In April, the Department of Education issued a call to action to colleges and universities, laying down new clarifications for the reporting of sexual violence. Known as the “Dear Colleague” letter, it lays out a clear three-part protocol for handling on-campus sexual violence that sets stricter training requirements for case handlers and reduces the standard of evidence necessary for a guilty ruling.
Despite efforts by the honor system and select administrators, UNC has failed to meet these standards on time and is currently non-compliant. The current University policies hurt those in our community caught in the trauma of sexual assault cases, put UNC at risk of federal sanctions and come as an embarrassment to a chancellor who has claimed a safe campus environment is a prerequisite to learning. It’s time Chancellor Holden Thorp picks up the phone and sees that changes are made swiftly.
While the new policies were implemented in short order eight miles away, at Duke University, and at a peer institution in the University of Virginia, UNC has found itself behind due to delays and a lack of prioritization.
That’s no excuse for UNC’s inaction during the past seven months. Today, those handling cases still lack proper training; cases still stretch far beyond the 60 day federal limit — and accusers are still deprived of an appeal process.
All parties involved in cases of sexual violence deserve a visible, comprehensible, accessible and compliant policy for “prompt and equitable resolution” of sexual violence complaints. Such standards provide understanding during this process and are critical to a fair judicial system.
Rather than setting a clear standard, the honor system, the Committee on Student Conduct and the Office of the Dean of Students have been forced to break their own rules to adapt to the new federal requirements, the most challenging of which is the conversion to a preponderance of evidence standard.
For a conviction, this standard only requires that it be more likely than not that an act of sexual violence occurred. Cases previously had to be proved with clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
While necessary, such an informal departure from written rules is no replacement for a formal and standard policy. Red tape and poor prioritization should not be barriers to a fair, just and legal student judicial system at UNC.
Beyond the regulatory challenges, these honor court cases face conflicts of interests, FERPA regulations, and complexities that make prosecuting them extremely difficult on the student judiciary.
