The sexual assault hearing process at Duke continues to be modernized and improved, attempting to correct procedural irregularities and systemic injustices. The hearing process itself has fallen under scrutiny, yet one of the least transparent parts of this process is the training program for panelists. Questions come to mind. How are panelists qualified to preside over a sexual assault hearing process here at Duke? What sort of training do they go through and what sort of issues are on their mind when they decide? I will use my column this week to discuss a specific way the hearing process can be improved—the university needs to be more transparent about its training for panelists.
We've all been told by now just how common sexual assault on college campuses really is. We've heard that one in four women will be sexually assaulted before they graduate college. We've heard that very few men are rapists, actually only about 8 or 9 percent, but that of those who are, about 70 percent of them are repeat offenders and average 5-6 victims. We've heard that by some accounts less than 5% of rapes are reported that happen on college campuses. Attempts to disprove these statistics have been shown false.
If it wasn't apparent already, this means that if a case is reported, it needs to be taken as seriously as possible. To address these needs, it is imperative that universities have institutions in compliance with Title IX that can produce unbiased results. This is why it's important the process is transparent.
Given the oftentimes ambiguous nature of drunken college sex, the administration has enumerated an extremely clear guideline in understanding whether something is sexual assault. "Conduct will be considered "without consent" if no clear consent, verbal or nonverbal, is given."
Wow. That is surprisingly clear. I'm impressed. But what if there are drugs or alcohol involved? In that case, listed just a couple of sentences later, is the oh-so-concise statement explaining that "The perspective of a reasonable person similarly situated to the complainant and in consideration of the context of the behavior will be the basis for determining whether one should have known about the use of alcohol or drugs on another's ability to give consent."
Wait, what? I reread that. Twice. I'm still a little confused about what the policy is. The administration seems to be saying that in order to determine if consent is given that they have to have the panelists pretend to be a 3rd party to the encounter and look into the environment from the outside assuming they understand the context at the scene. The wording is so vague, even now that I think I might have a general, vague kind-of-maybe idea of what they mean, I can't truthfully say I understand it. I bet it must be hard being a panelist in these hearings.
So I tried to find out more about the panelists. The Chronicle's Editorial Board was on to something responding to the Lewis McLeod case when it asserted that a panel consisting of a faculty member, a staff member and an undergraduate student may be unable to make a neutral decision. With so much systemic inconsistency and the possibility of not following due process, it's imperative we know how the panelists are trained.
I have been unable to find the training manual for sexual assault panelists on the internet. More surprisingly, the Women's Center doesn't have access to these training documents either. How can they advise the small number of victims who go through Duke's system about what to expect from the process? Most surprisingly, the students who go through the hearing process don't have access to the training materials used for the people who are deciding their case.
How is the accuser or the accused supposed to trust that the panelists have received adequate training to adjudicate a case fairly? None of the panelists have a legal degree, practically by definition. Are they given a one-day training session? Are they given a packet and expected to read it? Who on campus is qualified to train the panelists? All important questions that could be the fatal flaw in the system we are developing at Duke.
I don't pretend to have the answers on how to best train panelists to understand the notion of a "preponderance of evidence" and how to distinguish between feeling someone is 49.9 percent guilty or 50.01 percent guilty. But what I do know is that there are people out there who can help. The more transparent the panelist training process is, the more organizations can weigh in on how to ensure that the panel is neutral and effective.
Undeniably, we don't want a "stacked panel" where all the decision-makers are women-studies majors who specialized in gender violence. We also don't want a "poorly-trained" panel where all the decision-makers are inadequately trained to handle a serious, sensitive and difficult subject-matter. Maintaining the status quo is negligent when people's livelihoods are at stake and a simple, common-sense move towards transparency would help make the hearing process more systemically rule-based.
I urge Duke University's administration to make the training process for panelists on sexual assault more transparent. I urge the administration to make this training process accessible to the Women's Center so they can understand what panel members look for during the hearing. I urge the administration to make this training process available to students who undergo the disciplinary proceedings, both accuser and accused, so they have more accurate expectations of what the process will consist of during hearings. I urge the administration to change a broken status quo.
Tyler Fredricks is a Trinity junior. His column runs every other Wednesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.