Sexual misconduct cases need watchdog

Duke can do more to show us that sexual misconduct cases get resolved and not swept under the rug.

Last week, Yale University released a report delineating sexual misconduct complaints made between July 2011 and December 2011. The report is a symbol of Yale’s effort to improve its response to matters of sexual misconduct, and is the result of pressure applied by the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. Last Spring the OCR—which seeks to resolve charges of discrimination—found that Yale, along with Duke, Princeton University, Harvard Law School and the University of Virginia, had failed to adequately respond to complaints regarding violations of Title IX. Duke especially faced criticism: OCR cited it twice for inadequate response to sexual harassment and, more seriously, once for alleged retaliation against a complainant who filed with OCR.

The Yale report, which details 62 cases of sexual misconduct over a five-month period, provides a series of telling narratives of sexual misconduct on a college campus. The incident descriptions take a bird’s eye view, and do not provide enough information for the actors to be identified. But even this information is useful: It includes the number of complaints made, how each complaint progressed and whether or not it was resolved. This sort of storytelling is not just useful for people looking to avoid sexual assault—it allows the University community to make sure that sexual misconduct complaints are not dismissed or ignored.

Duke has every reason to publish an identical report. The University—the target of more OCR complaints than Yale—needs to assure the community that it is following through on sexual misconduct complaints. Good faith is not enough. The information could help us design more effective sexual misconduct policies but, more importantly, would gives the University community the power to make sure sexual misconduct cases are not ignored.

Universities are already required to report crime statistics in the annual Clery report. This report lays out information in broad strokes, but does not detail whether and how sexual misconduct cases are resolved. A more specialized statement, one that focuses on the frequency and classification of sexually motivated offenses, would represent a significant improvement.

Duke should also consider consolidating the resources available to victims of sexual violence. Yale has begun this very process, uniting the services provided by campus police, Title IX coordinators, sexual violence counselors and other assistance under a new effort titled the University-Wide Committee on Sexual Misconduct. This committee has united resources under one office, making reporting and counseling easier for students. Duke should follow suit in streamlining the resources available to students, possibly through the Office of Student Conduct.

All this said, the University has made progress on preempting sexual misconduct. Last year, the Women’s Center began the Bystander Intervention Training, or the Prevent Act Challenge Teach program, to educate students about how to act and intervene in cases conducive to sexual misconduct. In addition to these measures, the Office of Student Conduct has revised its handling of sexual misconduct cases by allowing the complainant to appeal the outcomes of hearings.

This is good. But it is not enough—the University needs to open up about sexual misconduct so we can ensure sexual misconduct cases get the attention they deserve.