While the COS committee that presided over the hearing consisted of actual COS members, all other participants in the hearing were actors. The scenario involved a male and female who had sex after playing beer pong and disagreed about whether the act was consensual.
Following an introduction by UJAO Assistant Director Meredith Smith, the committee ran through the session as it would a real hearing, with an abridged version of the questioning period.
The committee consisted of seven members two undergraduate students, three professors and two non-voting members that included the committee chair. The accused student and the alleged victim, both of their advisors and one observer were also present.
Normally, the committee returns a two-part decision determined by a simple majority on whether or not the accused is responsible and his or her sanction. The members vote, without conferring, based on "a preponderance of evidence," according to COS policy. The committee informs the students of its decision the day after the hearing, Smith said.
Associate Dean of the College for Campus Life April Thompson described the committee's decisions as a balance between responsibility to the involved students and to the College community as a whole.
"We are a college, a place of learning and teaching, so we have to think about what gives the accused the opportunity to learn," she said. "We also need to set a community precedent sexual misconduct is in opposition to our values."
The judicial process begins when a student files a complaint of sexual assault against a peer with COS through Safety and Security or UJAO, Thompson explained. The accused student is immediately notified of the allegations and asked to respond with a written statement within 48 hours, at which point the committee begins investigations regarding potential witnesses and others who may have been involved, she said.
After all materials have been collected, they are distributed to the committee, students and the students' selected advisors, she said. COS tries to limit the time between filing and the committee hearing to 60 days, according to Thompson.
In cases of physical violence, COS permits students to make special requests, such as participating in the hearing by phone, video conferencing or placing a divider between the accused and accuser.
"Both students are given the same avenues for support," she said.
The hearing itself is divided into three parts an initial executive session in which the committee gathers privately to review the material before the hearing, the questioning sessions that include all parties and a final closing executive session for COS members when the committee must make a decision, Thompson said.
The students involved begin and end the questioning sessions with personal statements, and the accused has both the first and last word.
The mock questioning lasted approximately one hour but was an abridged version of the process, COS panelists said. In their training, COS members learn to begin with general questions and work chronologically toward the event's details, Thompson said.
"Normally, these meetings start at 2 p.m. and go until 10 or 11 o'clock at night," she said. "They go on for hours and hours and by the end we know where each hand was placed at each moment."
Many students expressed frustration over the abbreviated version of questioning during the question and answer session, complaining that the questioning system is not adequately specific.
"It's difficult to know what they were really thinking or feeling or intending, so I would have wanted the committee to ask about the specific physical actions, even though it might get pretty technical," Mayuka Kowaguchi '11 said.
Others said the system seemed unstructured and inherently subjective.
"I was very disappointed by the lack of professionalism and the very subjective, random way in which the questioning proceeded," Blaine Johnson '13 said. "The process doesn't need to be this complicated. Why don't they have a systematized approach?"
Ruthie Welch '13, the acting accuser, said she was uncomfortable with the way the system favored naturally eloquent speakers.
Thompson and engineering professor Charlie Sullivan, a COS voting member, said that COS training teaches members not to judge cases based on impressions of students and to "know what trauma looks like." COS training also instructs members to avoid "black and white" questions in order to exclude leading questions, Sullivan said.
After the hearing, Thompson also said the committee must approach the hearings in such a way that does not open the College to lawsuits from disgruntled disciplined students.
Likewise, the College must respect police jurisdiction or risk charges of criminal interference. COS neither forces students to file police reports nor gives student names to the police, though it encourages all students to file complaints with the police, Thompson said.
The mock trial was held "to educate the community on our process and continue the recent conversation about sexual assault," Smith said. It was among the 12 recommendations of the Committee on Standards Sexual Assault Review, six of which have already been implemented, she said.
