speaker-0: Welcome to Teal Talk, a podcast brought to you by the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence. That's OAESB for short. I'm your host, Lori Hurley, and in each episode, I'll speak with professionals in the field to dive deep into the intersectional issues that affect survivors in Ohio. Before we begin, I want to give a content warning that we will be discussing sexual violence and other issues that may be upsetting and triggering. If you need help, please call our resource line. At eight eight eight-eight eight six eight three eight eight during regular business hours or the Ohio Sexual Violence helpline twenty four seven at eight four four six four six three five. Please take care of yourself. Hello, hello, and welcome back to Teal Talk, a podcast from the Ohio Alliance to End Sexual Violence. I'm your host, Lori, and today we are talking about a case that has received a tremendous amount of attention. If you've scrolled social media anytime in the past few days, you probably know what I'm talking about. But this conversation today is about much more than one case. We're using the Cornell 7 case as a starting point to unpack the broader issues it brings to the surface. What can survivors reasonably expect from institutions? What happens when those systems fail? And how can advocates, communities, and preventionists keep pushing for change while making sure survivors receive care? support and belief. Joining me is Stephanie B. Scalise, an attorney with our legal clinic. You may recognize her name from a past episode, The Power of Providing Choices. Definitely recommend checking that episode out. It is one of our most popular. And before we dive in today, I do want to give a content warning that This episode includes detailed discussion of sexual assault, rape, intoxication, and the criminal legal system. So please take care of yourself while listening. And with that, let's get into the conversation. Hey, I bet you weren't expecting me to pop back in. I just wanted to encourage you to stick all the way to the end of this episode. We were able to get comments from Sam Dyer. He is a member of OAESV's Survivor Empowerment and Advisory Council. He sent over a voice memo last night sharing his thoughts about campus accountability and what role a university has in protecting survivors. His comments are really powerful, so I definitely encourage sticking through until the end of this episode to hear what he has to say about what we can do. To make change and ensure campus violence and cases like Cornell 7 do not keep happening. Okay, let's dive in. Hi Stephanie, welcome back to Teal Talk.
speaker-1: Hi, I'm so glad I'm here. How are you?
speaker-0: I'm doing well. ⁓ feeling a little heavy this morning, but I'm happy to have you on to talk about an issue that is ⁓ very timely and all over the news as of late.
speaker-1: It is. I feel like I can't open anything on my phone without just being bombarded by this topic. It's a little overwhelming if I'm being honest.
speaker-0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. ⁓ it it feels like this ⁓ case has gotten quite a tremendous amount of attention very quickly. would you be able to share what you think people need to understand about this case before we begin talking about the broader issue that it raises?
speaker-1: Yeah, I can definitely give you a quick summary ⁓ to kind of make sure anyone listening kind of has the the baseline information about this. There was a Jane Doe filing of a civil complaint ⁓ earlier this month ⁓ in New York State, ⁓ suing Cornell University and several students and also the law enforcement agencies in Ithaca, New York. And the lawsuit alleges that a student who's identified as Jane Doe was drunk when she arrived at a fraternity party and then while there was further intoxicated. She then alleged that she was raped and and specifically gang raped by a group of the Frat brothers there. She then alleges that the university did not appropriately respond in their Title IX investigations and that the law enforcement community did also not. ⁓ respond appropriately. And in her allegations, she includes some evidence that I think is really the key to to what's happened in this case. She included a picture of a Snapchat that was sent out in a group of these fraternity brothers, essentially in very vulgar terms, advertising her availability for sex and the location of where she was. And that key piece of evidence being exposed Really has caused tremendous public outcry and backlash. So much so that it has led to recently, I think just this Monday, an announcement by the local prosecutor's office that they will indeed present the case to the grand jury. What I think we need to know as experts in the field is that in addition to all of that summary, Cornell has come out and said. We can't talk about a lot of these details because students have privacy that have have not been waived, but they're alleging or responding, saying that the allegation that we just did nothing about this is not accurate, not fair. They cite to the fact that they did suspend at least two students and that there were other types of discipline. And you know, some of the concerns are that the only discipline some of these young men got was, you know, writing a essay. And so there's there's questions that I have as an attorney in this field about what are the details of what really did happen to those young men and what is the process that the school used to get where it got. If the process was correct, then that may have been the the outcome. But we can talk more about that detail. I think the other thing that's really important to know is that law enforcement has also come out and said, Hey, a lot of the allegations and the information that's in the lawsuit. Doesn't match what we were told back in 2024. And that's not necessarily surprising, but if true, really gives us a lot to think about in terms of the work we do with survivors. And that's not an excuse either, because there's a lot more that law enforcement still can do to further investigate crimes, even if they feel like the initial presentation they receive is not enough. That's a lot.
speaker-0: Yeah, I'm like, there's so much to unpack there. My mind is going in many different directions. But what it sounds like is that when an assault happens on a college campus, there can be several systems involved. Like if a survivor chooses to report, they can go the direction of the university's Title IX office or Campus law enforcement or local law enforcement. Can you talk through how these systems interact?
speaker-1: ⁓ definitely. Early in my career this was something I did not understand. ⁓ for some background for listeners, I used to be a a prosecutor in University Heights, Ohio, and before that in Cuyahoga County, ⁓ which is the Cleveland area. And when I would hear about Title Nine or s ⁓ SCORE University did their own investigation under Title Nine. I was incensed. How dare you think that you're qualified to investigate a crime on behalf of law enforcement? But that's not what it is, right? It took me a long time to understand. It's almost like two train tracks that can run side by side but don't have to. So a student who has been a victim of sexual assault has choices. One choice out of all of them is to report to the school what happened and ask the school to make your educational environment and your school community safe for you. That's what Title IX is supposed to do. And your school is not allowed to share information with law enforcement because you're a student and you have privacy protections as a student under FERPA, which is federal law. Now law enforcement will sometimes have agreements with their local colleges and universities to say if you receive a report of sexual assault, you are agreeing that you will let The student know that we exist and present us as an option, right? That's kind of the lowest level of intervention. Some schools will also have agreements with local law enforcement that if there's a Title IX case, we'll tell you that someone reported sexual assault, but we won't identify any additional information. We'll just tell you that it happened. ⁓ and and I I have seen that in my experience. So it's really important for people to know that these are two different, very unrelated processes. And they often aren't processes that communicate with one another. So if the school does an investigation pursuant to Title IX, they're not required to share the interviews and what they learned with law enforcement. However, law enforcement, if they're really on the ball, can subpoena those records and then see what the investigation entailed. I find that a lot of law enforcement does not take that step because it's like extra work, or they may just not. Be aware that that's something they can do. The law enforcement that does do it usually is working closely with their prosecutor so that they're getting good legal advice to take that step. In the Cornell case, my understanding from what I've read so far is that Cornell did its own Title IX investigation, and law enforcement didn't get much of that information. And they made a decision about not prosecuting because they were missing some of what was available to them otherwise. If they had taken the extra step.
speaker-0: So is what we are seeing play out at Cornell right now?
speaker-1: New? No, it is not new. Sadly. In our legal clinic, our practice is statewide. We help many students with their Title IX cases. And to be quite frank, it can be very disheartening on those cases to have one after another after another. Because it is not uncommon for young people to be intoxicated when they arrive at parties and keep drinking once they get there. And it is not uncommon for People in college to make drinking just a and extreme drinking, drinking amounts that would put me down, you know, as part of their social life. And as someone in my 40s, I worry about the health of them doing that. But the the consequence of doing that may be on your liver, right? Or maybe on how you age long term. But the consequence of doing it should not be that you're sexually assaulted. We still unfortunately live in a youth culture. That perpetuates the notion that if she is drunk, you are lucky. And that is profoundly dangerous. But in Title IX cases, I feel like there's also a pattern of lots of schools really struggling to identify that someone who has committed sexual assault of an intoxicated person as actually having done something wrong. Right now, their their policies don't say that. The policies are very clear. Someone who is intoxicated cannot consent. But in how the schools apply it in everyday case by case basis, anecdotally, it feels like if she was intoxicated, there's a lot of victim blaming. There's a lot of, well, she started making out with him, so maybe he was reasonable in thinking she was consenting. Or like, I even had one with no identifying information here, I had one case where. A young man walked a a s fellow student home from drinking ⁓ tequila at a Mexican restaurant. And I asked him why did you feel like you needed to walk her home? And he said, ⁓ she was so intoxicated that I didn't think she could make good choices. I I thought she'd be vulnerable if I didn't walk her home. And yet he also said that 15 minutes later, when she was making out with him, he was sure she was consenting. The school was cool with that explanation. And that that is where we really have a huge problem. Our policies can be correct. The way we talk about sexual assault on campuses can be proactive and preventionist. But when it comes to how we decide on a case by case basis that we're going to hold people responsible for it, we really look the other way when we can say, ⁓ but she was drunk. And I think the Cornell case has some hints that it might go that way because the defense counsel, for one of at least one of these young men, has given a statement saying that. Something to the effect of it would have been reasonable for them to believe that that she was consenting to this activity. And that's where I struggle with how we hold one another in our communities accountable for our actions. Because if someone's drunk, if they've had 10 drinks before they even got there, it doesn't matter if their behavior might seem sexually encouraging. You have a burden to really determine if that person is able to consent when you're at a huge drinking party. I think also there's a big concern about this, you know, Snapchat group chat that they all had, where they're inviting each other to come join in. That I think is the part that has got so many people enraged, myself included. And I think that Snapchat, you know, the prosecutor's office is saying, Well, we didn't see that. We didn't even know that existed. The burden in law enforcement frequently can feel like if the survivor doesn't show enough evidence that the burden is on that survivor to present everything right away. Like they have to do their own investigation in order to convince law enforcement to get moving on it. That's that's I think the big takeaway for me when I look at this case.
speaker-0: Hmm. Yeah, and I feel like for a lot of people, when they hear not enough evidence, it can sound like the accused can just wipe their hands clean, case closed, no crime committed, end of story. But what does quote unquote not enough evidence mean from a legal standpoint? And what would you want survivors and advocates to understand about? what goes into making that decision.
speaker-1: I have so many thoughts on this question. So I'm sorry if I ramble in my answer. So when I was a former prosecutor, I struggled with balancing two really important things. And I have to imagine when I put myself in the shoes of other prosecutors, this is a common struggle for all of us. On one hand, I really care about survivors. I want to do what's right to protect that person and the community I serve from further harm. And I generally believe people. Unless you give me any motive to lie, I assume you're not lying. And I wish more people would start on that, right? Of course we all do. On the other side, I was also very aware that accusing someone of a sexually oriented offense would have a huge stigma. And so we hear, and and I agree with the criticism of how come we're always worried about how this will ruin some young man's life. But when you're the person who has to make the decision, it can weigh heavily on you. Do I file charges? If I'm not really, really feeling confident. And one of the things I tell my clients in these situations is that the consideration also is do I put a survivor through the tremendous pain of a criminal prosecution? Where there are months and months, if not years, of pretrial litigation, of things being said in the press, of pointless meetings that were you're wondering why you're doing this, and staff changes where you've told your story to 45 people. Do I put them through that if I don't feel confident that it's going to be worth it? So I I guess in some ways I have some compassion for prosecutors, but where I don't have as much compassion is when you say we did not hear enough evidence because she didn't tell us enough. She came to you and reported a crime, and you chose not to go get the Title IX information that may have been available to you. You chose not to ask further up qu follow-up questions. And so here in Ohio, I feel like, again, anecdotally, we don't have numbers on a lot of this, but this is my sole practice every day. I feel like I am seeing a lot of survivors who, when they report to police, they're still processing what just happened to me, if they disclose right away, and many don't. And so they don't use words like I was raped. They don't use words like I was forced. And if they say I felt like I couldn't leave, they're often asked the follow-up question of, well, why did you feel that way? And they don't yet have a way to articulate their answer. That is normal for someone whose brain is still recovering from trauma. But you, as law enforcement, have a responsibility to that person and to the community at large to further investigate, to take it further. And in the Cornell case, it appears that they took campus police, they took an initial statement. And then did nothing else. And when you take an initial statement, it really is in most law enforcement agencies for the purpose of opening an investigation. So here in Ohio, if you go to most law enforcement agencies, you make an initial field report where the police officer writes down the details, but they hand it off to a detective who is specially trained and will conduct an additional follow-up investigation. Those follow-up investigations usually involve questions that are designed To help understand circumstances and mindsets, more probing questions. That's where, in my opinion, the law enforcement in the Cornell case really fell off.
speaker-0: ⁓ It's ⁓ it's not easy to sympathize with a prosecutor, but I imagine it's also not easy to be a prosecutor. So would you say then that if a prosecutor or law enforcement officer says there's not enough evidence, does that necessarily mean that they don't believe the survivor is telling the truth?
speaker-1: Definitely no. No. There are lots of times where prosecutors do believe what the survivor's saying. And I think that if you're the survivor, you can even be told that directly and still not believe it. Or or you know, maybe you believe it, but you don't feel it. And really how we feel is really what matters when we're recovering from trauma. So I I think that that cannot be repeated enough times by advocates, by attorneys, by prosecutors when they're talking to survivors. I don't feel like I have enough evidence to file these charges, but I want to reassure you, I do believe you. And one of the best ways I heard law enforcement officer ⁓ word this to a survivor that she was talking to was she said, I don't think I have enough evidence to do what I really want to do here. So she aligned herself with the goals of the survivor. And I thought that that was, you know, the most trauma-informed way to maybe deliver that message. We can believe somebody, but whether or not I think I can convince a jury, and that's a very jurisdictional community specific assessment, too. Can I convince a jury in one county versus a jury somewhere else? They may have very different likelihoods of believing certain things. And and the standard for prosecutors is supposed to be: do I have enough evidence to say that there's, you know, probable cause? And the term probable cause means ⁓ Probably. We used to joke in law school about how you could indict a ham sandwich at such a low standard. But the truth is when it comes to sexual assault cases, most prosecutors again don't want to put a survivor through the the difficult journey from charges to a to a conviction or even worse to to getting through it and not getting a conviction. If you're gonna put someone through that journey, doing it because you only have merely probable cause feels irresponsible. Do I have enough to think that it will be worth it to this person is usually what's really going on in the prosecutor's head. And and so that doesn't mean they're not believed. It it means exactly the words they're saying, I don't think I have enough evidence. It doesn't mean you're not good enough.
speaker-0: I do want to reiterate what you said because it feels like such a clear takeaway. A decision not to prosecute does not necessarily mean the survivor wasn't believed. But I can imagine telling a survivor, I believe you, but there's nothing I can really do has to be extremely difficult. Yeah.
speaker-1: It's very hard to deliver the message over and over again to survivors that we do believe you and even though we believe you, I can't find anything else to help you with your case either. It doesn't happen all the time, you know. I I don't want to sound doom and gloom in this conversation, but you know, one of the things I really wanted to highlight for you as I was thinking about this topic, and this is the thing that kind of hopefully gives gives other people hope because it helps me. There was a case recently coming out of Wayne County, and I mean recently as in just within the last few months, the Ninth District Court of Appeals heard a sexual assault case and reaffirmed the principle that your victim's testimony can be enough to support a conviction. So in this case, ⁓ state v. Eagle, an inmate, a prison inmate was sexually assaulted by fellow inmates. And based on his word that this happened to me. And some video footage that just showed those inmates coming and going from his cell and appearing to be like celebrating something. That was enough. And the appellate court said, as a reminder to everybody in that county, that a lack of physical evidence, a lack of medical records, a lack of DNA testing doesn't mean that you can't support a conviction. That a victim's testimony alone is enough. To support a conviction. And that has always been the law throughout Ohio. So even though it doesn't feel like we're relying on it, it is indeed the law. And my hope is that that state v. Eagle case will help prosecutors feel more confident, taking risks, if they've explained that it's risky to a survivor, if they've said, I don't know that your case is a slam dunk. I absolutely believe you, but this might be a hard case for me to convince jurors about because jurors are watching TV. They think they need CSI and DNA and you know all the evidence that law and order says they should have. So I'm comfortable taking your case forward because I believe you and the law says believing you alone is enough. But I want to tell you ahead of time that this is gonna be a long road. It might be really discouraging and really hard. And at the end of it, you might have to live with the fact that complete strangers didn't believe you. But the law says that if they believe you, that's enough. Are you comfortable going forward with that? That puts the choice on them, but it also has to say to a prosecutor, you're gonna be okay with having a losing record. You're gonna be okay with having a manager who might judge you for having lost some more cases this year. So our system of what success should be for lawyers has to has to be tinkered with.
speaker-0: Little deal. I do want to unpack the not enough evidence part a little bit more, especially after that case bringing to light that survivor testimony can be enough. So from your experience ⁓ working at the OASV Legal Clinic, what kinds of evidence tend to be overlooked or misunderstood or even undervalued in sexual violence cases? And I'm wondering if there are any questions. That you wish investigators or prosecutors would ask earlier in the investigation to maybe even pull out those types of evidence that might be undervalued.
speaker-1: ⁓ well one of the things on that list would be bystander ⁓ accounts. So when you're at a huge drinking party, I wanna know if other people not involved in a sexual assault would have thought that person was drunk just by watching them. Mm-hmm. You know, because usually if you ask enough people at the party, they will often say, ⁓ yeah, she was stumbling around. If you can get other people to say we could tell she was drunk, well then the question then leads to how come the people who sexually assaulted her couldn't tell she was drunk? You can hold them to the same standards as the average person at the party. I feel like that frequently gets missed. I think another thing that really gets missed is not what is there, but what isn't there. And by that I mean the motivation to lie. When you have a sexual assault survivor, and and our mantra in in this malew in which we work is that we generally say, believe survivors. Believe survivors. All survivors automatically believe them. And I think there's a good reason why we as advocates will say that.
speaker-0: Yeah.
speaker-1: But in the legal environment, attorneys have to be careful to not sound like they're so biased that they can't present their case as a logical cold manner, right? And so I think it's really important for prosecutors to instead of saying, well, I just believe all survivors, I think prosecutors should say, I believe people unless you tell me otherwise. So unless there is any evidence that this person had some good reason to lie, then we should default with we believe them. The struggle that I have is that it doesn't feel like that's really happening. The struggle I have is it feels like the survivors have to fight to be believed, versus ⁓ the accused should have to present some reason why we wouldn't. That burden shifting isn't really happening in reality, and I think the lack of evidence of motivation to lie is what we miss or undervalue. So
speaker-0: With this Cornell case specifically, you mentioned that the university has said like we we we did what we did, we don't think that we did anything wrong necessarily, but now we have Jane Doe who is suing the university. I'm wondering what happens when the university and the criminal legal system aren't on the same page? What happens next?
speaker-1: Such a good question because it happens a lot. Again, when you think of them as being two railroad tracks, they absolutely can branch off and diverge, right? So I have seen it happen a lot where maybe a school will say, We think there's enough evidence to hold you responsible for what you did and say that you violated our university's policies. And because of that, we're gonna expel you, or because of that, we're gonna suspend you, whatever. ⁓ and then that same survivor. Goes through multiple pretrials at the courthouse that may just be down the street, and the jury may say, We don't believe you. He's vindicated. Huzzah. And it can feel like you're living in this alternate universe if you're the person on the other end of that. But it it certainly does happen. And how clients respond to that can also vary widely. I have had clients in that situation respond by feeling like the university is my real community anyway. And because the university believes me, that's what mattered most to me. I've had other students say, well, who cares if this administrative process believed me? The fact that the law, the the real meat and teeth of the of the issue did not believe me. ⁓ and it can go the other way. It c it can be where the school says, yeah, you know, we don't really, we're really gonna do anything about this, and they'll come up with a reason why. And then In law enforcement, they take it very seriously. They've kind of had enough of hearing about these assaults that are happening on campus, and we know that you're the university isn't telling us enough about it. And we really throw ourselves into this and a jury believes them and and you're convicted. So one does not equal the other. Just the way not prosecuting doesn't equal not not believing you. And so I think it's really important to tell clients that at the outset, that this could be two different answers. And I f and this is maybe is outside of the legal field and more in like counseling, right? That it's important for survivors to know that justice is not defined by whether law enforcement does something. Justice is not defined by whether or not the school believes you. And that's hard because if we make a whole list of what does not define justice, well then what does? What's left? And that can be really hard because. Your recovery and your well-being can't depend on other people. So many things about what you need inside of you just cannot depend on what other people do. In a perfect world, everybody would respond perfectly. I think that's also, and this is another podcast for another day. ⁓ but attorney Caitlin Benzo here at our legal clinic is really throwing herself into learning a lot more about restorative justice and what Other non-traditional ways can we provide options to our client outside of the traditional legal system? And I'm doing a little reading and research and on my own, but I'm really excited to see what Attorney Benzo is going to be learning and sharing with our organization and hopefully publishing that out. And I really think that there's an opportunity to completely transform and add to a menu of options that we can present to our clients. And that really involves transforming our entire community to how we think about our responses. So, like I said, that's a whole nother podcast.
speaker-0: Well yeah, and I think the reason that this case is feels like it's taking over social media right now is because I think there are just so many reasons to be upset. One question that I keep thinking throughout this conversation is like, okay, what should a survivor reasonably be able to expect from their university after making a report? And if a university's response is to just expel two students.
speaker-1: So many.
speaker-0: For example, is that actually going to prevent future harm? And you know, tying in that restorative justice piece, like did anyone ask the survivor if that was the outcome that she wanted? Did her own wishes and needs factor into that response?
speaker-1: Yeah, when when you see a Snapchat conversation among I mean, we're talking dozens of young men, in which seven of them responded and went and raped this woman. The conversation has to be about what about the other young men? What are we teaching them about upstanding? What are we teaching them about their own internal character and values? And the truth is that if we don't have institutions that will hold them accountable for their silence, then how can we expect better of them? These are institutions of learning. And learning is more than just what's in a book. Learning is how we conduct ourselves as responsible citizens and people who owe something to each other. And so, you know, when I think philosophically, big picture, that's why people are so upset about this case. It's not just about you only expelled two students, although that's a piece of it. It's not just about the prosecutor didn't charge because they didn't bother to investigate as fully as they could have. That's a piece of it. But I think what's really enraging people and should enrage people is that so many men just stood by and were cool with it. And and then they wonder why we choose the bear in social media speak, right? When you say what can we reasonably expect, what what I advise my clients to reasonably expect versus what I would like us all to expect, we got a long way to go. A long way. But I have hope. I keep finding the occasional case where something will give me hope. And if we don't keep the hope and we don't keep doing it, giving up just isn't the option.
speaker-0: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean we we can't give up. Like p Jane Doe and many other Jane Does need us to be hopeful, to be angry, and to keep fighting for change.
speaker-1: Absolutely. Systems don't change if we abandon them. Systems don't change if we all say this is ⁓ this is stupid, I'm taking my ball and I'm going home. Systems change when people who care deeply insist that they're staying. So when I look at the Cornell case, I I am rooted in and I am staying, because it won't change if I leave. I hope everybody else can feel that way too. It takes stubbornness, right?
speaker-0: A hundred percent. To wrap this episode up, I I'm wondering if you have a message you want survivors to hear if they've had a response from a system that made them feel like believed.
speaker-1: They were. I want survivors in an ideal world to be able to heal even if they're not believed. I want survivors to feel loved and cared for and supported even when systems fail. And that means that every other one of us who's working with survivors outside of those systems has to double down on the nurture and the love and the belief and the expression of belief. Because if we can't rely on these systems to get better, then while we're working on getting them better, we've got the double duty of helping people internally, independently feel valued. It's both. It's definitely not and or. It's both.
speaker-0: We are no strangers to a sexual violence story taking headline, especially at college campuses. And I think whenever a story does, you know, kind of catch the wind and become major news, it really puts rape crisis centers and coalitions like ours in a very unique position where where all eyes are on us, for lack of a better term. when we have people's attention, like what are we trying to say to them? And how can we get them involved in this work, right? Like we have over 60 university campuses in Ohio, and this case is an opportunity for campuses and communities to really examine how they prevent sexual violence, respond to concerns, and support survivors. So like we are kind of relying on people who are feeling outraged right now ⁓ to to join the movement.
speaker-1: Yeah, I think when I think about like, you know, my job as an attorney focuses on cleaning up a mess, but the real power is in the people who are involved in prevention. So when I think about like the traditional experience of the average college kid, as you get there and the first week that you're there during orientation, you're told don't be a raper. And then maybe now and again you see that there's like a women's center on your campus, or maybe now and then you see that there are some advocates or a rape crisis center that has a table at an event. That is not as powerful. That's not powerful enough or frequent enough messaging to change a mindset that is rooted in a rape culture. You know, the the message that it's your lucky day that she's drunk, they hear it young, they hear it repeatedly. So we have to match that constant. unending consistent messaging, word for word. Every time they hear a message that it's okay to have sex with someone who's drunk, they have to hear a message that it's not. So the the prevention of changing the culture is far outside of my wheelhouse, but I think the real power is that
speaker-0: There. Thank you so much, Stephanie. Yeah. Tough conversation, but I think messages that we all could benefit from hearing again.
speaker-1: I love talking to you about this stuff. Thanks for for the conversation.
speaker-0: And thank you for sticking through until the end. As promised, let's hear some thought leadership from our Survivor Empowerment and Advisory Council member, Sam. Thank you, Sam. What do you think people who work on college campuses need to understand about accountability and what it should actually look like for survivors?
speaker-2: Hi, Lori. Thank you again for reaching out to me. I think a fundamental misunderstanding between university policies and ⁓ university administration and then the students that it applies to is that the accountability that people are seeking does not often reflect what is written in the policies themselves. And so what I mean by that is often these policies are vague and broad and contain a lot of legal Jargon, which is very difficult to understand from a student point of view. And when you look at how the implementation works, often what you're getting is inequal applications of Title IX, where students are often very confused about the outcomes from these hearings. Fundamentally, that comes from this like legal jargon that. these Title IX policies gets derived from. And so kind of often what you see is many students confused about certain cases that may become l somewhat more well known on campuses where applications of policy does not track with what students think that it should do. I think a great ⁓ example of this ⁓ is from Columbia University actually and it's ⁓ known as Carry That Weight and it was a student whose senior thesis was ⁓ carrying around her dorm mattress that ⁓ she was sexually assaulted on and the ⁓ the the meaning behind it was she was going to carry it until Her assaulter was expelled from the university and she ended up actually walking across the stage and graduating with that mattress. That kind of reflects this Cornell case where people are very confused about kind of the application and universities kind of inaction when policies are applied in a way that does not track with how they actually should be applied. And so what you get is this kind of like misapplication of Title IX and kind of a discordance between what students want as accountability and this kind of protective nature of Title IX for administration, where they get to point to it and say, we followed our policies. However, in the end, the policies and then their subsequent applications kind of fail students. ⁓ and often Universities will point to their policies and expect students to fix their their policies for them, but don't really provide an avenue for that to happen. They might have kind of like a focus group or a listening session where students can provide feedback, but that never really turns into actionable change. ⁓ at most it might be a slight change in wording or kind of small scale changes, but the the large scale changes that students are looking for really doesn't ever occur. What that looks like for survivors is then you have these stories where people look back and they go, Well, you know, we have carry that weight from tw that was in 2014, y and then now we have these cases. And it seems like these cases are just ongoing. Like the the circumstances are similar. And it's because These policies aren't necessarily changing in any meaningful way over time. And that's a responsibility of the institutions themselves to step up to the plate and kind of address the ways in which they lack in their Title IX applications rather than waiting for students to do it for them.
speaker-0: What have you learned about the gap between policies and systems that are supposed to protect survivors and what survivors actually experience?
speaker-2: I mean similar to what I said before, really it comes down to on paper, these policies follow Title IX, yet when they are implemented, the legal nature of the way that these policies are written and kind of the nature of how limited evidence can be in cases of sexual violence, i it becomes extremely difficult to have these clear cut cases that lawyers like. And so you see in the the case of this ⁓ DA in the state of New York where they don't pursue these cases and often very few cases are ever pursued criminally because the bar for having this clear cut evidence is so difficult to have. I can tell you that personally what I have seen is cases where it's viewed as worthwhile to take it forward. ⁓ the level of evidence is extraordinary. I mean, the level of evidence gathering put on survivors of finding video evidence and multiple, multiple witnesses and toxicology reports, insane exams. And all of this has to happen while they're kind of operating through this system alone, usually with very, very little support, especially from universities. And fundamentally becomes this thing where Title IX is supposed to be the university's responsibility to create an environment where students can learn without sexual harassment. But realistically, what it turns into is. survivors in crisis really attempting to become their own lawyer, they usually can't afford I mean, the the the cost of legal counsel is extraordinary. And institutions get to point at their policies and say, Well, we followed our policy, therefore we can't be responsible for any shortcomings. When fundamentally it was their policy that was the shortcoming in the first place.
speaker-0: For someone listening who is angry or discouraged by stories like what happened at Cornell, what do you think that anger should push us to do differently?
speaker-2: There's a very emotional response to the story, which is very valid. But it's at times like this when it's very important to kind of direct that anger into something that can actually create meaningful change for future survivors. And I what what I mean by that is students and alumni have a lot of influence on putting pressure on administration. And fundamentally when these kind of big news stories happen, often that pressure isn't necessarily put on ⁓ administrators. I it's more of a social media flyers have events kind of thing. And so what I view it as is the the this is a great opportunity, especially for alumni of universities to go and review their own school's policies and see where the shortcomings come from and reach out to student organizations and ⁓ j genuinely these student organizations are you know overworked students with little resources and the having sub more support can allow these student organizations to set up the kind of events and have the kind of institutional power that would allow them to meaningfully change their school's Title IX policies or at least set it up so that when there is a future failure, then stud ⁓ schools can't point to their policies and say, we didn't know, because they then heard from students who said, here's where your failures are coming from. One thing that would be amazing to have that isn't necessarily coming from this case, but would be incredibly helpful would be the ability to independently audit Title IX offices, as o often that really comes from internal oversight, usually from ⁓ offices of general counsel for universities who don't necessarily have the responsibility to protect survivors. They have the responsibility to protect the university. ⁓ And so when we look at these Title IX offices, having external audits and Having ways to ensure that Title IX is being applied the way that it we intend we, and by that I mean kind of the communities around colleges, the we want, we want Title IX to be applied correctly. But if the results of these Title IX cases are never seen, how is that supposed to be ensured? You know, if you have a Title IX office where call it ninety-five percent of reports never make it to a hearing, I think in general most people would view that as, huh, there's something wrong here. And that's where that external oversight can come in and say, well, why is that the case? ⁓ it's because they don't have enough staffing to effectively investigate all of these cases. Well, that's not an issue for the students, that's an issue for the institution itself. ⁓ and so I would say this unf really unfortunate case really is reflected at many use universities. I would really venture to guess that most universities have some kind of case similar to this where it really seems like a failure institutionally to support a survivor. This could be a great opportunity for institutions to change the systems, but I really don't view that as something that's going to happen without external pressure being applied. Going forward, inevitably this case will become less and less front of mind within the news cycle. And so continuing to show Title IX offices and ⁓ campus administration that There is kind of this push for change, really puts the ball in their court to step up to the plate. And if they don't, then unfortunately we will have more cases like this, but there will already be this kind of support network set up for survivors to put their stories out there kind of in a way that. ⁓ Jane Doe from Cornell really didn't have the opportunity to. it seems most of what came out came from ⁓ kind of legal documents rather than her coming out herself. And inevitably there will be more cases like this ⁓ until the application of Title IX is improved. But I will say that in going in the direction of improving it, Providing external pressure on universities to improve their policies and implementation is really genuinely what is going to support survivors in the long run.
speaker-0: Thank you for listening to this episode of Teal Talk. The Cornell case raises difficult questions about how institutions respond to sexual violence. One of the messages I want to leave you with from this conversation is that a system's response does not determine the truth of a survivor's experience. A decision not to prosecute does not necessarily mean a survivor was not believed. Just as a university's decision. Does not define what justice or healing has to look like for that survivor. We can hold on to that truth while at the same time continuing to ask systems to do better. We can expect more from institutions, we can ask better questions, we can support survivors outside of those systems, and we can keep working toward prevention. and communities where sexual violence is not accepted as inevitable. If this conversation brought up questions, feelings, or experiences for you, please take care of yourself and reach out for support if you need it. You can find resources and information about sexual violence services in Ohio at OAESV.org. We'll see you next time on Teal Talk. Thanks for listening to Teal Talk. I hope you enjoyed our deep dive into intersectional issues affecting survivors in Ohio. If you like what you heard, subscribe and consider leaving us a five-star rating and review. Recommend us to a friend, and follow us on Instagram and Facebook at OAESB. If you'd like to learn more about us and the services we offer, or sign up for our email list, visit OAESV.org and remember, we're here to help. Feel free to call our resource line. at 888-886-8388 during regular business hours or the Ohio Sexual Violence helpline twenty four seven at eight four four six four four six four three five. See you next time.
speaker-1: Hi, I'm so glad I'm here. How are you?
speaker-0: I'm doing well. ⁓ feeling a little heavy this morning, but I'm happy to have you on to talk about an issue that is ⁓ very timely and all over the news as of late.
speaker-1: It is. I feel like I can't open anything on my phone without just being bombarded by this topic. It's a little overwhelming if I'm being honest.
speaker-0: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. ⁓ it it feels like this ⁓ case has gotten quite a tremendous amount of attention very quickly. would you be able to share what you think people need to understand about this case before we begin talking about the broader issue that it raises?
speaker-1: Yeah, I can definitely give you a quick summary ⁓ to kind of make sure anyone listening kind of has the the baseline information about this. There was a Jane Doe filing of a civil complaint ⁓ earlier this month ⁓ in New York State, ⁓ suing Cornell University and several students and also the law enforcement agencies in Ithaca, New York. And the lawsuit alleges that a student who's identified as Jane Doe was drunk when she arrived at a fraternity party and then while there was further intoxicated. She then alleged that she was raped and and specifically gang raped by a group of the Frat brothers there. She then alleges that the university did not appropriately respond in their Title IX investigations and that the law enforcement community did also not. ⁓ respond appropriately. And in her allegations, she includes some evidence that I think is really the key to to what's happened in this case. She included a picture of a Snapchat that was sent out in a group of these fraternity brothers, essentially in very vulgar terms, advertising her availability for sex and the location of where she was. And that key piece of evidence being exposed Really has caused tremendous public outcry and backlash. So much so that it has led to recently, I think just this Monday, an announcement by the local prosecutor's office that they will indeed present the case to the grand jury. What I think we need to know as experts in the field is that in addition to all of that summary, Cornell has come out and said. We can't talk about a lot of these details because students have privacy that have have not been waived, but they're alleging or responding, saying that the allegation that we just did nothing about this is not accurate, not fair. They cite to the fact that they did suspend at least two students and that there were other types of discipline. And you know, some of the concerns are that the only discipline some of these young men got was, you know, writing a essay. And so there's there's questions that I have as an attorney in this field about what are the details of what really did happen to those young men and what is the process that the school used to get where it got. If the process was correct, then that may have been the the outcome. But we can talk more about that detail. I think the other thing that's really important to know is that law enforcement has also come out and said, Hey, a lot of the allegations and the information that's in the lawsuit. Doesn't match what we were told back in 2024. And that's not necessarily surprising, but if true, really gives us a lot to think about in terms of the work we do with survivors. And that's not an excuse either, because there's a lot more that law enforcement still can do to further investigate crimes, even if they feel like the initial presentation they receive is not enough. That's a lot.
speaker-0: Yeah, I'm like, there's so much to unpack there. My mind is going in many different directions. But what it sounds like is that when an assault happens on a college campus, there can be several systems involved. Like if a survivor chooses to report, they can go the direction of the university's Title IX office or Campus law enforcement or local law enforcement. Can you talk through how these systems interact?
speaker-1: ⁓ definitely. Early in my career this was something I did not understand. ⁓ for some background for listeners, I used to be a a prosecutor in University Heights, Ohio, and before that in Cuyahoga County, ⁓ which is the Cleveland area. And when I would hear about Title Nine or s ⁓ SCORE University did their own investigation under Title Nine. I was incensed. How dare you think that you're qualified to investigate a crime on behalf of law enforcement? But that's not what it is, right? It took me a long time to understand. It's almost like two train tracks that can run side by side but don't have to. So a student who has been a victim of sexual assault has choices. One choice out of all of them is to report to the school what happened and ask the school to make your educational environment and your school community safe for you. That's what Title IX is supposed to do. And your school is not allowed to share information with law enforcement because you're a student and you have privacy protections as a student under FERPA, which is federal law. Now law enforcement will sometimes have agreements with their local colleges and universities to say if you receive a report of sexual assault, you are agreeing that you will let The student know that we exist and present us as an option, right? That's kind of the lowest level of intervention. Some schools will also have agreements with local law enforcement that if there's a Title IX case, we'll tell you that someone reported sexual assault, but we won't identify any additional information. We'll just tell you that it happened. ⁓ and and I I have seen that in my experience. So it's really important for people to know that these are two different, very unrelated processes. And they often aren't processes that communicate with one another. So if the school does an investigation pursuant to Title IX, they're not required to share the interviews and what they learned with law enforcement. However, law enforcement, if they're really on the ball, can subpoena those records and then see what the investigation entailed. I find that a lot of law enforcement does not take that step because it's like extra work, or they may just not. Be aware that that's something they can do. The law enforcement that does do it usually is working closely with their prosecutor so that they're getting good legal advice to take that step. In the Cornell case, my understanding from what I've read so far is that Cornell did its own Title IX investigation, and law enforcement didn't get much of that information. And they made a decision about not prosecuting because they were missing some of what was available to them otherwise. If they had taken the extra step.
speaker-0: So is what we are seeing play out at Cornell right now?
speaker-1: New? No, it is not new. Sadly. In our legal clinic, our practice is statewide. We help many students with their Title IX cases. And to be quite frank, it can be very disheartening on those cases to have one after another after another. Because it is not uncommon for young people to be intoxicated when they arrive at parties and keep drinking once they get there. And it is not uncommon for People in college to make drinking just a and extreme drinking, drinking amounts that would put me down, you know, as part of their social life. And as someone in my 40s, I worry about the health of them doing that. But the the consequence of doing that may be on your liver, right? Or maybe on how you age long term. But the consequence of doing it should not be that you're sexually assaulted. We still unfortunately live in a youth culture. That perpetuates the notion that if she is drunk, you are lucky. And that is profoundly dangerous. But in Title IX cases, I feel like there's also a pattern of lots of schools really struggling to identify that someone who has committed sexual assault of an intoxicated person as actually having done something wrong. Right now, their their policies don't say that. The policies are very clear. Someone who is intoxicated cannot consent. But in how the schools apply it in everyday case by case basis, anecdotally, it feels like if she was intoxicated, there's a lot of victim blaming. There's a lot of, well, she started making out with him, so maybe he was reasonable in thinking she was consenting. Or like, I even had one with no identifying information here, I had one case where. A young man walked a a s fellow student home from drinking ⁓ tequila at a Mexican restaurant. And I asked him why did you feel like you needed to walk her home? And he said, ⁓ she was so intoxicated that I didn't think she could make good choices. I I thought she'd be vulnerable if I didn't walk her home. And yet he also said that 15 minutes later, when she was making out with him, he was sure she was consenting. The school was cool with that explanation. And that that is where we really have a huge problem. Our policies can be correct. The way we talk about sexual assault on campuses can be proactive and preventionist. But when it comes to how we decide on a case by case basis that we're going to hold people responsible for it, we really look the other way when we can say, ⁓ but she was drunk. And I think the Cornell case has some hints that it might go that way because the defense counsel, for one of at least one of these young men, has given a statement saying that. Something to the effect of it would have been reasonable for them to believe that that she was consenting to this activity. And that's where I struggle with how we hold one another in our communities accountable for our actions. Because if someone's drunk, if they've had 10 drinks before they even got there, it doesn't matter if their behavior might seem sexually encouraging. You have a burden to really determine if that person is able to consent when you're at a huge drinking party. I think also there's a big concern about this, you know, Snapchat group chat that they all had, where they're inviting each other to come join in. That I think is the part that has got so many people enraged, myself included. And I think that Snapchat, you know, the prosecutor's office is saying, Well, we didn't see that. We didn't even know that existed. The burden in law enforcement frequently can feel like if the survivor doesn't show enough evidence that the burden is on that survivor to present everything right away. Like they have to do their own investigation in order to convince law enforcement to get moving on it. That's that's I think the big takeaway for me when I look at this case.
speaker-0: Hmm. Yeah, and I feel like for a lot of people, when they hear not enough evidence, it can sound like the accused can just wipe their hands clean, case closed, no crime committed, end of story. But what does quote unquote not enough evidence mean from a legal standpoint? And what would you want survivors and advocates to understand about? what goes into making that decision.
speaker-1: I have so many thoughts on this question. So I'm sorry if I ramble in my answer. So when I was a former prosecutor, I struggled with balancing two really important things. And I have to imagine when I put myself in the shoes of other prosecutors, this is a common struggle for all of us. On one hand, I really care about survivors. I want to do what's right to protect that person and the community I serve from further harm. And I generally believe people. Unless you give me any motive to lie, I assume you're not lying. And I wish more people would start on that, right? Of course we all do. On the other side, I was also very aware that accusing someone of a sexually oriented offense would have a huge stigma. And so we hear, and and I agree with the criticism of how come we're always worried about how this will ruin some young man's life. But when you're the person who has to make the decision, it can weigh heavily on you. Do I file charges? If I'm not really, really feeling confident. And one of the things I tell my clients in these situations is that the consideration also is do I put a survivor through the tremendous pain of a criminal prosecution? Where there are months and months, if not years, of pretrial litigation, of things being said in the press, of pointless meetings that were you're wondering why you're doing this, and staff changes where you've told your story to 45 people. Do I put them through that if I don't feel confident that it's going to be worth it? So I I guess in some ways I have some compassion for prosecutors, but where I don't have as much compassion is when you say we did not hear enough evidence because she didn't tell us enough. She came to you and reported a crime, and you chose not to go get the Title IX information that may have been available to you. You chose not to ask further up qu follow-up questions. And so here in Ohio, I feel like, again, anecdotally, we don't have numbers on a lot of this, but this is my sole practice every day. I feel like I am seeing a lot of survivors who, when they report to police, they're still processing what just happened to me, if they disclose right away, and many don't. And so they don't use words like I was raped. They don't use words like I was forced. And if they say I felt like I couldn't leave, they're often asked the follow-up question of, well, why did you feel that way? And they don't yet have a way to articulate their answer. That is normal for someone whose brain is still recovering from trauma. But you, as law enforcement, have a responsibility to that person and to the community at large to further investigate, to take it further. And in the Cornell case, it appears that they took campus police, they took an initial statement. And then did nothing else. And when you take an initial statement, it really is in most law enforcement agencies for the purpose of opening an investigation. So here in Ohio, if you go to most law enforcement agencies, you make an initial field report where the police officer writes down the details, but they hand it off to a detective who is specially trained and will conduct an additional follow-up investigation. Those follow-up investigations usually involve questions that are designed To help understand circumstances and mindsets, more probing questions. That's where, in my opinion, the law enforcement in the Cornell case really fell off.
speaker-0: ⁓ It's ⁓ it's not easy to sympathize with a prosecutor, but I imagine it's also not easy to be a prosecutor. So would you say then that if a prosecutor or law enforcement officer says there's not enough evidence, does that necessarily mean that they don't believe the survivor is telling the truth?
speaker-1: Definitely no. No. There are lots of times where prosecutors do believe what the survivor's saying. And I think that if you're the survivor, you can even be told that directly and still not believe it. Or or you know, maybe you believe it, but you don't feel it. And really how we feel is really what matters when we're recovering from trauma. So I I think that that cannot be repeated enough times by advocates, by attorneys, by prosecutors when they're talking to survivors. I don't feel like I have enough evidence to file these charges, but I want to reassure you, I do believe you. And one of the best ways I heard law enforcement officer ⁓ word this to a survivor that she was talking to was she said, I don't think I have enough evidence to do what I really want to do here. So she aligned herself with the goals of the survivor. And I thought that that was, you know, the most trauma-informed way to maybe deliver that message. We can believe somebody, but whether or not I think I can convince a jury, and that's a very jurisdictional community specific assessment, too. Can I convince a jury in one county versus a jury somewhere else? They may have very different likelihoods of believing certain things. And and the standard for prosecutors is supposed to be: do I have enough evidence to say that there's, you know, probable cause? And the term probable cause means ⁓ Probably. We used to joke in law school about how you could indict a ham sandwich at such a low standard. But the truth is when it comes to sexual assault cases, most prosecutors again don't want to put a survivor through the the difficult journey from charges to a to a conviction or even worse to to getting through it and not getting a conviction. If you're gonna put someone through that journey, doing it because you only have merely probable cause feels irresponsible. Do I have enough to think that it will be worth it to this person is usually what's really going on in the prosecutor's head. And and so that doesn't mean they're not believed. It it means exactly the words they're saying, I don't think I have enough evidence. It doesn't mean you're not good enough.
speaker-0: I do want to reiterate what you said because it feels like such a clear takeaway. A decision not to prosecute does not necessarily mean the survivor wasn't believed. But I can imagine telling a survivor, I believe you, but there's nothing I can really do has to be extremely difficult. Yeah.
speaker-1: It's very hard to deliver the message over and over again to survivors that we do believe you and even though we believe you, I can't find anything else to help you with your case either. It doesn't happen all the time, you know. I I don't want to sound doom and gloom in this conversation, but you know, one of the things I really wanted to highlight for you as I was thinking about this topic, and this is the thing that kind of hopefully gives gives other people hope because it helps me. There was a case recently coming out of Wayne County, and I mean recently as in just within the last few months, the Ninth District Court of Appeals heard a sexual assault case and reaffirmed the principle that your victim's testimony can be enough to support a conviction. So in this case, ⁓ state v. Eagle, an inmate, a prison inmate was sexually assaulted by fellow inmates. And based on his word that this happened to me. And some video footage that just showed those inmates coming and going from his cell and appearing to be like celebrating something. That was enough. And the appellate court said, as a reminder to everybody in that county, that a lack of physical evidence, a lack of medical records, a lack of DNA testing doesn't mean that you can't support a conviction. That a victim's testimony alone is enough. To support a conviction. And that has always been the law throughout Ohio. So even though it doesn't feel like we're relying on it, it is indeed the law. And my hope is that that state v. Eagle case will help prosecutors feel more confident, taking risks, if they've explained that it's risky to a survivor, if they've said, I don't know that your case is a slam dunk. I absolutely believe you, but this might be a hard case for me to convince jurors about because jurors are watching TV. They think they need CSI and DNA and you know all the evidence that law and order says they should have. So I'm comfortable taking your case forward because I believe you and the law says believing you alone is enough. But I want to tell you ahead of time that this is gonna be a long road. It might be really discouraging and really hard. And at the end of it, you might have to live with the fact that complete strangers didn't believe you. But the law says that if they believe you, that's enough. Are you comfortable going forward with that? That puts the choice on them, but it also has to say to a prosecutor, you're gonna be okay with having a losing record. You're gonna be okay with having a manager who might judge you for having lost some more cases this year. So our system of what success should be for lawyers has to has to be tinkered with.
speaker-0: Little deal. I do want to unpack the not enough evidence part a little bit more, especially after that case bringing to light that survivor testimony can be enough. So from your experience ⁓ working at the OASV Legal Clinic, what kinds of evidence tend to be overlooked or misunderstood or even undervalued in sexual violence cases? And I'm wondering if there are any questions. That you wish investigators or prosecutors would ask earlier in the investigation to maybe even pull out those types of evidence that might be undervalued.
speaker-1: ⁓ well one of the things on that list would be bystander ⁓ accounts. So when you're at a huge drinking party, I wanna know if other people not involved in a sexual assault would have thought that person was drunk just by watching them. Mm-hmm. You know, because usually if you ask enough people at the party, they will often say, ⁓ yeah, she was stumbling around. If you can get other people to say we could tell she was drunk, well then the question then leads to how come the people who sexually assaulted her couldn't tell she was drunk? You can hold them to the same standards as the average person at the party. I feel like that frequently gets missed. I think another thing that really gets missed is not what is there, but what isn't there. And by that I mean the motivation to lie. When you have a sexual assault survivor, and and our mantra in in this malew in which we work is that we generally say, believe survivors. Believe survivors. All survivors automatically believe them. And I think there's a good reason why we as advocates will say that.
speaker-0: Yeah.
speaker-1: But in the legal environment, attorneys have to be careful to not sound like they're so biased that they can't present their case as a logical cold manner, right? And so I think it's really important for prosecutors to instead of saying, well, I just believe all survivors, I think prosecutors should say, I believe people unless you tell me otherwise. So unless there is any evidence that this person had some good reason to lie, then we should default with we believe them. The struggle that I have is that it doesn't feel like that's really happening. The struggle I have is it feels like the survivors have to fight to be believed, versus ⁓ the accused should have to present some reason why we wouldn't. That burden shifting isn't really happening in reality, and I think the lack of evidence of motivation to lie is what we miss or undervalue. So
speaker-0: With this Cornell case specifically, you mentioned that the university has said like we we we did what we did, we don't think that we did anything wrong necessarily, but now we have Jane Doe who is suing the university. I'm wondering what happens when the university and the criminal legal system aren't on the same page? What happens next?
speaker-1: Such a good question because it happens a lot. Again, when you think of them as being two railroad tracks, they absolutely can branch off and diverge, right? So I have seen it happen a lot where maybe a school will say, We think there's enough evidence to hold you responsible for what you did and say that you violated our university's policies. And because of that, we're gonna expel you, or because of that, we're gonna suspend you, whatever. ⁓ and then that same survivor. Goes through multiple pretrials at the courthouse that may just be down the street, and the jury may say, We don't believe you. He's vindicated. Huzzah. And it can feel like you're living in this alternate universe if you're the person on the other end of that. But it it certainly does happen. And how clients respond to that can also vary widely. I have had clients in that situation respond by feeling like the university is my real community anyway. And because the university believes me, that's what mattered most to me. I've had other students say, well, who cares if this administrative process believed me? The fact that the law, the the real meat and teeth of the of the issue did not believe me. ⁓ and it can go the other way. It c it can be where the school says, yeah, you know, we don't really, we're really gonna do anything about this, and they'll come up with a reason why. And then In law enforcement, they take it very seriously. They've kind of had enough of hearing about these assaults that are happening on campus, and we know that you're the university isn't telling us enough about it. And we really throw ourselves into this and a jury believes them and and you're convicted. So one does not equal the other. Just the way not prosecuting doesn't equal not not believing you. And so I think it's really important to tell clients that at the outset, that this could be two different answers. And I f and this is maybe is outside of the legal field and more in like counseling, right? That it's important for survivors to know that justice is not defined by whether law enforcement does something. Justice is not defined by whether or not the school believes you. And that's hard because if we make a whole list of what does not define justice, well then what does? What's left? And that can be really hard because. Your recovery and your well-being can't depend on other people. So many things about what you need inside of you just cannot depend on what other people do. In a perfect world, everybody would respond perfectly. I think that's also, and this is another podcast for another day. ⁓ but attorney Caitlin Benzo here at our legal clinic is really throwing herself into learning a lot more about restorative justice and what Other non-traditional ways can we provide options to our client outside of the traditional legal system? And I'm doing a little reading and research and on my own, but I'm really excited to see what Attorney Benzo is going to be learning and sharing with our organization and hopefully publishing that out. And I really think that there's an opportunity to completely transform and add to a menu of options that we can present to our clients. And that really involves transforming our entire community to how we think about our responses. So, like I said, that's a whole nother podcast.
speaker-0: Well yeah, and I think the reason that this case is feels like it's taking over social media right now is because I think there are just so many reasons to be upset. One question that I keep thinking throughout this conversation is like, okay, what should a survivor reasonably be able to expect from their university after making a report? And if a university's response is to just expel two students.
speaker-1: So many.
speaker-0: For example, is that actually going to prevent future harm? And you know, tying in that restorative justice piece, like did anyone ask the survivor if that was the outcome that she wanted? Did her own wishes and needs factor into that response?
speaker-1: Yeah, when when you see a Snapchat conversation among I mean, we're talking dozens of young men, in which seven of them responded and went and raped this woman. The conversation has to be about what about the other young men? What are we teaching them about upstanding? What are we teaching them about their own internal character and values? And the truth is that if we don't have institutions that will hold them accountable for their silence, then how can we expect better of them? These are institutions of learning. And learning is more than just what's in a book. Learning is how we conduct ourselves as responsible citizens and people who owe something to each other. And so, you know, when I think philosophically, big picture, that's why people are so upset about this case. It's not just about you only expelled two students, although that's a piece of it. It's not just about the prosecutor didn't charge because they didn't bother to investigate as fully as they could have. That's a piece of it. But I think what's really enraging people and should enrage people is that so many men just stood by and were cool with it. And and then they wonder why we choose the bear in social media speak, right? When you say what can we reasonably expect, what what I advise my clients to reasonably expect versus what I would like us all to expect, we got a long way to go. A long way. But I have hope. I keep finding the occasional case where something will give me hope. And if we don't keep the hope and we don't keep doing it, giving up just isn't the option.
speaker-0: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I mean we we can't give up. Like p Jane Doe and many other Jane Does need us to be hopeful, to be angry, and to keep fighting for change.
speaker-1: Absolutely. Systems don't change if we abandon them. Systems don't change if we all say this is ⁓ this is stupid, I'm taking my ball and I'm going home. Systems change when people who care deeply insist that they're staying. So when I look at the Cornell case, I I am rooted in and I am staying, because it won't change if I leave. I hope everybody else can feel that way too. It takes stubbornness, right?
speaker-0: A hundred percent. To wrap this episode up, I I'm wondering if you have a message you want survivors to hear if they've had a response from a system that made them feel like believed.
speaker-1: They were. I want survivors in an ideal world to be able to heal even if they're not believed. I want survivors to feel loved and cared for and supported even when systems fail. And that means that every other one of us who's working with survivors outside of those systems has to double down on the nurture and the love and the belief and the expression of belief. Because if we can't rely on these systems to get better, then while we're working on getting them better, we've got the double duty of helping people internally, independently feel valued. It's both. It's definitely not and or. It's both.
speaker-0: We are no strangers to a sexual violence story taking headline, especially at college campuses. And I think whenever a story does, you know, kind of catch the wind and become major news, it really puts rape crisis centers and coalitions like ours in a very unique position where where all eyes are on us, for lack of a better term. when we have people's attention, like what are we trying to say to them? And how can we get them involved in this work, right? Like we have over 60 university campuses in Ohio, and this case is an opportunity for campuses and communities to really examine how they prevent sexual violence, respond to concerns, and support survivors. So like we are kind of relying on people who are feeling outraged right now ⁓ to to join the movement.
speaker-1: Yeah, I think when I think about like, you know, my job as an attorney focuses on cleaning up a mess, but the real power is in the people who are involved in prevention. So when I think about like the traditional experience of the average college kid, as you get there and the first week that you're there during orientation, you're told don't be a raper. And then maybe now and again you see that there's like a women's center on your campus, or maybe now and then you see that there are some advocates or a rape crisis center that has a table at an event. That is not as powerful. That's not powerful enough or frequent enough messaging to change a mindset that is rooted in a rape culture. You know, the the message that it's your lucky day that she's drunk, they hear it young, they hear it repeatedly. So we have to match that constant. unending consistent messaging, word for word. Every time they hear a message that it's okay to have sex with someone who's drunk, they have to hear a message that it's not. So the the prevention of changing the culture is far outside of my wheelhouse, but I think the real power is that
speaker-0: There. Thank you so much, Stephanie. Yeah. Tough conversation, but I think messages that we all could benefit from hearing again.
speaker-1: I love talking to you about this stuff. Thanks for for the conversation.
speaker-0: And thank you for sticking through until the end. As promised, let's hear some thought leadership from our Survivor Empowerment and Advisory Council member, Sam. Thank you, Sam. What do you think people who work on college campuses need to understand about accountability and what it should actually look like for survivors?
speaker-2: Hi, Lori. Thank you again for reaching out to me. I think a fundamental misunderstanding between university policies and ⁓ university administration and then the students that it applies to is that the accountability that people are seeking does not often reflect what is written in the policies themselves. And so what I mean by that is often these policies are vague and broad and contain a lot of legal Jargon, which is very difficult to understand from a student point of view. And when you look at how the implementation works, often what you're getting is inequal applications of Title IX, where students are often very confused about the outcomes from these hearings. Fundamentally, that comes from this like legal jargon that. these Title IX policies gets derived from. And so kind of often what you see is many students confused about certain cases that may become l somewhat more well known on campuses where applications of policy does not track with what students think that it should do. I think a great ⁓ example of this ⁓ is from Columbia University actually and it's ⁓ known as Carry That Weight and it was a student whose senior thesis was ⁓ carrying around her dorm mattress that ⁓ she was sexually assaulted on and the ⁓ the the meaning behind it was she was going to carry it until Her assaulter was expelled from the university and she ended up actually walking across the stage and graduating with that mattress. That kind of reflects this Cornell case where people are very confused about kind of the application and universities kind of inaction when policies are applied in a way that does not track with how they actually should be applied. And so what you get is this kind of like misapplication of Title IX and kind of a discordance between what students want as accountability and this kind of protective nature of Title IX for administration, where they get to point to it and say, we followed our policies. However, in the end, the policies and then their subsequent applications kind of fail students. ⁓ and often Universities will point to their policies and expect students to fix their their policies for them, but don't really provide an avenue for that to happen. They might have kind of like a focus group or a listening session where students can provide feedback, but that never really turns into actionable change. ⁓ at most it might be a slight change in wording or kind of small scale changes, but the the large scale changes that students are looking for really doesn't ever occur. What that looks like for survivors is then you have these stories where people look back and they go, Well, you know, we have carry that weight from tw that was in 2014, y and then now we have these cases. And it seems like these cases are just ongoing. Like the the circumstances are similar. And it's because These policies aren't necessarily changing in any meaningful way over time. And that's a responsibility of the institutions themselves to step up to the plate and kind of address the ways in which they lack in their Title IX applications rather than waiting for students to do it for them.
speaker-0: What have you learned about the gap between policies and systems that are supposed to protect survivors and what survivors actually experience?
speaker-2: I mean similar to what I said before, really it comes down to on paper, these policies follow Title IX, yet when they are implemented, the legal nature of the way that these policies are written and kind of the nature of how limited evidence can be in cases of sexual violence, i it becomes extremely difficult to have these clear cut cases that lawyers like. And so you see in the the case of this ⁓ DA in the state of New York where they don't pursue these cases and often very few cases are ever pursued criminally because the bar for having this clear cut evidence is so difficult to have. I can tell you that personally what I have seen is cases where it's viewed as worthwhile to take it forward. ⁓ the level of evidence is extraordinary. I mean, the level of evidence gathering put on survivors of finding video evidence and multiple, multiple witnesses and toxicology reports, insane exams. And all of this has to happen while they're kind of operating through this system alone, usually with very, very little support, especially from universities. And fundamentally becomes this thing where Title IX is supposed to be the university's responsibility to create an environment where students can learn without sexual harassment. But realistically, what it turns into is. survivors in crisis really attempting to become their own lawyer, they usually can't afford I mean, the the the cost of legal counsel is extraordinary. And institutions get to point at their policies and say, Well, we followed our policy, therefore we can't be responsible for any shortcomings. When fundamentally it was their policy that was the shortcoming in the first place.
speaker-0: For someone listening who is angry or discouraged by stories like what happened at Cornell, what do you think that anger should push us to do differently?
speaker-2: There's a very emotional response to the story, which is very valid. But it's at times like this when it's very important to kind of direct that anger into something that can actually create meaningful change for future survivors. And I what what I mean by that is students and alumni have a lot of influence on putting pressure on administration. And fundamentally when these kind of big news stories happen, often that pressure isn't necessarily put on ⁓ administrators. I it's more of a social media flyers have events kind of thing. And so what I view it as is the the this is a great opportunity, especially for alumni of universities to go and review their own school's policies and see where the shortcomings come from and reach out to student organizations and ⁓ j genuinely these student organizations are you know overworked students with little resources and the having sub more support can allow these student organizations to set up the kind of events and have the kind of institutional power that would allow them to meaningfully change their school's Title IX policies or at least set it up so that when there is a future failure, then stud ⁓ schools can't point to their policies and say, we didn't know, because they then heard from students who said, here's where your failures are coming from. One thing that would be amazing to have that isn't necessarily coming from this case, but would be incredibly helpful would be the ability to independently audit Title IX offices, as o often that really comes from internal oversight, usually from ⁓ offices of general counsel for universities who don't necessarily have the responsibility to protect survivors. They have the responsibility to protect the university. ⁓ And so when we look at these Title IX offices, having external audits and Having ways to ensure that Title IX is being applied the way that it we intend we, and by that I mean kind of the communities around colleges, the we want, we want Title IX to be applied correctly. But if the results of these Title IX cases are never seen, how is that supposed to be ensured? You know, if you have a Title IX office where call it ninety-five percent of reports never make it to a hearing, I think in general most people would view that as, huh, there's something wrong here. And that's where that external oversight can come in and say, well, why is that the case? ⁓ it's because they don't have enough staffing to effectively investigate all of these cases. Well, that's not an issue for the students, that's an issue for the institution itself. ⁓ and so I would say this unf really unfortunate case really is reflected at many use universities. I would really venture to guess that most universities have some kind of case similar to this where it really seems like a failure institutionally to support a survivor. This could be a great opportunity for institutions to change the systems, but I really don't view that as something that's going to happen without external pressure being applied. Going forward, inevitably this case will become less and less front of mind within the news cycle. And so continuing to show Title IX offices and ⁓ campus administration that There is kind of this push for change, really puts the ball in their court to step up to the plate. And if they don't, then unfortunately we will have more cases like this, but there will already be this kind of support network set up for survivors to put their stories out there kind of in a way that. ⁓ Jane Doe from Cornell really didn't have the opportunity to. it seems most of what came out came from ⁓ kind of legal documents rather than her coming out herself. And inevitably there will be more cases like this ⁓ until the application of Title IX is improved. But I will say that in going in the direction of improving it, Providing external pressure on universities to improve their policies and implementation is really genuinely what is going to support survivors in the long run.
speaker-0: Thank you for listening to this episode of Teal Talk. The Cornell case raises difficult questions about how institutions respond to sexual violence. One of the messages I want to leave you with from this conversation is that a system's response does not determine the truth of a survivor's experience. A decision not to prosecute does not necessarily mean a survivor was not believed. Just as a university's decision. Does not define what justice or healing has to look like for that survivor. We can hold on to that truth while at the same time continuing to ask systems to do better. We can expect more from institutions, we can ask better questions, we can support survivors outside of those systems, and we can keep working toward prevention. and communities where sexual violence is not accepted as inevitable. If this conversation brought up questions, feelings, or experiences for you, please take care of yourself and reach out for support if you need it. You can find resources and information about sexual violence services in Ohio at OAESV.org. We'll see you next time on Teal Talk. Thanks for listening to Teal Talk. I hope you enjoyed our deep dive into intersectional issues affecting survivors in Ohio. If you like what you heard, subscribe and consider leaving us a five-star rating and review. Recommend us to a friend, and follow us on Instagram and Facebook at OAESB. If you'd like to learn more about us and the services we offer, or sign up for our email list, visit OAESV.org and remember, we're here to help. Feel free to call our resource line. at 888-886-8388 during regular business hours or the Ohio Sexual Violence helpline twenty four seven at eight four four six four four six four three five. See you next time.
