1. society
2. crime
3. personal offense
4. assault

Syracuse University Chancellor’s Workgroup on
Sexual Violence Prevention, Education, and Advocacy
Final Report
December 17, 2014
Submitted by:
Co-chairs:
Chase Catalano, Director, LGBT Resource Center
Dawn Johnson, Associate Professor, Higher Education
Members:
Shannon Andre, Communications Manager, Division of Student Affairs
(Ex-officio)
Christopher Cederquist, Director, Options Program
Aaliyah Gatalin, peer educator, Mentors in Violence Prevention, Sex-esteem
Catherine Gerard, Director, Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and
Collaboration (Ex-officio)
Meaghan Greeley, student representative, The Campaign for an Advocacy
Center
Tula Goenka, Associate Professor, Television, Radio & Film, and advisor for
Students Advocating for Sexual Safety and Empowerment (SASSE)
Sam Leitermann, Internal Vice President, Graduate Student Organization
Brittany Moore, Director, Student Association
Pam Peter, Director, Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities
Margaret Susan Thompson, Associate Professor, History, and member of the
Senate Committee of Women’s Concerns
Vicky Wang, student representative, The Campaign for an Advocacy Center
INTRODUCTION
On May 30, 2014, after Commencement and the departure of most students from
campus, Chancellor Kent Syverud announced in a campus-wide email that he was closing
Syracuse University’s Advocacy Center, the campus’s primary resource center for victims and
survivors of sexual abuse and violence. This occurred suddenly, without any campus input or
discussion, and came as a shock to all. Many but not all of the services provided by the
Advocacy Center to victims and survivors were realigned with those already existing at the
Syracuse University Counseling Center. This workgroup recognizes that both similar and distinct
services for victims and survivors had always existed at the Counseling Center and the Advocacy
Center, prior to this change. The service that was lost in the realignment was a safe place or
community—a physical space for communion and healing. Following this action, there was
much anger and protest, including a petition to “Reinstate the Advocacy Center” that quickly
attracted over 8000 signatures. Partly as a result of this public outcry, the Chancellor’s
Workgroup on Sexual Violence Prevention, Education, and Advocacy was commissioned on
September 22, 2014. Its purpose was twofold, as articulated by the Chancellor: to identify
critical gaps in services and support for victims and survivors of sexual and relationship violence
on campus, and to propose a set of recommendations for improving campus and community
culture relating to these matters.
As the Workgroup executed its charge, three things became abundantly clear. First, the
Advocacy Center (started in 1989 as the R.A.P.E. Center) had a rich and innovative legacy of 25
years of service to the Syracuse University community, and was a pioneer campus-based
advocacy program that had attracted acclaim and emulation across the nation. The staff was
dedicated to the support of victims and survivors of sexual assault, and was committed to
educating and raising awareness among students, faculty and staff about the prevalence and
impact of sexual and relationship violence and its prevention. The Workgroup recognizes and
appreciates the many invaluable contributions of the Advocacy Center. The current structure, in
which services and programming are provided by the Counseling Center and the Office of
Health Promotions respectively, was utilized by many students during the fall semester.
However, the availability of a safe place for victims and survivors to gather for mutual support is
no longer available.
Second, the process by which the Advocacy Center was closed lacked community
involvement and transparency, fostering intense feelings of mistrust, anger, and
disfranchisement throughout the Syracuse University community. Third, the University acted
with the intention to improve student services and to ensure that complex and shifting Title IX
requirements (in combination with state laws) were satisfied. While there is debate about the
merits of the realigned services, there is little doubt that the closure process should have been
more transparent, sensitive, and inclusive. Nonetheless, it was the very dissent that devolved
from this event that gave birth to the Workgroup, and it is hoped that its report will result in at
least some constructive response to the very real concerns of the campus community.
This report focuses on services currently available at Syracuse University, and
acknowledges the complexity of issues relating to sexual and relationship violence prevention,
2
education, and advocacy. We note that the recommendations address more than issues of
sexual assault and relationship violence, and draw attention to an urgent need for significant
changes in campus culture and climate.
METHODOLOGY
The Workgroup spent the fall 2014 semester gathering information and data from a
variety of individuals and groups, attempting to clarify the reasons for the realignment of
services, including at least some of those previously provided by the Advocacy Center. Among
its objectives were: to understand the availability of and gaps in services under the current
structure; to hear concerns about the consequences of closing the Advocacy Center; to
understand the impact of federal and state statutes, guidelines, regulations, and policies (e.g.,
the White House Report, Title IX, the Clery Act, the Campus SaVE Act) on the provision of
services and support for victims and survivors of sexual assault and relationship violence. Data
were gathered from the following sources:
• The “Reinstate the Advocacy Center at Syracuse University” petition, located online at
change.org
• Three Listening Sessions sponsored by the Senior Vice President for Student Affairs.
• One student focus group meeting sponsored by the Workgroup
• An online survey done through Qualtrics and administered by the Workgroup
• Meetings with administrative leaders from the Division of Student Affairs, former
Advocacy Center staff, Counseling Center staff, Office of Health Promotion staff, Office
of Student Assistance staff, and staff from Vera House.
• Task Force Report on Rape from 1989 and other archival materials.
A summative description of several federal reports, along with summary data gathered from
the petition, Listening Sessions, focus group, and on-line survey are contained in appendices at
the end of this report.
The Workgroup unanimously agreed to maintain confidentiality and provide a safe
space for discussion; we extended the same to those who came to speak with us. This report
reflects our attempt to balance a desire for transparency while working to maintain the
anonymity and confidentiality of individuals who provided us with sensitive information.
LIMITATIONS
In many ways, the task of the Workgroup was to “know the unknowable”: to uncover
information about sexual and relationship violence, in all of the forms in which these issues
take place, and within which too many matters are obscured or misunderstood. The challenges
we faced because of lack of time or legal confidentiality of information limited the
thoroughness of our deliberations and our conclusions. We also lacked data and information
from sources such as:
• A comprehensive campus climate and culture survey about sexual assault and
relationship violence issues.
3
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Information about students who used the Advocacy Center before 2012, when these
data began to be collected.
An assessment of gaps in services that existed prior to the closing of the Advocacy
Center.
Campus officials and constituencies that we were unable to meet with during the
semester, due to schedule conflicts and lack of time.
Information on how comparable services and concerns are addressed on other
campuses (although we did some research into this area, we would have liked to have
done more extensive and comprehensive work).
Undergraduate students, whose attendance at the listening meetings and focus group
was not as extensive as we had hoped, especially among undergraduate men and other
communities often not addressed in education about sexual assault and relationship
violence. [It should be noted that two of the three listening meetings were held during
the summer, when the majority of undergraduate and graduate students are not on
campus.]
Victims and survivors of sexual assault and relationship violence who did not seek
services from the Advocacy Center or Counseling Center and are therefore not reflected
in the reporting numbers.
The Workgroup’s reluctance to ask survivors to identify themselves and cause revictimization.
GAPS IN SERVICES
We identified numerous service gaps in the wake of the closing of the Advocacy Center
and after the subsequent realignment of services and resources. To be fair, some of these
existed before the Advocacy Center was closed and continue to need to be filled. Most notable
to us, perhaps, is a serious lack of communication at all levels in the Syracuse University
community, from the Chancellor on down. But among the more specific gaps we noted in the
current state of things, those most significant to us include:
1. The loss of the Advocacy Center as a cultural locus and place for survivors to find
advocacy and healing, to connect with others who share the lived experience of being
survivors of sexual and relationship violence, and to have a safe space on campus.
Although counseling and advocacy services related to sexual assault and relationship
violence have been moved to the Counseling Center, there is no longer a single office
designated to provide information about services, advocacy, education, and prevention,
as well as physical space for victims and survivors to informally congregate and support
each other.
2. The limited visibility of and awareness about the Sexual and Relationship Violence
Response (SRVR) Team, combined with confusion about how to report incidents of
sexual assault and relationship violence. In the various listening sessions and online
venues, Syracuse University community members repeatedly stated that the Counseling
4
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Center itself was a potential barrier for seeking out services, because of its location
adjacent to several fraternities on Walnut Avenue and because of excessive delays in
obtaining appointments. While the SRVR Team provides immediate response to
incidences of sexual assault and relationship violence and will meet at alternative
locations when a student does not wish to go to the Counseling Center’s current
location, some students expressed concerns over availability of appointments and wait
times after receiving immediate services.
The discourse on campus about sexual assault and relationship violence typically focuses
on male-on-female violence involving students who are fulltime undergraduates, White,
and heterosexual. The narrow focus of this discourse overlooks large numbers of
individuals who experience sexual assault and relationship violence, including graduate
and part-time students, as well as students of color, queer and transgender students,
those with disabilities, international students, and others from marginalized identity
groups.
Insufficient staff and resources to effectively investigate incidents of sexual assault and
relationship violence, and to educate members of the Syracuse University community.
This has led to a lack of information and training for faculty, staff, and students
regarding legal and other obligations to report incidents. Current training appears to
consist of little more than information sharing and the obligations of “responsible
employees” to report incidents of sexual assault and relationship violence to the Title IX
coordinator. Questions remain about who are designated as “responsible employees”
and current training does not include specific tactics for promoting sensitive discourse,
and on the “art” of referring people to the appropriate campus resources. Finally there
still remains a significant lack of clarity about legal privilege, confidentiality, and the role
of both in identifying responsible employees.
Students, faculty, and staff all report insufficient training about the meanings of
consent, rape culture, and what it means to be an empowered bystander.
More resources and attention need to be allocated to particular constituencies on
campus, especially Greek organizations, athletic teams and staff, and other student
groups traditionally associated with a disproportionate amount of sexual and
relationship violence.
Other limitations that were identified included the lack of a centralized and always
available source of information (such as a mobile app) for students to access resources
about their rights, the student code of conduct, Counseling Center availability (including
after-hours services), and other resources.
Deterioration of the important and long-standing collaborative relationship between
Syracuse University and Vera House under the previously articulated memorandum of
understanding (MOU), given the new structure of services, education, and prevention
programs.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend a series of short- and long-term changes to address gaps in services. We
hope these will meet specific needs and, equally importantly, contribute to essential changes in
5
campus culture. As the University adopts these recommendations, we hope that services
relating to sexual assault and relationship violence will be approached from a “victim/survivor
advocacy” perspective. This means supporting a victim or survivor throughout the process of
responding to sexual assault and relationship violence by fostering relationships with
administrators, campus personnel, and community partners committed to society free from
sexual assault and relationship violence. Advocacy consists of responding to immediate, crisisdriven needs, safety, and requests for services from the campus and local community (e.g.
Public Safety, Counseling Center, Health Center, Student Assistance, Office of Student Rights
and Responsibilities, Title IX Office, clergy, Syracuse Police, various hospitals, criminal and/or
family court, District Attorney’s office, and other legal services). Advocacy also includes
supporting and educating victims and survivors, as well as their support network, about the
dynamics and impact of gender-based, sexual assault and relationship violence, and how to
work toward healing and empowerment. Advocacy also needs to be an explicit and central
dimension of services to victims/survivors, as well as a part of campus-wide education.
Everyone needs to know more about the dynamics and impact of sexual assault and
relationship violence, and work alongside formal support systems to assist those most deeply
affected in achieving healing and empowerment.
Short-Term Recommendations (to be addressed in spring 2015):
1. Restore trust and foster healing among members of the Syracuse University community.
We planned to ask the Chancellor to issue an apology and appreciate that one was given
during the fall semester, although we realize that it was not fully satisfactory to
everyone. An additional effort toward healing would be for the Chancellor to publically
recognize the important legacy of the Advocacy Center and the tireless work of its
former staff.
2. Institute an effective communications campaign to address gaps in awareness of
services available to all members of the campus community. This should be aimed at
promoting new services and educating people about how they can have their needs met
and how they can get involved in helping others. For example, the Workgroup placed an
advertisement in the Daily Orange during the fall semester (see Appendix) that
contained some of this information. Ads like this can be used as part of future efforts to
inform the community.
3. Update the stickers that communicate information about sexual assault and relationship
violence services, education, and prevention. These should use clear language and
infographics. They must be placed in the stalls and common areas of every bathroom on
campus, and efforts must be made to remove outdated stickers as quickly as possible.
4. Increase the visibility of offices and personnel associated with responding to sexual
assault and relationship violence, including the SRVR team, Office of Student Assistance,
Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities, Department of Public Safety, and Office of
Health Promotion.
5. Communicate University policy about the meaning of affirmative consent, which is in
the spirit of the “Yes means Yes” national movement, by building upon previous and
6
current efforts (e.g., “Got Consent? Be SU.R.E.”). The result should be an ongoing
extensive campaign throughout the Syracuse University community.
6. Provide accessible information to faculty, staff, and students about the Student Code of
Conduct, Title IX, and other relevant policies. Information should be available on posters
in all buildings on campus, including residence halls, and paper copies should be located
in all advising offices and residence hall offices.
7. The Provost should distribute a memorandum before the start of each semester
describing services and resources related to sexual assault and relationship violence,
and should provide a Title IX statement for use on every course syllabus.
8. Identify members of the campus community who are considered to be responsible
employees under Title IX, and define the scope of this role. Responsible employee
education must be expanded to include what is expected of them (e.g., when
responsible employee status is invoked, statements for inclusion on syllabi, what to say
to students, and how to report knowledge about incidents of sexual assault and
relationship violence, as well as campus climate characteristics that are unhealthy and
liable to foster dangerous behaviors).
9. Require annual training for all University employees and students that extends beyond
superficial transmission of information, and that utilizes technologies and multi-media
components to provide detailed information about relevant campus resources and
policies, including Title IX.
10. Establish a Chancellor’s taskforce on sexual assault and relationship violence that
reviews services, policies, and programs every semester. Taskforce members should
include individuals with expertise and authority on issues related to students’ need;
privilege and confidentiality; federal, state, and local statues and policies; and fiscal and
human resource issues. This taskforce must be able to respond to systems of power and
privilege, and to encompass multiple perspectives including those from marginalized
and under-represented groups on campus—particularly those susceptible to sexual
violence.
11. Institutional support is needed for Title IX training of faculty and staff, who are
responsible employees according to the University’s interpretation of these regulations.
Additional resources should be provided to enhance the Title IX office for investigation,
training, and student and employee support. Expand exploration and understanding of
the range of current and future interpretations of Title IX requirements, and revise
Syracuse University policies if and when that is deemed appropriate.
12. Provide additional staffing and resources for the Counseling Center to support advocacy,
therapy, and community collaboration and partnerships.
13. Identify and include culturally relevant approaches and practices that enhance the
support of victims and survivors from marginalized identity groups (e.g., students of
color, students with disabilities, queer students, and transgender students) and
strengthen efforts to encourage students from these groups to participate in leadership
of this work.
14. Include among the University’s Counsel a lawyer with sexual assault and Title IX
expertise to augment the work of the Title IX Coordinator and development of policies
related to sexual assault and relationship violence.
7
15. Develop and implement support groups for student victims and survivors to be in
relationship with each other in a privileged and confidential setting.
16. Administer a climate survey across Syracuse University about issues of sexual assault
and relationship violence; make the results available to the entire campus community.
Long-Term Recommendations (To be implemented within the next 2-3 years):
1. Establish a “hub” at 111 Waverly Avenue (or another suitable venue that is centrally
located on campus and not within close proximity to any of the fraternity houses) that
would house all services responsive to incidents of sexual assault and relationship
violence, including advocacy services, education, and prevention programs. Offices
within this “hub” should include the University Health Center, Counseling Center, Office
of Student Assistance, and Office of Health Promotions. Within this “hub” there would
also be dedicated space to facilitate advocacy services (e.g. meeting with Public Safety,
Syracuse Police, and clergy) and peer support among victims and survivors. Housing
these services in one building would relocate the Counseling Center, facilitate
information sharing and collaborative programming, and lead to a holistic approach to
supporting victims and survivors. Establishment of this “hub” would serve to promote
safety, healing, and empowerment for victims and survivors.
2. Provide resources for the Office of Fraternity and Sorority Affairs, as well as the
Department of Athletics, enabling the creation of positions that educate their respective
constituencies about issues of sexual assault and relationship violence.
3. Examine the interpretation of federal and state regulations about sexual assault and
relationship violence in the wake of changing policy landscapes at regular intervals over
the course of months and years. This process should include external legal counsel with
expertise and understanding of the needs of victims and survivors.
4. Strengthen the relationship between Vera House and Syracuse University, through a
regularly updated and detailed Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
5. Explore the possibility of extending confidentiality to specific faculty and/or staff who
complete substantial and specialized training, so that they may provide safe access to
education and support across campus.
6. Attend to the need for services that address the entire Syracuse University campus
community. Human Resources should create services for University employees that
work in conjunction with or in addition to those provided for students, and annually
provide notice regarding the availability of these service to the University community.
7. Require first-year fora across all schools and colleges to address issues regarding sexual
assault and relationship violence. These should include definitions of relevant behaviors
and concepts, how incidents are reported and investigated, available privileged and
confidential resources, reporting options for victims and survivors, campus policies, the
meaning of affirmative consent, the roles and dangers of alcohol and other drugs, and
bystander interventions. These fora provide ideal opportunities to engage all incoming
students in serious conversations about topics central to their lives and college
8
experiences. Comparable opportunities must also be provided to students who transfer
to Syracuse University after the first year.
8. Develop ongoing bystander education that is inclusive of the identities and experiences
of students of color, queer and transgender students, international students, students
with disabilities, and others from marginalized groups. This should be designed from
perspectives that are not limited to male-female relationships.
CONCLUSION
We end this report recognizing the complex leadership challenge Syracuse University
faces in building a comprehensive and responsive system in the short run and changing campus
culture over time. According to results from a national survey, our institution appears to be
ahead of other comparable institutions in recognizing and addressing sexual and relationship
violence issues. 1 However, though there has been some progress, the more difficult steps need
to be taken. This will not happen through the efforts of University leadership and
administration alone. For us to have the culture of respect and dignity that will end sexual
violence, we will need to build a committed community of leaders that includes all of us.
1
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/07/college-campus-sexual-assault
9
Appendix A
Dean Tiffany from Hendricks Chapel opened; “today we gather for a time of mutual listening, a
time in which we can raise clarifying questions… hear concerns, and which together we can
think about next steps in light of the new structure.”
Structure of meeting: 1) common understanding, norms of commitment; 2) statement and context
from Kantowitz; 3) opening up for dialogue. 3 prompts: clarifying questions, concerns, next
steps.
What are our community commitments? Assuming everyone is coming with good faith; listen
without interrupting; try to understand before jumping to conclusions; trying to keep in a
language and details that are not too technical; “unafraid, plain talk”—no retaliation for what’s
being said; being open to next steps; equality of students, administrators, etc; mutual
participation; 3 minutes is plenty; acknowledge and examine power differences.
Rebecca Reed Kantowitz:
Thank you for coming out… this is an important dialogue. I have had an opportunity to talkto
many people since May 30, I have learned a lot, found people to be respective and thoughtful,
there’s been a little bit of misinformation, things I have learned that I haven’t thought about.
There are three things/themes in reading a variety of e-mails and meetings that are common
themes we would agree upon. 1) all of us believe that it’s important to be a connected, caring
community that is committed to preventing sexual assault and relationship violence and
educating around it, student groups doing it now are important part of that prevention and
education. 2) providing victims and survivors with privilege. 3) building a community that
protects others from perpetrators.
Open sharing: theming thematically. First section: clarifying questions; clarifying process and
policy.
There is no data supporting the declarative statements that have been made (i.e., students have
been confused about where to obtain services).
1) questions about budget, how much does this save or cost the University; 2) where are the
advocacy center people here today? 3) federal guidelines take away agency, does
“privilege” mean that the counseling center doesn’t have to report? 4) what are you going
to do when perpetrators are seeking counseling at the counseling center?
1) Money was spent, not saved on changes. 2) AC people have “accepted” alternative positions
(this, I guess, means that they are OK with it? That seems to be what was implied).
3) To be consistent with University’s data, the counseling center will continue to report out data,
but data will be declassified. The other distinction between privilege/confidential; confidential
records cannot be obtained. 4) It’s a problem we have always had to make
Question: Who was consulted, why was university senate note consulted?
Kantowitz: We didn’t think about it.
Question: A sense of community was lost in this decision, was that thought about? To make up
for the loss, were there planned out listening meetings? Or is this only a reaction?
Kantowitz: We were not thinking about it.
Question: Doesn’t health promotion cover issues that are preventative, versus moral dictates.
Answer: Harm reduction versus don’t do this? That’s a good question. We do that in the way we
approach the issue. There are continuities, however, because they are both about values.
Question: About counseling center structure. From my understanding, counseling is a short-term,
5 session thing.
Answer: There is not an actual number, circulating myth. That said, in terms of advocacy
services, there is a 0 session limit in place.
Question: If I am sexually assaulted and I come to the counseling center, how long would I have
to wait for an appointment, if I’m not an immediate threat to myself or someone else?
Answer: The simple answer is: no wait.
Question: Who can access confidential information? If there was a concern for community safety
that overrode a student’s request for confidentiality, who could make that call and who could
access that?
Answer: There is confusion around confidential and privileged. Information will be shared with
title 9 office so they can identify perpetrators.
Question: Under those criteria, what are the circumstances?
Answer: It’s not a matter of opening up confidential records. Information can be shared.
Answer: If something is confidential, who else could have access to it?
Question: Seems confusing, but it looks bad. At the back door of every women’s bathroom, there
is a sticker for the advocacy center. Now it’s closing. Is there going to be a major campaign
educating about these changes? It sounded wishy-washy, what real campaign is going to happen?
Answer: Immediate is creating new bathroom stickers, information. Putting together an
infographic about options.
Question: 1) was there a need to shut down the advocacy center quickly? 2) Are things being
targeted and communicated to grad students?
Realignment happened quickly in part because there are student files, so we wanted to protect
student files, and fill positions. We have first year students, we needed to move on it quickly. 2)
It is being communicated to grad students (how?)
Question: The infographic will highlight student’s options. Are there still multiple places of
entry?
Answer: yes. But they are guiding students to the counseling center.
Question: Why was the choice made to take away one confidential resource on campus
Question: Asked by Kantowitz. What is being lost here?
Answer; I came here as a freshman, I was sexually assaulted, it was me finding the advocacy
center, Janet, Jill, the volunteers there who were going to speak for me when I couldn’t speak for
myself, that saved me and got me a degree. So I would say… the loss of an identity center. More
than just losing, we can argue about confidential/privilege, at the end of the day, a lot of people
have personal stories. Having education and prevention in same space as support services, that
was crucial to building that community. Losing an identity.
Question: It’s more of a statement. There is another privileged point of entry and that is the
clergy people at Hendricks Chapel. So, you don’t have to answer Jill (out loud), but in your
educational materials, we are a privileged place, and we don’t report anything, ever, and we are
part of the University community, is that being taken into consideration?
Answer: I hear ya, point taken.
Appendix B
LISTENING MEETING 2
WED 30 JULY 2014
PANASCI LOUNGE, SCHINE STUDENT CENTER
NOTES TAKEN BY VICKY WANG
CO-FACILITATORS:
REV. TIFFANY STEINWERT (DEAN OF HENDRICKS CHAPEL)
DERERK FORD (GRAD STUDENT IN CULTURAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATION).
CHANGES FROM LAST TIME:
CHAIRS IN CIRCLE FORMATION, STUDENT FACILITATOR TO SYMBOLICALLY LEVEL THE POWER
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADMIN AND STUDENTS
RUN THROUGH OF AGENDA (SEE HANDOUT)
LAST ITEM, TIME TO RAISE REMAINING QUESTIONS, TO BE ANSWERED AT LATER TIME, TO MAKE TIME
FOR OTHER THINGS
COMMUNITY GUIDELINES
TS:
THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO BE TOGETHER WITH ONE OTHER – REITERATE STATEMENTS FROM
LAST MEETING [READ FROM POSTER AS WRITTEN AT LAST MEETING] – ARE THERE OTHER NORMS THAT
YOU THINK WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE CONVERSATION TODAY – WIDEN CIRCLE AGAIN
[]:
SINCE ALL INFORMATION IS COMING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION, COMMITMENT TO AN
ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WAS DISCUSSED
TS:
IF YOU CAN ABIDE BY THESE GUIDELINES CAN YOU GIVE A VISIBLE SIGN OF AFFIRMATION –
THANK YOU – INTRODUCE RKK TO GIVE SUMMARY OF LAST MEETING –
[]:
NOISE IN BACKGROUND, IF PEOPLE COULD USE MICROPHONE –
RKK:
I AM GOING TO HAND OUT MINUTES FROM LAST MEETING IN CASE YOU WEREN’T THERE; CAN
YOU HEAR ME; THANK YOU CASEY; FIRST I WANT TO SAY VERY SINCERELY THANK YOU FOR MAKING
TIME TO COME TODAY; I SEE LOTS OF FMAILIAR FACES…WANT TO GENEUINLY THANK YOU FOR COMING
OUT…THANK DEREK AND TIFFANY FOR TAKING THE TIME TO DO THIS…TAKES A LOT OF TIME;
THREE REASONS WE DECIDED TO SPONSOR LISTENING MEETINGS THIS SUMMER – WAY THAT THE
DECISION AND TIMING AND WAY DEICION ANNOUNCED UPSET A LOT OF PEOPLE – A NOTHER REASON IS
FOR STAFF WORKING CLOSELY WITH STUDENTS IMPACTED BY SEXUAL VIOLENCE TO HAVE A CHANCE
TO CONNECT WITH PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY IMPACTED BY THE DECISION – LISTENING MEETINGS A
WAY TO GIVE SOLID FEEDBACK BACK TO THE CHANCELLOR, TO MAKE SURE MEETING STUDENT NEEDS
AS BEST WE CAN;
LANDSCAPE CHANGED DRAMARTICALLY OVER LAST TWO YRS – CHANGES IN EXPECTATIONS – OTHER
UNIVERSITIES AND OFFICES IN SU WRESTLING WITH THIS – AWARE OF GAINS AND LOSSES FROM THIS
DECISION – CHANCELLOR NOT HERE, BUT WOULD LIKE TO GET WORK GROUP MEETING GOING AS SOON
AS POSSIBLE – ANOTHER MONTH BEFORE HE ENACTS THE WORK GROUP – BREIF UPDATE OF WHAT
HAS HAPPENED SINCE MAY 30, AND WHAT WE’VE BEEN HEARING –
ADVOCACY CENTER – THREE IMPT ROLES – REPOND TO VICTIMS, EDUCATE TO PREVENT SEXUAL
VIOLENCE, POWERFUL SYMPOLIC, IMPT SPACE AND EMPOWERMENT – NO TOLERANCE OF ABUSE –
IMPORTANT SPACE/EMPOWERMENT – DECISION EXTREMELY PAINFUL FOR PEOPLE IMPACTED BY
SEXUAL VIOLENCE AND I WANT TO NAME THAT – [EXAMPLES OF THINGS PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN OR
SAID] PAIN RAGE, DESPARE, ANXIETY, RUG PULLED OUT FROM UNDER THEIR FEET, SHOVED IN THE
STOMACH, BETRAYED PERSONALLY, WAY DECISION DELIVERED WAS VIOLENT, FEEL VICTIMIZED –
INTENT WAS NOT TO CREATE PAIN BUT WE HAVE AND THIS IS IMPT TO TALK ABOUT – I AM DEEPLY
SORRY THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED – BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT WHAT HAS BEEN LOST I WANT TO TALK
ABOUT WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN STUDENT AFFAIRS – A LOT HAS HAPPENED AND YOU SHOULD BE
AWARE DF:
YOU’VE GOT SIX MINUTES –
RKK:
TOP PRIORITY TO PREPARE FOR INCOMING 1ST YRS AND NEW GRAD STUDENTS; NEW STUDENTS
ARRIVE 3 WEEKS FROM TODAY –
WE HAVE CREATED SEVERAL CROSS-CAMPUS TEAMS COORD BY REBECCA DAYTON VP OF HEALTH &
TITLE 9 COORDINATOR CYNTHIA MAXWELL CURTAIN - WORKING TOGETHER WITH MANY PEOPLE ON
COMMUNICATION, EDUCATION AND RESPONSE TO SEXUAL VIOLENCE
ADDING MORE INFO AND MORE TRAINING ON SEXUAL VIOLENCE
RA, OLS, GREEK LIFE – ENHANCED TRAINING
ENHANCED EVERYDAY HERO BYSTANDER TRAINING
COMMUNICATIONS – STICKERS IN THE BATHROOMS INFROGRAPHIC WITH RESOURCE GUIDE –
WILL SEE MORE THAN WE HAVE BEEN ABLE OT OFFER IN THE LAST FEW YEARS –
ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR PROGRAMMING; OFFICE OF HEALTH PROMOTION MORE PROGRAMS FOR
AWARENESS
NEW HIRE (THERAPIST IN COUNSELING CENTER)
SUSAN PASCOW (ASSOC DIR OF COUNS CENT) COORD CLINICAL RESPONSE AND SUPPORT TO SEXUAL
VIOLENCE,
MET WITH SYR POLICE DEPT, VERA HOUSE, AND […], LOOKING AT CONDUCT PROCESS TO MAKE SURE IT
IS COMPLIANT –
FOR RETURNING STUDENTS ALSO HIGH PRIORITY, WORRIED ABOUT STUDENTS NOT PART OF THIS
PROCESS UNDERSTNAIDNG WHAT HAS HAPPENED – IF YOU LOOK AT MINUTES LIST OF CONCERNS,
WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD LOOK THAT OVER
DK:
JIM BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT NOTES GENERATED BY ADMIN NOT OBJECTIVE – STUDENT
PETA IS TAKING NOTES AND RECORDING THE MEETING, SO THERE WILL BE AN ALTERNATIVE SET OF
NOTES.
STUDENTS MTG WEEKLY HAVE MADE SEVERAL DOCUMENTS – TIMELINE OF FACTS, THE CAMPAIN FOR
AN ADVOCACY CENTER: WHAT WAS LOST, THE CAMPAIGN FOR AN ADVOCACY CENTER: OUR STANCE
AND A PLAN TO IMPROVE ADVOCACY SERVICES AT SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY – DOES ANYONE OBJECT TO
READING OF THESE DOCUMENTS
BRITTANY MOORE (STUDENT, IS MEMBER OF STUDENT ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS PART OF THE STUDENT
CAMPAIGN.): [READING OF WHAT WE’VE LOST]
DK:
NOW WE WANT TO OPEN IT UP FOR PEOPLE TO RAISE CONCERNS, ESP STUDENTS AND
OTHERS NOT INVOLVED IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS – RAISE HAND [2 MICROPHONES BEING
PASSED AROUND]
TS:
ARE THERE CONCERNS NOT INCLUDED
MARGARET THOMPSON (FACULTY IN HISTORY DEPT): AS FACULTY MEMBER SHARE CONCERNS OF
STUDENTS; MEMBER OF UNIVERSITY SENATE COMMITTEE ON WOMEN’S CONCERNS – PROVIDED NO
INPUT – ACCUMULATED WISDOM NOT HEARD –
AFFIRM WHAT WAS IN DOC READ BY BM – YOU (RKK) PUT IN A VERY HARD POSITION –
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AS FIRST RESPONDER, AC WAS INDISPENSIBLE HELP FOR STUDENTS WHO
CAME TO HER AND ALSO FOR HER AS A FIRST REPONDER – CONCERNED ABOUT ALREADY
OVERBURDEREDN COUNSELING CENTER THANK YOU FOR LISTENING.
MEAGAN GREELEY (GRAD STUDENT; ADVOCATE WITH VERA HOUSE): ECHO ALL OF THE CONCERNS
AND WHAT HAS BEEN LOST – KNOWING THAT THERE WAS A DEDICATED CENTER FOR PREVENTION AND
SERVICES ON THESE ISSUES – SPOKE TO COMBATTING THE RAPE CULTURE – SENT A MESSAGE THAT
SU WOULD NOT TOLERATE VIOLENCE OF ANY KIND – NOT HAVING THAT SMPBOL HERE NOW I HAVE A
VERY DIFFERENT FEELING ABOUT WHAT IT MEANS TO BE HERE AS A STUDENT –
SO FAR IN ASKING QUESTIONS AND IN HAVING MANY MEETINGS WITH UNIVERSITY WORKERS – GIVEN
REASONS FOR CLOSING AC WAS LACK OF PRIVILEGE/CONFIDENTIALTY – BUT ADVOCACY BEING DONE
IN STUDENT AFFAIRS HAS NO CONFIDENTIALITY AT ALL – MEANS LESS SUPPORT
DK:
MEGAN WORKS FOR VERA HOUSE – CHANCELLOR’S ONLY EMAIL ADDRESSING THIS CHANGE
STATES MORE OR LESS THAT STRUCTURE IMPLEMENTED IS IN LINE WITH OTHER WELL-RESPECTED
CENTERS
[]: [READING OF CHANCELLOR EMAIL] - “THIS NEW STRUCTURE IS THE SAME AS OTHER SIMILAR WELL
RESPECTED CENTERS IN SYRACUSE, INCLUDING VERA HOUSE AND THE MCMAHON RYAN CHILD
ADVOCACY CENTER”
MG:
DIRECTOR VERA HOUSE - I DON’T WANT TO SPEAK FOR HER BUT SHE HAS SPOKEN PUBLICALLY
– HURT AND CONFUSED BY DECISION –
VERA HOUSE IS SUPPORT AND ADVOCACY BOTH WTH CONFIDENTIALITY; MCMAHON RYAN NO
CONFIDENTIALLTY AMONG STAFF THERE BUT UNIFIED SERVICES; PRESENT STRUCTURE DOES NOT
MATCH EITHER STRUCTURE
[YARINA RODRIGUES] (GRAD STUDENT): CONCERNS ABOUT TRUST; CONCERN THAT WOKRING GROUP
AND LISTENING MEETING WILL BE ABOUT ADDRESSING THE TRUST ISSUE, INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT WE
[ADMIN] MADE A DECISION AND WE REALLY THAT WE DIDN’T THINK IT THROUGH AND WE RETRACT IT – I
WOULD REALLY RESPECT AN ADMIN THAT SAID, WE REALLY DIDN’T THINK ABOUT THIS AND WE DIDN’T
CONSULT WITH STUDENTS; I STAND BY STUDENT AND I STAND AGAINST SEXUAL ASSUALT AND
VIOLENCE ON CAMPUS
JASON:
I AM A WRITING INSTRUCTOR – MAIN CONCERN IS THAT I CAN TALK TO A STUDENT AND
SEND THEM TO A PLACE THAT I KNOW IS SAFE.
VICKY (MS STUDENT IN GEOLOGY): – ACCORDING TO WHITE HOUSE TASK FORCE DOCUMENTS – CAN
ALSO DESIGNATE AS CONFIDENTIAL THOSE WHO ARE SUPERVISED BY LISCENCED AND PASTORAL
COUNSELORS – IF CONFIDENTIALITY WAS MOTIVE, COULD HAVE SOLVED THE PROBLEM WITHOUT
DISSOLVING A COMMUNITY
[] INCOMING STUDENT: HOW TO FIELD RAPE CULTURE AS A NEW TEACHER TO KNOW WHAT TO DO
WHEN IT HAPPENS AND A PHYSICAL SPACE TO GO TO WHERE YOU FEEL SAFE AS A NEW TEACHER
DK:
DEFINE PRIVILEGE AND CONFIDENTIALITY
CORY WALLACK (DIR OF COUNSELING CENTER):
JIM AND ALSO WHY IS THIS (PRIVILEDGE/CONFIDENTIALITY) SUCH A DRIVING FACTOR
CORY DEFERS ON WHY A DRIVING FACTOR
DEFINITION OF PRIVILEDGE – NYS LAW ON WHAT INFORMATION HAS TO BE SHARED – COUNSELING
CENTER NOT OBLIGATED TO REPORT ANY INFORMATION; ALSO EXCLUDED FROM CLERY ACT, THOUGH
COUNLING CTR VOLUNTARILY
BUT UNDER NYS LAW, THOSE NOT POASTORAL OR LISCENSED PROFESSIONALS MUST REPORT []
DK:
STUDENT ASSOCIATION HAS PREPARED A DOCUMENT ON NEXT STEPS; TO BE READ IF NO
OBJECTIONS
PETA LONG:
READS DOCUMENT – “THE CAMPAIGN FOR AN ADVOCACY CENTER: OUR STANCE”
PATRICK NEARY (GSO PRESIDENT): TIMELINE FOR WORKING GROUP – COMPLETE WORK BY FALL; VERY
STRONGLY URGE MAKE UP SHOULD BE HALF STUDENTS
MARNY HANSEN (FACULTY AND MEMBER OF USENATE COMMITTEE ON WOMENS CONCERNS
COMMITTEE) – I WOULD LIKE TO SEE EVIDENCE THAT THESE LISTENING MEETINGS ARE BEING LISTEN
ED TO; INCLUDING [A RETRACTION OF THE DECISION, WHICH IS NOT FAILURE BUT A SIGN OF GOOD
LEADERSHIP]
[]:
HANOVER COLLEGE IMPROPER HANDLING OF A CASE – FORCED STUDENT WHO CAME
FORWARD WITH OWN STORY TO KEEP THE CASE WITHIN CAMPUS SECURITY – CONCERNED THAT IF WE
CREATE A SYSTEM WHERE WE DO NOT REPORT THINGS THAT IT WILL PERPETRUATE A CULTURE OF
RAPE.
[]:
A LOT FO THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE DECISION ARE NOT HERE AND NOT HEARING IT FIRST
HAND; THIS ANS A NOTHER BARRIER BETWEEN WHAT PEOPLE NEED WNAT FEEL AND THE PEOPLE
RESPONGING TO THESE CONCERNS; BAD IMPLICATIONS FOR HOW THINGS WILL BE DECIDED AND
IMPLEMENTED IN THE FUTURE - [...] – CONCERED THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE IN A DAY AND FINAL,
WITHOUT PROCESS; TALKING ABOUT HOW POPLE FEEL, WITHOUT CHANGE, IS FRUSTRATING.
DK:
NEXT STEPS
PETA: ONE PRACTICAL NEXT STEP I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BIG POSTER INSCHINE ADVERTISING FUTURE
LISTENING MEETINGS
AFUA (GRAD STUDENT AND AJDUNCT FACULTY MEMBER):
INTERESTED IN HOW WORK GROUP
RECOMMENDATIONS WILL BE MADE PUBLIC – INTERESTED IN HOW THE WORK WILL BE MADE PUBLIC
AND ACCESSIBLE TO STUDENTS
MEAGHAN: A HEARTFELT APOLOGY FROM RKK AND CHANCELLOR THAT THE PROCESS WAS NOT
HANDLED WELL – I DON’T WANT TO GIVE YOU THE LANGUAGE
JIM BURN (PROF OF PRACTICE IN PUBLIC HEALTH): NEED TO REVIEW WHAT PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL MEAN IN THE WHITE HOUSE GUIDELINES; 2 OR 3 YEARS AGO IT WAS ANNOUNCED THAT
AC HAD TO ACCOUNCE THAT THEY WERE NOT CONFIDENTIAL; HOW MANY TIMES WERE RECORDS
ACCESSED WITHOUT A STUDENT WANTING THEM TO BE; THE FACT THAT THIS HAS HAPPENED A
COUPLE OF TIMES RECENTLY HAS BEEN ALLUDED TO
WE SHOULD REVIEW LEGISLATION AND GUIDANCE FORM WHITE HOUSE BEFORE WE DECIDE WHAT TO
DO.
TS:
SIDE COMMENTS CROSS TALK AND REACTION; B/C OF COMMENTS OF WORK GROUP DOING
THAT FIRST; WE CONVENANTED THAT WE ARE A COMMUNITY AND I JUST WNAT TO MAKE ROOM FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE PART OF THIS COMMUNITY AND BREAK DOWN THE ENTRENCHMENTS BETWEEN
ADMIN AND COMMUNITY;
JAMES [OFFICE OF MUTLICULTURAL AFFAIRS]: DISAGREE THAT THE DECISION WAS MADE BEHIND
CLOSED DOORS IN ONE DAY BEAUSE I DON’T WANT OT THINK THAT WAS TRUE
RKK:
THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE SITTING IN THIS CIRCLE INVOVLED FOR MANY YEARS – MET WITH
KANTOR, WOLFFE, TALKED WITH COLLEEN BENCH WHO OVERSEES ALL THOSE PEOPLE WHO PROVIDE...
RESIDENT LIVE, COMMUNICATION – WE SPENT TWO YEARS TRING TO MAKE THIS WORK, THIS WAS NOT
AN EASY DECISION TO MAKE; THERE WERE PERSONNEL DECISIONS THAT I CANNOT SHARE. WE HAVE
GREAT STAFF WHO ARE ABLE TO DO THE SAME WORK THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING – WORKING VERY
HARD TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS HAPPENING AND WHY
THE FACT THAT WE WERE OBLIGATED TO SHARE THE NATURE, TIME AND DATE OF INCIDENTS EVEN
THOUGH THE AC WAS OPERATING AS CONFIDENTIAL WAS UNCONSCIOUNABLE
[TO FAST TO RECORD]
PATRICK: TITLE IX – NEED A SERIOUS CONVO ABOUT THE UNIVERSITY’S INPTERPRETATION OF TITLE IX,
WHICH IS COMPLEX, BUT THERE MUST BE A GROUP OF PEOPLE WILLING TO ROLL THEIR SLEEVES UP
AND WILLING TO TACKLE THIS.
BRITTANY: MISCOMMUNICATION ABOUT DECISION MADE IN A DAY – WHAT WE MEANT IS THAT THE
PROCESS/EXECUTION TOOK PLACE IN A DAY, NOT THAT ALL OF THE DECISION WAS MADE IN A DAY –
AND IT WAS GREAT TO HEAR FROM YOU (RKK) THAT THESE DECISIONS WERE YEARS IN THE MAKING
PETA: MEAGHAN HAD BROUGHT UP THE APOLOGY AS NEXT STEP, I HAVE THE VIEWPOINT THAT THE
CHANCELLOR SENDS A LOT HEART FELT EMAILS ABOUT GRASS, ETC – ALSO HAVE READ MANY
ARTICLES ABOUT SEXUAL VIOLENCE; WOULD LIKE TO HAVE FROM THE CHANCELLOR A HEARTFELT
EMAIL ABOUT THIS ISSUE.
TS:
[WRAP UP STUFF]
RKK: THANK YOU FOR THE DOCUMENTS THEY WILL BE GIVEN TO THE CHANCELLOR; WILL BE MEETING
TO WITH CHANCELLOR; SOMEONE IS TAKING MINUTES AN DTHERE IS AN AUDIORECODING; I WOULD
RECOMEND TO CHANCELLOR THAT WORK GROUP HAVE STUDENT FACULTY STAFF AND COMMUNITY
REPORESENATION, IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE A BALANCED GROUP OF PEOPLE; IF PPL NOT ON WORK
WORK GROUP CAN PRESENT OT IT; HIS STYLE IS TO HAVE SMALL WORK GROUPS THAT ARE FAST; THIS
ONE SHOULD BE LARGER MAYBE; WILL BE SET BY CHANCELLOR – WOULD RECOMMEND FORMALLY
APPROACH GSO, SA, AND STUDENTS WORKING ON THE CAMPAIGN, SOMEONE FROM SENATE
COMMITTEE ON WOMEN’S CONCERNS, DEVELOP OF CHARGE OUT TO THE COMMUNITY SOON; MAYBE
ONE MORE LISTENING MEETING.
TS:
THREE MINUTES DOING QUESTIONS; ASK FOR QUESTIONS TO BE FORWARDED TO RKK
[QUESTIONS FROM PARTICIPANTS; COPIED FROM PETA’S NOTES]
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
If this is about privilege/confidentiality, why is advocacy being done at office of Student
Assistance?
How is confidentiality defined? What wasn't the AC doing to be confidential?
Will the minutes be shared with campus community?
Possible for the Chancellor [to attend?]
How will we measure of the change is successful?
Public forum for posting comments and questions
What is the format for the next meeting?
info session for new?
same as this with same people?
Has there been a change w/ Counseling Center length of treatment?
Why did the Admin take away privilege/confidentiality from the AC?
What input did AC staff have in the decision?
Appendix C
Sexual Violence Prevention, Education, and Advocacy
Summary of Listening Meetings
October 27 and November 12, 2014
Two listening meetings were held in Schine Student Center, facilitated by graduate student
affiliates of the Maxwell School’s Program for the Advancement of Research on Conflict and
Collaboration (PARCC). The first meeting was held on October 27, from 4:00pm-5:30pm, and
included approximately 40 participants. The second meeting, on November 12, from 7:30pm9:30pm, included approximately 20 participants. Both meetings followed the same format:
following an overview of current sexual violence service provision, small group tables of
roughly 5 participants each broke out three times, addressing current issues and concerns,
perceived gaps in services, and broader campus and community culture. Each break-out session
lasted approximately 20 minutes and concluded with a brief report back to the whole group.
In what follows, the pervading topics derived from participant comments are presented for each
of the three breakout sessions, with selected examples. Complete participant contributions are
include at the end of this summary.
I.
Issues and Concerns
This first small-group discussion aimed to provide an open space for airing issues and concerns
participants wanted voiced about current service provision and the process by which services had
changed over the past months.
Five themes emerged from issues comments: poor communication, culture, decision-making
process transparency, Counseling Center concerns, and access to information. Comments not
within these five themes can be found in “other.”
Participants offered a total 94 comments during the November 12 meeting and 114 comments
during the October 20 meeting. The table below details the share of comments by theme.
1
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
Meeting One
15%
Meeting Two
10%
5%
0%
Poor
Lack of key
DecisionCommunication decision makers making process
and stakeholder transparency
meeting
involvement
Culture
Counseling
Center concerns
Access to
information
Other
Issues and Concerns Selected Examples
Theme
Listening Meeting 1
Listening Meeting 2
1) Poor
Communication
Misinformation: consistent message,
closing of center v. shifting of
services
Better communications of response
options and better timing
Was not clear to students “why
would they do that?”
Communication and transparency
Chancellor not present at the
meeting.
(theme not present)
2) Lack of key
decision makers
and stakeholder
meeting
involvement
Where has the Chancellor and
President been?
2
3) Decisionmaking process
transparency
4) Counseling
Center concerns
5) Access to
information
6) Other
7) Culture
Clarification of how process works
within University hierarchy
More involvement in decisionmaking
Communication/explanation/
rationale not complete
Want student involvement in
process
Location of Counseling Center. Near
a fraternity can be threatening.
Confidentiality of visit.
Visibility is a concern with the
counseling center, also visibility of
location is a concern
Mental health services overburdened
Counseling center understaffed
Access to services/information. How
many advocacy worker to student
ratio?
Confusion of what services
available after immediate needs
Educating students about changes to
policy. Mandatory? Reporting. Title
IV “responsible employee” meaning.
Make materials available
everywhere (lounges,
frat/sororities), faculty doors, not
just in bathrooms
Conversations are still mostly
focuses on heterosexual and
cisgender students-- so lacking
LGBTQ inclusion in these
conversations
General safety concerns need to be
addressed
Administration putting the brunt of
solutions on students (work groups)
People (students) don't think this
issue directly affects them
(theme not present)
Sexual assault shouldn't be a norm
Encourage transparency and
supportive campus culture
3
II.
Gaps in Service
The goal of this break-out session was to identify the critical gaps in service and support that are
not currently reflected in the new structure. Table questions:
a.
What do you see as gaps in services from the changes made in SU’s approach to
response and prevention services?
b. What do you see as gaps in services from your knowledge of what is happening in
other places?
c.
What do you see as gaps in services from your own sense of
what should be offered at SU?
Five themes emerged from gaps in service comments: education and prevention, campus safety,
legal requirements, student accountability and University Judicial Affairs, and survivor support
and services. Comments not within these five themes can be found in “other.”
Participants offered a total 87 comments during the November 12 meeting and 86 comments
during the meeting on October 20. The table below details the share of comments by theme.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
Meeting One
15%
Meeting Two
10%
5%
0%
Education and Campus safety
prevention
Legal
requirements
Student
accountability
and the
University
Judicial Affairs
Survivor
support and
services
Other
4
Gaps and Services Selected Examples
Theme
Listening Meeting 1
Listening Meeting 2
1) Education and
prevention
Bystander intervention training
Lack of training and communication
to staff, faculty, undergrad
employees, "responsible" employees
Prevention is a huge gap
Sessions and training that empower
people to speak out and support
others (empowered bystander)
Safe feeling campus
Zero tolerance policy
Faster response times
Broadcast the message
New Title IX coordinator. Less
focus on legal perspective,
more focus on advocacy
Facts-data
Training on reporting for ALL
Code of conduct: sexual assault
2) Campus safety
3) Legal
requirements
4) Student
accountability and
the University
Judicial Affairs
5) Survivor support
and services
Campus-wide, structural
Student advocates trained
response to student
organizations involved in
violence. Serious concern about
accountability and preferential
treatment of certain athletics
and Greek life
Consequences for repeat
offenders. Clear and
transparent. Aware and follow
through.
Reporting and education- judicial
system
Lack of community “safe
space”
What are my medical, legal,
emotional support options?
Lost community
engagement/advocacy
Difficulty navigating the reporting
steps
5
6) Other
Notification of events
No previous formalized
communication between student
groups and administration
Expertise/network for people
That provide guidance on
options on services, that
provide local knowledge
Bridge gaps between groups and
Admin
III.
Campus and Community Culture
This table discussion was to provide recommendations for improving the campus and community
culture as it relates to sexual and relationship violence. Table question:
What should we do to improve the campus and community culture as it relates to
relationship and sexual violence?
Seven themes emerged from issues comments: poor communication, lack of key decision makers
and stakeholder meeting involvement, decision-making process transparency, Counseling Center
concerns, and access to information. Comments not within these seven themes can be found in
“other.”
Participants offered a total 102 comments during the November 12 meeting and XXXXX
comments during the October 20 meeting. The table below details the share of comments by
theme.
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
Meeting One
Meeting Two
15%
10%
5%
0%
Student
centered
Education
Access to Party culture Counseling
Offender
information
Center accountability
Safety
Other
6
Campus and Community Culture Selected Examples
Theme
Listening Meeting 1
Listening Meeting 2
1) Student-centered
Empowered bystander
Empower peer ed groups
Student ambassadors (within
schools)
Empower students to fight injustice
as well as fight for fellow students
(anyone/everyone is an advocate)
Clear education plan for full
year, assessment of process
and understanding
Inter-group dialogue classes: make it
required, could be shorter than the
semester
mandatory training for
incoming and grad students
and in empowered bystander
intervention, and before
violation occurs
*expediency of resources to target
audience through form of education
not punishment (sports, greek, 1st
years, off campus houses)
Transparency reporting out
greater visibility of messages critical
of rape culture, sexism, racism etc.
from university and community
values and expectations
Syllabus statement: “title
nine-- responsible
employees/services
available/what has to be
reported by staff privilege v.
confidentiality
Greater public presence/more
creative outreach by our campus
resources: office of students rights
and responsibilities, DPS, SRVR
Team, Counseling Center
Lack of things to do in
Syracuse for enjoyment
(rather than party)
No place for students to go have fun
that is not related to parties and
alcohol
Drinking culture: relation to
sexual violence, more
engaging format than
compulsory online videos,
breakout groups
SU needs alternatives like bowling,
movie theatre, pool hall
2) Education
3) Access to
information
4) Party culture
7
5) Counseling Center
6) Offender
accountability
7) Safety
8) Other
Not treating victims as
“sick” taking a nonclinical
approach
Location- does it have power
Be more visible, bridge gap
in non “9-5” services.
Second shift of people at
night.
Change face of counseling away from
shame
Reexamining how we deal
with perpetrators
educational not just punitive,
forward thinking, not
reactional
Too much leeway-- hold
frats/sororities accountable
Provide resources for
identifying causes (mandate
it) and proactively
addressing them
(athletics/greek)
Burden of proof is on marginalized
Provide safe places/reduce
vulnerability
Community policing model
Ostrom/park/Marshall
unsafe places
Align priorities of DPS and students
Be ready to respond when
people start coming forward.
Have the infrastructure to
support/staffing
Attach these programs to existing
programs and expand to inter-campus
life
Critical thinking about
creating the right culture
Value and honor the advocacy centerits history, how it was created, what it
did, what it stood for, staff
8
IV.
Complete Participant Comments
The comments below are organized by meeting, session question, and theme. Comments were
transcribed as written on the Listening Meeting public notes.
Meeting Two, November 12
Issues and Concerns
Theme 1: Poor Communication
Misinformed people of the alignment of the changes
Only knew center closed though program still there but let people know services exist and
available
lots of information spreading, hard to communicate real info
loss of political advocacy--> symbolic nature
no apology for closing the center
better communications of response options and better timing
dialogue between students and administration
visibility of SU commitment to sexual violence and response
talk to administration
communication and transparency
Theme 2: Culture
culture of victims is at fault
training as responsible/empathetic employee
bystander training should increase
letting people get away with things-- no punitive immediate action
prioritization, victim blaming
culture of being misinformed
sexual assault shouldn't be a norm
9
epidemic of sexual violence on campus, culture
encourage transparency and supportive campus culture
wish more peers were more concerned, less victim blaming
Theme 3: Decision-Making Process Transparency
more transparency with students and new counseling centers
transparency
closure because of privacy- confusion of confidentiality
lack of trust after getting rid of services
transparency: administration to students
time to process decision to close advocacy center
more involvement in decision-making
want student involvement in process
more involved and considered in decisions regarding advocacy center
more transparency with students and new counseling centers
transparency
closure because of privacy- confusion of confidentiality
lack of trust after getting rid of services
transparency: administration to students
Theme 4: Counseling Center Concerns
name change- advocacy to current name not as welcoming
loss of connection when advocacy center services were divided-- counseling center/health
promotion different from advocacy, may not carry same meaning
lack of connection to sexual assault
services are trying to console student body
are 5 staff members enough?
10
size of SRVR team: only 5 members
shift from medical response to emotional support
staffing levels at staffing center- not adequate
current location is a concern currently on frat row. would like more communication on other
meeting locations
advertising for a location that is alternative to Frat Row
concerns with possible outing of visitors that will be outed as a sexual assault survivor and
protection of identity
visibility is a concern with the counseling center, also visibility of location is a concern
lack of community of advocates and survivors
counseling does not have a sense of community like the advocacy center
feel more comfortable not going to counseling center b/c feels intimidating
process, too long wait period, phone consultation
counseling center understaffed
stressful to wait for next step in process
makes victim change mind about seeking service
intimidating to speak over the phone
prefer a non-phone process-may be written
a friend was told to call center, could not walk in
put off going to counseling center
phone conversation may be okay for some, but was not comfortable
Theme 5: Access to Information
counseling/therapy long term after initial services?
confusion of what services available after immediate needs
confusion of long term- do people pay
11
mystery- don't want people to be unclear when in an emergency
not knowing if services still exist
lack of immediate response
unclear process, more knowledge to understand punitive actions against aggressors
not enough advertising/publicity
no info given to incoming grad students
no emails about services
no session for TAs
materials are accessible but not presented in a way that makes people understand
don't know where services are located
orange book not given to everyone
education/info on services not mandatory
make materials available everywhere (lounges, frat/sororities), faculty doors, not just in
bathrooms
material is dry (clinical), doesn't make it seem important, need to understand audience
focus groups to develop new materials
faculty/staff/TAs don't know what to do if student comes to them with an issue
no orientation to services and mindset
destigmatization of reporting/reducing fear of reporting
intermediate access of resources
better understanding of process of reporting
support groups for sexual assault victims- does this exist
education at other universities is mandatory, sexual assault awareness
at risk in first 6 weeks, should be educated in the beginning, freshmen year
group conversation in first week about it
12
education on prevention, but not what to do if a victim
Other
general safety concerns need to be addressed
lack of safety options
confidentiality, especially with university employees,student and friends, in case of sexual
assault
afraid to call cops, lack of action
need to take both genders into account, not just women
people (students) don't think this issue directly affects them
distinction of services from SU and outside parties
desire to be around other students who understand, feels safe
group with other victims: Girl Code
counselor to facilitate a peer group
talk to group with a professional
group situation-less pressure: warms you up to being in counseling center
in crisis situation went to family
Gaps in Services
Theme 1: Education and Prevention about Sexual Health/Assault/Violence
explaining all the resources available
better marketing with contact information
better marketing material that is not so wordy, example: new logo, phone sticky thing, video
marketing, new campaign explaining the change in name, especially targeting incoming
freshman, re-examine the name of some programs
aware of services: international students, ESL students
residence halls: trained RAs as a resource
13
culture: help students think about and conceptualize issue (symptoms or. disease)
peer educators: volunteers, not reaching important populations
focus on more than just sexual assault/rape: nuanced culture, micro and macro, not physical
aggression, small things add up: permission
power to speak up about microaggression, etc
sessions and training that empower people to speak out and support others (empowered
bystander)
advocacy: train faculty and TAs
use first year forum
curriculum for all faculty to cover advocacy/counseling services, repetition
we have a yes means yes (consent) policy at SU; ineffective because nobody knows about and
needs clarification
leadership gap/vacuum need more direction better communication
don't put on students to set this up or to know about opportunities to be involved in
environment where they are welcome
lack of training and communication to staff, faculty, undergrad employees, "responsible"
employees
make sticker 5x size or more
"privileged and confidential" what are they? what do they mean? clarity please
peer education groups
integrate to resident life (just as diversity and alcohol)
how to report- sexual assault
should be mandatory education on sexual assault
Theme 2: Campus Safety
gap in culture; center located on "Frat road"
zero tolerance policy
14
current breach of trust, confidence needed
stickers not on every bathroom door not accessible
Stickers not in CH building, Maxwell, RAPE and old advocacy center stickers instead
alcohol incrimination (?) concern is chilling reporting, communicate exception/amnesty to
underage students
messages supporting and not victimizing
supporting cultural information that this happens
broadcast the message
stickers- confusing
disinformation contributes to the culture that "nothing is happening"
gap in culture; center located on "Frat road"
zero tolerance policy
current breach of trust, confidence needed
stickers not on every bathroom door not accessible
Theme 3: Legal Requirements/Staff/Faculty/DPS Training/TITLE IX
facts-data
code of conduct: sexual assault
Theme 4: Accountability Process for Students/Judicial Process
role creation of someone to air grievance of all kinds for each college
student advocates trained
centralized location for student services and university responses to
reporting and education- judicial system
judicial to look to sexual assault issues
role creation of someone to air grievance of all kinds for each college
Theme 5: Services/Survivor Support
15
keep specialization of center (don't combine with health services)
awareness of how to begin grievance process: admin v. fellow student
direct support from administration
faculty= resource
alternative services to therapy/counseling b/c of stigma of therapy
is counseling center appropriate for sexual violence
need for advocacy groups on sexual/relationship violence
place for peer support
location of counseling center: centralized location, better organized
gap between advertised services and actual services
transportation/facilitation of outside services/support
clarity of services/support
process needs to be straightforward
financial support for victims (i.e. transportation)
gap in advertisement and actualization of services
what are my medical, legal, emotional support options?
AND-how does the process work?
whole process needs to be reevaluated in general, puts students in a tough situation and when
seeking services
seems to be a burden on the victim to seek up the information
difficulty navigating the reporting steps
what do you do first? what the route
lack of empowerment for victims
support group
a place for victims to turn to, find other victim's support
16
Office of Residence Life told girl code- they don't provide program
support for victims-empower culture regarding sexual assault
Other
problematic words: team, infographic in the Daily Orange
empower faculty
information/transparency gap in formulating opinions/decisions by administration
no previous formalized communication between student groups and administration
bridge gaps between groups and admin
is there a point? to participate to hear and use student input
University's values: what are values of culture on campus
link for access to sexual violence services did (unclear word) on front page of syr.edu
this will bring us distinction on leaders on this issue
transparency
2 RAs for 150 people
Campus and Community Culture
Theme 1: Student-centered, student-driven Advocacy/Programs
empower peer ed groups
ways to reach more students
more ways to get them into classrooms, more avenues for participation
establish ally program
students to earn credit for participating in this kind of work
better/different way to reach international students
graduate community unaware: dedicate one day in orientation week to talk about these issues,
safe space training
17
"students of color": all racial groups should be represented
encourage Greek life to be part of community/conversation: have awareness/sexual
assault/issues/resources, leaders and members,
empowering students: it is their power to make culture better
empower students to fight injustice as well as fight for fellow students (anyone/everyone is an
advocate)
part of undergrad discussion of values: built into university mission statement
statement of campus: learn/awareness of world news/issues, what we believe, hold student
accountable to statement
marathon versus sprint
forums for reflection on campus culture
formation of student led peer support groups
allowing students the freedom to choose while offering safety net
standards in recruiting that focus on engagement, civic-minded like what SU is grappling with
re: Fast Forward
academic achievements in advertising
POSSE Program is a model for what kind of student to bring
"good citizens"
cost-effective (class): change mindset
community building
Theme 2: Education
start with frats/sororities first
remind alumni and general public
student culture- normalize discussion about consent and gender-based violence
up to professors to reach out to groups to set up discussion
single narrative of who is affected by sexual violence-- disidentification with issue
18
empowered bystander
training/sticker, "safe space"
on edge in classroom due to culture at Syracuse University
shutdown instructor for trying to create a safe space
curriculum to incorporate diversity-in the past
how do different departments deal with marginalized diversity?
lack of understanding of issues
"ingrained inertia of privilege"
never have to examine/acknowledge privilege
change way services are massaged during orientation: video-attention, length, timing in the
year (inundation of information)
more than resources, look at what is happening
inter-group dialogue classes: make it required, could be shorter than the semester
required courses (undergrad): 8 weeks, diversity, culture, race, gender, etc (needs to be done
effectively and needs buy-in and investment)
talk about privilege: think/'discuss power/privilege, conference on privilege, international
students (cultural diversity), investment of domestic students
think critically about role of diversity
incoming student activity orientation to include educational information and in resident halls
communication about amnesty policy
*expediency of resources to target audience through form of education not punishment
(sports, greek, 1st years, off campus houses)
no decisions about us without us
yes means yes policy
value: consent: explicit asking for and giving consent: this should be normal
post duties and responsibilities for responsible employees: information on points of access,
19
put them together like stickers and other formats to be used in TA and other offices for
students
mandated training faculty, staff, grad students, instructors, and all employees on diversity and
responses to sexual violence and assault
understanding victims and offenders
SU needs to engage with city and surrounding community: students should come to
understand city,bubble (pop it)
Theme 3: Access to information
reports showing numbers increasing possible through email/newsletter
communication resources to deal with issues of discrimination
risk reduction/bystander info: in the classroom during school year, classroom space
fragmented centers ignore intersectionality: emphasis on collaboration (location, safe space,
ideas), there needs to be a plan, encourage all to participate (unite people rather than divide
people), campus culture versus fringe culture
greater visibility of messages critical of rape culture, sexism, racism etc. from university and
community values and expectations
greater public presence/more creative outreach by our campus resources: office of students
rights and responsibilities, DPS, SRVR Team, Counseling Center
transparency-tell the people what is going on on campus
share university statistics of sexual assault
indirect communication from chancellor
incentive for people to take part
communication about value by administration- admin processes and ways of communication
should model values of open access to information, commitment to dialogue and consent
Theme 4: Party culture
no place for students to go have fun that is not related to parties and alcohol
SU needs alternatives like bowling, movie theatre, pool hall
greek culture
20
branding- NY College Team- people only take seriously athletics and parties
Theme 5: Counseling center
change location of counseling center away from frat row-- due to fear of accessing services
location- does it have power
change face of counseling away from shame
counseling center location on frat row
change location of counseling center away from frat row-- due to fear of accessing services
Theme 6: Offender Accountability
too much leeway-- hold frats/sororities accountable
chancellor informing on important issues, especially the center, should address immediately
up to marginalized to do the teaching and training
burden of proof is on marginalized
events for marginalized groups getting marginalized themselves
culture which recognizes microaggression
Theme 7: Safety
hostile culture for marginalized groups
how to reinforce
relationship building between DPS and students (serve and protect)
community policing model
DPS training to include safe environment for students
align priorities of DPS and students
reducing barriers to access medical services
men lead by example, model of men eliminating violence against women
value: consent! this need to be from the top down. the administration should model consent
"Green Dot" encourages bystander intervention
21
Other
consistent culture of values campus wide
have someone implement this across campus
change culture that glorifies masculine culture in athletics
while that is a part of SU identity
globally-minded, socially conscience
campus wide celebration
sports must be included
values
values can change
chance for SU to distinguish itself
attach these programs to existing programs and expand to inter-campus life
value and honor the advocacy center- its history, how it was created, what it did, what it stood
for, staff
gender equality
athletics and fraternities- don't help
Meeting One, October 20
Issues and Concerns
Theme 1: Poor Communication
clear and honest communication
consistency of message
No apology.
Lack of information/press on event
Getting information to all students
Misinformation: consistent message, closing of center v. shifting of services
22
Symbolic message of closing Advocacy Center
Execution of system, lack of consistency
Center operations communications are not consistent
Marketing campaign ineffective
lack of apology
What is being done on campus to establish trust between administration and student body?
Changes and mistrust will the University be honest, and when and where is the BIG DATA, #
of reports= lack of trust and façade of safety, accountability, lack of physical safe space
insensitive (ex. Video)
Communication show process was introduced to community/how made aware (June email:
changes)
generated an emotional response
message sources (advocacy/advocates)
Buzzfeed, Twitter, fb, yikyak
social media as first source
lack of historical context
Daily Orange “stole thunder”
Was not clear to students “why would they do that?”
students consult social media first
twitter, yikyak, Instagram, fb: generate interest/attention then email, etc.
response time for official communication
confusing infographics, dispersion of info lacks clarity
communications strategy raising awareness across campus
reporting protocol (different groups)
discrepancy between official and student narrative
23
clear focal point for Q’s lacking, e.g. only Daily Orange
Theme 2: Lack of Key Decision Makers and Stakeholders Meeting Involvement
Chancellor not present at the meeting.
Where are the students in this process? Especially off campus students
Where has the Chancellor and President been?
Where are the undergraduate students?
Concern with how is holding this meeting?
Cannot be held accountable to truly building trust…apologize to trustees vs. survivors
discussion/process not complete
remember the “real people”
Comms strategy failed: didn’t reach everyone!
Theme 3: Decision-Making Process Transparency
clarification of how process works within University hierarchy
Values of University/staff
What was the logic in moving services (sterile presence)?
How was time set for this meeting?
Void in transparency of process
Wish we were not here where we are today and that the process could have been different
Policies and decisions are two different processes
Here to see how to do things better next time
Taken aback by how structured this process is
Concerned about transparency from the start, incl “confidentiality”
Feeling restricted.
Where do terms come from?
Trust in administration
24
Affirmative consent about “University Policy”. “Yes Means Yes”
No one is taking ownership
no confirmation that a similar identity center will not be closed in the future in the same way
How detached these conversations feel.
Corporate culture in everything that is being done
TIME: rushed to do things
communication/explanation/rationale not complete
need a “why”
transition caused confusion because partiality of services/gaps: internal/external
Theme 4: Counseling Center Concerns
wait times for services
confidentiality of reporting: mixed messages, differences between confidentiality and
privilege
What does 24/7 mean?
properly trained counselors/well-equipped
reduce number of contacts before talking to an appropriate person
conflicts of interest for center employees
Reputation of the University versus the rights of students. Restructuring may exacerbate
protecting one at the expense of the other.
“medicalization” of process/”legalization”
Are definitions of the Counseling Center impeding access to services?
Where should the Counseling Center be? Comstock, Walnut
Allow for confidentiality, embedded in multi-purpose space
Location of Counseling Center. Near a fraternity can be threatening. Confidentiality of visit.
Re-victimization DPS to counseling. DPS confidential, men, not their job.
25
Lack of diversity in staff at Center
Mental health services overburdened
Space to meet
Unapproachable, unrelatable staff
Quality of care due to closing of center
People in Advocacy Center are different-- people may feel intimidated by new staff
Positivity for survivors at Advocacy Center is gone
Please take the lack of physical space seriously and this being subject to involving trauma
less sense of community at the counselling center that is empowering for survivors
no communal “safe space”
lost symbolism
Theme 5: Access to Information
Confusion about what level of events rise to the level of needing these services. There may be
events that don’t qualify, but are acceptable.
Access to services/information. How many advocacy worker to student ratio?
What does advocacy even mean
Uncertainty on what to do after situation. Go to Hendricks Chapel (privileged). Phone is
impersonal.
How are situations categorized? Prioritization of cases, issues
Educating students about changes to policy. Mandatory? Reporting. Title IV “responsible
employee” meaning.
Information delivered to students when they arrive on campus
Outreach and training
Promoting accountability for victims and due process for accused
prevention education does not equal culture changing education
Messaging about and clarity within the formal systems at DPS and local law enforcement
26
When to report and when not?
Questions regarding when and whom to report?
No stickers in residence halls but we can repair sidewalks
Sticker says you are giving up your rights
Other
glorification and misuse of alcohol
reinforcing a cult of adolescent imprudence
Money to sports, etc.
Accountability to each other to the system
People exploiting the vacuum-- the gaps in the system. Perpetrators feeling like they can get
away with it
underreporting because people don’t have faith in the system
Coordination with criminal justice system? DA, local law enforcement. How does this relate
to DPS
Conversations are still mostly focuses on heterosexual and cisgender students-- so lacking
LGBTQ inclusion in these conversations
A center is not unusual (other colleges)
Loopholes in direction
legal interpretations of Title IX there is a welcoming façade, yet with some legal undertones,
confidentiality and privilege
Demonizing students
Administration putting the brunt of solutions on students (work groups)
Training lacking (TAs, faculty, students)
Embedded training for staff
Clarifying responsibility/responsibly
People are less connected
27
Gaps in Services
Theme 1: Education and Prevention about Sexual Health/Assault/Violence
Education and prevention. Focus on perpetrators, don’t blame victims.
No accessible information. Need more than signs in the bathroom. The “scaling up.”
What does each service provide?
What’s the big picture?
Was information given to students? Orange pamphlet
Signs “ominous voice” (verbal) and visual eyesore
Education on what sexual (assault/violence/harassment) is
No mandatory education about available services (freshman year)
branding/language-- not just for girls
marketing
Bystander intervention training
Ongoing education
Transition aftermath and stigma. No support, education, services for main parties and tertiary
parties.
Afraid to discuss hard topics
getting undergrads
no stickers
prevention is a huge gap
Students still don’t know what services are
more outreach to students
7) Education for incoming students/faculty on issues of sexual violence
12) Taking a more proactive (preventative) approach to sexual violence, eg. In training,
integrated with public safety, creating students as advocates
13) Compulsory training piece early on sexual violence
28
Theme 2: Campus Safety
24 hour security for dorms
safe feeling campus
faster response times
Need late night services (alternatives) supported by students
Buddy system. Ambassadors
bathroom stickers not enough and read like “boomer language for millennials”
Theme 3: Legal Requirements/Staff/Faculty/DPS Training/TITLE IX
New Title IX coordinator. Less focus on legal perspective, more focus on advocacy
faculty and staff training for helping students
victim should be in charge of who they talk with
As faculty, what happens within classroom (escort, etc…)
straight forward what do you do training
faculty/adjunct/staff/GAs/TAs training mandatory
Title IX coordinator has no advocacy training
How do we help? First point of contact (faculty, staff, TAs)
reinforce/train
RAs? (train them so they can pass along)
employees don’t know who to tell or when (Title IX)
not in the contract/part of onboarding, or ongoing training
3) Training on reporting for ALL
4) –“and referrals what to say to victims?
Theme 4: Accountability Process for Students/Judicial Process
campus-wide, structural response to student organizations involved in violence. Serious
concern about accountability and preferential treatment of certain athletics and Greek life
29
lack of transparency in University involvement in individual cases
administrative acknowledgment of high-risk organizations and events
How does judicial affairs fit in? Consequences for perpetrators
No info/response to repeat offenders
Consequences for repeat offenders. Clear and transparent. Aware and follow through.
Theme 5: Services/Survivor Support
DPS availability, lack of service
What legal services are available to students? Information and provision? Neutral legal
services?
no privileged services for advocacy at student assistance
more protection of victims
More safe space for victims. A better network of support for victims.
Wrong place. Should be in phone. Especially for freshmen.
Survivor culture (symbolic absence of Advocacy Center). Ignored. Lost with Advocacy
Center. Women’s Center?
services just a part of advocacy center: cultural center formation: that has not been embraced.
This will not happen the counselling center…need for physical space
Sexual violence from a medical profession model, CARE? (compassion)
passionate advocates needed to drive the center
Splitting the prevention and promotion from clinical response
should be many entry points in the system
the use entry point was shut down may lead to closure of future entry points
if people are meeting at other places, why can’t they meet at a center?
lack of women’s center a physical place for community gathering
1) Formality vs. informality (learning environment lost with adoc. C
2) Lack of community “safe space”
30
5) Lost community engagement advocacy
8) No welcoming (informal)/ drop in space that is less formal/cold/”clinical” which
encourages dialogue/connection between people
“A place to gather not just a place to wait”
9) Privileged/confidential spaces need to evolve to include “a place to gather not just a place
to wait”
10) Leveraging experienced people that used to work at AC
11) Lack of an independent dedicated sexual violence center (Univ. of Boston, Albany)
Other
There should have been a group similar to working group all along and should be ongoing.
presence of the students and Chancellor
Who is the SRVR Team?
Notification of events
in what happened
where are we right now?
communication
Make these notes (here!) PUBLIC put pictures on the website
this group was knitted together
they were passionately wound up
needed: policy, make this #1 priority
expertise/network for people that provide guidance on options on services, that provide local
knowledge
6) Lack of a process (for student input) when changing major services
future precedents?
14) Lack of conflictual advocacy services through Office of Student Assistance
31
Campus and Community Culture
Theme 1: Student-centered, student-driven Advocacy/Programs
clients first, not University. Quick responses. Compassion, not reputation of SU or
legalistic/medical mindset. Don’t disbelieve victims.
Advocacy Center-- symbolic presence-- and LGBT Center sends a message of safety.
Survivor identity. Not a health issue.
empowered bystander
need a communal/institutional sense of importance/commitment
Communication between SU and student body. What are the services? Honest, transparency,
open.
Student ambassadors (within schools)
critical thinking opportunities to be publicized in the D.O. by creating an energized group of
students
Capture undergrads
Student survivors organized as drivers of culture very visible culture
communication strategy
more events/activities (Vday, Take Back the Night, Orange After Dark), students teaching
students, every 5 minutes, let students “do their thing” (not party culture)
9) Sense of responsibility inclusive community communicating/encouraging people to take
part in existing programs (empowered bystanders) etc.
Theme 2: Education
Consent: need input from community to make changes. Models consent in dealing with these
issues.
Increase awareness and education among administration. Real training. Lack thereof.
Administration should participate in these activities
faculty should know who they can call
should have training
Why aren’t there work group, interns, staff to spread awareness of services?
32
Clear education plan for full year, assessment of process and understanding
Education about Code of Student Conduct and consequences
Build knowledge and trust that support survivor and accused
Have people specifically trained in this area reviewing cases
defining/clarifying roles of professors who have counseling training. Including in syllabus
homophobia is a form of sexual violence. Responsibility to report. Clarify with students and
staff.
-informed consent in an sexual interaction: “YES MEANS YES”
$ into prevention, where does the money go since everything is so split
mandatory training for incoming and grad students and in empowered bystander intervention,
and before violation occurs
Administration to model nonpower dominated relationships
Model behavior that indicates affirmative consent for all parties
Framing a positive sexuality framework
Initiatives that indicate “this is a safe space”
Changing laws very quickly need for faster training
How to interpret different point of reference? (what does word “privilege” mean to you?)
destigmatize information related to sexual assault/how to talk about it
somebody needs to talk about it!!!
freshmen forums required integrate Title IX and social students in best manner possible, do in
seat as opposed to online
1) Training! What is sexual assault/consent? no compulsory training on sexual violence
5) No training on this at all for grads
6) RAs helping to curb this culture
7) Orientation program is detached in relation to these issues
8) Don’t neglect returning/senior students
33
10) Mandatory event throughout the year “checkin moments”
12) Popup spaces/events that are “compassionate/personal/community building” on these
issues
13) Training on language about sexual violence (victim vs. survivor), creating a community
that takes this seriously and reacts compassionately avoiding desensitizing language victim
blaming language
Theme 3: Access to information
within student body how is information communicated
Clarity of services and where the space is
Transparency reporting out
Syllabus statement: “title nine-- responsible employees/services available/what has to be
reported by staff privilege v. confidentiality
Non invested researchers (unbiased) to check literature on “what is the model?” that reflects
best thinking at the moment
2) Resources distributed more broadly in physical copy widely!
3) Accessible/infographics (eg. In brail), inclusive
Theme 4: Party culture
lack of awareness of rape culture among administration
privilege of athletes and fraternities. Male athletes and fraternities. Athletics source of
revenue. Address connections between culture and rape culture
alcohol culture- #1 party school
party culture and need for services to combat negative outcomes
Lack of things to do in Syracuse for enjoyment (rather than party)
Discussion about alcohol, Greek life and sexual assault
Friday classes (lack of perpetuates cycle)
4) Drinking culture: relation to sexual violence, more engaging format that compulsory online
videos, breakout groups
34
Theme 5: Counseling center
Sterile atmosphere/office &name
improve experiences within “x” office
11) Not treating victims as “sick” taking a nonclinical approach
Specialist for different areas: Greek life
Should they care rather than fitting hour slot. Know about safety, off campus, etc. Follow up
support at realistic hours.
Be more visible, bridge gap in non “9-5” services. Second shift of people at night.
Active visible presence year round on changing the rape culture on campus and the best way
to do this is with physical space
Location. “Walk of shame.” Near SAE, “sexual assault expected,” fraternity.
Theme 6: Offender Accountability
Focus responsibility on perpetrators, not victims
Treat crimes as such-- How Hannah Strong was punished v. individuals on other teams who
have arrest records/convictions
“Don’t rock the boat” when it come to high-performing athletes
Reevaluating consequences for perpetrators. Why is plagiarism treated more harshly?
provide resources for identifying causes (mandate it) and proactively addressing them
(athletics/greek)
14) Reexamining how we deal with perpetrators educational not just punitive, forwardthinking, not reactional
Theme 7: Safety
have/provide a physical space for women
provide safe places/reduce vulnerability
run the buses after hours transport
DPS transport after hours transport
35
Denied resources and no safe space
Ostrom/park/Marshall unsafe places
Other
rebuilding trust/acknowledging issues and failure at SU around this issue
Institutional priorities/ “cover your ass” culture
sticky… and should be supportive
perceived disconnect between SU (staff). Divisive. Polarization. Us/them
Scholarship similar to Remembrance. Diversity in race, gender, sex orientation.
Rebrand the campus community at large. A place to hang out that doesn’t close at 10.
Reliability
a grievance group/office. Advocates
They should be here at meeting listening. Who are they?
Revisit need for womens center
strategic planning should include sexual relationship violence
Be ready to respond when people start coming forward. Have the infrastructure to
support/staffing
Resources at all different levels
Critical thinking about creating the right culture
Higher energy needed
Don’t make large announcement and change in summer
Timing of decision.
What are peer institutions doing?
How would the “place” look re: staffing
Collaboration between Syracuse community court system and SU Office of RR, as well as
with ESF public safety, OCC, LeMoyne, Nottingham
36
15) Faculty need to take this seriously not just a student affairs issue
Additional Comments on Post-It Notes
The people who should be listening to these concerns are all sitting at a table together instead
of listening to the actual concerns.
Given a primarily female population needing emergency services, guarantee a 24/7 FEMALE
voice answering for the SRUR.
Share with the SU community how “improvement” will be measured. What are the planned
Indicators to measure?
Administration of Sexual Assault services should be separate from Counseling Center.
Counseling Center is poorly run at the moment, as is Health Services. CC Director has lied
directly to student government officers.
37
Appendix D
Summary of Online Petition
On Friday, May 30, 2014 Chancellor Kent Syverud emailed a memo to the Syracuse
University community listing several changes occurring on campus, including the
closure of the Advocacy Center effective Wednesday, June 4. A day later, on Saturday,
May 31, Erin Carhart ’14 started an online petition on change.org entitled Reinstatement
of The Advocacy Center to provide confidential sexual assault support services at
Syracuse University.
The petition has been signed by 8,299 supporters (as of December 17, 2014) and has
generated 76 pages of comments by students, alums, faculty, staff, parents and
community members. Many of them have identified themselves as survivors of sexual
assault or know someone who had been assaulted. The overall sentiment can be best
summed up as: “Closing the Center was the wrong thing, done by the wrong persons, in
the wrong way.” Below are some comments that highlight some common themes:
The Advocacy Center as a safe physical space
One of the main themes was the need for a “safe space.” This was defined as a need
for individual safety on the SU campus while accessing services after a sexual assault;
and also as a broader concern for safety on campus in general. Many commenters
wrote that they felt emotionally and physically safe at the Advocacy Center, and that the
shutting down and removal of this safe space on campus that was solely dedicated to
services, education, and prevention of sexual and relationship violence felt like a
violation in itself. And now that services for victims/survivors, prevention, and education
are housed in different buildings and departments, the campus is actually less safe.
“As a SU Alum and former campus leader around LGBT issues, I’m Disheartened to
see my Alma Mater reduce services that ensure Syracuse University remains a safe
space for diversity, and self-expression. By removing sexual assault services, or
limiting/reducing their availability, effectiveness and public presence as an accessible
institution, a clear message is sent to students that victims will receive less support and
that the institution is less proactive, preventative and sending a clear message about
community ethics. Respectfully, Chancellor Syverud and staff, I’d ask you to remember
that institutions like Sexual Assault Support Services, the LGBT Resource Center, and
the Office of Student Affairs do not just serve minorities or engage a small slice of
unethical behavior. These institutions serve as a visible beacons that foster civility,
awareness, critical thinking and development. For all students, gaining insight into
ethics and community engagements essential for the production not only of smart,
employable citizens but tactful, engaged, flexible citizens working to transform the
world.”
“The Advocacy Center at SU plays an important role in educating students, providing
assistance to students in crisis, and supporting the LGBTQ community, and it is
irresponsible to do away with this tremendous resource. The work of the Advocacy
Center does to create a safe space for students to share, grow, and learn, about
themselves and others, cannot be replicated by counseling appointments, and it is
absolutely reckless to assume otherwise.”
Survivors voices were multiple and forceful
“The Advocacy Center saved my life. It was hard for me to build up the courage to seek
help and resources, and I can’t imagine where I would be if the system had made it
more complicated to access the services I needed.
“I was raped in high school and my rapist followed me to college. The Advocacy Center
was the only thing that kept me sane and feeling safe while on campus. The Advocacy
Center was a safe place to go where I didn’t fear that I would be forced to go to the
police.”
“I was a victim of sexual abuse and assault. The advocacy center is what got me
through it. I wouldn't be where I am today without them. If you take this away from
people it’s like saying that their experiences don’t matter or aren’t important. Come on
SU, you’re better than that.”
“I stayed in Syracuse because of the support given to me by the staff of the Advocacy
Center (R.A.P.E. Center at the time). Some incidents change lives, the Advocacy
Center helped many people continue theirs.”
The need for advocacy
The journey from victim to survivor to advocate was also deemed very important. It was
repeated over and over again that advocacy is crucial in serving victims of sexual
assault and relationship violence.
“Without the Advocacy Center, I would have left Syracuse University after my first year.
Providing a physical space solely for the Advocacy Center and its volunteers is critical
to having an impact on campus and being accessible to all. Providing this space allows
for unique and deep connections between volunteers, staff, survivors, friends, and other
students to have meaningful dialogue and establish powerful connections. Without this
landmark on campus, services will become harder to access, and I am deeply
concerned that victim’s voices will be lost and those looking to make a difference will
have a more difficult time finding opportunities to do so.”
Students far from home/isolation
Several people, especially parents of students, wrote how their children were far from
home when they were assaulted and going to the Advocacy Center was the only place
where they felt safe.
The Counseling Center not being adequate/Medicalization of trauma
Many people wrote about how the Counseling Center was not equipped to provide
advocacy to victims of sexual assault and relationship violence. People also mentioned
that accessing the Counseling Center for mental health needs was difficult earlier
because of its location and its limited resources, and now it was just going to get worse
with services to victims of assault being added to its workload.”
“The Counseling Center does not have the capacity to absorb the Advocacy Center.
The current wait time to speak to someone at the Counseling Center is impractical and
severeley unable to meet student needs.”
“...Counseling is indeed a useful service to many people, but is not direct enough in it’s
approach to helping sexual assault victims recover.”
“Unless the Chancellor is also planning to majorly increase staffing at the counseling
center, the consolidation of services will actively take away from the university’s ability
to provide timely services to sexual assault victims. The Counseling Center is severely
understaffed already -- wait times for appointments are around two weeks (unless you
say you are having thoughts about self-harm or harming others). Two weeks is not
going to cut it for rape victims, and this university should be ashamed of all of the
collateral trauma they will inflict on students if this consolidation goes forward without
better consideration of how to properly deal with victims.”
“This center is a much needed resource for those going through trauma, you would
have to triple the size and scope of the counseling center to come close to meeting the
needs of the community.”
“Minimizing the visibility and transparency of SA services adds another layer of difficulty
for victims and survivors seeking help.”
Differing interpretations of Title IX
Several comments were made about how confusing it was that just when President
Obama’s White House and the federal government has begun focusing on sexual
assault on college campuses, Syracuse University decided to shut down its Advocacy
Center and move backwards.
“I was the former director of the Advocacy Center when it was the RAPE Center. This
office has provided excellent valuable quality services to traumatized students and
survivors for 20+years. This Center has been the gold standard for the country and now
when the nation has finally turned its awareness toward the pervasive issue of campus
sexual assault SU closes it?! The Advocacy Center has conducted evidence based
programming in bystander training, fostered male involvement in prevention of sexaul
violence in addition to crisis support services that have changed lives of those affected
by sexual assault. I’m truly dismayed by this decision and timing. Globally and nationally
we have been witnessing the systematic erosion of women’s safety and women’s rights,
the Advocacy Center is now needed more than ever.”
“With all the incidents of campus sexual assault on the forefront, I find it confusing why
a campus would decided to shut down the services that work FOR the survivor, for
services that just convenient for the college. What message is that sending to your
students and families who are in need of holistic support and advocacy? Seems
creative leadership is needed, not status quo thinking.”
Sarah Lake of Orlando, FL wrote: “This decision will not adequately support victims of
crime or provide them with all their options. The intent of the federal guidance and laws
(Title IX, Clery Act, SaVE Act, VAWA) on these issues is not to limit victim rights and
options.”
SU used to be best practice/gold standard
Several people mentioned how the Syracuse University Advocacy Center (and its
predecessor the R.A.P.E. Center) was the gold standard or role model for how sexual
assault should be handled on college campuses, and how closing it down sent the
wrong message.
“I am a national expert on campus sexual violence, and I know that centers like the
Advocacy Center are one of the most important tools for combating sexual violence on
college campuses. I urge Syracuse U. to reconsider the decision and reinstate The
Advocacy Center.”
The Advocacy Center provided a culture
“This center provides crucial services for vulnerable, targeted and marginalized
communities on our campus. Eliminating the Advocacy Center without campus wide
discussion denies students, faculty, and staff the right to voice their opinions on its
importance and perpetuates a top-down decision making culture.
“This center provided important services to students in our community. It helped with the
stigma around sexual assault and there’s so much work to do.”
Syracuse University’s party culture
“It's important to me because the Advocacy Center creates a comfortable environment
in which students are provided confidential sexual assault support. This is pertinent in
creating a safer environment for Syracuse University. It's crucial that AC be reinstated at
Syracuse, because of it's well known "party life," which has overwhelming amounts of
drugs and alcohol, which are used in a large amount of sexual assault cases. Any form
of sexual harassment should not be taken lightly, and I would hope that Syracuse
University would be a leader in a movement that helps sexual assault victims overcome
the hardship they've gone through. Counseling is indeed a useful service to many
people, but is not direct enough in it's approach to helping sexual assault victims
recover.”
“I feel that this is an important organization on the Syracuse Campus. With Cuse being
a large party school I think it's important institutions like this to be available to students
who will require the service and may not know where else to turn.”
Perpetual Misogyny in Society
“Has this president not read the news lately? We are in a time of such misogyny that a
quarter of college women are being sexually assaulted by their fellow students. This is
the time to boost the funding of the Advocacy Center, not eliminate it altogether.”
“Rape culture & misogyny need to stop. Females have the right to live without being
punished for our gender.”
Impact of Consolidation/Funding
Some people commented on how consolidating the multifaceted role of the Advocacy
Center into different services/offices was not the right way to save money given the high
cost of tuition at Syracuse University. Cutting services for students, especially those
who needed the most help.
“You need to have specialists in this field available at ALL times for these students! Talk
to people who have been through it, do not make your decision based on cash flow.”
“I worked as a volunteer advocate with the Rape center for 10 years before leaving SU.
It was a needed program and I went out on many calls with Syracuse Students who had
been raped and were in emotional, physical and mental crisis. This attempt at saving
money by consolidating services is criminal. Once again women get the shaft.”
SUNY-ESF was also affected
“The Advocacy Center at SU is more than the sum of its parts. You cannot disband the
center, move positions to new places, and expect nothing to change. The physical
space created a safe haven for victims/survivors; the collaboration between the
advocacy work and educational outreach created a family of victims, survivors, allies,
and activists who all worked together to make issues of sexual violence heard on
campus. Without the Advocacy Center, those voices are in danger of being silenced.
Both as a former graduate assistant in that office and as a student affairs
professional "across the road" as SUNY ESF, it is a huge blow to student support to
see this happen.
I hope this fall, should another student come to me to report a sexual assault, I
can still say there's a dedicated office at SU with the expertise and care to help them.”
Appendix E
Summary - Qualtrics Survey
At the end of October, the workgroup launched an anonymous survey to collect campus
community members’ thoughts and feedback on gaps in services and recommendations for
changing culture. The survey was accessible via the University’s Current Students webpage,
shared via email and social media, and included in the announcement the workgroup reserved
in the Daily Orange on October 22. Responses submitted through November 24 were included
in the analysis.
In total, 41 responses were analyzed regarding gaps and 43 responses were analyzed regarding
recommendations. Fifty-nine unique people participated in the survey.
Overarching themes related to gaps included the loss of space and community, the physical
location of the Counseling Center, clear communication about services available and how they
can be accessed, lack of advocacy services, and staffing capacity at the Counseling Center.
Loss of Space and Community
Many respondents shared that in the new structure, there is not an easily identifiable safe place
for advocacy and building community among survivors and supporters. Also a loss of an easily
identifiable office/location where the campus and broader community can access information,
referrals, resources for issues surrounding sexual and relationship violence. Many respondents
expressed that services should be centralized into one location where people can access all
services – education, advocacy, support groups, counseling, and safe space.
Counseling Center Location and Services
Many respondents expressed concern about the physical location of the Counseling Center
being on a street with fraternity houses surrounding it. Some expressed fear of having to walk
down the street to access services. This in turn may prevent some from even accessing the
services. In addition, many respondents commented on the difficulty of accessing services in a
timely manner and their perception that the Counseling Center was overwhelmed and/or
understaffed. Respondents also expressed concern for the nature of services provided,
concerns ranging from the apparent “short-term” nature of counseling and what sort of
advocacy (resources) is provided through the center. A recurring theme was the difference
between advocacy and mental health services, noting that sexual assault is not necessarily a
mental health issue.
Defining Advocacy Services
Many respondents felt that in the new structure advocacy services were not available.
Additionally, there were many who expressed that the connection of advocacy and mental
health services creates a gap between the advocacy the counselors provide and the advocacy
provided through advocacy organizing and thinking.
Clear Communication
Many respondents felt that the new structure and services were not clearly communicated and
therefore some may not be aware of the full spectrum of support services available. A common
comment was how confused respondents were based on the communication already available
about who provides what services, how they can be accessed, and the relationships between
the entities involved.
Overarching themes related to changing campus culture included more education
opportunities, increased communication about sexual assault and relationship violence, central
location for services, and addressing the issues underlying Athletic, Greek, and drinking
cultures.
Building Education
Respondents shared many ideas and recommendations related to educating the campus
community. Some focuses included mandatory education through first-year forums, education
for all faculty and staff, education that includes all genders and sexes/feminism/equity
education (not so heteronormative), and incorporating virtual educational opportunities
(webinars or videos).
Increased Communication
Many respondents thought that increased communication and changing the way we
communicate about sexual assault and relationship violence would be helpful in changing
culture. Some recommendations included sharing rape statistics so people know they are not
alone, targeting communications towards men, promoting healthy relationships, defining the
terms sexual assault and affirmative consent, and setting expectations about being a member
of community.
Central Location for Services
Many respondents expressed that services should be centralized into one location where
people can access all services – education, advocacy, support groups, counseling, and safe
space. [See “Loss of space and community” above].
Addressing Athletic, Greek, and Drinking Cultures
Many respondents thought that the Athletic, Greek, and drinking cultures contributed greatly
to the rape culture. Recommendations included special events just for those communities,
increased oversight, and providing other options on campus for students to engage in besides
partying.
Appendix F
The Legal Landscape Regarding Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking
In 2001, the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued revised sexual harassment guidance related to Title IX of
the Education Amendments of 1972. The guidance outlined several actions that institutions should take
to prevent and address the sexual harassment of students. In April 2011, the OCR issued the Dear
Colleague Letter (DCL), which reaffirmed the guidance of 2001 and placed institutions on notice that
compliance with the 2001 guidance was expected of all institutions. In April 2014, the OCR issued a
“Frequently Asked Questions and Answers” document to clarify the previously issued guidance, while
the White House simultaneously released the First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect
Students from Sexual Assault. In March 2013, the Campus SaVE Act was enacted made updates to the
Clery Act . This report seeks to summarize institutional obligations as outlined by those five documents
and is not meant to document all institutional obligations.
Obligations to Respond
1. Sexual assault, domestic violence, stalking and sexual harassment are considered sex
discrimination.
2. Sexual violence refers to acts perpetrated against another person without that person’s
consent.
3. Institutions must take prompt and effective steps to end sexual violence, eliminate a hostile
environment, prevent its recurrence and remedy its effects.
4. A hostile environment can be caused by one event or several events based on the severity of the
incident.
5. Institutions must implement interim measures to eliminate the hostile environment prior to any
final outcome.
6. Institutions must notify complainants in writing of all available resources.
7. Victims must be notified of the right to file a criminal complaint.
8. Retaliation by or on the behalf of the accused is prohibited.
Confidentiality
1. Confidentiality for reporting students is supported by the OCR.
2. Requests for confidentiality by reporting students will only be overridden to meet Title IX
obligations. In all cases, information should be, at minimum, considered private and shared
with as few people as possible.
3. If a student requests that their name not be revealed or that an investigation not take place,
they must be informed that honoring their request might limit the institution’s ability to
respond.
4. If a student insists that their confidentiality be maintained, the institution will need to
determine if that request can be honored while still providing a safe environment for all
students.
5. If the request for confidentiality cannot be honored, the institution should inform the
complainant that the request cannot be honored before disclosing the complainant’s identity to
the accused individual. Additionally, the institution should inform the accused that the
institution has chosen to move forward and that the complainant is not requesting that the
institution do so.
6. Staff with a professional license that requires confidentiality are not required to report any
information to the Title IX Coordinator. Non-licensed counselors/advocates are not required to
report names or other identifying information, but they must report time, date, location and
nature to the Title IX Coordinator The non-licensed counselor/advocate should consult with the
student to determine what would be identifying information.
Responsible Employees
1. Institutions are required to identify responsible employees who are required to report incidents
of sexual violence to the Title IX Coordinator.
2. Responsible employees are those employees who students would reasonably believe has the
authority to take action to redress sexual violence.
3. Responsible employees must report all relevant details to the Title IX Coordinator including
names, place, time, date, nature and any other details that are known by the responsible
employee.
4. Responsible employees should make it known to disclosing students about their obligation to
report as a responsible employee, provide information regarding confidentiality requests, and
provide information on confidential resources. Depending on their function, student employees
such as resident advisors may also be designated and trained as responsible employees.
5. Responsible employees should participate in annual training regarding their responsibilities.
Interim Measures
1. Interim measures must be offered, even if victim chooses not to file a report.
2. Interim measures must be offered and implemented before any final outcome of an
investigation.
3. Institutions must minimize the burden on the victim while also respecting the rights of the
accused.
4. Interim measures are appropriate even when respecting the confidentiality request of the
victim.
5. Examples of appropriate interim measures include no contact orders, academic schedule
adjustments, housing assignment relocation, increased security or safety planning, and interim
suspension of the accused.
Education and Prevention
1. All students should be trained annually, using a multiple pronged approach on the following
topic areas:
a. Definitions of sexual violence and consent.
b. How complaints are investigated.
c. Availability of confidential resources.
d. Reporting Options
e. Campus policies related to sexual violence.
f. Bystander intervention.
g. The role of alcohol and drugs in incidents of sexual violence.
h. The prohibition of retaliation by or on the behalf of the accused.
2. Institutions should develop and conduct a climate survey to identify any problems or issues.
Procedural Requirements
1. Institutions must have a notice of non-discrimination that includes non-discrimination on the
basis of sex and this statement must be broadly shared.
2. The non-discrimination policy must reference the Title IX Coordinator’s name, contact
information and office location.
3. The non-discrimination policy must reference the Office for Civil Rights.
4. Each institution must have a person designated to coordinate Title IX reports, complaints,
address problems or systemic issues. Anyone can be designated to serve as the Title IX
Coordinator, but conflicts of interest must be avoided.
Complaints and Investigations
1. Students must be informed that retaliation is prohibited.
2. Both students have the right to be assisted by the advisor of their choice throughout the
investigative process. The institution has the right to define the role of the advisor in any
proceedings that take place.
3. Investigations include fact-finding process and any hearing/decision making processes (not
including any appeal). The Office for Civil Rights considers 60 days from the date that the
institution was put on notice of the sexual violence as an appropriate timeline.
4. Investigations must be adequate, reliable, impartial and prompt.
5. Both the victim and the accused should have an opportunity to present witness and other
evidence.
6. Any trained/experienced individual may conduct an investigation.
7. Hearings are not required.
8. Institutions must initiate processes that limit the retelling of the incident. Institutional
investigations should be coordinated with any outside investigations that take place.
9. Temporary delays in institutional investigations are permitted in order to allow time for
investigations by law enforcement authorities to take place. Both parties must be notified of
any delays in the investigation.
10. The preponderance of the evidence standard (more likely than not) must be used.
11. If a hearing takes place and one party is offered the opportunity to be present, both parties
must be offered the opportunity to be present.
12. Cross-examination is not required, but any opportunities to question witnesses that are offered
to one party must be offered to the other party. Direct questioning by either party is
discouraged.
13. Questions about the victim’s past sexual history with anyone other than the accused should not
be permitted.
14. Both parties must be notified in writing of any decision-making outcomes. The notice should
include the following:
a. Was the conduct found to have occurred?
b. Any sanction that was imposed.
c. Any remedies that were offered to the victim. (This should not be provided to the
respondent.)
15. An appeal process is not required, but is suggested. If one party is offered the opportunity to
appeal, the other party must also be offered the opportunity to appeal.
Resources
Title IX Revised Sexual Harassment Guidance: Harassment of Student by School Employees, Other
Students or Third Parties; US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights January 2001
US Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter, April 4, 2011
Dear Colleague Letter: Sexual Violence Background, Summary and Fast Facts, April 2011
Know Your Rights: Title IX Requires Your School to Address Sexual Violence: US Department of
Education, Office for Civil Rights, April 2011
Office for Civil Rights Presentation: Association of Conduct Administrators Conference, February 2013
Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence; US Department of Education, Office for Civil
Rights, April 29, 2014
Title IX Investigations: Advances Issues, Challenges and Opportunities; Virtual Seminar, National
Association of College and University Attorneys, May 22, 2014
Campus SaVE Act, March 2013
New Requirements Imposed by the Violence Against Women Act: American Council on Education, April
2014
Understanding Campus SaVE: Strategies for Partnership and Prevention, Clery Center for Security on
Campus, April 2103
Rape and Sexual Assault: A Renewed Call to Action: The White House Council on Women and Girls,
January 2014
NOT ALONE: The First Report of the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault,
April 2014
Appendix G
A message brought to you by the Chancellor’s Workgroup on Sexual Violence Prevention, Education, and Advocacy
Appendix H