New University of Michigan sexual misconduct policy in effect
University of Michigan has adopted a new sexual misconduct policy.
A student studies near the Diag on the University of Michigan's first day of fall 2013 classes Tuesday.
Brianne Bowen | AnnArbor.com
Under the new policy, all allegations of sexual misconduct made against students will be reviewed by the university's Title IX coordinator. The previous policy was complaint-driven, meaning the university did not pursue or investigate a complaint unless asked to by a complainant.
The interim procedure also uses a “more likely than not preponderance of the evidence” standard to evaluate an allegation, where previously the university used a “clear and convincing evidence" standard. That means it's easier to be found responsible for sexual misconduct under the new policy, which university officials say will lead to more accountability.
U-M was prompted to redraft its sexual misconduct policy when the U.S. Department of Education in 2011 urged schools to change how they respond to sexual misconduct allegations among students.
The policy, which applies to all U-M students as well as participants in university-sponsored programs, took effect Aug. 19 as students began returning to campus.
Under the new guidelines, the process to appeal a sexual misconduct ruling has also been expanded. Also, sexual misconduct incidents are now reported to the office for institutional equity, as opposed to the office of student conflict resolution as they were before.
In 2011-12, sexual assault and harassment reports comprised 12.5 percent of the 497 student code violations reported to the University of Michigan office of student conflict resolution. The 62 reported violations involving students included 38 reported sexual assaults and 24 sexual harassment incidents.
Students found in violation of the policy are subject to various disciplinary procedures, including a formal reprimand, workshop attendance, probation, community service and suspension. The violations are separate from criminal charges.
The school's new sexual misconduct policy is similar to the interim policy that was in place for about two years before the most recent change.
Kellie Woodhouse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. Reach her at kelliewoodhouse@annarbor.com or 734-623-4602 and follow her on twitter.
Comments
Wondering
Thu, Sep 5, 2013 : 8:50 p.m.
Because of my personal and professional work and experiences, issues of institutional transparency and of protecting the rights of individuals within those institutions--particularly in those cases when an individual's rights conflict with an institution's self-interests--seem very important. So, perhaps a couple of important questions to think about......... It is my understanding that student records are protected from FOIA requests. Thus, it may be important to ask whether reporting "sexual misconduct" to the Office of Institutional Equity could have the effect of keeping all mention of an incident out of the public record. Depending on one's perspective, that could be a good or a bad thing. And, an important follow-up question--who will decide when and whether it is appropriate to involve law enforcement, particularly in the case of an alleged perpetrator being a high-profile individual? Thus, it seems perhaps important to inquire into whether the new policy will have the effect of increasing or decreasing transparency....and who would be more likely to be protected by more or less transparency.
djm12652
Thu, Sep 5, 2013 : 8 p.m.
so what definition of 'sexual misconduct' is different from sexual harassment and sexual assault...this makes no sense to me...why not just report to the campus police?
tmc
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 10:29 p.m.
To Jake C's comment above. Why do you ony refer to "she" in your comment. It should be gender neutral.
John Hritz
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 7:53 p.m.
What's not clear is the interplay between criminal charges and university policy. The policy simply states that you should contact University Police. It seems to create, based on the burden of proof, a civil infraction level of remedy. That's not a bad thing necessarily, but the relationship between police and university action seems blurry. Are these intended as independent processes?
Angry Moderate
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 8:46 p.m.
Yes, they are independent. U of M can label someone as a rapist for life even if the police find that there is no merit to the case after conducting an investigation.
Wondering
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 7:22 p.m.
That we have a problem with bullying and abusive behavior in many institutional contexts in our society is obvious, including documented sexual abuse in our churches and documented sexual and other kinds of abusive bullying in our educational institutions--contexts where an expectation of safety magnifies the trauma of the abuse. What is not so obvious is whether our community will choose to discuss these issues thoughtfully--so that our institutions can send a very clear no tolerance message regarding such behavior. Working closely with victims of abusive bullying behavior of various kinds, I have seen the devastating life-changing consequences that such abusive behavior can have. And how those consequences often echo through multiple generations. Thanks again, Kellie, for providing the opportunity for all of us to be at least a little bit thoughtful regarding such an important issue for our community.
UloveM
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 3:29 p.m.
The new policy creates more grey area for UM-IOE to play around.
Jake C
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 2:22 p.m.
"Unfortunately, I think that this will lead to more abuse of the system " That's quite possible. But it's also true that the vast majority of sexual assault & harassment cases go unreported because the victims feel there's too many "hurdles" to jump to report the crimes. Not to mention all the attention that gets focused on the VICTIM and not the accused. "What was she wearing? Why was she out by herself at 10 PM? Why wasn't he carrying a gun? Why didn't she report the crime immediately instead of 6 hours later? How much was she drinking?" Etc, etc. It is true that merely accusing someone of sexual misconduct has a stigma attached. But so does almost any other crime. We can't do a whole lot about that. But I believe it's better to have a more transparent system that makes it easier for victims to come forward, compared to a system that requires you to have piles of physical evidence before even considering accusing someone of a rape or sexual harassment.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 8:44 p.m.
How exactly does lowering the standard of proof that is used only AFTER a complaint is filed make it easier to file a complaint in the first place?
Wondering
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 1:57 p.m.
And thanks, Kellie, for the article. The more these issues and ways to justly address them are discussed in the community the better for establishing a No Tolerance culture in our community for abusive behavior of all kinds.
Angry Moderate
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 8:42 p.m.
Except the U of M has a very high tolerance for false rape accusers. In fact, it usually doesn't punish them at all.
Nick Roumel
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 12:56 p.m.
Kellie, thank you for the article. Can you include a link to the new policy? I think this is it: http://studentsexualmisconductpolicy.umich.edu/
UloveM
Thu, Sep 5, 2013 : 3:02 a.m.
Trespass, these attorneys make money, but the victims are suffering more and more. My advice to all UM students and staffs is never making a complaint about sexal huarassment against you professor or your boss at UM. If you can not stand by being touched or.... , moving out of Ann Arbor.
UloveM
Thu, Sep 5, 2013 : 2:39 a.m.
Trespass, these attorneys make money, but the victims are suffering more and more. My advice to all UM students and staffs is never making a complaint about sexal huarssment against you professor or your boss at UM.
trespass
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 1:31 p.m.
For an attorney who makes his living suing UM, this should be a goldmine for you.
trespass
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 11:52 a.m.
Google Washtenaw Watchdogs for further discussion
Pizzicato
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 11:36 a.m.
"The interim procedure also uses a "more likely than not preponderance of the evidence" standard to evaluate an allegation, where previously the university used a "clear and convincing evidence" standard. That means it's easier to be found responsible for sexual misconduct under the new policy, which university officials say will lead to more accountability." Unfortunately, I think that this will lead to more abuse of the system and a decrease in procedural transparency. Sexual misconduct is a very serious issue for all parties involved - incidents have the potential to destroy lives. Not only should we be as exhaustive as possible in investigating all claims, but our remedies should be as measured and well-considered as is humanly possible.
Billy
Wed, Sep 4, 2013 : 12:37 p.m.
The whole thing is a sticky situation. It's not unlike the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The simple act of ACCUSING another of rape or sexual misconduct STIGMATIZES the accused no matter what, regardless of their guilt in the matter. If we could find a way to get around this caveat the system would be a lot more effective and just. No...I have no suggestions.