The Selective Shield of Due Process: Analysis of the U.S. Department of Education's 2020 Title IX Regulations on Live Cross‐Examination

Holland, Kathryn J.; Bedera, Nicole; Webermann, Aliya R.

doi:10.1111/asap.12216

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our data do not reflect potential changes to women’s framing of party rape that may have followed the Trump administration’s changes to Title IX regulations in May 2020 and the ensuing activism and legislation that came in its wake. The May 2020 policy changes required sexual misconduct investigations to include live hearings and cross-examine survivors (Holland, Bedera, and Webermann 2020). Anti-rape activists protested that the changes would bring additional trauma to survivors and contribute to the underreporting of sexual assault (Belmas and Rosenthal 2022).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the Risks of Party Rape in Historically White Greek Life at an Elite College: Women’s Accounts

Ispa-Landa

Thomas

2023

Sociol Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Landmark research from before the 2010s shows that college women rarely held institutions responsible for allowing rape-prone party contexts to persist and failing to support survivors. Yet the college landscape has changed profoundly since these studies were published, with prominent anti-rape campaigns and new guidelines to Title IX policy. To update a research stream that has provided the basis for theorizing about sexual violence in college peer cultures, we examine 121 intensive interviews with 68 women who are at heightened risk of party rape because of their involvement in historically White sororities. Several key findings emerged. First, women were highly invested in the Greek party circuit. Second, participants blamed institutions for failing to do more to keep them safe. Reflecting their focus on institutions, women also proposed that institutional authorities change their policies so sororities could move parties out of fraternity houses and into sorority houses. Third, women took on the labor of trying to protect themselves and other women at parties by designating monitors. However, they reported that with this system, other women could be deemed responsible, not for being assaulted but for failing to prevent rape. Finally, women found ways to identify and exclude men they deemed “rapey” from Greek gatherings. However, boycotting an entire fraternity was more controversial and harder to sustain. Overall, women’s preferred prevention strategies reflect a strong desire to avoid disturbing the Greek party scene. Implications for research and policy on gender and sexual violence prevention in higher education are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Navigating the Risks of Party Rape in Historically White Greek Life at an Elite College: Women’s Accounts

Ispa-Landa

Thomas

2023

Sociol Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In some cases, this new focus on informal resolution would be tantamount to permitting universities to eschew their legal responsibility to address violence on their campus, especially as formal investigation continues to fail survivors as a viable option for redress. Critics of campus sexual violence adjudication have long recognized that formal investigation is often inaccessible or traumatizing to survivors (Smith & Freyd, 2013, 2017), and recent federal regulations (US Department of Education, 2020, 2022) are likely to only exacerbate those problems (Holland et al, 2020). Moving forward, survivors will only have true autonomy over how their cases are managed if all options available are viable, including formal investigation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The illusion of choice: Organizational dependency and the neutralization of university sexual assault complaints

Bedera

2022

Law & Policy

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to new regulations, universities have created multiple options for managing sexual misconduct complaints. These options are described as maximizing survivors' autonomy through feminist paradigms of choice. This study uses data from ethnographic observation and 76 interviews with survivors, perpetrators, and administrators to examine whether providing options gave survivors control over their complaints. The findings indicate that survivors found the complicated and vague sexual misconduct policies overwhelming and confusing. As a result, they became dependent on university actors in decision-making, giving the university more control over survivors' complaints as institutional actors guided survivors to options that required minimal university action. | INTRODUCTIONOver the past decade, college sexual violence has received renewed attention in the national discourse, with a persistent focus on the high rate of victimization and the low rate of reports made to the organizations tasked with adjudicating cases of sexual assault (e.g., university police, Title IX Offices) (Cantor et al., 2015;Krebs et al., 2007). In contrast to other survivorsupportive resources, reporting is unique in that it is often the first step to any kind of action that mandates the participation of the perpetrator, including accountability-focused measures (e.g., expulsion or suspension) and protective actions to ensure survivors' safety and comfort (e.g., coordination of academic schedules to avoid contact, moving a perpetrator to a different dorm). Survivors unable to report may also struggle to access other formal services that

show abstract

“…On May 6, 2020, the OCR released its Title IX Final Rule that became legally binding 3 months later on August 14, 2020 (U.S. Department of Education, 2020). The proposed regulations, which reduced IHEs obligation to respond to reports of sexual misconduct and created additional barriers to reporting and participating in the adjudication process, prompted immediate response, and litigation from civil rights organizations, survivor advocates, and researchers (e.g., ACLU, 2020; Gleckman‐Kurt & Bedera, 2017; Holland et al., 2020). The new Title IX rules included changes such as 1) enabling IHEs to choose either a “clear and convincing” or “preponderance of evidence” standard, 2) requiring a presumption of innocence on the part of the respondent, 3) requiring adjudication procedures to include live hearings, during which each party's advisor—who may be an attorney—can cross‐examine witnesses and involved parties (Anderson, 2020), 4) removing timeline requirements for Title IX investigations, 5) ensuring an “equitable investigation” process whereby a respondent be provided details and sufficient time to prepare a response (Mangan, 2017), and 6) restricting the definition of sexual harassment, detailed as unwelcome conduct that a reasonable person would find so severe, pervasive and offensive (previously or ) that it denied equitable educational access (Gersen, 2020).…”

Section: Federal Policies and Guidancementioning

confidence: 99%

Policy whiplash: How California Title IX coordinators navigated local, state, and federal policy changes during the Trump administration

Eriksen,

Valdivia,

Chib

2024

Anal Soc Iss & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Federal Title IX policy requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) to prevent and respond to sexual misconduct. Based on 23 in‐depth interviews, this study explores California Title IX coordinator experiences at a critical policy juncture—the recension of the Obama‐era guidance and the implementation of the Trump administration Title IX rules and regulations—to understand how they responded to, implemented, or resisted federal mandates. Most California Title IX officers reported that the recension of Obama guidelines had limited impact on their daily operations because they lived in a state with more progressive social policy. Participants singled out California case law, state statues, the California Education Code and university system mandates as protective legislation to ensure survivors’ rights. By contrast, the new Title IX regulations that became law in August 2020 were perceived as more consequential. The tight implementation time frame, combined with the complicated and unfunded policy directives, imposed heavy burdens on their administrative offices. Title IX officers foresaw implementation consequences to campus safety, survivors’ willingness to report, and to the credibility of the Title IX office. Taken together, their experiences lend support to progressive state legislative action, restorative justice approaches and for a survivor bill of rights as important counterpoints to federal Title IX policy.

show abstract

The Selective Shield of Due Process: Analysis of the U.S. Department of Education's 2020 Title IX Regulations on Live Cross‐Examination

Cited by 11 publications

References 41 publications

Navigating the Risks of Party Rape in Historically White Greek Life at an Elite College: Women’s Accounts

Navigating the Risks of Party Rape in Historically White Greek Life at an Elite College: Women’s Accounts

The illusion of choice: Organizational dependency and the neutralization of university sexual assault complaints

Policy whiplash: How California Title IX coordinators navigated local, state, and federal policy changes during the Trump administration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About