that a thorough policy will, among many other things, prevent both of the situations described above. And to a certain extent, both Brown and Columbia had policies that were set up to do just that. That they failed to follow-through remains somehwat of a mystery to me, but just reiterates the importance of ACTUALLY ENFORCING POLICY and establishing oversight to make sure it’s being properly enforced.