Scratching the Surface

 

Written by Giselle Barkley, Hanaa’ Tameez and Rebecca Anzel

An investigation into Stony Brook University’s compliance with Title IX, a federal clause prohibiting gender-based discrimination at federally-funded institutions, was opened by the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights on Tuesday, July 23, 2014.

According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s website, this type of investigation begins when the state’s OCR enforcement office receives a complaint about an institution where an act of discrimination allegedly occurred. If, after an investigation, the OCR determines a violation of Title IX was made, it will first try to work with the institution to “obtain voluntary compliance and negotiate remedies.”

In more extreme cases where compliance and remedies cannot be reached, the OCR can “initiate enforcement action” and take steps to terminate the institution’s federal funding.

“Enforcement usually consists of referring a case to the Department of Justice for court action, or initiating proceedings, before an administrative law judge, to terminate Federal funding to the recipient’s program or activity in which the prohibited discrimination occurred,” according to OCR’s website. “Terminations are made only after the recipient has had an opportunity for a hearing before an administrative law judge, and after all other appeals have been exhausted.”

Investigations like this one are not unheard of, in part because one clearly-defined process specifically for conducting cases of sexual discrimination does not exist. This lack of procedure causes a myriad of other problems, including the failure to train university faculty and staff properly about the requirements of Title IX; a mishandling of internal cases of alleged sexual discrimination; and often, an inability to hold accountable those guilty of sexual discrimination.

As specified by the Title IX clause, the way in which a federally-funded educational institution complies with Title IX is specified by at least one individual appointed by that institution to do so. In Sec .__.140, the clause goes on to explain how information concerning an institution’s compliance is disseminated:

In essence, a school’s Title IX coordinator is ultimately tasked with deciding what Title IX-related information to share and how to share it with the campus community. At the very least, the Title IX coordinator needs to clearly communicate that the institution does not discriminate in any way based on sex.

The Title IX coordinator at Stony Brook is Marjolie Leonard, who is officially known as the University’s Director of Title IX and Risk Management. She also heads the Office of Discrimination and Affirmative Action. Leonard was appointed by Stony Brook on Sept. 9, 2014 after serving as the interim director earlier during the summer. Raúl M. Sánchez previously held the position for 11 months.

One of Leonard’s duties as SBU’s Title IX coordinator is ensuring cases of sex discrimination are handled in a timely fashion as per the law.

“Anyone who is harassing [a] student, which would include rape, by another student or faculty member, any faculty member who is harassing or assaulting a student anyone who is discriminating, this is all a violation of Title IX and the school needs to respond promptly,” Bernice Sandler, a senior scholar at the Women’s Research and Education Institute, said. Sandler is often referred to as the “Godmother of Title IX” due to her suggestion that institutions have a Title IX coordinator. This regulation was passed in 1975 at Sandler’s urging.

This is not the case at Stony Brook.

A student who files a complaint on the basis that he or she was sexually assaulted may not have his or her hearing until six months following his or her complaint or incidence. Though it is unclear whether this is a result of apathy or a lack of staffing within the Title IX department, Sandler said it could be “a little bit of both.”

At Stony Brook, the options for reporting an instance of sexual discrimination can be overwhelming.  The information, presented in an interactive chart by the University, seems to hold that any incident will always be between students. It does not mention any changes in the process if one of the involved parties is, for example, a staff or faculty member.

Those making a complaint have 30 days to do so, according to the chart, and can choose to go to the University Police Department, Office of Community Standards or the Title IX director. From there, a University employee from the Division of Student Affairs office conducts an investigation into “whether further action is necessary.” This includes getting accounts of the situation from the alleged victim and assailant as well as any witnesses.

There are two possible outcomes at this point. In some cases, a written notice will be sent to the accused student notifying him or her of the specific charges and a hearing will be scheduled no sooner than ten days after that notice is sent. It is unclear if the written notice is sent out by post or by email.

The accused can “take responsibility” and waive the right to a hearing and accept the sanctions, according to the chart. If the student chooses to contest the allegations, he or she can appeal to start a hearing process. The type of hearing varies based on the severity of the accusation.

The second route is to hold a  Disciplinary Counseling meeting, which will be scheduled between the student involved and a university official. It is unclear if the student called into the counseling meeting is the accuser or the accusee.

Overall, these problems are not unique to Stony Brook. There are often no defined processes because the Title IX legislation does not outline one.

However, on a national level, it is difficult for the House of Representatives to pass specific legislation detailing a procedure for every educational institution the federal government funds. The problem of discrimination based on sex on campuses does not have a one-size-fits-all solution. It would make more sense for the law to say a federally-funded academic institution needs to implement its own specific, clearly-defined process.