The Office of Student Ethics has come under scrutiny from legal professionals and students who mistrust its services.
Criminal defense lawyer Katharine Liell said IU’s overreach on making decisions for sexual misconduct is harmful to both students and the legal system.
From having vague definitions of consent to not giving the accused due process, Liell said the system has several problems contradicting with state law.
“I feel as though there are going to be lawsuits coming around against IU, like there already are for many universities,” Liell said. “The system to process sexual misconduct is too biased, and it doesn’t complement legal procedures.”
What IU did wrong, Liell said, was taking the 2011 “Dear Colleague” letter written by the Department of Education as a legal mandate. The letter called for stricter policies to prevent and process sexual misconduct cases at universities.
“The decisions IU makes don’t mean anything beyond the University,” Liell said. “We’ve spent hundreds of years developing a fair judicial system, and what IU is doing violates due process beyond the school.”
The Office of Student Ethics, the administrative office responsible for hearing sexual misconduct cases, can find students responsible for sexual misconduct.
The office issues no contact orders, suspensions and mandatory sessions on drugs and alcohol, said Emily Springston, chief student welfare and Title IX officer.
The state, however, processes cases on a criminal level. It issues incarcerations and fines to the defendant if he or she is found guilty, depending on the severity of the case, Liell said.
“If someone has a criminal complaint related to sexual misconduct, I hope that they would bring their case to the University as well as to the state law,” Springston said. “We can monitor and keep track of what could be a larger threat to the University if we are part of the process.”
IU’s administrative offices and the state law might handle sexual misconduct cases differently, but both systems exist to serve their own purposes, Springston said. She said there are several differences between what the University does and what the state can do.
“When the University receives information, there is a coordinated outreach from an investigator in the Office of Student Ethics, as well as from a student advocate who can guide the complainant through the process,” Springston said. “The entire process is explained to them, and they are made aware of the disciplinary process.”
The investigator can meet with the complainant several times to gather all pertinent details of the case. After sufficient information is gathered, Springston said, the accused party is notified of an allegation and meets with the investigator to provide the other side of the story.
A hearing panel reviews evidence, asks questions and privately deliberates to make a decision. If found responsible, a sanction is applied to the accused, who has the ability to appeal.
“Both sides are able to provide all of the information they know, look at their case file and stay informed on what the other party has put forth,” Springston said. “The hearing is set after the respondent is notified of the charges filed against them.”
Decisions are made based on the preponderance of evidence, which determines which side has a greater portion of evidence.
This difference can be as little as 1 percent, which contrasts with the state’s policy of finding an individual guilty.
In order to find a party guilty of sexual assault or rape, the evidence in a legal case on the state level must affirm the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.
The law says rape or sexual assault can be committed through force or while the individual is incapacitated due to mental disability or unconsciousness, Liell said.
Liell, who said she has represented about 15 students accused of sexual assault, said the University’s definition of consent holds no legal weight.
She said students seek legal help and are often disappointed after their cases are dismissed.
Liell said simply having sex while intoxicated is not enough to have a successful case in front of the law.
Giving consent while drunk, Liell said, does not necessarily count as unconsciousness.
“IU’s definition of consent doesn’t define it clearly,” Liell said. “They say you cannot consent if you are impaired, but what does that mean? It, along with what the Office of Student Ethics does to make their decisions, is a subjective judgment.”
