The University has revised its sexual-misconduct policy and adopted changes to “simplify and expedite” student disciplinary procedures, several months after federal officials notified schools across the country of their obligations under Title IX relating to sexual harassment and sexual violence against students.
An April 4 letter from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) that offered 19 pages of guidance to colleges and universities, along with the OCR’s investigation into Yale’s response to a fraternity incident, “added new urgency to reforms that were already being discussed on our campus,” Provost Christopher Eisgruber ’83 said.
Eisgruber said that changes approved in September by the faculty and by the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC) would “help us to demonstrate compliance with Title IX,” a 1972 federal civil-rights law that prohibits discrimination on campus on the basis of gender.
The University has established separate student disciplinary procedures and Title IX grievance procedures. Disciplinary proceedings — investigations of alleged student violations of University rules — require evidence that provides “a clear and persuasive case.” Title IX grievances — complaints against the University alleging that Princeton has failed to meet its obligations under federal law — require a lesser standard, a preponderance of the evidence.
Wendy Murphy, an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law who has been involved in Title IX complaints against Princeton and other schools, took issue with the University’s approach. “Preponderance of evidence is a nonnegotiable standard of proof for all harassment based on sex — including sexual assault — irrespective of whether the harm is framed as a ‘disciplinary’ matter or a ‘Title IX’ matter,” Murphy said.
Eisgruber described the University’s procedures as “fully compliant with Title IX,” saying that the OCR letter notes that colleges and universities “have options about how to address Title IX grievances related to sexual misconduct.”
Murphy also said that while the University seeks to resolve Title IX grievances within 45 days, the lack of a deadline for appeals is problematic.
The Latest
See all
Related News
Remembering Landon Y. Jones ’66, Editor, Author, and Inveterate ‘Ripper’
Friends paid tribute Nov. 15 at a memorial service in the Princeton University Chapel
Princeton to Cut Way Down on Alums’ Free Google Email Storage
A squeeze from Google is prompting Princeton to slice the generous free email storage it offered alumni in the past
Meet Kathy Crow ’89: Philanthropist and Lightning Rod
The former lacrosse standout’s friendship with Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas stirred a national controversy
1 Response
George Scott Stewart III ’51
8 Years AgoProving a sexual-assault case
I was happy to read in the Nov. 16 issue (Campus Notebook) that despite the statement of a law-school professor that “preponderance of the evidence is a nonnegotiable standard of proof for all harassment based on sex — including sexual assault,” the University has adopted rules requiring “a clear and persuasive case.”
When I was a young lawyer serving for a short time as a Voluntary Defender of destitute people who had been accused of committing crimes, it was the settled law that sexual assault was a crime and that the degree of proof be “beyond a reasonable doubt.” It is beyond the scope of this letter to discuss what the University should do in such cases, especially in view of the recent events at Penn State, and what right the federal government has to dictate how a university should conduct its disciplinary proceedings, but I am glad that Princeton is at least to some degree standing up for basic rights.
I should add that my wife (magna cum laude, Bryn Mawr) agrees with this letter.