Advocates from Virginia gave a legislative panel in Vermont mixed reviews of a law passed in that state requiring colleges to disclose on transcripts when students are disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Jonathan Iglesias, the public policy director for the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, said the group had concerns the practice did little to deter misbehavior and in some cases discouraged students from coming forward.
“Lots of things that we typically hear … is ‘I don’t want to ruin his life,’” Iglesias said.
Iglesias acknowledged the Alliance had not collected systematic data about the law’s consequences. But he was emphatic that on-campus advocates believe the law had in certain cases dissuaded survivors from going forward with their complaints.
Lawmakers created the task force to explore the topic of campus sexual assault last session after a University of Vermont student led a campaign to get a transcript notation law on the books in Vermont. The UVM student, Sydney Ovitt, a survivor of sexual assault, sits on the panel. She urged members on Wednesday not to dismiss the idea of a transcription notation law outright, but to consider using feedback from other states to create a better version of the mandate. The panel is set to next hear from officials in New York, which has also passed a similar law.
Transcript notation laws are a fraught subject being debated in state legislatures across the country. Many, including several professional organizations representing higher education administrators, support the measures on the grounds that they keep repeat offenders from quietly transferring to other schools when they come under investigation. But civil rights advocates – and even some sexual-violence advocates – say transcript notations can be overly punitive and discourage reporting.
The task force’s work comes as the regulatory framework surrounding campus sexual assault at the federal level is undergoing significant change.
U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has proposed sweeping new rules under Title IX, the 1972 law prohibiting gender-based discrimination in educational programs that receive federal funding. The department had earlier rescinded Obama-era Title IX guidance, arguing it was unfair to the accused.
The new rules would restrict the definition of sexual harassment, attempt to place the rights of the accused on par with their accuser, and do away with the so-called “single-investigator model,” where the same person is the Title IX coordinator, investigator, and decision-maker on cases.
“There’s really a theme of the Department of Education narrowing the scope of what they say you must do,” Jeffrey Nolan, a higher education consultant and attorney with Holland & Knight, told the panel.
The proposed rules have been polarizing. The federal government is still at work reviewing the more than 100,000 comments it received in the wake of their release.
Some say the new regulations would bring more clarity and fairness to the process. But campus officials and advocates alike worry the new rules could dissuade survivors from reporting and turn disciplinary proceedings into a quasi-judicial process. They object, in particular, to the department’s proposal to require schools to hold live hearings where complainants can be cross-examined.
With such high-stakes regulations still in limbo, Nolan said state lawmakers may be wise to take a “wait and see” approach before creating new mandates.
“So far I have not heard schools express any desire to narrow what they’re doing just because the Department of Ed says they don’t have to do the broader stuff,” he said.
The task force is required to submit its recommendations on campus sexual assault policy changes to the Legislature by mid-March.