Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Laura Dunn Campus Rape Office of Civil Rights Finding

    Uploaded by

    Derek Rose
    1K views18 pages
    The investigation by the Office of Civil Rights into the alleged rape by activist Laura Dunn.

    Original Title

    Laura Dunn campus rape Office of Civil Rights finding

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The investigation by the Office of Civil Rights into the alleged rape by activist Laura Dunn.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1K views18 pages

    Laura Dunn Campus Rape Office of Civil Rights Finding

    Uploaded by

    Derek Rose
    The investigation by the Office of Civil Rights into the alleged rape by activist Laura Dunn.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 18
    From: 606 6806217 Page 628 ate: 9020007.5445 PM UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION ‘OFFICE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS, MIDWESTERN DIVISION, CHICAGO OFFICE ‘CITIGROUP CENTER 100 WEST MADISON STREET, SUITE 1475, ‘CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 666! mo 6 ein Ns. Laura Dunn — a Re: 05-07-2074 Dear Ms. Dunn: The US. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights (OCR), has completed its investigation with respect to the above-referenced complaint fled against the University of ‘Wisconsin-Madison (Universiy). You alleged thatthe University dierimineted aginst you ‘on the basis of sex when it subjected you to sexual harassment from April 2004 until June 2006. Additionally, you alleged that, since July 2008, the University failed to promptly and _anpropeately respond to your reports of sexual harassment. ‘OCR enforess Title IX ofthe Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IQ), 20 U.S.C. {§ 1681, an its implementing regultion at 34 C.F.R. Part 106. Title IX prohibit ‘Avjgast 2008 that wes postponed at Detective G's request, 10 3 also told OCR that she met ‘pith Student Btn January 2006, before she was appointed 10, but she didnot conduct a fal interview. ‘On Janvary 19, 2006, 103 sot an ema to Stadent A requesting an interview wit be. ‘However no interview took place because Student A's attomey objected. On February 1 2006, Student A's legal counsel wrote to TO 3 and the Assistant Dea, indicating tht ‘Student A had provided sufficient information to ODOS, he dé not believe further Jnurviews were neded, but if necesary he would attend, He proposed tht eny necessary {esionsshoold be forwarded in writing. Afr talking with IO 3, the Assistant Dean set an Zinio Student A indicating that Student A's written statement and information from 10.2 should be sufficient. Apri 6, 2006 email, Stadent A told the Assistant Deao that since the University {nvesigaton as po longer in progres she thought it would now be appoprite to send her Simtenent tothe Athlete Department, The Assistant Dean replied to Student Avia email the Same dry, advising her tht ehe bad discussed te issue with her supervisor, the Associate ‘Dean, and he felt Student A could send the statment to the Athletic Department if she ‘wished. On April 62006, Student A forwarded her statement tothe Interim Associate Director Director) ofthe Athletic Department. On Apri 17,2006, the Director sent Student [A im ail telling her he hed been out of the office but acknowledging receipt of her statement. 10 3 told OCR that she didnot interview other individuals during her investigation. Nor tho review the UW-PD fle that contained witness statements. 103 expined tat there ‘rere only Uee people who actually knew what happened between Students A and B a he partment on April 4, 2004, i, Students A,B, and C. 103 didnot interview Student C ‘omuse he wat no longer atthe University and therefore had no obligation to talk with es, Heed out ofthe Madison are, and, as an alleged accomplice to the alleged sexual asses, Was urlkely to support Stodent A's aocount. Additionally, 1O 3 pointed oat thet here was po phyoical evidence that an assault occured, and leohol was involved, which clouded the Dereoptons of Students A snd Bas to what happened onthe night ofthe allege sexs assault, From: 604 6006217 Page 1908 Date 80200075840 PH Paget 105 stated that she considered the evidence fora Jong time befor she artived ata decision in the cate. After reviewing all ofthe evidence, 10 3 talked with the Associste Dean who [agcod that there wes insufficient evidence to support a finding that Student B sexually {ssnulted Studcat A. On April 19, 2006, eye Assistant Dean advised Stadent A of 10 3's ‘ecision. On Apri 20, 2006, 103 sent letter to Student B, advising him thatthe {vestigation A not substantiate the aeault charges, but warning Stodent B of the danges of excessive drinking, ‘on April 25, 2006, 10 3 and the Assistnt Dean met with Student A at her request to discs 10 3's decison on hee complaint, 105 told Student A that she was not pursing the mater ‘because there were no eyewitnesses other than Students A, B, and C concering the events thot happened at Student B's residence. Additionally, Students A and B were not clear on. ‘tint bappened at Student B's residence and tha alcohol played e pati their ack of clvity. ‘Sudent A told OCR that she informed 10 3 and the Assistant Dean, fr the first time hat ‘Stodent B's roommate, who had been sleping in another room ofthe apartment, right have elevant information. In writen remaks 10 10 3, Student A stated tht Student B's roommate “Nyole up from ell he activity, do aot know what he would know, but Know he maybe a witness” ODOS did not interview Student B's roommate, ‘Shurtly afer the ODOS decision, the Associate Dean met with Stadent A and her mother. ‘Stodent A give the Associate Dean 2 2005 psychologist report stating that she may have been the viet of sexual abuse. At Student A’sregues, the Associate Dem reviewod all of the ‘materials nthe fil, He found insufficient evidence to support Student A’s ellegntion and so savised bee. ‘On May 5,2006, the Athletic Depart sent a letter to Stent A, scknowleding hor Staverent and noting that Stodent A bad filed complaints with ODOS and the University police The ltier also stated that Department was doing everything posible to ensure that their stadentathlctes are engaging in lawful, safe end healthy behaviors. In addition, the ‘Rtileie Department provided information to OCR indicating that al of ther coaches and arninistrtive sta atlended a sexual rvassment workshop bythe Campus Equity and Diversity Resource Centr inthe summer or fall of 2006 ad that the Deparment was also ‘working on an orlenttion forall rsh student athletes, The Department alo planned 19 have a ecing with ll mal athletes to discuss thir role in the prevention of violent ‘behavior. “The UW-PD investigation was still open and ongoing inthe spring 2006. Detective G {nterviowed Stadent D ou May 1, 2006, after trying to make contast with him for several etthe. Stodent D sited he wa «fiend of Student A and he knew Students B and C. ‘ShudeatD told Detective G tat he could not recall he Apeil 4, 2008 party, Student D never From: 04 69217 Pape'ziae at: 100200078440 P Page 12 ‘heard Student A say she was sexually assaulted by anyone, and had no othe information fo corroborate Student A's account ‘on May 2, 2006, Detective G interviewed Student E. He stated shat he dated Student in the later pat of Api through the fist par of Jane 2004, but he didnot present any evidence that corroborated Seadent A's acount ofthe incident. Student B confirmed that Student A ‘vas intoxicated and somewhat firalous atthe April 2004 party. Student A had never old him that StadentsB and C aseaulted ber. fn May of 2006, Detective G sent the Dane County Proseeaor’s office all of he summazized [nrview statements she compiled. Based on her investigation, she didnot think Student A's ‘cass wes strong enough to prosectte, Detective Q denied that she had ever told Student A tha: she had e strong case (a Student A had reported to OCR). After reviewing the statements, the Dave County Prosecutor's office concurred with Detctve G's assessment fz again declined to prosecute Student A’s complaint. 1, LEGAL STANDARD “Tho Tite XK regulation, at 34 CPR, §10631(2), stats that no peson shall on the basis oF sen, be exclided from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjectd to ‘Gscimination under any edeational program or activity operated by a recipient. Sexcal Jhaasament of student in an educational program or activity thats sufitetly serious to ‘opportunites in the school’s program may constitute discrimination prohibited by Title IX ‘Sexual harassment is defined a unwelcome conduct oft sexual nature, which ean include an include unweleome sexoe advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, ‘orverba, o physical conduct ofa sexual ature, OCR considers the totality ofthe ‘Groumseaeee to determine if hostile environment has been creatd, cif sexually ‘harassing conduct is sufficiently serious that it denies ot limits a students ability to petiipate in of benefit fom the school’s program based on 9x. ‘A ecipient as eresponsbiity to respond promptly and effectively to such student-to-stent ‘eval harassment that t knows about, or reasonably should have known about, Title IX ‘eis hat once e recipient bas notice of possible sexual harassment of a student the Tecpont should tke immediate and appropriate steps to iavetiate or otherwise determine ‘What occured, Ifthe reipient deters thot sexual harassment occurred, it should take Trompt and eflotive steps retonabl calculated to end any harassment, eliminate & howe Prvironmentifone has been ereted, and prevent harassment fom occurring agai. A serio ‘Sf eosalting consequences may be necesary if the inital steps are ineffective in stopping the ‘rarasement. In addition, it may be appropriate for are it ‘vestigation. 1, ANALYSIS From: $04 6896217 Page 2108 Det: 160200075850 PA Page 13 ‘Student A alleged thatthe Univesity discriminated against her onthe basis of sex when i Subjected ert sexual haressmet from Apel 2004 unt Jue 2006. Additionally, Student A ttlege that the University, sine Fly 2005, filed to prompt and appropriately respond to ‘her repors of sexoal harassment ‘A. Alleged sexval harassment ‘Student A ssserted tht the University was responsible for he alleged seal assalt tat ‘Secured on April 4, 2004, and forthe alleged subsequent harassment of ec that occured. For the Univenity tobe responsible under Title IX, the harassment rmast have ocourred ithe ‘context ofan educational program or stvty operated by the University, andthe University ‘must have had notice of the harassment. ‘As indicated ubove, the information submited by the University indicates that although the ‘University’s nonacademic misconduct policies applied to thealloged miseonduct by Students Band €, the University did not regulate or contrel the premises at which te alleged assault took place on April 4, 2004, OCR found thet the owner of the apartment was « University femployee who, in his private capacity, sted his rentals with the University’s office that Sarclce available off campus rentals and afew crew team members rented an apartment ‘Bom him, ih eddtion, although Student A eserted thet there were prior incidents in which ‘ale crew team members had commited sexual assaults, the University reported only one {or epoet of socal harsement by acew meme made four or Hive years erie, which eit not involve Students B or Cand was nat substantiated when investigated bythe University ‘Based onthe above, OCR determined thatthe aleped esault did not ooeur in the content of eeeGucetional program or activity operated by the University. OCR also determined thatthe {nformation aboot one prior unsttantated report of sexual harassment by previous crew fave known of posible later sexsal harassment by members ofthe erew team. Therefor, there is insufficient evidence fo conclude tha the University subjected Student A to sexual Suraasment with respect to the April 4, 2008 alleged assault, With respect to lleged subsequent ressment, Student A asserted she was subjected 9 Srotining sexs) harassment and staking lke behavior by Stadets B and C after the de of the atezlt unt} June 2006, She indicated tht, a a result, she gut the crew team and filed her exams. However, the only example of lleged harassment afer the esau that she ‘eamlained to the Unversity about elated tothe November 12, 2005 faterity party. For ‘urroees of aalei, OCR assumed thatthe fateity party contact, which was allegedly in eistion ofa University no contact order, ws sufficiently connected withthe University to ‘Boconsidered a University program or activity. Based onthe totality of circumstances, Daciclaly Student A's admission thet she initiated the contact with Student B atthe From: 804 6900217 Page 7098 Date: 8020007'5480 Page 14 ‘November 12 fstrsity party, OCR determined that here is insufficient evidence to estabish thatthe University subjected Student A toa sexually hostile environment. B. University’s response ‘Seodent A also alleged thatthe Universi file to respond promptly and eppropratly to her Complaint of sexual easel. As ted, Stident A id not file a complaint of sual assault SRtnthe University until over a yea after the alleged April 2004 assault, The University tandled the complaint under is ertablshed student nonacademic misconduct policy end Drosedutes As indicated above, Tie IX require a reipient that rs notice of possible riven! harassment of sident to take inunediate and appropiete steps to investigate or ‘iherwise determine what occured. However, the specific steps in a recipient's investigation ‘falleged sexusl haressment may vary depending upon the nature of the allegations, the Source of the complaint, the age of the student or students involved the size and aiciistrtivesrocrre ofthe school, and other factors. In all cases the inquiry must be ‘rv, thorough, and imperial. Snudent A identified numerous inadequacies inthe University's investigation and overall Paponseo her complaint each of which ae discussed below. Based on OCR's Taeedigation, OCR conchided tha the evidence indicates hat the University responded ‘penmprly and sppropristly to Student A's complain. ‘Student A's chief concern was thatthe ODOS investigation of her sexual assalt complaint aeivsoo long, OGR’s investigation determined thatthe ODOS investigation took nine von te Stalent A Bled ber complaint on fly 13,2005 aguinst Sexdents B and C. Laterin ‘Taye Student A tied her complaint to Student B. On April 19,2006, following an jnveatigation by tree investigating oficr, the University informed Student A that the ‘vestigation dd not suppor a finding that Student B bad sexually assaulted Student A. ‘aoe eond thatthe University decided not to pursue emergency disciplinary action aginst Shon in Tly 2003 beceuseit bed been fifteen month since the elleged assault and there bd been no reported intervening harassment. ‘OCR found that, although the ODOS investigation took nine months, the University took rain seps while the investigation was underway to protect and prevent harassment of Saient A and thee was reasonable explanation forthe investigation’s length.’ ODOS seat ‘thn one eck of StodentA’s decision to pursue an investigation, The Univesity also Fea Mascond no contact order to Student B after the November 2005 incident eventhough Seefeot A admitted that she bad initiated te contact, Pec its usual practice in dual TGR me pod te Univ with nc! anstance oncng ts Soden Nonacaes Micosct Toe meer! Be seamen th lobe ev oi deg nd ety, Fae rep ier i iret ea Patsy From: 404 880607 Page 2808 Dae: 8070007:550PM Page invstigation, ODOS allowed UW-PD to interview the alleged perpetrators fst, ODOS resumed its investigation shorty after the alleged poperators were interviewed and before ‘Re UW-PD investigation was completed, The ODOS investigation was futher delayed yon the cage a reassigned at Stident A's request. OCR found no evidence ofa lack of “Gllgenoe onthe pert of University personnel, and ODOS staff kept Student A informed thringhout the investigation. Student A also raised several objections tothe manner in which the ODOS investigation was conducted. 1. Adversaral ODOS Interview, Student A asserted thatthe treatment of her by (0DOS during an interview was unnecessarily adversarial and eaosod her stress during finals eehet ODOS did nothing fo intervene on her behalf with her professors, OCR confirmed, MRetODOS did not contact Stadent A's professors oo her behalf following the interview, but ‘etermined that the University was not required to contact Stadent Ae professors. The eidonce also confirmed that the interview was stesful for Student A. Because the TO was ‘hncting an investigation, she needed to know the details of sensitive topics. When eansent aoe down during the questioning, the interview was postponed. ‘The University Speed to change te 10 upon Student A's request. Stadent A's attorney Iter told the new GOS investigator tate did not tink it was necessary for ODOS to interview Student A Sguin. The evidence didnot indicate that 102 treated Student A disrespenflly or ‘unprofesionaly during the interview. 2, Witnesses identified hy Student A. Student A also asserted that ODOS filed to soneeview all ofthe witnesses whose testimony might have affectd the outcome ofthe ‘iNegtion, She pecfclly statod that ODOS did atinterviw all ofthe witnesses whose ines te provided und tat one ofthe investigating offices didnot interview her. OCR's Thvestgaion confemed that the ODOS éid not interview all ofthe witnesses suggested by ‘Student A and that T0 3 di not interview Student A. The ODOS did not interview other ‘Shtnestes suggested by Student A because thooo individuals didnot witnes the alleged Tine 10 3 alao presented a leptimate reason for not interviewing Stodant C, in tht she ‘errectly beloved fat bis testimony would not corroborate Seudent A's version, ‘Furthermore, Detective G interviewed Students C, D, and , ebout the April 2004 incident, tend none of them provided corrcboratve evidencs ‘Stadent A also asserted that ODOS filed to interview other individuals who attended ‘November 12 party a which StodentB allegedly haressed hr. ODOS did nat take UDociplinary action against Stent B regarding the alleged violation of te no contact order fposause Student A ecknowledged that she was rexponsible for initiating the contact. “Additional interviews would not have chenged this result “After she was informed ofthe outcome ofthe investigation, Student A mentioned forthe ist ‘inc det Stent Be roommate might have relevant information. ODOS' decision not to From: 604 660027 Page:2408 Date: s8070007'5851 PE Pag 16 ‘nterviow Studeot B's roommate after the investigation had been conctoded didnot adversely veteat the adequacy or relibiliy ofthe invertigtion, especially becanse Student A did not aertide ODOS with any specific ifornetion fo suggest tha the roommate would corroborate her allegation of sexual essult Finally, 10 4 €id not interview Student A because Student A’s attorney tl ODOS that he believe that Stadent A hed provided sufficient information in prior interviews ad that an ‘additional interview was not necessary. 4, Student B's participation in the ODOS investigation. Stodent A also complained shat OOS did ot not be of Student B's testimony, provide her with notice of a decision ‘Raking meeting with Stadent B o provide her with an opportunity to rebut hs statement, ‘Sho alo claims that the University seat StadentB an exoneration Letter before she was vised of the decision coucering her sexual eseult complaint, “The evidenos indicated that ODOS did not formally interview Student B. StodentB met ‘ety with ODOS staff. The brief mecting was nota formal hearing or a decision-making rat and Student A dd not have aright to attend orbe given notice of that meeting under the University's procedures and practices. The evidence also revealed that Stadent A as {mervigwed on several occasions during the ODOS investigation, and was eked bout

    You might also like