In a June 18 campus-wide email Provost Carolyn Dever and Dean of the College Charlotte Johnson announced that the new unified disciplinary procedures for sexual misconduct would come into effect the next day. This change, they wrote, “will provide for the prompt, effective, fair and impartial investigation and resolution of complaints of sexual assault.” But the policy excludes some survivors entirely. College President Phil Hanlon has repeatedly emphasized that Dartmouth is a trailblazer in the fight against sexual assault. Hanlon writes in Time Magazine that prevention is critical to eradicate campuses “of the extreme behaviors that harm our community and distract us from the passions of our pursuits.” Prevention is undoubtedly necessary, but what about assaults that have already occurred?
The revised sexual assault adjudication process does little for the survivors of these assaults. In their email, Dever and Johnson wrote that complaints concerning conduct that occurred prior to June 19 will be processed under the existing rules. This clause in the new policy essentially grandfathers in any previously committed sexual misconduct. Though students have the option not to be present at their hearing, they are warned that doing so will likely result in the hearing being skewed in the responding student’s favor. The hearing itself involves recounting the trauma to a room full of people and being questioned by the panel. Survivors have to hear their assailant both retell the event and ask questions. These hearings provide inconsistent and often dissatisfying results. In our special issue on sexual assault, “A Campus Facing Violence,” Sara McGahan reported that Johnson said she believed that the new policy is a way to send a “clear” message that “institutional weight is behind expulsion as the presumptive outcome” in sexual assault cases. Failing to extend the policy to all assaults that are reported — not committed — after June 19 does not send a clear message. This oversight raises questions about administrative effectiveness in combating sexual assault.
Moving from internal adjudication processes like the Committee on Standards is an important step towards improving the process for both parties. As Michelle Goldberg explains in The Nation, some people believe that internal investigations trivialize the crime of rape. Other people believe that internal disciplinary boards may be more interested in protecting the school than reaching the appropriate verdict. Even conservatives criticize internal adjudication processes as kangaroo courts that deny accused students their basic right of due process. In light of these criticisms, the new unified procedures are a wise move — but why not make the change for all affected students?
Recent lawsuits from accused and subsequently expelled students against various academic institutions may illuminate their decision. Perhaps the College wants to avoid lawsuits from those potentially found responsible for conduct that occurred before the new policy came into effect. The grounds for such a suit would be tenuous considering that separation was already an acceptable sanction for students found responsible of sexual misconduct at Dartmouth. Furthermore, responding students found responsible and separated from the College under the new policy can still potentially sue the College. By failing to provide the same protections to survivors of conduct that occurred prior to the policy’s implementation, the College mitigates little risk at great cost.
What, precisely, is this cost? First, students who have already committed assaults will be tried under the less reliable system and are more likely to remain in our midst afterwards. This cost is also the suffering of our friends and peers. According to RAINN, survivors of sexual assault are three times likelier to suffer from depression and six times likelier to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Survivors are also 13 times more likely to abuse alcohol — double that for drug abuse. No hearing will make the assault and its effects disappear, but the new unified disciplinary processes will provide survivors with the respect they deserve. By failing to extend the policy to survivors who had already been assaulted, Dartmouth essentially sends the message that the date that an assault occurred is more important than the assault itself.
