On Jan. 22, the Advocates for Improved Response Methods to Sexual Assault (AFIRMS) group released an analysis of Georgetown’s sexual assault policy and adjudication process to more than 30 student affairs administrators. AFIRMS puts forth a series of valuable recommendations for altering the University’s Student Code of Conduct, adjudication system and disclosure policy and the administration should give them serious consideration. We endorse the proposal, however some changes should be made to improve its effectiveness and consistency.
The first major issue is the classification of sexual violations in the University Student Code of Conduct. Under the current code, all assaults with bodily injury are under Category “C,” the most serious type of violation. But a non-consensual sexual penetration is only considered a Category “C” violation—if it involves the use of drugs or other intoxicants or “the threat of immediate physical harm.” Non-consensual sexual penetrations perpetrated without “the threat of immediate physical harm” are considered “sexual misconduct,” a less serious Category “B” violation. We agree with the AFIRMS recommendation that all non-consensual sexual penetrations should be moved under Category “C”. Non-consensual sexual penetration is always an assault with bodily injury, and should always be a Category “C’ violation. Penetration without consent should be the distinction between assault and misconduct, not threat of immediate force.
AFIRMS also addresses the sanctions placed upon those found responsible. There is currently no minimum sanction for students found responsible for committing Category “C” violent offenses. We agree with AFIRMS that a minimum sanction is necessary for offenses of such severity, such as physical assaults with bodily injury and sexual assaults. We believe that disciplinary dismissal should be the standard sanction for Category “C” violent offenses, as most students found responsible for violent offenses do not have a place in the Georgetown community. However, we recognize that substantial gray areas can exist in cases of this magnitude, particularly issues of consent in sexual assaults. In addition, Georgetown’s intellectual mission and Jesuit heritage mandate a commitment to fostering moral as well as academic growth. The hearing board must have the option to give a two-semester suspension, as AFIRMS recommends, when it believes the student can be appropriately and successfully reintegrated into the social and intellectual community.
If a suspension is issued to a student found responsible for a Category “C” violent offense, AFIRMS recommends several conditions to be placed upon the student during that period. We agree with AFIRMS that the University should not accept any credits taken by the offender at other institutions during the period of suspension. A disciplinary suspension should represent a moratorium on a person’s Georgetown education, whether the credits come from classes on this campus or not. We also believe that violent offenders should be required to get psychiatric clearance from a full-time Counseling and Psychiatric Services counselor before they return to campus. However, we disagree with AFIRMS that offenders should be required to attend counseling during their suspensions, as the validity and quality of such treatment would be impossible to verify.
Upon re-admittance to the University, AFIRMS endorses a number of conditions for the student, most of which we find inconsistent with the goal of reintegrating the offender into the community. AFIRMS recommends that offenders be removed from any housing, class or student group they share with their victim at the victim’s request, and that the Department of Public Safety grant any request for a “stay away” order made by the victim or another member of the community who feels threatened by the presence of the offender. Currently, violent offenders returning to campus and their victims are not restricted in their contact unless specifically mandated by the hearing board. The present University policy is sufficient: If a victim feels uncomfortable with contact made by the offender, the Director of Student Conduct can issue a directive forbidding future contact.
AFIRMS states that the finding of responsibility, along with the sanction, should be made a permanent part of violent offenders’ academic records. Currently, University transcripts permanently show “Withdrawn” for a suspension or “Dismissal” for an expulsion. We believe that this policy is sufficient because the purpose of a transcript is not to reflect a person’s disciplinary record. If employers or other institutions wish to obtain details about an applicant’s suspension or expulsion, there is a mechanism for them to do so through the Office of Student Conduct.
According to AFIRMS, violent Category “C” offenders should not be allowed to participate in peer development programs during the first two semesters after their return. We agree that returning offenders should not be allowed to be participants in groups such as New Student Orientation and ESCAPE, positions that constitute an institutional endorsement of a student’s leadership. However, we disagree with the idea of a probationary period; this privilege should be revoked permanently. AFIRMS also recommends that offenders volunteer in the Women’s Center or at a battered women’s shelter after they return to campus. While the hearing board can issue a community service sanction to offenders as they see fit, we find it counterintuitive to place persons found responsible for violent offenses in the Women’s Center, a University-designated SafeZone where many survivors go for support and help.
The final major proposed changes deal with issues of disclosure. Georgetown currently requires complaintants in violent Category “C” cases to sign a confidentiality agreement at the outset of the adjudication process if they wish to be informed of the outcome of the hearing and any sanctions issued, stating that they will not disclose the identity of the respondent, the circumstances of the offense or the sanctions. The University’s confidentiality agreement is based on the requirements outlined by the Federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act. However, a 1998 amendment to FERPA states that in the cases of violent offenses, universities are allowed to disclose the offender’s identity and the circumstances of the offense. We agree with AFIRMS that Georgetown should implement a policy of disclosure in cases of violent offenses, as permitted by the amended FERPA.
Currently, respondents are allowed to reveal the identity of the complaintant, the circumstances of the offense and their sanctions. While AFIRMS recommends that the respondent be forbidden from ever revealing the name, we contend that both parties have the right to disclosure. Talking about their ordeal is often an integral part of healing for victims of violent acts and is their right, as recognized by FERPA. The victim should have the same ability to reveal the charges filed and the circumstances of the offense at the outset of the adjudication process, and if the respondent is found responsible, to reveal the offender’s identity and the sanctions imposed.
However, we do not agree with AFIRMS that the University should release the name of the respondent in the Campus Crime Report if he or she is found responsible, even with the victim’s permission. We suggest that the Campus Crime Report disclose only the charges filed, the circumstances of the offense and the sanctions imposed, with permission of the victim. If the victim wishes to release the name of the offender to members of the community then they are allowed to do it themselves, just as the offender is able to release the name of the victim. We also disagree with AFIRMS that the University should maintain a public file in the Office of Student Conduct with the names of persons found responsible for violent Category “C” violations. If the University deems an offender fit to return to campus life, they should not publicly announce their identities in the name of campus safety.
Three unfair practices in the University adjudication process should also be changed. Currently, in Category “C” hearings, the complaintant and respondent face each other during the procedures. For many victims of physical or sexual assault, facing their attacker during the hearing is extremely difficult, creating an unnecessary hardship. We endorse the AFIRMS recommendation to visually separate the complaintant and the respondent using a method such as a two-way mirror or screen. To protect the integrity of the hearing, both parties must still be able to hear all testimony and respond as they would if they were facing each other directly. The separation must be used for all Category “C” hearings unless both parties agree to waive it. As AFIRMS suggests, we believe that appeals hearing boards should receive training in the nature of sexual assault cases from the CAPS sexual assault practitioner, just as hearing boards do, since the appeals board does not hear cases but can overturn any sanctions that have been issued. Additionally, we agree with AFIRMS that complaintants should have the right to represent themselves in the appeals process, just as the respondent does. While the Director of Student Conduct should always be present to address procedural matters, the current requirement that the Director represent the complainant is unfair.
It is clear that there are many problems with Georgetown’s current sexual assault policy. AFIRMS’ proposal outlines many important steps the University can take towards improving the process. While the majority of AFIRMS recommendations are positive, we think our proposals are sensitive to the victim’s needs, maintain the integrity of the process and are consistent with what should be the University’s ultimate goal—providing a fair and reasonable disciplinary process.
