A fuller picture is emerging of the University’s efforts to fix what some call a “broken” process for handling accusations of rape among students.
An account released Thursday of a December meeting of the Board on Judicial Affairs hints at a growing consensus among those involved in Stanford’s judicial system that the process “does not benefit the victim, nor help the accused to clear his name, nor does it protect the Stanford community from predators.”
That portrayal of the sexual assault adjudication process comes from the minutes of the board’s December meeting, only the second set to be made public after the board began releasing minutes in November.
The board is now months into consideration of a plan they call an “alternative resolution process,” which may fundamentally change the way sexual assault complaints are handled at Stanford.
As it stands, students who claim they are the victims of campus sexual assault may file a complaint via the Office of Judicial Affairs. The alleged offender — or “responding” party, in judicial terminology — then faces a Fundamental Standard violation, which carries a variety of possible consequences, including expulsion.
But the number of sexual assault cases reported to police here each year exceeds — some at the meeting said far exceeds — the number of alleged victims who go on to pursue a Judicial Affairs case.
That is at least partly why, last spring, the campus Sexual Violence Advisory Board (SVAB) and several individuals began anew an effort to review the judicial process for sexual assault cases.
On Dec. 1, Laurette Beeson of the SVAB and Michele Dauber, a law professor, spoke to the Board of Judicial Affairs about what they see as a need for reform.
Dauber described her experience mentoring female students — undergraduates, graduates and law students — who came to her alleging they had been sexually assaulted.
“In every case that I have been involved in, once the alleged victim learned about the Judicial Affairs process, she was extremely fearful and anxious,” Dauber said in a copy of her Dec. 1 comments provided to The Daily. “Those who pressed ahead were incredulous that this was our process.”
The major issue with the current system raised by Dauber is that alleged victims must appear and participate in a panel hearing with the alleged offender also present — a practice Dauber called “inhumane.”
But as to what exactly the alternative process would look like, those involved remain tight-lipped. Board co-chair Ben Davidson, a law student, did say that a change in “sanctions,” or punishments, for offenders would not be part of the alternative process.
The board discussed the proposal again at its meeting this week, and will again on Feb. 16, Davidson said. It could send a recommendation to President Hennessy’s desk by the end of the quarter; Hennessy’s approval would allow for a one-year pilot program for the alternative process.
A permanent change could require an amendment to the Student Judicial Charter of 1997, which calls for approval by the ASSU Undergraduate Senate, the Graduate Student Council, the Faculty Senate and the University president.