Campus disciplinary systems are positioned to provide a modicum of justice for victims of sexual violence and deter predatory assaults. Yet, this will occur only if victims find them worthy of use and the broader campus community believes them to be fair to accused and accusing students. This investigation reviews the legal status of various due process and victim protection practices and determines their presence in the student disciplinary policies of four-year residential colleges and universities in Maryland. Findings establish that compliance with the Clery Act is relatively high, while due process and victim protections vary widely. Findings also show that public institutions and those adopting “trial”-like adjudication procedures promise greater due process and victim protections compared to private institutions and those following an inquisitorial model. Policies are recommended to achieve procedural fairness while encouraging victims to report abuse and use campuses systems, along with further avenues for investigation.
AhnKathy. 2010. “The Pendulum Swings Backwards: The Clery Act Must be Amended to Address University Policies the Discourage Rape Reporting.” Women’s Rights Law Reporter31:514–37.
2.
Albany Press Office. 2015. “Governor Cuomo Signs “Enough Is Enough” Legislation to Combat Sexual Assault on College and University Campuses.” Retrieved July 17, 2015 (http://www.governor.ny.gov/news).
3.
AliRusslynn. 2011. Dear Colleague Letter. Washington, DC: Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education.
4.
AmarAngela. 2014. “Administrator’s Perceptions of College Campus Protocols, Response, and Student Prevention Efforts for Sexual Assault.” Violence and Victims29:579–93.
AndersonMichelle. 2004. “The Legacy of the Prompt Complaint Requirement, Corroboration Requirement, and Cautionary Instructions on Campus Sexual Assault.” Boston University Law Review84:945–1022.
7.
BagleyConstance E.NatarajanPriyamvadaVayzmanLienaWexlerLauraMcCarthyShirley. 2012. “Implementing Yale’s Sexual Misconduct Policy: The Process of Institutional Change.” Change44:7–14.
BekiempisVictoria. 2015. “When Campus Rapists Don’t Think They Are Rapists.” Newsweek, January 9. Retrieved August 10, 2015 (newsweek.com).
10.
BrubakerSarah Jane. 2009. “Sexual Assault Prevalence, Reporting and Policies: Comparing College and University Campuses and Military Service Academies.” Security Journal22:56–72.
11.
ButlerV. Oak Creek-Franklin School Dist. 172 F.Supp.2d 1102. (2001).
12.
CASA (Campus Accountability and Safety Act), S 590 114 Cong. (2015).
13.
Campus Clarity. 2014. “Is There a Right to Cross-examine in Campus Sexual Assault Hearings?” January 10. Retrieved January 1, 2016 (https://home.campusclarity.com).
14.
CrombagHans. 2003. “Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial: Do We Have a Choice?” Pp. 21–26 in Adversarial Versus Inquisitorial Justice: Psychological Perspectives in Criminal Justice Systems, edited by van KoopenPeter J.PenrodSteven D.. New York: Plenum.
15.
CarrJoetta L.VanDeusenKaren M.. 2004. “Risk Factors for Male Sexual Aggression on College Campuses.” Journal of Family Violence19:279–89.
16.
ChmielewskiAmy. 2013. “Defending the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard in College Adjudications of Sexual Assault.” Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal2013:143–74.
17.
ChristensenDennis J.1975. “Democracy in the Classroom: Due Process and School Discipline.” Marquette Law Review58:705–40.
Hayes-SmithRebeccaHayes-SmithJustin. 2009. “A Website Content Analysis of Women’s Resources and Sexual Assault Literature on College Campuses.” Critical Criminology17:109–23.
29.
HendrixBarclay S.2013. “Note: A Feather on One Side, A Brick on the Other: Tilting the Scale Against Males Accused of Sexual Assault in Campus Disciplinary Proceedings.” Georgia Law Review47:591–621.
30.
HoganHolly. 2009. “The Real Choice in a Perceived “Catch-22”: Providing Fairness to Both the Accused and Complaining Students in College Sexual Assault Disciplinary Proceedings.” Journal of Law & Education38:277–93.
31.
KarjaneHeather M.FisherBonnie S.CullenFrancis T.. 2002. Campus Sexual Assault: How America’s Institutions of Higher Education Respond. Document No. 196676. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
32.
KilpatrickD. G.ResnickH. S.RuggieroK. J.ConoscentiL. M.McCauleyJ.. 2007. Drug-facilitated, Incapacitated, and Forcible Rape: A National Study. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Justice. doi: 219181.
33.
KonradiAmanda. 1997. “Too Little, Too Late: Prosecutors’ Pre-court Preparation of Rape Survivors.” Law & Social Inquiry22:1101–54.
34.
KonradiAmanda. 2007. Taking the Stand: Rape Survivors and the Prosecution of Rapists. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood Press.
35.
KonradiAmanda. 2010. “Creating Victim-centered Criminal Justice Practices for Rape Prosecution.” Pp. 43–76 in New Approaches to Social Problems Treatment, edited by PeyrotM.BurnsS. L.. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
36.
KonradiAmandaBurgerTina. 2000. “Having the Last Word: An Examination of Rape Survivors’ Participation in Sentencing.” Violence Against Women6:353–97.
37.
KonradiAmandaDeBruinPatty. 2003. “Using a Social Marketing Approach to Advertise Sexual Assault Nurse Examination (SANE) to College Students.” American Journal of College Health52:33–40.
38.
KrivosheyMira S.AdkinsRachelHayesRebeccaNemethJulianna M.KleinElizabeth G.. 2013. “Sexual Assault Reporting Procedures at Ohio Colleges.” Journal of American College Health61:142–47.
LindE. AllanTylerTom R.. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Springer.
41.
LisakDavidMillerPaul M.. 2002. “Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending among Undetected Rapists.” Violence and Victims17:73–84.
42.
LombardiKristen. 2009. Sexual Assault on Campus Shrouded in Secrecy: High Rates of Rape, Closed Hearings, Confusing Laws. Center for Public Integrity. Retrieved August 10, 2015 (http://www.publicintegrity.org/).
43.
MahaffieLynn B.2014. “Dear Colleague Letter: Implementation of Changes to the Clery Act Made by the Violence against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013 (VAWA).” DOE, DCL ID: GEN-14-13.
44.
MannSusan A.HuffmanDouglass J.. 2005. “The Decentering of Second Wave Feminism and the Rise of the Third Wave.” Science and Society69:56–91.
45.
MartinPatricia Y.2005. Rape Work: Victrims, Gender and Emotions in Organization and Community Context. London, UK: Routledge.
46.
McWhorterStephanie K.StanderValerie A.MerrillLex L.ThomsenCynthia J.MilnerJoel S.. 2009. “Reports of Rape Reperpetration by Newly Enlisted Male Navy Personnel.” Violence and Victims24:2004–218.
MossmanEllen L.2012. “Navigating a Legal Dilemma: A Student’s Right to Legal Counsel in Disciplinary Hearings for Criminal Misbehavior.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review160:584–631.
SCA (Safe Campus Act) of 2015, H.R. # pending, 114 Congress (Submitted July 28, 2015).
52.
SanderLibby. 2014. “Federal Negotiators Agree to Allow Lawyers in Campus-Sexual Assault Hearings.” Chronicle of Higher Education. April 2. Retrieved January 1, 2016 (www.chronicle.com).
53.
Slaughter v Brigham Young University, 514 F.2d 622. (10th Cir. 1975).
The Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act (Clery Act)20 U.S.C.§1092(f), 34 C.F.R. 668.46. (1990).
60.
TriplettMatthew R.2012. “Sexual Assault on College Campuses: Seeking the Appropriate Balance between Die Process and Victim Protection.” Duke Law Journal62:487–527.
61.
TylerTom R.BoeckmannRobert J.SmithHeather J.HuoYuen J.. 1997. Social Justice in a Diverse Society. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
62.
VAWA (Violence against Women Reauthorization Act) of 2013, Public Law No 113–4 § 304, 127 Stat. 54. (2013).
63.
WeizelLavinia M.2012. “The Process that Is Due: Preponderance of the Evidence as the Standard of Proof for University Adjudications of Student-on-student Sexual Assault Complaints.” Boston College Law Review53:1613–55.
