Petition's call for punishment is not helpful to reform

Arecent petition calling for the U.S. Department of Education to levy full sanctions against institutions violating Title IX and Clery Act responsibilities is misguided in its goal to skip conflict resolution and jump to slashing federal funding.

Such a mindset will ultimately produce more harm than good, and implies the system needs to be cut-and-dry.

The petition on change.org, made by “Ed Act Now”, gathered 172,394 signatures as of Monday night and according to the website was hand-delivered in Washington, D.C., in July. It lays out four demands, the first regarding the Office of Civil Rights’ option to levy sanctions.

In 2011, the Department issued the “Dear Colleague” letter, outlining ways for colleges to be in compliance with Title IX legislation aimed at preventing sex discrimination.

If a university is found to be in violation of these federal laws, it is within the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights’ power to suspend, terminate or refuse to grant federal financial funding.

In an effort to avoid skipping directly to these damaging punishments, the OCR negotiates voluntary resolution agreements to identify specific remedial actions to improve the handling of sexual assault cases.

UNC is currently undergoing this type of investigation after five current and former students filed a complaint to the OCR regarding the University’s mishandling of sexual assault cases.
Though slow, the University has made attempts to improve its strategy in dealing with sexual assault. The petition is misguided in that it endorses threats as one of the clear paths towards Title IX compliance.

If the law insists that universities be involved in adjuticating sexual assault cases, it is of utmost importance to make this process one that dedicates itself to educating all parties that may be involved.

By skipping directly to federal funding cuts, those that had little to do with sexual assault policy will be hurt — from incoming students seeking financial aid to faculty tapping into the University’s research funding, the cuts will be felt across the board. Doing so does not provide sufficient incentive to solve the problem from its root.

Meaningful change takes time and resources that would be otherwise affected by such punitive measures.

Since the first investigation was opened at UNC on March 1, the University hired an investigator in the Equal Opportunity/Americans with Disabilities Act Office, the new Deputy Title IX officer began his work, Christi Hurt was named interim Title IX coordinator and a sexual assault task force was formed, among other measures taken.

Who knows if these steps, though delayed in nature, would have been taken if UNC were preoccupied with a large fine and risk of federal funding cuts.

However, it should be acknowledged that there are some valid points in this petition, even though it lays out some initiatives that would be hard to quantify.

The document calls for a “concretely, delineated and timely” investigation process into complaints.
Often, the complainants involved in these cases graduate well before a resolution is reached with the university, the petition states. That might be the case for some of the students involved in UNC’s investigations if the probe extends past the 2013-14 academic year.

Ideally, closure for these students should be reached before they move on to the next step in their lives post-graduation, regardless of the outcome of the investigation.

Unfortunately these points are overshadowed by the petition’s first stated demand.

There’s no question UNC should do better by victims of sexual assault and that it must function within a system that isn’t working at many universities.

But administrators, students and the Department of Education should have the chance to work together to make it right.