Two judges have temporarily blocked the Biden administration’s expansion of Title IX that would expand protections of LGBTQ+ students.

The changes have been blocked from going into effect on August 1 in a total of ten states: Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia, reports the Associated Press.

Seven legal challenges have been brought by more than 20 Republican-led states against the changes. They claim the new policy will allow transgender girls to play on girls’ athletic teams. However, the Biden administration says the new rule doesn’t apply to sports.

The new rule was issued in April and extends LGBTQ+ student protections at K-12 schools under Title IX, which bars discrimination “on the basis of sex,” reports Reuters. However, Lexington, Kentucky-based U.S. District Judge Danny Reeves ruled that “sex” is not the same thing as “gender identity,” reports the Kentucky Lantern. Reeves also said the new rule would violate free speech and religious freedom rights.

The Kentucky judge’s ruling mirrors a previous ruling by another federal judge in Louisiana. For the other 16 states that are challenging the new rules, those cases are pending.

New Title IX Rules Would Further Protect LGBTQ+ Students

The Biden administration introduced the new Title IX rules so that “all of our nation’s students can access schools that are safe, welcoming, and respect their rights,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona in a statement. 

LGBTQ+ youth are much more prone to being bullied than other students. The Human Right Campaign Foundation found that 96% of queer youth are exposed to offensive and hurtful anti-LGBTQ+ online content. In 2022, 49% of trans and non-binary youth experienced cyberbullying based on their gender identity. Nearly half of LGBTQ+ youth considered suicide in 2021 due in great part to how they were treated by others.

However, LGBTQ+ middle and high school students with access to at least one of the following school-related protective factors had 26% lower odds of attempting suicide in the past year:

1. Access to a gender-neutral bathroom
2. Teachers who respect students’ pronouns
3. History classes that discuss LGBTQ people
4. Sex education that includes LGBTQ experiences
5. Access to a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA)

The post 2 Judges Block Biden’s New Title IX Rule Expanding LGBTQ+ Protections appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

The 2024 Campus Safety Conference, taking place July 8-10 in Atlanta, will unite safety and security leaders for K-12, higher education, and healthcare campuses to focus on intensive education, hands-on training, peer-to-peer networking, and product showcases over two-and-a-half days.

Now in its 11th year, CSC allows attendees to meet face-to-face with their peers and share lessons learned and promising practices. Our events are collaborative, innovative, and peer-driven, and offer resources and training needed to increase preparedness, communication, and response before, during, and after a variety of safety and security incidents.

Below is an aggregate page for all things CSC24, making a seamless experience for all attendees from pre-show to post-show. We will constantly update this page as more information becomes available!

IMPORTANT REMINDERS AND LINKS:

• June 21: Discounted hotel rate ends! Book your hotel now.
• June 21: Summer Break discount pricing ends. Register now!
• UNLV Leadership to Deliver CSC 2024 Keynote: ‘Anatomy of an Active Shooter Event on a College Campus’
• View the 2024 Campus Safety Conference Agenda
• What’s New at Campus Safety Conference 2024?

May 29, 2024

How to Create Reunification Plans for K-12 Schools

Kelly Martin, Lieutenant/Deputy Director of School Safety at Seminole County Public Schools, will present on the topic.

One critical component of a K-12 emergency response plan is reunification. Reuniting K-12 students with their loved ones following a campus emergency is an extremely complex task and, if not done properly, can have a lasting traumatic impact on students, staff, and parents.

At the national Campus Safety Conference, Kelly Martin, deputy director of school safety for Seminole County Public Schools and lieutenant for the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, will present on the development and implementation of robust reunification plans.

This session will underscore the critical importance of reunification plans in the broader framework of emergency preparedness and response. By exploring real-world incidents and emergencies, attendees will gain valuable insights into the significance of having comprehensive and well-thought-out strategies in place to facilitate the safe and efficient reunification of students with their families during crisis situations.

Read more about the session here.

May 7, 2024

Lessons Learned from Nationwide Protests to Be Covered at Campus Safety Conference

The GroupProjects general session puts all CSC attendees in one room to openly discuss safety and security topics impacting educational institutions.

Dozens of college campuses have experienced pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel demonstrations, many of which have resulted in violence and arrests. Some campus leaders have received significant criticism for how the unrest was handled while others have been praised.

No matter the circumstances, lessons learned from the response and recovery can and should be carried over into the next school year, and campus leaders can learn even more by discussing their experiences with others in similar roles.

To orchestrate these discussions, in place of a traditional keynote, the 2024 Campus Safety Conference will kick off on July 8 with the general session, “GroupProjects Live: Lessons Learned from Recent Campus Protests.” Since the current unrest is extremely challenging to navigate and will likely continue into the 2024-2025 academic year, this year’s GroupProjects will solely cover protest successes and challenges.

Attendees will collaborate in small groups and share lessons they’ve learned, struggles they’ve experienced, and strategies they’ve used to maintain safety and security while protecting First Amendment rights when demonstrations and controversial speakers come on campus.

Read more about the session here.

April 25, 2024

Campus Safety Conference at EDspaces Registration Now Open

Registration is now open for Campus Safety Conference (CSC) at EDspaces, happening November 12-14, 2024, in Houston, Texas, at the George R. Brown Convention Center.

Now in its third year, this co-located event offers the content Campus Safety Conference attendees have come to expect and love and free access to EDspaces sessions. It opens the door to more resources for school and college administrators, campus security executives, law enforcement, and emergency management professionals by providing new insights into architects and distributors in the education design market.

CSC attendees will have the chance to walk the EDspaces show floor which will feature manufacturers and distributors that demonstrate how the physical learning environment can meet the pedagogical needs and technology demands to support an educational institution’s mission of student success and well-being.

Pricing increases on June 4. Register today to get the best available price!

April 12, 2024

Campus Safety Conference to Cover Clery Compliance

Photo: mehaniq41 – stock.adobe.com

At the 2024 Campus Safety Conference, Jenn Scott and Kyle Norton with the Healy+ Group will discuss changes in the Education Department’s Clery finding rubric and what that means for campuses in real dollars. They will also discuss pending changes to both the Clery Act and Title IX regulations, including the addition of hazing as a Clery Act crime that schools will be responsible for reporting on.

The session will address several areas of institutional risk, including emergency response policies and procedures and best practices for sending timely warnings and emergency notifications to your campus. Learn more about the session here.

Check out this new interview where Scott and Norton discuss why Clery fines have gotten so massive and how to improve compliance.

April 1, 2024

UNLV Leadership to Deliver CSC 2024 Keynote

Photo courtesy UNLV

At this summer’s Campus Safety Conference (CSC), leadership from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas’ Police Services and the Nevada System of Higher Education (NSHE) will present the keynote, titled “Anatomy of an Active Shooter Event on a College Campus.”

In this panel-style presentation, all five UNLV and NSHE executives will discuss the timeline of events of their December 6 active shooter ordeal, lessons learned, emergency management protocols, and the teamwork and coordination of staff, leaders, and government that was required as the event unfolded.

Read more about the session and its participants.

March 19, 2024

Campus Safety Conference Adds Georgia Tech Tour to 2024 Agenda

Campus Safety announces another new addition to this year’s programming — a tour of the prestigious Georgia Tech campus and its police department!

Georgia Tech currently consists of 400+ acres and 200+ academic, residential, and recreational buildings. With more than 36,000 students and nearly 9,000 faculty and staff, the campus attracts people from all over the world and can exceed 50,000 people on any given day.

Chief Robert Connolly and his team will give a tour of the campus, focusing on access control, traffic flow, how technology keeps the campus running, and more areas that keep Georgia Tech secure.

This tour has limited availability and will fill up fast. Secure your spot at registration!

March 7, 2024

The 2024 Campus Safety Conference Agenda is Here!

Campus Safety is thrilled to announce the agenda for our summer Campus Safety Conference is now live!

CSC strives to collaborate with presenters who have varying backgrounds and experiences and therefore offer different personal and professional perspectives. Speakers at CSC include a security director, a chief operating officer, a grant writing associate, a Title IX coordinator, a retired commander, a current police chief, a compliance director, an assistant superintendent, a public safety director, a business continuity analyst, and more.

Sessions topics will include, among others: 

• Effective Reunification Plans for K-12 Campuses
• Expand Your Funding Streams: Why You Should Apply for Security Grants
• The Intersection of Campus and Municipal Policing
• Selling Safety: Successful Strategies for Securing Funding of Your Safety Initiatives
• Alternative Response Units Within Institutions of Higher Education
• $37 Thousand or $37 Million? The New Cost of Violating the Clery Act
• Boosting Community Engagement
• Armed Staff: Security Enhancement or Liability?
• Navigating the Challenges of Free Speech on Campus
• Redesigning the Tabletop Exercise Scenario Setup
• Leveraging School Cameras and No-Cost Software to Produce Training Triumphs
• How Stress Impacts Our Behaviors

Check out the full 2024 CSC agenda.

February 21, 2024

Announcing the 2024 Campus Safety Director of the Year K-12 Finalists

Campus Safety is pleased to announce the 2024 K-12 school/district Director of the Year finalists. Being named a finalist is no easy feat. Check out the finalists’ profiles to get a glimpse of some of their accomplishments.

Winners of this year’s Director of the Year awards will be announced at the 2024 Campus Safety Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, taking place July 8-10. To register, visit CampusSafetyConference.com.

• Loubert Alexis, Director – OCPS Office of Emergency Management, Orange County Public Schools, Orlando, Florida: View his profile, photos, and achievements.
• Joseph Hough, Assistant Superintendent of Auxiliary Services and School Safety, Buncombe County Public Schools, Asheville, North Carolina: View his profile, photos, and achievements.
• Ian Lopez, Director of Safety and Security, Cherry Creek School District, Greenwood Village, Colorado: View his profile, photos, and achievements. 
• Kelli Lotito, Safety Director, Regis Jesuit High School, Aurora, Colorado: View her profile, photos, and achievements.
• Byron McCray, Director of School Safety, Chief Emergency Management Officer, Brentwood Union Free School District, Bay Shore, New York: View his profile, photos, and achievements.
• Rich Payne, Safety Director, Academy District 20 (ASD20), Colorado Springs, Colorado: View his profile, photos, and achievements.
• Aaron Skrbin, Director of Safety and Security, Allegheny Intermediate Unit, Homestead, Pennsylvania: View his profile, photos, and achievements.
• Levaughn Smart, Executive Director of Security and Disaster Preparedness, Palm Springs Unified School District, Palm Springs, California: View his profile, photos, and achievements.
• Brendan Sullivan, Director of Safety, Security and Emergency Management, Boulder Valley School District, Boulder, Colorado: View his profile, photos, and achievements. 
• Donald Webster, Chief of Campus Safety, Kalamazoo Public Schools, Kalamazoo, Michigan: View his profile, photos, and achievements.

View more Director of the Year content.

February 20, 2024

What’s New at Campus Safety Conference 2024?

Image via Adobe, by Brad Pict

Out with the old and in with the new! This summer’s Campus Safety Conference (CSC24), taking place in Atlanta July 8-10, is changing things up to provide you with even better peer-to-peer learning opportunities and solutions to your school and college public safety, security, emergency management, facilities management, and technology challenges.

New at CSC:

• Scholars Program: Designed for K-12 and higher education safety, security, emergency management, facilities management, and technology leaders who are actively sourcing products and solutions to improve the protection of their campuses
• Group Projects and Workshops: Past CSC attendees have requested more hands-on learning and we listened. At CSC24, we will host our third annual GroupProjects LIVE! session and multiple workshops.
• Product Demonstrations: Are you looking for products or solutions to make your school or university safer? CSC24 will hold dedicated time for select sponsors to demonstrate their products so you can see them in action.

Read more.

February 19, 2024

Announcing the 2024 Campus Safety Director of the Year Higher Education and Healthcare Finalists

Campus Safety is pleased to announce the 2024 higher education and healthcare Director of the Year finalists. Check out the finalists’ profiles and photos to see some of their impressive accomplishments.

Winners of this year’s Director of the Year awards will be announced at the 2024 Campus Safety Conference in Atlanta, Georgia, taking place July 8-10. To register, visit CampusSafetyConference.com.

• William Adcox, Vice President, Chief of Police, and Chief Security Officer, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas: View his profile, achievements, and photos.
• Christopher Buckley, Director of Campus Safety, Keene State College, Keene, New Hampshire: View his profile, achievements, and photos.
• Jerry Connolly, Chief of Police, Florida SouthWestern State College, Fort Myers, Florida: View his profile, achievements, and photos.
• Ethan Johnson, Chief of Police, Coastal Pines Technical College, Waycross, Georgia: View his profile, achievements, and photos.
• Thomas Leone, Assistant Vice President of Public Safety/Chief of Police, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland: View his profile, achievements, and photos.
• John Marcus, Director of Emergency Management, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont: View his profile, achievements, and photos.
• Mark Reed, Director of Campus Support Operations, City of Hope, Duarte, California: View his profile, achievements, and photos.
• Linda Stump-Kurnick, Assistant Vice President and Chief of Police, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida: View her profile, achievements, and photos.

View more Director of the Year content.

February 12, 2024

2024 Campus Safety Conference Registration Is Now Open!

For more information on the 2024 Campus Safety Conference, visit CampusSafetyConference.com.

Registration is now open for the 2024 Campus Safety Conference (CSC) being held July 8-10 in Atlanta!

The theme for the 2024 Campus Safety Conferences is “Strong Connections, Safer Campuses.” By sharing experiences and leading practices, we are stronger as a campus, community, and world.

CSC 2024 has many new, exciting features, including:

• Scholarship program for guests sourcing new products and solutions
• More hands-on training with additional workshop time blocks
• Relationship-based sponsorship opportunities for added return on investment (ROI)
• Four consecutive breakouts to maximize your time onsite
• Off-hours receptions to enhance your networking experiences

Read more and register by March 29 to get our spring rate!

January 08, 2024

Campus Safety Conference Announces 2024 Dates and Opens Call for Speakers

Image via Adobe, by dizain

In 2023, our events brought together representatives from 40 states and four countries in two summer events and one fall event. As we look towards the next 10 years of CSC, we hope to be a national resource of education, peer relationship building, and connectivity. To align with this mission, we will be hosting one summer event and one fall event for 2024.

CSC allows attendees to meet face-to-face with their peers and share lessons learned and promising practices. Our events are collaborative, innovative, and peer-driven, and offer resources and training needed to increase preparedness, communication, and response before, during, and after a variety of safety and security incidents.

The theme for the 2024 Campus Safety Conferences is “Strong Connections, Safer Campuses.” By sharing experiences and leading practices, we are stronger as a campus, community, and world.

Learn more about the event here.

November 16, 2023

Highlights from the 2023 Campus Safety Conference at EDspaces

Alan Walters, executive director of safety and risk management for the Georgetown County School District, discussed and reviewed actual cases where Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) has helped or hindered physical security.

During a session at last week’s Campus Safety Conference at EDspaces, held Nov. 7-9 at the Charlotte Convention Center, a presenter emphasized the importance of recognizing blind spots within an educational institution.

“I’m so used to seeing the campus and everything in it that I don’t think about what can hurt a child,” said Navigate360’s John White.

White’s statement highlights just one of the many reasons the co-located Campus Safety Conference and EDspaces work well together. School leaders must consider all aspects of student well-being, from whether an unwanted visitor can gain unfettered access to a school to whether equity-driven processes are followed in classroom design.

At this year’s event, CSC attendees had access to emergency prevention, response, and recovery sessions they have come to expect plus free access to all EDspaces sessions. These sessions offered insights into how the physical learning environment can meet the pedagogical needs and technology demands to support an educational institution’s mission of student success and well-being. EDspaces attendees were also welcome to attend any and all CSC sessions — and many did!

Read more about the event.

The post 2024 Campus Safety Conference Resource Center appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. – A University of New Mexico (UNM) security officer has confessed to vandalizing the gay pride flags of a student.

The vandalism of Ben Gerstner’s flags started nearly two years ago when he and his friends began putting gay pride flags outside of their offices in the school’s biology building, reports KOAT. After they would put their flags up, someone would tear them down and write insults like “aids spreader” and “pedo” on them.

Gerstner said the vandalism happened for about a year. Every time they would put up a flag, it would be torn down the next day. One time an American flag replaced his gay pride flag. Gerstner’s sign on his door was also vandalized, with the perpetrator writing homophobic insults on it.

He and his attorney then filed a complaint with UNM. Three months later, a Ring camera set up by the school caught someone wearing a red UNM security jacket and a mask covering the camera. Another of Gerstner’s flags was vandalized that same day.

Camera Catches UNM Security Officer

When UNM officials asked the security officers working on the evening when all of this happened, one of the officers confessed. He later resigned, but no charges were filed against him.

Gerstner and his attorney have filed a lawsuit against UNM for not protecting him.

The UNM incidents follow a significant nationwide increase in hate crimes against the LGBTQ+ community since 2015. In 2022, overall anti-LGBTQ+ hate crimes increased by nearly 14% from the previous year, according to the FBI.

For K-12 schools, the increase was even more significant. In states that enacted anti-LGBTQ+ laws, there were more than four times the number of reported LGBTQ+ hate crimes at K-12 campuses, Campus Safety previously reported.

The post University of New Mexico Security Officer Admits to Vandalizing Gay Pride Flags appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

Investigations of alleged violations of Title IX – particularly those involving sexual assault or other potentially violent behavior – are some of the most challenging processes a college or university may undertake. Title IX investigations frequently involve a complex interplay of federal regulations, school policies and procedures, and community relations. They require meticulous adherence to applicable procedures to ensure a thorough investigation that gives all parties an equal opportunity to participate without favoring any party. And they must be conducted in a manner that preserves confidentiality to the greatest extent possible, even while meeting community demands for transparency.

In recent years, courts have entertained claims based on various alleged failings by institutional actors. For example, in one case, campus police did not explain to the complainant her options for bringing a complaint. In another, a school did not “fully advise” the complainant of her “rights and options” for filing a complaint, including that she was required to file a formal written complaint, and the school did not start the investigation until she ultimately filed a written complaint months later.

Furthermore, an otherwise adequate investigative process can raise concerns if the institution fails to act impartially at each stage of the process, such as by not equally providing access to supportive measures or to evidence obtained in the investigation, or by failing to provide information about the status of the investigation to the parties.

8 Tips for Navigating Title IX Investigations

The best way to guard against such claims is to map out and follow a deliberate and consistent process in all investigations by providing protection and support for all parties and witnesses before, during, and after an investigation. The process should include the following steps:

1. Conduct an immediate threat assessment when a complaint is filed to determine if there is an ongoing risk to the complainant or others in the community. Adjust any interim measures that have been implemented as needed during the investigation. For example, if a no-contact order is not sufficient, additional measures like changes to class schedules or housing, campus escorts, or other measures might be considered if needed for the safety of the parties, witnesses, and community members.
2. Implement processes for assessing whether a party or witness has indicated any potential threat of harm to self or others, either explicitly (e.g., if a party or witness reveals suicidal or other violent ideation) or implicitly (e.g., due to the nature of the conduct of which the respondent is accused), and for responding promptly and effectively when this occurs.
3. Train investigators to respond immediately to expressions of suicidal thoughts or threats of violence, including any that arise during an interview or that are reflected in a party’s or witness’s written submission.
4. Train investigators to regularly check with parties (e.g., during interviews) to ensure they are receiving the support they need and/or are aware of whom to contact to request support or raise related concerns.
5. Create and distribute easy-to-understand and readily accessible information about the Title IX process, such as FAQs, flow charts, summaries, comparison charts, videos, and the like. Ensure these are made available before any investigation begins, such as on a resource webpage and in new employee onboarding, and ensure they are provided again to anyone reporting a concern and to the parties at the start of an investigation.
6. Implement a standardized process to provide all parties with regular updates about the status of the investigation.
7. Provide the parties with the same process throughout the investigation, including providing access to evidence, issuing notices, and setting the length of time for review of evidence, extensions, and the like.
8. Regularly remind parties of policies relating to confidentiality and nonretaliation.

Using a consistent process and implementing these best practices, regardless of who the parties are or the nature of the investigation, will help colleges and universities ensure they are meeting their obligations under Title IX and provide assurance to all campus constituents that the institution is committed to a fair and effective investigative process.

Sasha Thaler, a partner at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete in Boston, has nearly two decades of experience advising and defending employers in matters ranging from compliance with an array of labor and employment regulations to alternative dispute resolution and employment litigation. She represents clients in a variety of industries, including education, staffing, manufacturing, software and hospitality. In addition, a significant part of Sasha’s practice involves conducting investigations of Title IX and other complaints at colleges and universities.

Note: The views expressed by guest bloggers and contributors are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of, and should not be attributed to, Campus Safety.

The post 8 Best Practices for Navigating Complex Title IX Investigations appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

Once again, another “Most Dangerous College Campuses in America” list has just been published. This time by a Virginia-based personal injury law firm, the Parrish Law Firm. It’s been 12 years since I first wrote Publishing the ‘25 Most Dangerous Colleges in America’ List is Irresponsible. In that article, I explained that lists like these that solely rely on reported crime data threaten to reverse the progress made by victim advocates and organizations like the Clery Center that have been working diligently to encourage colleges to report crime.

Let me recap a portion of my previous article:

Usually, when people who are not familiar with law enforcement look at crime statistics, they assume that the institutions with the greater number of incidents reported are less safe than the institutions that have a lower number of crimes reported. They don’t understand that when crime stats are higher, it often means the campus in question is realistically dealing with its crime problem and is dedicated to transparency.

In essence, more reports of crime very often mean members of the campus community are better informed about threats to their safety. When they have this knowledge, they are more likely to take the steps necessary to protect themselves. Also, if they are confident that their reports of incidents will be taken seriously by campus police and the institution as a whole, they will more likely come forward and make a report if they become a victim of a crime.

For example, campuses that do a good job of reaching out to victims of sexual assault usually have higher rates of sexual assaults reported. This greater number of reports actually means that victims feel more confident in their campus’ handling of this type of crime.

Considering that about 20% of women will experience a sexual assault at some point during their college careers, wouldn’t you rather have your daughter attend a school that addresses issues like sexual assault than let her suffer in silence because the campus is unwilling to acknowledge the problem for fear of being mentioned on a list like “25 Most Dangerous Colleges in America?”

Although this article is more than a decade old, it still applies to institutions of higher education today. Just look at Liberty University, which for years marketed itself as one of the nation’s safest college campuses. Liberty executives probably believed they could make that claim because they swept under the rug or ignored many of the sexual assaults that were happening in the campus community. The school also discouraged and even punished victims who came forward.

Do we want to incentivize colleges to follow Liberty University’s example so that they won’t land on a “Most Dangerous College Campuses” list? The U.S. Department of Education certainly doesn’t think so. That’s why it fined Liberty University a record $14 million fine for violating the Clery Act in March.

Should I Believe ‘Most Dangerous College Campus’ Lists?

Reports purportedly listing America’s ‘Most Dangerous Colleges’ discourage institutions of higher education from accurately reporting crime and complying with the Clery Act. This puts students, faculty, and staff in more, not less, danger.

I informed the Parrish Law Firm of this fact when I responded to them after they sent me their “10 Most Dangerous College Campuses” report. I also urged them, in no uncertain terms, to NOT publish their report. They chose to publish it anyway. (Because lists like these do so much damage, I’m not going to link to Parrish’s report and reward them for bad behavior.)

I call on them to immediately take down their report and apologize to the campuses that are on the list. I also call on them to clearly explain why they are wrong and urge institutions of higher education to fully report crime and comply with the Clery Act.

As far as the radio station that ran the article about the list is concerned, at least they also ran responses from some of the colleges on the list. (It turns out that most of the incidents cited in the report were disciplinary incidents, such as drug and alcohol violations, not violent crimes.)

I hope WIBX will also issue an apology and learn from their mistake. To be frank, when I first started with Campus Safety, I too thought that a high number of reported crimes on campus meant that an institution of higher education was not safe. I’ve since learned the error of my ways.

As for Parrish Law, they need to make this right.

Update: An article covering this report also ran in the Daily Mail.

The post Why the ‘Most Dangerous College Campuses’ List Is Dangerous and Misleading appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

RALEIGH, N.C. — The University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill Board of Trustees voted to divert millions of dollars in diversity, equity, and inclusion spending to public safety initiatives.

At a special meeting Monday, the board unanimously moved to reallocate the $2.3 million the university spends on DEI programs toward police and other public safety measures as part of its annual budget approval process, the Charlotte-Observer reports. Last fiscal year, the school’s operating budget totaled over $4 billion.

Trustee Marty Kotis said law enforcement needs the money following pro-Palestinian protests that began last month.

“It’s important to consider the needs of all 30,000 students, not just the 100 or so that may want to disrupt the university’s operations,” he said. “It takes away resources for others.”

Board Chair David Boliek contradicts Kotis’ claims, noting the timing of the reallocation was “happenstance” and that conversations on DEI spending cuts have been happening for almost a year. He said since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions last year, the board has continuously considered how it should handle diversity programs.

The decision about whether the spending cut would eliminate UNC’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion will be up to the school’s flexible management plan, which is operated by interim Chancellor Lee Roberts, according to AP. The office has 12 employees, including a chief diversity officer.

Boliek told the News & Observer he expects jobs will be eliminated as a result of the reallocation.

“My personal opinion is that there’s administrative bloat in the university,” he said. “Any cuts in administration and diverting of dollars to rubber-meets-the-road efforts like public safety and teaching is important.”

UNC Board of Governors to Vote on DEI Policies

The decision comes as the UNC Board of Governors (BOG), which governs all public universities in North Carolina, is expected to vote next week on restricting DEI programs statewide. The board’s governance committee already passed the policy last month but the full board must approve it before taking effect.

Under the UNC System’s existing DEI policy, all schools must employ at least one senior-level administrator responsible for “policy development and strategic planning to promote and advance” diversity and inclusion. Under the proposed policy, the mandate for those positions would be removed.

Chancellors would have to prove to UNC System President Peter Hans by Sept. 1 that they have made additional changes to comply with the proposal. If the BOG approves the proposed policy, UNC System legal staff will provide university leaders with guidance on how it should be implemented and what steps the schools must take to comply.

The post UNC Chapel Hill to Divert DEI Funds to Public Safety, Policing appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

COLUMBIA, S.C. — The University of South Carolina (USC) settled two lawsuits connected to sexual harassment complaints made against former art professor David Voros.

The university agreed to pay a total of $280,000 to plaintiffs Pamela Bowers and Jaime Misenheimer, both of whom are former co-workers, The State reports.

Misenheimer accused Voros of luring her into a dark closet in the visual arts building in Feb. 2017 and making sexual advances. Voros allegedly retaliated by giving her poor performance reviews and preventing her from teaching classes.

The lawsuit also alleges several students told Misenheimer in 2017 that Voros made them uncomfortable. Misenheimer subsequently filed an official complaint on behalf of a graduate student in April 2017, and Voros allegedly responded by intimidating her in her classroom while she was teaching. Misenheimer resigned from her job in May 2019.

Bowers, who is also Voros’ ex-wife, accused Voros of making “unwelcome physical and sexual advances” towards her in her campus office after they separated in 2016. Bowers said the separation was partially due to Voros having “one or more” sexual relationships with students or former students. A previous lawsuit filed against Voros in 2018 by former student Allison Duvanant was settled for $75,000. Duvanant accused Voros of making sexual advances and subjecting her to manual labor and poor living conditions during a study abroad trip in Italy.

After filing a complaint with several university officials, Bowers claims Voros would stand in her classroom doorway while she was teaching to intimidate her. He also allegedly taunted her and called her derogatory names.

In Jan. 2018, Bowers claimed Voros went to her office and tried to hug and grope her. She asked him to leave and he did but he was waiting by her car later that day.

Plaintiffs Accused Art Chair of Retaliation

All three lawsuits allege multiple university officials enabled Voros’ behavior and protected him by failing to adequately respond to their complaints.

Bowers and Misenheimer claim Peter Chametzky, the then-chair of the School of Visual Art and Design, retaliated against them for filing complaints against Voros. Bowers said Chametzky “unexpectedly” visited her at her office and threatened her job after she complained to several university officials about the harassment.

Misenheimer said she reported the Feb. 2017 incident to Chametzky but that he did not take any action. As part of the settlement, the university will give Misenheimer a letter of recommendation from Chametzky, according to Post and Courier.

USC Gave Ex-Professor Retirement Benefits

According to documents, the foundation purchased three years, five months, and 16 days of service credit from the state. Voros cannot seek or accept future employment at USC, and agreed to discharge USC from any additional cost or complaints. Voros and the university are not allowed to make disparaging or defamatory comments about each other, per the agreement.

Voros last taught classes on campus in 2020. After a year-long paid sabbatical, the university agreed to allow him to teach several online classes in the spring semester of 2022. The university later reverded that decision following backlash.

The post USC Settles 2 Sexual Harassment Cases Against Ex-Professor appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

January 2024 marked the 20th annual National Stalking Awareness Month (NSAM), but it’s important to continue to raise awareness around stalking throughout the year. Too often, stalking goes unrecognized and unaddressed—by victims/survivors and their friends and family, advocacy and support services, campus misconduct proceedings, and legal systems.

Stalking is a crime as well as a violation of campus conduct codes and Title IX, and covered under the Clery Act and Violence Against Women Act to the same extent as dating/domestic violence and sexual assault. Stalking is its own form of violence with its own risks, safety planning needs, and disciplinary and legal responses. It is important to identify stalking separate from and in addition to co-occurring victimizations and misconduct. It’s also critical to know how to identify and respond to this criminal, traumatic, and dangerous victimization.

What Is Stalking?

Statutory criminal definitions vary across jurisdictions, but Title IX uses a behavioral definition, which is: “Stalking is a pattern of behavior directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for the person’s safety or the safety of others; or suffer substantial emotional distress.”

Many stalkers combine behaviors that are crimes or policy violations on their own (like property damage, trespassing, harassment) with other tactics that are not criminal or violations on their own (like sending gifts or text messages), but every incident in a stalking pattern of behavior can be considered part of the crime or violation.

Fear/emotional distress is central to the definition of stalking. As fear/emotional distress is highly personal, so is stalking. Stalkers often engage in behaviors that seem benign to outsiders but are terrifying in context. For example, many people would welcome an unexpected flower delivery, but when a victim has quietly relocated to escape a stalker, that flower delivery can be a terrifying and threatening message that the perpetrator has found them.

Victims may not explicitly say they are fearful, but their behavior often shows they feel fear; victims often change their behavior, routines, friendships, and lives because of the stalker’s pattern of behavior. Research has found that most stalkers target people they know, and the majority of stalkers are intimate partners or acquaintances who often have significant and personal knowledge about the victim’s vulnerabilities and fears.

Common stalking behaviors include—but are not limited to—repeated unwanted phone calls and messages, showing up when not invited, following, surveillance, spreading rumors, and threats.

Stalking is a dangerous and devastating victimization in its own right and often intersects with physical and sexual violence. Studies have found that stalking increases the risk of intimate partner homicide by three times, and 1 in 5 stalkers use weapons to threaten or harm victims. According to The Toll of Stalking: The relationship Between Features of Stalking and Psychopathology Victims and a report from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, survivors often suffer anxiety, social dysfunction, and severe depression as a result of their victimization, and many lose time from work and/or relocate. Stalking can impact every aspect of a survivor’s life, yet many victims, families, service providers, criminal and civil justice professionals, and the general public underestimate its danger and urgency.

Why Should Campuses Analyze Their Responses to Stalking?

Young adults aged 18-24 experience the highest rates of victimization, and more than a third of lifetime victims are first stalked between these ages, according to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey. Since entering college, 6-39% of college students say they’ve been stalked, but campuses rarely identify stalking at such rates. Similarly, 43% of college victims who meet the legal criteria of stalking do not identify their experience as “stalking,” according to The Intersection of Stalking and Sexual Assault Among Emerging Adults. And while 92% of college victims tell friends and/or family about the unwanted pursuit behaviors, only 29% contact a program or resource for help.

This means it is vital for universities to appropriately address stalking on campus and ensure services are accessible to all victims. Despite its prevalence, stalking is often misunderstood and rarely identified by victim support services, legal systems, and/or by victims themselves. Victims are sometimes unsure if what they are experiencing violates campus conduct codes, Title IX, or criminal statutes. Campus programs and resources rarely broach the topic of stalking to the same degree that they address sexual and dating violence; many students are not made aware of what stalking is and that resources are available, mandated reporters have little training on how to identify it, and the professionals tasked with responding often have little training on how to do so. Students should receive the same Title IX accommodations for stalking as they do for sexual violence and intimate partner/dating violence, but this is often not well understood.

Most stalking on campus is student-to-student. While intimate partner stalking is a significant issue, stalkers on campus are actually more likely to be acquaintances (classmates, friends, or someone else whom the victim recognizes) than intimate partners. This reality that the majority of stalking on campus is not intimate partner related further compounds the confusion, as most campus resources explicitly or implicitly focus on sexual and dating violence. For example, a student being stalked by an estranged friend or classmate may not find it intuitive to approach the Title IX office or other gender-based violence resources. While most stalking on campus is perpetrated by student peers, anyone can be a victim or perpetrator. Policies and services should address faculty, staff, and others unassociated with campus.

Victimizations Often Intersect

Stalking often co-occurs with intimate partner and sexual violence, and can be an indicator of other forms of violence. When an intimate or dating partner repeatedly engages in physical, emotional, psychological, or sexual abuse against a victim, that pattern of abuse (and each individual incident that makes up the pattern) may also be stalking—if it would cause a reasonable person to feel fear or emotional distress. Stalking is often part of the coercive control tactics used by intimate partner violence offenders to exert power and control over victims. When intimate partners engage in behaviors like excessive contact, surveillance, showing up uninvited, and/or hacking online accounts, these behaviors are intimate partner abuse and stalking. This type of behavior can happen before, during, and/or after an intimate relationship.

While all stalkers can be dangerous, intimate partner stalkers are the most likely to be threatening and violent, followed by acquaintance stalkers, and then strangers. In addition, abusive partners who stalk are more likely (than abusive partners who do not stalk) to verbally degrade, threaten, use a weapon to attack, sexually assault, and/or physically injure their victims. The intersection of stalking and intimate partner/dating violence makes it vital to address stalking within responses to intimate partner and dating violence.

Stalking offenders may use sexual violence as part of a stalking course of conduct, and recognizing this connection can help responders provide more comprehensive responses to more effectively serve victims. Fear is a key element of stalking and fear of sexual assault is covered under most stalking statutes and policies. Sexual violence as stalking behaviors includes gathering information to plan a sexual assault, monitoring a victim after a sexual assault, voyeurism, sexual harassment, nonconsensual distribution of intimate images, indecent exposure, spreading sexual rumors about a victim, threats of sexual violence or sharing sexual information, and more. Visit SPARC’s website for more examples and information.

Stalking Is Dangerous

Stalking is a prevalent and dangerous victimization that too often goes unidentified, leaving victims without the particular supports they need and allowing stalkers to avoid accountability for the full extent of their crimes. It is often misrepresented as merely frustrating or annoying rather than being recognized as the traumatic and dangerous victimization that it truly is. Stalking can be an indicator of an urgent, volatile, risky situation. Generally, the more access to and information about the victim that the offender has, the more dangerous and threatening they can—and are likely to—be. Stalking frequently co-occurs with other victimizations and is a risk factor for homicide.

• Stalking increases the risk of intimate partner homicide by three times.
• 48% of stalking victims say their abusive partner threatened others with guns, compared to 30% of IPV victims not stalked.
• Undergraduate students stalked by an intimate partner also experienced:
  • 40% coercive control
  • 32% sexual assault
  • 11% physical assault

Responders Often Don’t See the Patterns

By definition, stalking is a pattern of behavior that includes multiple (and often varied) tactics. Too often, these behaviors are assessed as isolated incidents rather than being identified as pieces of larger patterns of behavior. Different responders are often left with different pieces of the puzzle and without the full picture. Victims may only tell certain responders about particular incidents unless the responders ask for more information. For example, even when all actions are perpetrated by the same offender, a victim may report a gun threat to local law enforcement, voyeurism to a rape crisis center, constant calls and text messages to a residential advisor, and harassing behavior to an academic department. Without coordination, these complaints stay in silos and are never recognized as the course of conduct that is stalking.

Many campuses already have a coordinated campus response for sexual violence and/or intimate partner violence, and stalking should have a similar response. A coordinated response on campus brings together key players—from public safety/campus police, student affairs, residential life, Title IX, and more—to work together to support victims and hold offenders accountable. With victim confidentiality and privacy in mind, sharing information, policies, protocols, strategies, and training, campuses can more successfully organize each office’s response to be more effective, holistic, and synchronized.

Screening for stalking, discussing cases, and having partners to turn to can help connect the dots to better understand a victim’s situation, increase support for victims with more comprehensive responses, improve safety for the broader campus community, and more effectively hold offenders accountable with appropriate measures.

Victims Need a Holistic Response

Since stalking victims experience a wide range of behaviors that affect many parts of their lives, they often need multiple different types of support. Whether the entryway is through residential life, public safety/campus police, student affairs, Title IX, or campus code of conduct, a multi-disciplinary team can help connect victims’ interactions with multiple systems so that whomever first identifies the situation as stalking has relationships with partners to help provide a coordinated, holistic response.

Students often disclose to people whom they trust, regardless of that person’s official title or relationship. For that reason, faculty as well as campus staff who oversee student activities (such as athletics coaches, musical directors, etc.) should also have some basic understanding of stalking victimization, how to respond to disclosures, and what resources are available to students. It’s also vital to make sure that all mandated reporters understand the basics of stalking and that they are required to report any incidents to the Title IX office.

For more information on coordinating a holistic campus response to stalking, visit SPARC’s website.

How Can Campus Responders Identify Stalking?

When describing their experiences, stalking victims may not use the word “stalking” or express fear. They’re more likely to say something like, “my ex won’t leave me alone,” “someone at my internship is bothering me,” or “my professor creeps me out.”

It is important to remember that many stalkers use more than one means of contact, communication, or approach, and behaviors may change and escalate over time. Documenting all stalking behavior, no matter how minor it appears, will be essential to a stalking victim’s case. Stalkers often try to argue that their behavior is based on a legitimate purpose, is a coincidence, or is not itself criminal behavior or against campus policy. It is critical to ask victims about the context of the situation to learn why they are afraid or distressed and to determine if a reasonable person in that situation would be afraid. When the offender targets a victim with specific incidents or tactics that the victim finds frightening, this can be evidence of the offender’s intent to frighten them.

To identify behaviors that may be part of a stalking course of conduct, it is helpful to group them into SLII strategies: Surveillance, Life invasion, Intimidation, and Interference through sabotage or attack.

• SURVEILLANCE is the most commonly identified stalking tactic and includes watching, following, monitoring, and gathering information about the victim, in-person or through technology.
• LIFE INVASION describes ways that the offender shows up in the victim’s life without the victim’s consent, in public or private settings, in-person, or through technology.
• INTIMIDATION tactics must be considered within the context of the situation, with the totality of stalking behaviors and the victim and offender’s relationship and history in mind. Threats can be explicit or implicit. Actions or communications that may be innocuous in a different context may become menacing due to their repetitiveness or intrusiveness, or because of the history of violence in the relationship between stalker and victim.
• INTERFERENCE THROUGH SABOTAGE OR ATTACK can affect everything from the victim’s reputation to their employment and/or physical safety. A common and significant consequence is victims losing financial resources and other resources, a loss that can quickly spiral.

Common examples of these four strategies are listed here, but it is not an exhaustive list. Remember that stalkers are creative in the pervasive ways they monitor, surveil, contact, control, and isolate victims, as well as the ways they damage victims’ credibility or reputation. To learn more about SLII behaviors and questions to ask victims and offenders to help identify stalking, visit SPARC’s website.

Stalkers Use Various Approaches

Stalking can take on specific tactics—and implications—when abusers identify victim characteristics that they can exploit as part of the abuse. For example, a stalker might threaten to out an LGBTQ+ victim, threaten to get an immigrant victim deported, or use anti-semitic slurs to frighten a Jewish victim. A stalker might deliberately target someone with identities that they are biased against.

Since every person has multiple and overlapping identities, a stalker might target victims based on multiple characteristics, including LGBTQ+ identity, immigration status, people of certain faith communities, or people of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds. Stalking may also precede or intersect with hate crimes.

For more information, visit SPARC’s website.

Perpetrators Often Use Technology to Stalk Their Victims

The impact of technology-facilitated stalking is vast and just as invasive, threatening, and fear-inducing as in-person stalking. Also called “cyber-stalking” or “online harassment,” the technologies and tactics used by abusers in technology-facilitated stalking constantly evolve and may seem impossible or unrealistic when you first hear about them, but stalkers are creative and often go to great lengths to terrorize victims.

Stalkers may use phones, computers, tablets, software, the internet, email, social media, messaging applications, smart home devices, recording devices, tracking devices, or other digital electronic devices and software to facilitate their behavior. Stalkers are pervasive in the ways they monitor, surveil, contact, control, and isolate victims, as well as the ways they damage victims’ credibility or reputation. Visit SPARC’s website for specific technology-facilitated stalking behaviors to discuss with victims and be ready to respond to.

More than 80% of stalking victims experience some type of technology-facilitated stalking. Technology-facilitated stalking works in the same way as stalking in the physical world. In fact, many offenders combine their technology abuse activities with in-person forms of stalking and harassment, such as phoning the victim and going to the victim’s home. Stalkers may use the internet to locate or target the victim (as well as use tracking software/devices); to distribute personal information, photos, or videos of victims to harass, intimidate, threaten, or humiliate the victim; and/or to encourage others to contact or harm the victim. Stalkers may use real photos or videos of the victim, or edit or create (deepfake) them. Stalkers may also use voice imitation technologies to harass victims or to impersonate victims and contact others.

When working with victims of technology-facilitated stalking, always consider the victim’s use of technology as a method of support as well as the stalker’s use of technology as a method of abuse. The Tech Safety Project has a toolkit for survivors, information on safety planning, and more.

What Prevention and Awareness Education Can Colleges Provide?

Campuses often have robust programs for dating abuse and/or sexual assault prevention and awareness, and these programs offer an incredible opportunity to increase knowledge about stalking on campus. Educators need specific training on identifying stalking behaviors, ways to add this topic into existing programming, and ideas for new programming to raise awareness around stalking.

They can provide outreach and education on stalking; incorporate it into existing programs (new student orientations, peer educators, sexual assault awareness month, domestic violence awareness month, etc.); organize National Stalking Awareness Month events in January; and develop new programming specifically around stalking. They can use SPARC’s Campus Workshop, Tips for Prevention/Awareness Educators, Tips for Campus Public Awareness Campaigns, Public Awareness Videos, and more.

What Tools Can Help Build a Successful Campus Response to Stalking?

Every campus partner can benefit from tools to help them identify and respond to stalking. Some of SPARC’s key resources for campuses are listed below.

• Offer Victim Brochures and post Stalking Awareness Posters in key campus locations
• Encourage responders to use resources designed to help Identify Stalking Behaviors
• Use Campus Resources on how to respond to stalking, including:
  • Checklist to evaluate campus efforts to address stalking
  • Guidance on coordinating the campus response to stalking
  • Guidance on campus stalking investigations and hearings
  • Information on stalking and Title IX
  • Public awareness workshop for Stalking on Campus
  • Strategies for incorporating stalking into prevention and awareness education
  • Guidance on campus public awareness campaigns
• Utilize our recorded webinars for training and discussion:
  • Stalking on College Campuses
  • Intersection of Stalking and Sexual Violence
  • Intersection of Stalking and Intimate Partner Violence
  • Building a Coordinated Response to Stalking
• Discuss two campus stalking case studies:
  • Jackie Vandagriff was a college student murdered in 2016 by a known stalking offender. A publicly available episode of CBS 48hours details the story.
  • Lauren McCluskey was a college athlete murdered by her stalker in 2019. A publicly available ESPN documentary, Dateline NBC episode, and university report detail the story.

Julia Holtemeyer is a resource and training specialist at the Stalking, Prevention, Awareness, and Resource Center (SPARC). This project was supported by Grant No. 15JOVW-22-GK-03986-MUMU awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.

Citations (also linked in article):

• Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. 34 C.F.R. §106.30
• Smith, S.G., Basile, K.C., & Kresnow, M. (2022). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2016/2017 Report on Stalking. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease control and Prevention.
• Spencer, C.M. & Stith, S.M. (2018). Risk Factors for Male Perpetration and Female Victimization of Intimate Partner Homicide: A Meta-Analysis. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse 21(3): 527-540.
• Mohandie, K., Meloy, J.R., McGowan, M.G., & Williams, J. (2006).  The RECON Typology of Stalking: Reliability and Validity Based upon a Large Sample of North American Stalkers. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 51 (1), 147-155.
• Blaauw, E., Arensman, E., Winkel, F.W., Freeve, A., & Sheridan, L. (2002). The Toll of Stalking. Journal of Interpersonal Violence 17(1): 50-63.
• Baum, K., Catalano, S., & Rand, M. (2009).  Stalking Victimization in the United States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
• Smith, S.G., Zhang, X., Basile, K.C., Merrick, M.T., Wang, J., Kresnow, M., & Chen, J. (2018). The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2015 Data Brief. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/2015data-brief508.pdf
• Cantor, D., Fisher, B., Chibnall, S., Madden, K. (2020). Report on the AAU campus climate survey on sexual assault and misconduct. Westat. https://www.aau.edu/sites/default/files/AAU-Files/Key-Issues/Campus-Safety/Revised%20Aggregate%20report%20%20and%20appendices%201-7_(01-16-2020_FINAL).pdf
• Demers, J. M., K. Ward, S., Walsh, W. A., L. Banyard, V., Cohn, E. S., Edwards, K. M., & Moynihan, M. M. (2017). Disclosure on campus: Students’ decisions to tell others about unwanted sexual experiences, intimate partner violence, and stalking. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 27(1), 54-75. DOI: 10.1080/10926771.2017.1382631
• Fedina, L., Backes, B. L., Sulley, C., Wood, L., & Busch-Armendariz, N. (2020). Prevalence and sociodemographic factors associated with stalking victimization among college students. Journal of American College Health, 68(6), 624-630. , DOI: 10.1080/07448481.2019.1583664
• Brady, P. Q. & Woodward Griffin, V. (2019). The Intersection of Stalking and Sexual Assault Among Emerging Adults: Unpublished Preliminary Results, mTurk Findings, 2018.
• Cantor, supra ii.
• Mohandie, supra iv.

The post Stalking on Campus: Know More, Do More appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced on April 25  that the Redlands Unified School District in California has entered into a resolution agreement to remedy violations OCR found of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 regarding district responses to notice of sexual assault and other sexual harassment of its students, including by employees.

OCR determined that the district had no system in place to monitor whether schools’ responses complied with Title IX requirements or to identify emergent patterns or systemic problems either by school or districtwide. In fully 74% of the incidents OCR reviewed over three school years, the district did not provide any evidence that the district took action to address the effects of harassing conduct on targeted students where necessary and to prevent recurrence of the harassment.

In addition, OCR found that the district failed to investigate or redress employee-to-student and student-to-student sexual assault allegations after they were reported to law enforcement or other state agencies, leaving affected students vulnerable to the discrimination that Title IX prohibits but that law enforcement does not address. Likewise, the district did not complete or take required investigative steps in other reported employee-to-student and student-to-student cases.

For just one example, after receiving a student allegation that the student witnessed a sexual relationship between an employee and another student for about a year that included the sharing of nude photographs via social media, the district confirmed the sexual relationship and therefore found that the employee violated district policies about professionalism and boundaries.

But the district failed even to determine if the relationship or sharing nude photos constituted sexual harassment and allowed the employee to resign without investigating if the conduct created a hostile environment for the student or other students who knew about the relationship.

OCR also identified a compliance concern that the district’s recordkeeping system to track incidents of sexual harassment in the 2017-18 through 2019-20 school years appears not to have complied with the Title IX regulations.

For example, the district reported only three sexual assaults for OCR’s 2017-18 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), but then reported nine sexual assaults during that same year in this compliance review. OCR also found that the district failed to establish a recordkeeping system that complies with the 2020 Title IX regulations.

The district agreed to resolve the Title IX violations and concern that OCR identified in a resolution agreement to ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of sex in its schools.

“The Redlands Unified School District failed to fulfill its Title IX obligations to promptly and effectively respond to reported sexual assaults of its students by employees as well as by students,” said Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Catherine E. Lhamon. “The district commitments today promise, finally, that these students may expect the safe, nondiscriminatory learning environment that federal law guarantees for them.”

The resolution agreement includes:

• Ensuring that the district coordinates its Title IX compliance through its Title IX coordinator.
• Notifying students, parents, and employees of its designated Title IX coordinator(s).
• Assessing the effectiveness of the district’s Title IX anti-discrimination efforts.
• Revising, as necessary, Title IX policies and procedures to comply with the Title IX regulations.
• Training staff and students regarding the district’s revised Title IX procedures, how to identify what constitutes sexual harassment, and how to report such harassment.
• Improving its recordkeeping system to maintain required records of reports and complaints of sexual harassment and to report complete and accurate data to the CRDC.
• Administering an annual school climate survey to district employees and students to evaluate the climate at each district school with respect to sexual harassment and to identify responsive steps in light of the survey results for OCR’s review and approval.
• Reviewing case files for reported incidents of employee-to-student and student-to-student sexual harassment from school years 2017-2018 through 2019-2020 to determine if further action is needed to provide an equitable resolution of each incident. And,
• Reporting to OCR on its responses to reports and complaints of sexual harassment.

The letter to Redlands Unified School District and the resolution agreement are available on the OCR website.

The post U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Announces Resolution of Sexual Harassment Compliance Review of Redlands Unified School District in California appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.

This article, originally published in Oct. 2017, was updated in April 2024 to reflect current research, statistics, and events.

If you are a victim of sexual assault, you can call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at (800) 656-4673 or chat online at online.rainn.org for help. Additional resources for victims can be found here. 

Investigating college sexual assaults is a sensitive process, and to actually prove a sexual assault occurred is an extremely difficult task. Why can sexual assaults be so difficult to prove or disprove? Unfortunately, there are a number of reasons.

The National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) estimates that 63% of sexual assaults aren’t reported to the police. It is the most underreported crime, so just getting the victim to make an official report is the first hurdle, and getting them to follow through in the investigation and adjudication phases can also be a challenge.

One study from the National Center for Campus Public Safety found that 90% of sexual assaults are committed by someone the victim knows, which can lead to confusion on the part of the victim and reluctance to pursue justice. Most victims of sexual assault do not report immediately, especially if it involves a non-stranger assault. This can be due to denial, shock, self-blame, embarrassment, fear of not being believed, or fear of the criminal justice system.

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, abuse or assault is:

• Least likely to be reported if the offender is a current intimate partner or former partner (only 25% of these assaults reported to police)
• Less likely to be reported if the offender is an acquaintance or friend (only 18-40% of these assaults reported to police)
• Most likely to be reported if the offender is a stranger (46-66% of these assaults are reported to police)

Additionally, a study from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found more than 50% of college sexual assaults involve alcohol, which can affect recall and make the victim fear being punished or feel shame.

Clery, Title IX, and Sexual Assault

Some college campuses have come under fire — and are paying big — for deliberately threatening or shaming students from reporting sexual assaults for fear it will ruin the school’s reputation. In March 2024, Liberty University was hit with a $14 million fine for violating the Clery Act. A preliminary investigation by the U.S. Department of Education determined the Virginia school violated federal safety laws for years and created a culture that made students fearful of reporting sexual violence.

The penalty is the largest Clery fine in history, dwarfing the Department’s $4.5 million fine in 2019 against Michigan State University over its systemic failure to address claims of sexual abuse committed by former sports doctor Larry Nassar.

Witnesses can also be hard to come by in sexual assault cases generally, and in college specifically because of the prevalence of large, unsupervised parties. Students tend to be at a higher risk at certain times of the year. For instance, more than half of college sexual assaults happen in August, September, October, or November, which is consistent with the first few months of the first semester. For colleges, this period has been widely dubbed “The Red Zone.”

But experienced sexual assault investigators can find ways around all of these hurdles, and justice can be brought even in sexual assault cases without much initial evidence. It is estimated that one in five women will experience completed or attempted rape during their lifetime. Considerations beyond just the forensic evidence are critical.

New Title IX changes relating to the college sexual assault investigation process might mean different campuses are using different standards, but every college still has the same goal of keeping their students safe and comfortable.

In May 2020, a serious roadblock for sexual assault investigations was implemented when the U.S. Department of Education implemented a new rule for Title IX investigations. The new rule prohibited decision-makers in sexual misconduct investigations from using evidence or statements from someone who did not participate in cross-examination at a live hearing. This received significant criticism from advocates for sexual assault survivors who believe live questioning could re-traumatize victims and prevent victims from coming forward.

In Sept. 2021, the rule was rescinded, allowing decision-makers to consider evidence from involved parties who did not undergo cross-examinations, including police reports, medical reports, Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner documents, and emails and text messages sent leading up to the alleged misconduct.

In April 2024, the U.S. Department of Education released the unofficial version of the final Title IX revisions. The most significant changes include expanded definitions and protections and optional administrative procedures. The new rule has been praised by victim advocate groups and makes “crystal clear that everyone can access schools that are safe, welcoming and that respect their rights,” said Education Secretary Miguel Cardona.

Below we give some best practices for campus police to get to the bottom of any sexual assault report, even with limited or no physical evidence. The information is adapted from The Blueprint for University Police: Responding to Campus Sexual Assault, which focuses on giving law enforcement information on handling rape and sexual assault cases.

Trauma-informed practices, which involve recognizing, understanding, and properly responding to the effects of trauma, are becoming more commonplace during police investigations.

The need for trauma-informed investigations is critical since a 2021 survey from Know Your IX, a survivor- and youth-led advocacy group, found educational disruptions for students who reported their sexual assault to their schools were not from the sexual violence alone, but because of violence exacerbated by schools’ harmful responses to reports of violence.

A study conducted by the Salt Lake County Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) determined applying a trauma-informed approach to sexual assault investigations led to more charges being filed and more successful prosecutions.

When a victim feels supported and protected, they are more likely to participate in an investigation and therefore more likely to provide useful information beyond physical evidence.

At the 2023 Campus Safety Conference West in Las Vegas, Al Williams, Assistant Chief of Police for the Ball State University Police Department, shared leading practices for trauma-informed and victim-centered sexual assault investigations. An outline of his presentation can be found here.

Searching for Proof During Sexual Assault Investigations

At first, sexual assault reports can appear to be, “He said, she said” scenarios, where there are little investigators can do to corroborate the accused or accuser’s stories. Unfortunately, experienced sexual assault investigators are familiar with these scenarios. 

There can’t always be forensic evidence to work with, but police can still prove sexual assault occurred or didn’t occur with little to no initial evidence, even in cases where there are no witnesses.

Here are nine tips:

1. Practice interview techniques such as victim debriefing and adapt an “information gathering” versus interrogation approach to suspect interviews to gather information. Understand physical descriptions (e.g. tattoos), smells and sounds the alleged victim remembers. Here are more facts and myths on sexual assault that police should know.
2. Document the specific details of the allegations, all the way down to condom use.
3. Gather circumstantial evidence during the investigation, such as a sudden behavior change from the alleged victim. Look for dropped classes, withdrawal from sports or social clubs, and a sudden change in academic performance.
4. Try to establish elements of force, threat, or fear if present from either party.
5. Look for a serial pattern of behavior from the accused by contacting others who may have been victimized by that person, while being careful not to marginalize the accused.
6. Conduct an extensive investigation for corroborating evidence including social media and cell phones.
7. Evaluate the need for a search warrant.
8. Consider the utility of a pretext phone call to gather evidence from the accused.
9. Identify and contact any outcry witnesses.

It is crucial to note that the prevalence of false reporting for sexual assault crimes is extremely low — between 2-10%. Believing victims’ accusations is essential to successful sexual assault investigations.

The above information is adapted from The Blueprint for University Police: Responding to Campus Sexual Assault. 

If you are a victim of sexual assault, you can call the National Sexual Assault Hotline at (800) 656-4673 or chat online at online.rainn.org for help. Additional resources for victims can be found here. 

The post 9 Ways to Prove Sexual Assault Without Physical Evidence appeared first on Campus Safety Magazine.