Stanford pointed to its use of independent outside arbitrators to conduct Title IX hearings after an anonymous former student wrote in a Daily op-ed Thursday that the University mishandled her report of being raped by a fellow student.
“The process is designed to be careful and thorough, and many parts of it are dictated by federal law, but it can take too long,” a Stanford spokesperson wrote to The Daily on Thursday evening. “We are committed to finding opportunities to improve the process, from intake to hearing to outcome.”
The University had declined to comment on the op-ed prior to its publication.
The Daily previously reported on the anonymous author’s experience, documenting that it took two years for Stanford to find the respondent responsible of non-consensual oral sex, digital penetration and unprotected vaginal penetration, and to take disciplinary action against him.
“The process swallowed half of my time at Stanford,” the author wrote in her op-ed.
Rather than facing expulsion, the respondent then received a two-year suspension which made him ineligible to return to campus until this quarter.
After acknowledging the “severe impact of sexual assault,” the University’s statement to The Daily cited one of its policies that describes rape as a “particularly egregious” offense that would “likely warrant separation/termination or expulsion.”
Another University webpage outlines “expulsion” as the “expected sanction for incidents of sexual or relationship violence,” calling this a “key feature” of Stanford’s Title IX process when the accused is a student.
The statement noted, however, that Stanford adopted the use of independent professional adjudicators in 2020 “after hearing extensive input from the community,” adding that “the university is bound by the decision of the independent arbitrator,” who applies its policies to the “facts found in a particular case.”
Those arbitrators are responsible for conducting Title IX hearings, imposing sanctions and hearing appeals from the complainant or the respondent.
Despite this, a member of the SHARE Title IX office previously emailed the author of the op-ed a 57-page “Title IX Procedures document” that described a more significant role for University officials.
Replying to the author’s request for clarification about a particular step of the process, the office member referred to those procedures as the “best document I can point you to for reference.” The PDF which the author received also noted that the procedures were last updated on Feb. 1, 2023 after becoming effective on Aug. 14, 2020.
Under a section titled “Sanctioning Guidelines,” the document states that “The Title IX Coordinator is responsible for effective implementation of any Remedies,” and that “Remedies may be modified by the Title IX Coordinator as circumstances change over the course of a Complainant’s or Respondent’s student or work career at Stanford.”
In the same section, the document states that “The Hearing Officer may consult with the Title IX Coordinator or other appropriate University office in crafting Remedies.”
The Daily has made that PDF publicly available here.
Outside of the University’s process, the op-ed expressed frustration with delays and poor communication by the Stanford Department of Public Safety (SUDPS) and the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office, who investigated the author’s report and filed charges against the alleged perpetrator, respectively.
The Daily reviewed contemporaneous emails and texts to corroborate the author’s account.
Before the op-ed was published, the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office commented that the office has filed a criminal case and is preparing for trial. The office added that it is “working to ensure there is clearer and better communication with the victim” and that it hopes to “reassure this resilient survivor that we are working hard to find justice and accountability.”