forensic statement that you would want to have taken in those circumstances. >> so your effort is to get them to the right place? >> initially. >> and then again, it's at their wishes. so if their wish is to let us know simultaneously, we're letting our title 9 offices know that this incident happened. it doesn't matter where it happened. title 9 is going to take that on and work their investigative process. so we sort of simultaneously launch both notifications but we advocate with the student through the processes that can be very confusing when you are working with a lot of different agencies. >> it would be rare for a survivor to contact us immediately as the very first contact. oftentimes it's either a hall adviser, someone in a wellness center, someone in student conduct, student life. we assured all of those support services are in place, are available. that that survivor, as chief

zoner said is in the right place before we really start to flesh out an interview schedule and touch base in terms of the kinds of interviews you are asking for or suggest. >> these things are all done without an mou in place. and what we have found on a number of occasions is that our local law enforcement agencies aren't beholden to the dod or any other directives to enter into any agreement. if i approach them with something they're going to have to sign they'll run it through their legal counsel and either refuse to sign or handshake and work with us. we haven't had a problem working with people. it's never a bad idea to try to come up with something that forces agencies that have difficulty working together, but i'm not sure an mou is the right thing for that. >> we do have -- excuse me. go ahead. >> go ahead. >> we have a franklin county sexual assault response protocol that's been developed among all law enforcement agencies in our -- led by our county

prosecutor that that serves as that road map or guide as well. a guiding document. and that's reviewed and analy analyzed. >> the university is part of that? >> absolutely. >> i just wanted to underline what mike was saying about coordination being a bigger issue than just law enforcement and the university. it's an internal university issue and there's also another key relationship outside of the university and that's with whoever the community sexual violence advocates are, anti-sexual violence advocates are. sexual assault response teams have been a key best practice that have been -- that's been developed, shown to work over and over again because you can pull in both the, you know, the people internally that need to be coordinated and the people

externally that need to be involved. and they all have to talk to each other. and my colleague from the victim's rights law center who does a lot of training with institutions, she was on the title 9 panel. she often says, you know, you should start a sexual response team, but understand that for the first six months at least, they are just going to fight with each other. and that's sort of a necessary process because as mike was saying, there's lots of -- sometimes there are a lot of dysfunctional relationships that need to be gotten through. but oftentimes once you get through those, you have a level of coordination and cooperation and sort of like-mindedness that you would never have been able to achieve without that process. having gone through that process. and i think it's important to

understand that part of the reason why you want this many people at the table is because of the different goals issue. you know, from a title 9 and cleary act perspective, the most important thing is getting the survivor -- getting her title 9 and her cleary act rights met or his rights met. and those rights are based on equality in the title 9 context in particular. and, therefore, are much broader than anything that the criminal justice system can provide. the criminal justice system is really not about -- it's about justice, but it's not about equality. and so it's important to set up process and that includes coordination that can fulfill

all of the goals that institutions need to fulfill. not just the goals of the criminal justice system. >> i'd like to follow up on the point that you just made which i think is very, very important. in the course of the roundtables that i did around the state, i did seven roundtables. we did a report. and we tried to address the issue of underreporting. why are women, mostly women are victims, not coming forth more frequently. and this crime is hugely underreported, maybe outside the campus as well, senator mccaskill and i have had some experience with the military system as well as the civilian, the underreporting seems to be a chronic and repeated problem. and that's one reason why enforcement is so important. enforcement gives credibility.

you can't have punishment unless you have reporting and the effectiveness of punishment and prosecution in turn enhances the credibility of the system. it leads to more reporting because it bolsters the trust that survivors have. so maybe you and i've heard darcy and alexandra. i spent some time on the yale campus and others can comment on the issues of the different goals and to what extent reporting -- more reporting can be encouraged by pursuing all of the goals or whether some of them have to be chosen over others. >> i think that it's important that even as we're talking about streamlining that we domain tain all these different goals, precisely because survivors have such a range of needs both in the aftermath of the violence

and in the years that follow. so we've heard many different stories from survivors across the country. some people at that moment really want public vindication through the courts. some people just want an extension on their english paper. some people don't want to have to see their rapist in their dorm the next day, and in order to, i think, really have a survivor centered approach, should really be embracing the fact we have this wonderful opportunity to pursue different goals through different processes depending on what the survivor wants. >> and i would add to that that it's not just, i agree completely that it's not just also offering as many options and available ways to report but making sure that people know what those are and having clarity around it. and going back to what we were talking about with the mous. one thing that will promote survivors coming forward is having that coordinated community response so they see the systems are working together.

that there is collaboration. that they're not going to have to tell their story again. we've seen this model work in the child advocacy center model. just being sensitive to the fact that, like alexandra said, it's not one size fits all in terms of what justice means. i think for many survivors, just knowing that there are different outlets available that can make all the difference for them when they are ready to come forward. >> i think it's just tricky. i think one of the intentions is making sure different approaches are coordinated without being merged into one. so most of the survivors we've spoken to out of hundreds said they would be less likely to report to their school if they felt that that would necessitate some sort of police involvement. i think we have to be very clear that everyone is working together if they want them to work together, but that that decision is ultimately up to them. >> with my prosecutor hat on, i have to say that while i'm all for giving lots of different options, oftentimes you might negate my option of the criminal

prosecution depending on how the initial investigation is led and how that's performed. it sometimes binds our hands and we then have an inability to prosecute it when that may be promised up front. you can think about criminal later but then it's run its course and interfered with our ability to do criminal later. >> it is such an issue, and i am really struggling with this. my staff is nervous right now because we go around and around. these cases are hard cases. they are makable. i know i have witnesses here. if the victim has the right kind of interview, the right kind of evidence and the right kind of investigation is done as close in time as possible to the event. the more time that passes, the less likely there is there will be a successful criminal prosecution because a lot of this is about corroborating the

victim. when you have a he said/she said it is very difficult to get a jury to unanimously agree beyond a reasonable doubt, which wasn't my jurisdiction, if you don't have corroboration. corroboration is sometimes very easy to obtain. and so part of this is my sense, and i don't know how we deal with this. maybe darcy, you can dive in here, is how do we have a system that is multijurisdictional in terms of people's roles and obligations but that at its center is making sure that victim gets as much information as possible as quickly as possible and fully understands that waiting to think about whether or not her brutal rapist will ever have a difficult interview with somebody in a uniform or whether her brutal rapist will ever have a fear of actually going to prison, has everything to do with her

willingness to not only come forward but come forward quickly. and i don't think that that -- i mean what my sense is after all these roundtables is there is almost a bias in the system away from the criminal justice system. and i understand why. the criminal justice system does not have -- we've had some -- i'm speaking rit large not me or hopefully the professionals i spoke with when i was doing these cases, but there's some horrible stories about how victims have been treated and the way they've been talked to and the way their cases have been handled. and that is being used, i think, to in some ways keep victims from believing that there are people like the people on this panel that will listen and investigate and handle their cases in a very professional and supportive manner. obviously, with an eye towards the facts, not an eye towards a certain result.

but how do we do this? i mean, how do we -- help me here, prosecutors, and detective and help me here advocates that are worried about victims not having control maybe carrie, this is where you can talk about you have options. >> if i may. i'm dying to answer everything you are saying. so a lot of what i think you have been hearing, and i am notoriously hard on my own profession so i'm going to acknowledge that first. but it's because we do not have a great history of doing this case load, sexual assault well. i'm not saying that's everybody. but let's just address the fact. if we were doing these well, we wouldn't be sitting at this table. so i always have a problem with legislating or lywith putting rules forward for law enforcement with the assumption that they're going to screw it up. and i don't think that solves

the problem. there's a wonderful trend now thankfully among law enforcement where they are starting to acknowledge that this has to be done differently. and the traditional model of policing that works for all these cases doesn't work in sexual assault because the dynamics are so drastically different. when we built this program, back in 2009, before any of these conversations were happening. all we wanted to do was make things better in the city of ashland. what we did is we went to every victim that was willing to come forward and report to us and we asked them, if you could change things, what would you do? no restrictions. whatever it was, and i completely agree with you because every person answered that differently as to what their individual barrier was. so anything that goes forward that's coming from someone assuming what a survivor wants is grossly mistaken. you cannot do that because what is right for one survivor is not right for another. and for anybody in a profession to assume that they know what

the answer to that is egotistical and it is damaging to this case load. so what we have to do as law enforcement was get out of our own way. we had to say, tell us how to do this better. obviously, we're not doing it well. my chief who is extremely forward thinking says it best. he says, listen. let's just take the highest statistic of 34%. and i don't think there's 34% of reporting. let's just say there was. even if we were 100% successful in all of those cases, it's still an epic failure. so we had to do something different. and what we said was let's try everything they asked us to do. and the one thing they asked every single time was for confidentiality. >> now that is such an important point. and at the end of these roundtables that i held, i came up with a bill of rights for survivors. and one of the rights was to confidentiality. >> yes. >> and i think this discussion

is extremely valuable but the other thing we did in the roundtable was heard from survivors about how this system looks from their perspective. and what impressed me at connecticut college and some of the other places and maybe we can hear from jessica as well on this issue, is how they provided advice to the survivors because that makes all the difference as to, one, whether somebody comes forward and, two, whether they stay with it because it's not only the initial report. it's also the -- where do i go from here? am i just going to retreat? am i going to take a semester off because i don't want to run into this guy? so i think the initial -- maybe we can hear a little bit more about how, you know, we have -- you have options, you have choices, confidentiality, how all of this works from the

standpoint of the survivor. >> there's actually research that says if you have an advocate from the very beginning, a confidential advocate that you'll be more likely to be continuing through whatever administrative or criminal process. so if they have that advocate they'll be more likely to cooperate. but i think what has to happen, there has to be trust. advocates, some of us really promise we don't have an agenda. we're not not telling them to report which i fear is sometimes the problem. they are thinking the confidential advocates are turning them away from some of these options. what i can promise is i'll give them all of their options and let them choose because they come from a victim empowerment model and then support them, whatever option they want. but i think there has to be that trust that we're not turning them away from one of those options but fairly telling them what they are. >> like jessjessica, we're tota giving many options. i want to be open and honest. it's not like an episode of

"svu" and be over in 45 minutes. with our population, it may happen their senior year and they are off to a job four states away. and so that's a big inhibitor that students may not come forward for the criminal justice system because that process could take years to go through. and they just want to move on with their life and do something different. where with the title 9 model, 60 days something has to be handled. and to your point senator mccaskill about having somebody come in quickly. may take several days, several months for someone to come in and see an advocate. even if they turn around the next day and say they want to file criminal justice -- or criminal report, then that time has passed. where again, at least at connecticut college we don't have a statute of limitations. if something happens as a freshman, the student can come back as a senior. obviously it's harder to prove but that student still has that option. they have to remember the length of the process. >> i was going to add, not only

the length but it's the different types of evidence. in the criminal justice system it's beyond a reasonable doubt and then we've got our administrative process which is a preponderance of the evidence. more likelihood than not you'll have victims wanting to go with what they might see as the easier, less burdensome. >> and the people that are on college judicial panels have all been trained as federal mandate where an average juror is making a decision. so the prosecution, your police officers could be doing an amazing job with the investigation but if that defense attorney does a really good job -- >> they haven't all been trained. just so you know. the adjudication panels haven't all been trained. they probably have been at connecticut college, but i can assure you they have not been across this country. we have a vaerts riety of peopl making these decisions that are asking wildly inappropriate questions at these adjudications. >> we use the survivor bill of rights, mr. blumenthal and offer that on our campus. where that runs head long is to public records laws and

restrictions that require us to make our police records open to a very large extent, even with the visiting survivors or suspects names, releasing those to the public. while that may be a best practice, that's going to be a challenge for some states to do that. >> how do you all handle public records stuff in terms of your model and where the victim gets to decide. this is very similar to the military system. >> absolutely. >> restricted and unrestricted reports. what happens on public record requests to your police agency on a report where a victim -- where a report has been made but she wanted to keep it confidential. >> sure. let me say first, too, the difference between us and the military mod ceel is we're getty the information to the person doing the investigation. that's the goal from the beginning. it's not going to someone restricted and not doing the investigation. that's what i do believe. i believe this information needs to go to law enforcement but with the victim's permission.

so specifically to when these reports are released, what we do is this is a huge break from traditional policing. we can do this legally and it may vary different state by state. in oregon, the public records laws, that is when a case has been close d and is no longer being investigated. we have pretty lengthy statutes of limitations. we activate it. doesn't mean they never want to do something. they just don't want to right now. it really solves a lot of problems because how in the world can you expect a survivor to make a determination about adjudication when something has just happened. frankly, they wouldn't even have the information necessary to say whether they want to prosecute or not because we don't have any time corroborating. we don't know if they have a triable case. that's never a conversation we have. we document everything they'll let us. it helps with some of those delays. what i would also say is we can

overcome those delays. that's a very traditional policing response to say it's a delayed report. therefore, it's unlikely to go forward. we actually have shown for years now that's not the case. >> right. >> we get much better cases because we're working with a victim the entire time. it's not adversarial. it's not, i need you to do this and you don't have a choice in that. prosecutors get much better cases. when that case has been activated, we don't have to release it. of course, could there be a time? yes. but again you'd have to have somebody that knows they made the report to come request the report. and i think that's pretty unlikely. it's not impossible but it's unlikely. now when we get to a public records typically is we've already come to a decision with that victim they want to go forward with a complete investigation. that's a traditional model. goes to the d.a.'s office and the options are not available at the d.a.'s office because we're not going to tell them how to do their work but the victim understands that before we make the decision for that. >> if it goes to the d.a.'s office and they decide to not

take it, then it becomes open? >> yes. >> but the decision is by the victim as to whether or not they want it to be a complete investigation with the possibility of referral to the prosecutor? >> yes. absolutely. it's completely with them. we want to keep it inactive and not close it for as long as possible because we've found time and time again -- the way they feel at six months and maybe -- again, the other half of the program is we identify serial perpetration which changes the entire conversation. but let's say we don't. we can still get someone coming in two years later that says i'm ready now. because we did a good job documenting it, a good forensic interview, we audio recorded it, our prosecutor stands a chance. i'm not saying it's easy but it's better than it is. >> jennifer, were you going to make a comment? >> going back to the students and knowing their options, the sense we get is that they are given an option. you can go to law enforcement but then it's with the negatives -- and there are

negatives of law enforcement. our standard of proof is higher. it takes more than the six months of your semester to finish a case. but i don't know when students are given their options they are also told the positives of law enforcement which are that the law enforcement officers will be able to collect more evidence, more quickly, especially in cases where something happened off campus. they have more power there. if you ultimately have a result in the criminal justice system, it's a criminal result. the person will have the record. you will have an order of protection that will last many years. we had a young woman who was sexually assaulted on campus outside of new york state. had an order of protection on campus. came to new york for a job and then the offender was coming to her workplace. not doing anything criminal. just violating that order of protection. it was completely unenforceable. so i think they need to be told their options but maybe in a written form that says this is

your law enforcement option and it will take this amount of time and this is the standard of proof but these are also the benefits of it to encourage more reporting. >> alexandra, do you think -- i'm sorry. do you think that it is fair to say that now victims are being discouraged from reporting to law enforcement overall or nancy or darcy or jessica, do you believe that victims are being told all of the negative about going to law enforcement and not being talked to about the positives that could come with going through that system? >> yes. so i can say when i reported violence to my school five, six years ago now, i was explicitly told not to go to the police. that it wouldn't be worth it. that it would be emotionally draining. i know with that said, i never would have come forward if i had been forced into that option. we've also seen another version of this where most schools offer

an informal or formal complaint. you can go through disciplinary proceeding where the assailant may be suspended or expelled or asked to write a book report or an informal sort of mediation response. and we do see schools because we have a similar thing where they say you have these two options you can go informal or formal. if you go formal, it's going to be really hard and you'll get behind your school work. just letting you know. i think some of that comes from the position of these administrators who may only talk to that student while they are actively engaged with the board so they see a student who is -- these are hard proceedings. we're really drained by it for those months. they don't see the student is forced to spend time with his or her rapist 3 1/2 years on a campus because here she went through mediation rather than a disciplinary hearing. i think this is definitely an opportunity to talk about sort of along the model of the bill of rights, what's the kind of language that schools should be

using to present options that's drawn from the experiences of people who have gone through this process, that have implemented this process, many different ways. >> sorry. i think that that comes back to the importance of mous. even if it's not a formal written document. i was on a first name basis with my detective and could call him by cell phone. having that reassurance when a student comes i can call this person. i know them personally and give them those positive aspects of things. back to jessica's point how import toont have an advocate because, yes, it may be hard but i'll help all along the way. do you need help with your academic stuff? let me talk to your dean. being real with the student but helping them through all of that is so important. >> and one of the rights that i incorporated was to an advocate. confidentiality and advocate. different terminology. by the way, senator mccaskill and i joined in expanding the

right to an advocate within the military system. so i thought from what i heard in my roundtables that the idea of an advocate who would provide advice is not just the advocate speaks to the world but also can advise on these options with confidentiality because that's what an advocate, a lawyer does for a client. and rather than the university having that obligation to provide advice which really puts the university in a very anomalous and conflicting position. the guarantee of an advocate provides those rights. >> i'd like to speak a little toward the confidentiality piece as well in that you can have the best forensic interview, the best prosecutor, the best case going forward. you can maintain confidentiality throughout all of this and

social media just ends around and gets you. enough information is generally present because we're not usually the 1st people reported to. even as an administrator, a friend or a friend tells another friend. so the battle we have, the blame that our system takes on for lack of confidentiality is sometimes actually -- it's just the leakage of what we have to deal with right now. and there's very little we can do to manage that. it's unfortunate. and it's also very impactful on the victims. it's very impactful on the investigations. that people are presuming things that have happened. they tell stories. once the comment is out there, it's irretractable. these are battles we all face. >> another challenge -- >> 99% of which would not be admissible in court. >> but it does impact the ability to move forward and it impacts --

>> it impacts the victim -- >> tremendously. >> even fundamentally on posting the report on the daily log we're required to keep, unlike municipal agencies, everyince dent report goes on a daily log is reported. the classification of the offense that we've classified it. rape, sexual assault, whatever it might be. another challenge that will have to be resolved on this issue as you wrestle with the issue of confidentiality. interesting -- >> that law is under cleary, chief? >> yes, ma'am. >> chief zoner and i were talking as well. we've used social media and technology to assist building cases. the prosecutors may be able to speak to this. everything from video evidence if we enhance our video cameras on campus to confirm if people were coming or going. we subpoena phone records, e-mail, text messages and help build that case so at the point that the case is ready for court

and the survivor says now i am ready, we have that case built and a lot of confirmation information that is built up through really aggressive evidence collection process. >> only if law enforcement is allowed to be involved in the process to begin with. if they aren't given that option we lose text messages too quickly. we lose content and all of those things. we have that inability if there's not truly a real option to go law enforcement after you have -- it's that's basic need discussion. which is i just need the person away from me on campus right now. i have to make the decision about criminal later. but we lose what we lose. >> and how common is it that this report comes to an ra or comes to someone who is not part of campus police and stays within the administrative part of the university, coming to your point earlier, nancy, that it never gets to even campus law enforcement for the kind of subpoenaing of phone records or text messages, things of that

nature? >> well, if that's the victim's choice, if that's the survivor's choice, then that, you know, there's nothing wrong with that. if it stays within the institution. if for instance she has no interest or no interest at that moment in pursuing a criminal investigation, but, you know the dilemma for the on-campus person who is advising a survivor in the moment, in the aftermath, the immediate aftermath is -- with regard to the criminal process, is that you have to -- you have to balance between giving full informed consent or giving enough information about the options so that she can make

an informed choice about the options. and you are restricted in terms of what information you can give her by what the options actually are. so we're not all living in ashland, oregon, unfortunately, and not everyone has a criminal justice system that is structured to give multiple options and to hold on to evidence for years so that there can be a prosecution later if the survivor is ready for it. all of those things are relatively uncommon and if you are going to be a good advocate and support for the survivor who has come to you as the campus person, then you need to give them an honest idea of what they

can expect from various processes. whether it be internal or external. and some of those are just going to be fact based. and i am going to be very clear with anyone who i talk to that, you know, if you have this goal, if your goal is to not have to see him in the cafeteria, then you are going to be better off going through the university's title ni9. if your goal is to have him incarcerated, then we need to talk to the police. >> or what about a goal of him not doing this to another woman. is that a -- >> we want to empower them. i wouldn't say that to a victim. you should report because i don't want this person to do it again because i'm focused on them and what their needs are as a survivor. i want them to feel empowered to choose what's best for them.

while i want this person not to rape anyone else, that shouldn't be on this victim's burden. they've already been victimized and lost power and control. why is there their burden to have to do something they don't want to do. so i struggle with that because i want the bad people off the streets but i also want to empower someone to do something after already losing power. >> there's also a practical concern. i don't think this is, do we have students report to their schools or do we hold perpetrators accountable. one, because schools can hold perpetrators accountable because often the criminal justice system does not hold perpetrators accountable because ultimately if we don't push survivors into the criminal justice system early, we might miss out on text messages, but if we push them in, we will miss out on survivors. >> i'm going to say this from a law enforcement perspictive and probably not one you'll hear from many law enforcementunafor.

what we have learned, and there were years of fleshing this out. it still makes us uncomfortable. we're not happy with it because we want to get to a place where we can arrest serial sexual offenders because that's what they most are. what we had to realize again was, in order to get there, we needed to understand and fully acknowledge that it is never the victim's responsibility for that arrest. they are never responsible for the offender doing that next offense. the offender is responsible for that next offense, not the victim. >> correct. >> and we cannot lose sight of it because what i hear and i hear this in all different groups. all different professions. i hear it in advocacy, too. we'll get to a place where we -- it makes us uncomfortable to acknowledge that somebody could know that this happened and we're not doing anything about it. what i think we have to figure is we are doing something about it by allowing a survivor to enter the criminal justice system in the way that's right

for them. so the focus should not be she didn't come forward and give us everything. the focus should be, we're grateful she came forward and gave us anything. and that is a very different perspective that changes the entire case load. you will be success philadelphia you come from that perspective. >> is your reporting up? >> yes. 106%. >> over what period of time? >> from 2009 was our zero year where we did nothing of this. 2010 to 2013 was 106% increase. >> and to what extent can any of you comment, do any of you have numbers like that either up or down based on changes in practices? >> i can't cite the exact numbers. i do know we've been in discussion in the groups that we have seen an increase in reportings. we've been under fire for increased reporting which is what we're trying to see for at least from a year zero forward -- >> who is giving you trouble? >> parents. other students. they should understand.

>> the campuses that say they don't have a problem because there's none that are reported are lie iying. >> they are lying and denying. >> lying or denying or incompetent. or setting up their processes so that it chills reporting. >> right. >> which raises -- >> it's not always, to be fair, it's not always a sort of -- it's not like there's some evil mastermind who is back in a back room setting things up to chill reporting with the goal of chilling reporting. i think that it happens in a much more subtle fashion, and one of the ways in which it happens is by importing unnecessarily criminal justice-like processes in the traditional policing model. the traditional model, importing those processes into administrative processes that

don't have the power even to do the kind of coercive things that the traditional model relies upon. schools don't have the power to subpoena witnesses. they don't have the power to collect forensic evidence. there's all kinds of things that they simply cannot do. >> right. >> but yet, they are importing things like, you know, right to counsel or they are having evidence collected that would be forensic evidence but some police -- campus police officer is just keeping all this evidence in their office. and all of these things just mean that it leads us to believe that the campus system is the

same as the criminal system and the xriminal system doesn't have a good reputation when it comes to sexual violence. so that ends up chilling reporting just by operation of a bunch of pretty much unintentional things. but it ends up peek quite effective. the lack of reporting can be seen as a veto on the system. if you have fewer reports that means that your system is not -- isn't doing what it's supposed to. >> the point was if you have a lot fewer reports at any given campus, no parent should take that as a signal there's a lot less sexual assault. >> right. which is why, you know, the mandatory survey idea is, you know, the way to kind of level the playing field between the various -- all of the schools because they'll all be collecting data on the same

basis and separating data collection from getting victims' services, which as jessica said is what this -- what reporting should be about is helping them to access what they need, rather than depending on them to solve our crime problems for us. >> i think this is a very cyclical problem. it's what we keep talking about. what their goal is on day one could be very different day ten and six months down the road. and it shouldn't be just an us versus them, us being criminal versus administrative process because what i find is that after, you know, there is a discouragement. you asked the question. are people discouraged from going to the criminal justice system? you can see there's already a built-in perception that you're not going to get justice or be treated properly through the criminal justice system unless you are doing it right. i think we're doing it right where i'm at. but the point is where i find

our difficulties is if they are not truly vetted, then they come to us after it was a five-page paper that was the sanction. and then now they want us to do something about that. at that point we're so hampered so then they say you never take cases xas and it's just a perpetration of the reputation that we're not helping them and that we're not there for from from the beginning. if there's an ashland approach where we can collect -- i can sit all day long, wait a year, two years until the survivor is ready to move forward and move through the system. just help me get some of that evidence at the get-go from the beginning. >> so they are coming to you after they are dissatisfied with the weak result of the administrative process? >> yes. >> that's the whole reason, right? there's the -- this is just the right thing to do. the human leelement. we're criminal justice. this gives options to survivors but also gives information to

law enforcement. had to be beneficial for both. that's what we discovered. so traditional law enforcement is only beneficial for law enforcement. we go forward in the way that's best for us. i'm obviously overgeneralizing here, but that is true. it needed to be beneficial for both survivors and law enforcement to be effective. i hear the try here to get something from the administrative process that can be helpful for the criminal justice process and if i can say the one thing i have seen throughout the years that would make the biggest difference is to -- some mandate that anybody who is interviewing a survivor of sexual assault be trained to do so and for that option to be recorded so the victim has the option to demand that that is recorded because i can't tell you how many reports i've been given where somebody did a synopsis of what a survivor said and it was nothing of what the survivor intended. so if those two things happened, i can take that case and i can

corroborate it five years later. but i have to have that audio recording of what was actually said by the survivor, by who interviewed them. >> and they could make a difference. >> that's your interplay with the 60-day on title 9. it depends on who that lead investigator is. how they are trained. what their pushes and time frames are and where that toes on the law enforcement system. >> does that work better with the single investigator model? >> i would think so. >> i would be curious what the advocates and survivors think

interviews. and this kind of investigative interview is acknowledging they may not remember everything. we don't want you to remember things that you don't really remember because what happens so often is the victim will try to boot strap their credibility by making up things they don't really remember so -- because they are so worried whether or not they are going to be believed. and that's the exact opposite of what you want. >> if i can address that, and we had all these same in the beginning. we had all these same ideas. we went out and talked to researchers. we consulted with victims. we consulted with victim advocates heavily. they who are built the program. so what we learned was you had victims who traditionally didn't want the recording if it wasn't an option for them. but when you sit down and tell someone, i'm not going to make you do this. here's why i want to because i want to accurately reflectior

stateme your statements. i don't want to sit down two hours later, maybe it's two days later i sit down and write my report and guess as to what you said. and i want to, if you disagree with what my report said to be able to go back to this and make sure that i'm right. and i also never want someone to say that you said something you didn't. and i have never, ever in four years had someone tell me no. ever. >> when you gave them the option. >> it's never been pushed on them. i explained why i want to. and we have had people say i'm not ready to do that. like i need some time before that happens. i'm a forensic interviewer. we do this for kids all the time. this has been a model that has been replicated well for children. and i am not trying to say that adult survivors of sexual assault should be treated like children. however, they should talk about what they are able to remember in an environment that is accepting and understanding of trauma. and we do not do a good job of

that with law enforcement. >> i think that gets to the bottom line of, i wish we all lived in arblashland, oregon. i think it goes back to training and trauma informed interviews and forensic interviews. >> and i think that's a very important point. it gets us back to what we can do. what we, meaning the congress, the legislature, as much as i miss my prosecuting days, we're not going to be -- neither of susgoing to be doing that. and i think supporting training is so critical but also are there models for how the administrative -- the school deals with it that would be useful? because, and i want to sort of address a point that you made, nan nancy. i think there are due process requirements for the schools as

well because they have the power to have an impact on individual lives that can be transformative. that can change those lives forever. so they have a responsibility, you know, it's a due process responsibility. it's a fairness. it's a justice responsibility that i think is as important as the criminal justice system. the standards, the procedures may be different. the obligations may be different, but they need to be concerned about those obligations as well, and it goes back to, you know, maybe the victim needs an advocate there, too. with the administrative process. it may not be a -- you know, we don't want lawyers sort of dealing with this as a mini trial necessarily, but are there

ways that we, the federal government, can help with that administrative process? number one, training as senator mccaskill has said. and the lack of it. and the diversity and how universities approach these issues. but are there sort of models we could incur? >> one thing that i think sort of gets lost is that, in fact, universities can very easily meet their due process requirements, their administrative due process requirements at the same time that they meet their title 9 requirements. because actually both of those legal regimes require equality of procedural rights. so if you just give equality to both sides of the proceeding,

then you are going to be meeting both of those obligations. the administrative due process obligations, as set out by the supreme court and enforced by many, many courts, is -- many, many lower courts is notice and a right to be heard. and that's just for state institutions. private institutions proceed under contract law, and all they have to do is follow their own procedures. now everyone has to follow their own procedures as, you know, the state schools have to follow their own procedures as well. but they have these constitutional requirements as well because they are state actors. but even in the case of a state institution, the requirements are really quite minimal in comparison to the criminal justice system.

and that's critical because it's -- because it makes it possible for schools to put to student and the responding student on an even plays field. at the criminal justice somebody doesn't do that, and there are good reasons for why that is and those kinds of issues are not relevant in the campus context. they need to be protecting the learning and living environment of all their students, which means equality, and also is what title ix requires. so all of these things actually, you can have a very robust

administrative process while meeting the legal requirements on all sides. and there's a tendency to assume that the criminal justice due process requirements are the same due process requirements for all proceedings, but that just isn't true, and that's not true based on supreme court precedent as well as many, many lower court judgments in these cases. >> i totally agree, nancy, and at our university -- and i don't think we're unique, but we have following an office of civil rights whand what they have provided as guidelines, a lot of us, not only the coordinator office and in student conduct, we've gone through title ix

investigator training and have made the shift in our conduct process with issues of sexual violence, so we're not using the traditional model, which is more adver searial, but now that i've been introduced to the investigator training, i see a huge difference, and we've -- this is just, you know, the student conduct officer reporting that adopting the title ix model and following through very well with it, we are getting more education and more cooperation from the respondent they used to lawyer up immediately, first thing, you're cut off from talking to your student, which drives me

crazy, by an attorney saying this is my client and you'll talk -- you don't to him or her directly, you talk to me. the title ix investigation kind of just melts all of that away so that you proceed in a very objective fact-finding manner, and everyone seems to be more on board with it, because they know you don't have a particular outcome that you are searching for. the outcome will rise from the facts. >> do you think dosh do any of the schools that you work with our familiar with, are any of them using students on their decision-making boards? >> yale is, and i think it's a bad idea. i think that students are discouraged by the idea that now not only might they have to see their assailant in the cafeteria, but they might have to see the person they told

their story to. >> do we have any idea -- there's probably no one here that would know that, nancy, how many schools are still using students to make these decisions? >> no, i don't know that. >> that's something we need to find out, and maybe we need to even think about -- >> i would say just because it's tangentially related to this that one of the things -- one of the problems in this area, and i say this as a researcher, is just there is too little research on what is actually going on. >> right. >> and that's connected to the transparency issue in a couple different ways. one is that if schools have an incentive to pretend that this is not a problem then the last

thing they'll want to do is -- as to the extend of is the problem and therefore how to fix it. you need research on the extent of the problem, before you can determine whether or not you need to fix it and how to fix it and the ways you're seeking to fix it are actually effect iiveo i don't know the answer to that question in part because there is an egnomous research gap and part of the reason there's a gap is because of the transparency issues. >> while i don't know who is using students, my school did away away with stay tuned embarrass, and i can say we have -- when they're told they're just talking to a trained investigator. that's the only person they have to talk to.

they don't have to face the faculty, students, their suspect. so i think that is a more victim-friendly model, and so i do think we need training, though, on not only the investigators, the administrative process, anyone who is talking to a survivor. >> that may well include the, you know, the dormitory -- i don't know quite what the terminology is on all your campuses, but the person who's in charge of the entryway, the student adviser who often may by the line of first reporting. in other words, you know, at midnight when a distraught student wants to talk to someone, if it isn't the roommate, it may be the person who -- >> the r.a. >> exactly. >> the first person that someone is going to tell after a sexual

assault is their friend or resident hall adviser, and how that person responds will influence if they actually want to tell anyone else. if the first person they tell believes them, and knows the resources, that person is more likely to go through the process, so we need to be training our community. >> they're going to be more likely to go to that first responder if they understand what happened to them is a crime. so we need some baseline knowledge out there. just so that people, you know, all of this conversation is assuming that people get to a certain stage in the process, and i know that so many survivors say what happened to me, you know, wasn't right. >> it's interesting, because it is so fascinating to me that in this day and age there are so many people that think that rape can only occur between strangers. they don't think if it's rape between people who knows each other, that that is the same thing. and you're right, there's a baseline. talk a little by about some of

the statutory challenges we have in states. i know that new york has a -- and it's -- you know, i think every state is different. about incapacitation and consent. let's talk about that. that's not something we can fix obviously, but i think it's important that we acknowledged that there is work to be done at the state level in terms of underlying statutes. >> well, there's certainly a gap between the college definitions and the college policies on what is sexual assault, and then our state statutes, what we can actually prosecute. it goes back to what you said before about sometimes people do go to law enforcement and they are sent away. in state obviously a forcible rape is a rape. if someone is to the point they're intoxicated where they're physically helpless, that's a rape, that's a sexual

assault, but if a person is voluntary intoxicated but still functioning, walking, talking and participate in the sexual act, they're not presumed to be unable to consent. it's not like driving while intoxicated, you're 0.08 and you're presumed you can't drive, it's not the same. if you're intoxicated and you did that on your own, you're still considered legally able to conse consent. so that's sort of a difference between our state law and what a lot of the policies that we have in the college that is we have in our jurisdiction say where a person is, you know, not consenting if they are intoxicated to the point where they are not making a rational decision. >> that makes me thankful to be a prosecutor in colorado. it goes back to your initial questions about what does consent mean?

in colorado we have the physically helpless extent, butten incapable of appraising the nature of your conduct, which is going to encompass the bulk of what we see, which is the intoxicated, you know --, voluntarily intoxicated, but not all the way at the passed out stage. we're in that gray area, and you need that kind of state protection in order to -- we often, of course, alternatively charge those or look at those as two different theories, but certainly i have greater options before me. >> what about rape shield statutes in do we need to legislate rape shield statutes for the university-based administrative process? we have they want in the criminal justice system, that is it would be irrelevant and not appropriate to bring into the adjudication process any evidence that would have anything to do with the victim's

prior sexual conduct? >> i would hope that every university in the country would be committed without any legislation. >> no, we've talked to victims who have been asked questions that would -- that would be highly objectionable in a criminal courtroom. >> that's really, you know, what occurred to me when nancy was talking about, well, all we need is equality. you know, what occurred to me was, well, if you have equality, we've heard about, or at least i have situations where the accused could literally interrogate the survivor. well, giving the survivor the right to interrogate the accused may not really be equality, especially when it comes to certain areas like past

experience. so, as senator mccaskill said, maybe there need to be some kind of limits. >> i think that that's about -- when i say equality, i mean equality of rights, procedural rights. so you can set up your proceeding so that no one cross-examined anyone else, right? and a lot of schools even that use -- continue to use a hearing board kind of model have adopted a system whereby neither of the two students are allowed to talk to each other, they have to give their questions through the board. so that's an improvement. it's mainly just -- and i think getting back to becca's point about making sure that students understand that what has happened to them is a crime, i also want them to know what

happened to them is a violation of their title ix rights. and, you know -- they don't understand that even more so than they don't understand the fact that it's a crime. >> i was just goods to say i know a student who lost her hearing because she had a previous relationship with the offender, and the board decided based on that previous relationship, it was okay for him to take cues from her body language, even though she was saying no, it was -- which was literally the school say no means yes. >> i don't pretend to be an expert on the administrative

process, but what i hear there's this enhanced reaction that i need to make sure i'm so appropriately consistent with title ix, you can get an overreactionary response and we can get crosswise with our local law enforcement, so for example, a timely warning requirement. if a survivors is not ready to move forward yet, but they are struggling with, well, is there a serious or ongoing threat, i don't know if there's an ongoing threat, because they're not telling me anything, so in the exercise of caution, because i don't want to get crosswise, i'm going to do a -- it outs the survive oftentimes and blows the investigation from the beginning, so over-legislation is almost sometimes -- >> i don't know about this timely warning thing. >> that's a problem. >> i mean, do we need the timely

warning in sexual assault cases? >> we've actually had some success in circumstances where you're dealing with more likely than not a consent issue, especially as it involves maybe intoxication or drug usage the incident isn't what you're telling people about, it's about how the incident came about. that's a very fine line. we've been able to work with language that -- we are very careful. we don't want to be in a position where we're using language that can come across as blaming the victim for being in a circumstance, yet the circumstance did add to the situation and the confusion. so using language very carefully to say there was in fact a report of a sexual assault, so we're being transparent and we

do say something happened on this campus and then just sort of trailing out a bit, because sometimes the report doesn't -- it still might be an ongoing threat, because we might be dealing with the background of a seer used rapist, sow need to get something out there, but you don't have enough information to move anything forward other than to say this is a pervasive problem on carp pus, your timely warning is a readvisory that the world hasn't changed enough that we can move forward here. >> i think there needs to be some reality about how this crime is perpetrated a timely warning? what exactly is that going to do? because to me -- again i'm not an expert at all on the college process, but i'm thinking from a common-sense standpoint and somebody who looks at these cases and investigates them, these reinforcing the myth that people are jumping out of bushes and sexually assaulting people. that's not what's happening form if it's non-stranger sexual

assault predominantly, any warning that goes out, everybody will think, well, that's not going to happen to me anyway, right? because it's always a surprise attack, because you're never thinking the person who is going to do this to you would do it to you. that's what makes it hard to investigate. so that timely warning seems to counterproductive and reinforcing what we are trying so hard to fight, to get out to society that that is not the reality of these cases. >> i can live with what chief zoner and officer hall just said, but when you're facing a clear -- you are probably going to think about this differently, and again, for identifying challenges here, that one should be very up-front and foremost. >> well, we are capable of over-legislating. >> the other -- >> we have done this on several occasions, i might add.

>> well, and we've been on the side of before timely warnings, and it's been spoken of today about hiding the reality of sexual assaults on campus. i think -- you know, they shall never be so specific that they would out the victim. they should never be that specific -- >> if your campus is small enough, you can do everything you can -- >> if you're dealing with a small campus and you say it occurred, then you're asking for social media and asking for all of that. i think we have to look at this. it's one thing, if it is a jumping out of the bushes, you know, a dashesened part of campus where someone has been futurely assaulted and sexually assaulted by a stranger, but it's a whole other thing if it's a drunken fraternity party where a young lady is assaulted by three or four young men.

>> and my guess is -- and this goes back to nancy's point and the general point made here about the lack of reliable data, information generally on these issues, but my guess is more likely than not, the victim and the assailant know each other. >> at the right time, if there could be clarity that comes out in this discussion, particularly for a department of education, we surely would appreciate that. i also hear from afternoons on my campus that they want a tiny warning for all sexual assaults. i think we -- well, the question

is we knew you had a sectual assau assault, and it didn't meet the threshold. we have the person in hasn't, everybody is all set, but responding back to educating the public on what exactly what all these everyone are for is very help. >> the crime statistics are very misleading. i never hear that, so i'm going to say it. cleary defines very carefully what areas our crime is to be reported. i would say well over 50% of sexual assaults that we are aware of that we are on campus are occurring off campus.

the student is a student? a house or loft apartment, or whatever, they are among people who know each other, they will not fault into the clairy statistics, because they occur offcampus. it's important, if we want people to make educated decisions and be aware, it's important that those crime statistics reflect as much as we know about where sexual assaults occur. >> i can carry it one step further. in our university, our fraternities are not part of the official student greek system, so any sex assaults occurring through the fraternities are not being captured, as well as the offcampus or those different group residences that aren't official residences on campus or officially sanctioned by the university. >> and there are more students living in those locations than

there are on campus. yes. >> so it's even worse. >> if i could just do -- in defense the timely warnings for a second, i think one of the most powerful fools that we've seen is opportunities taking the law into their own hands and filing federal complaints. it is hard to file a cleary complaint because you're dependent on your school's information to know if your school's information is correct or not. i know students have had to trek up to remote office and take cell phone pictures of records, because they weren't allowed to take reports out of the office. one thing that a timely warning does is that it allowed people know they're being counted. if there's a move away from that, we really need to see an increase of department of education proactive investigations, because students just aren't going to have the inspection they need to do that work themselves. >> one thing i would suggest

with the timely warning is if any changes are going to be made to that that that -- that you consider carefully some ways in which to give the victim control over how the timely warning -- if the timely warning is given and how it is given, whether that be allowing her or him to, you know, veto a timely warning in their case or, you know, making it more of an opt-in situation, but if -- if what we want is -- or what our concern is that that certain survivors are going to not want a timely warning, but certain survivors are, then the way to -- to resolve that dilemma is to put

the decision in the hands of the survivor. and, you know, acknowledging there may be problems in terms of, you know, asking a survivor to make that decision at that moment in time, with these policy choices, it's -- it's rarely a perfect situation. so i just want to put that on the table as something to consider if there are going to be changes to the timely warning. >> i would also nonwant to see one used as a way to get information out of the victim that they don't want to share. because timely warnings are about a threat -- ongoing threat and maybe the victim doesn't want to report yet, i don't want to tell you who sexually assaulted me. i don't want them to be like, if you don't tell us, we'll have to do a timely warning, because there's an unknown threat.

>> we've got a problem with timely warnings. you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. so you guys need to put your heads together and give us some advice on this. speaking of equality, should we contemplate legislating that all title ix violations that occur in all code of conduct violations that occur all by handled by the same process, regardless of who the alleged perpetrator is, and getting away from the reality on some campuses that the athletic department has their own process if the accused person is an athlete? >> yes. i think it's just core that all students must be treated the same, regardless of who's the victim, who's the respondent,

and what their status is. i can't imagine any equality -- if you don't have that. where i thought you were going and i got uncomfortable was that, you know, we're talking about students, but there's also faculty and staff. i know on our campus the faculty will have a different process because of the faculty handbook that's developed over time. so that's where i thought you were going, but i don't have -- i have no discomfort, and actually i would applaud that all students are treated equally. >> do any of the universities represented here have two different systems, one for the faculty department and wen for the other -- >> absolutely not. >> no. >> human resources process for those that are staff that might

have toe go through human resources hearings. we have the faculty hearing process through academic affairs. we also have crimes that occur that have no afill yags with the, and nothing of those apply with the administrative process, which is obvious. >> i think the mandated reporting that's evolved but is in babbitt now really also addresses that issue. we not only emphasize with r.a.s you must report, but it also -- the same message is to coaches. you know, you must report up until it reaches the title ix coordinator. you know, there needs to be a lot of training of faculty and staff, but i think that that may already be in place.

>> one thing i would like to bring up is when i hear training, i think of a two or three-hour training session where we can check a box and say we accomplished it, but i think it's more of building a culture. i have a great relationship with our athletic department. it's not just the one-hour training. i call coaches just so say hi, build rapport, so they know if something happens, they can call me and we can work together. our numbers are going to go up. the more and more work you're doing, the numbers will increase. with your help to let everybody knows that's a good thing, because people do get worried, and i struggle with that with parents. i do a parent orientation when the first-year students move in, and i learned how to paint it in a very positive light quickly, and let students' parents know we are no different than any other college across the country. how we are different is because

we are doing something about it. so i think to change that public perception is huge. that's going to increase people reporting the numbers for the campuses as well. ivities darcy, i think you can take that one step further, too. we have a joint force with our athletic department for that same reason. you do start building those lines of communications and systems approach. >> we so obvious have i fill athletics, and they can be a huge aspect. so how do i elw get athletes to be allying with us? >> and you've done that. >> we don't have a football team, but they have taken green dot as a major initiative and

have stood behind it as their mantra and have helped us raise a huge amount of awareness and really created a success. >> do they make the -- >> ncaa regulations, you can't do that, but they did get green dot jerseys specifically for their annual game. >> can i raise an issue, we've mentioned it a bit here. alcohol use. you know, we've mentioned it's not a defense, clearly it's not a defense to the crime of sexual assault. we all to repeat that again and ger again and again, but university presidents have said to me, i wish we didn't have so much alcohol abuse, because it leads to all these problems. from an enforcement standpoint, you know, as though they had nothing to do with it, as though they could do nothing about it.

but we're here about enforcem t enforcement, and is it something that needs to be addressed more forcefully and aggressively? because so often it is involved in other kinds of crimes. >> i think it's important that we're clear about what -- a lot of students are drinking or have been drinking i think they're often assaulted by people they know, they've been out in a social environment. there's only one where i ever heard that was really alcohol that played the definitive role, where it was, you know -- the

which is woman wakes up and has no idea what has happened, and this was not an ambiguous situation. she was paused out, picked up, put into a car and driven away. so i think we can talk about sort of -- as bystanders in sort situation. i don't think if we stop college drinking we will stop college rape. >> i agree. alcohol is the weapon that perp traitors are using to cause sexual assault. i think we were to be careful, it's not about stopping drinking, people shouldn't drink, if you don't drink you won't be raped, because that will not stop sexual assault. we'll be talking about perpetrators who are using alcohol as a way to perpetrate sexual assault. i think that easily gets confused. >> we thought so much about this

i've seen awful presentation about how to keep women safe. it just makes me absolutely cringe. >> don't drink and have a buddy? >> yeah, you know, cover -- all of them i think are well-intentioned, but extremely ill-informed. in the mou for any agency that wants to participate in the program, we believe in it so much, caution shall be used when providing any community education regarding risk reduction strategies to avoid shifting the focus from the offender's responsibility to not commit a sexual assault. for example, risk reduction strategies should be framed by how the perpetrator targets a victim, by either intoxicated or isolated persons instead of how a victim's behavior allowed an assault to occur, i.e. the victim consumed alcohol. that's a very important clarification to be made if you're going to go down that road. we don't, as the professionals in this trying to effect change

need to be perpetuating those myths. >> because they get in the way of some people, well, they shouldn't have drinking or this wouldn't have happened. that gets in the way of people's investigate, be it police or administrative. >> if you're going to be a good criminal investigator, you need to understand the vulnerabilities, the accessibilities and how a perpetrator need -- and obvious times all of those are wrapped up in a drug facilitated on alcohol-facilitated result. the difference? showing how they premedicated that. >> there is no such thing, and again this is an area where state laws are a giant quilt of mixed bag. it's really hard to say to people in this state we have an intoxication standard that doesn't even talk about that.

they talk about mental incapacity. people don't even see themselves and what we're talking about in that law. so it's really heart to just try and draw black and white in this area. i think we need to shift the dialogue, so we're talking about how this is a factor in the crime, but not a cause of the crime. >> do we have model state statutes around in capacity and consent that have been put out by the national district attorney's associations or by doj or any of though? >> no, i sit on the public policy commit joe for the oregon task force, and this has come of routinely. anybody who actually spends time investigating these crimes will soon become frustrated by the amount of consent cases that they can't take to a d.a.'s office. they want to. >> because of a variety of the state statutes that impact them. we ought to try to pull together the police chiefs and the

national d.a.'s association and justice, and try to get them to work on a model state statute on consent. i would thing in this environment it would have some political success. >> colorado, i mentioned the two different subsections but we expect that almost 100% of the time. i don't know that it -- i don't know that there's a model being proposed, but colorado is certainly a workable series of statutes we can provide through either one of those. >> we'll pull some of the statutes and take a look. >> i'm surprised there isn't one. >> yeah, i'm going astrayed for a second, but earlier you asked about where you might be able to help on the administrative side. i'd like to bring up one thing we and the ability for survivors to come forward and get -- and

cephalically while that's successful for me, but there's the well-being and safety and medical support that the survivor is lacking in getting, i've been working hard in establishing one in my community. we have all kinds -- >> there's not one in boulder. >> no. i know. we are progressive and we are educated intel gent in this area, about you it becomes a lack of funds. you can say go get a grant, but everybody's competing for those grants. nobody thinks it's their one job or role to provide the sane exam. >> women of america, rise up. there should be a sane exam in every community in the country, available of them. >> we started to see legislation go that way ftexas. west virginia started to have smm, but the problem is you've got a lot of students going to, say, their university-based medical, so ours, and nobody is

equibbled to do that. that's obvious what's prompting them to report. i still think they need a lot of work and support for medical in the realm of getting sane perhaps more established and accessible, because that's a huge hurdle for us. >> the impact of the collection of evidence and the retention of that evidence. >> we have you get it there's -- our survivors have to drive 45 to 50 minutes to get a sane exam. that's enough right there that people are deterred. so we need more well-established and f. you know, available programs.

>> doj has helped with that, so i think it's something that we need additional push behind. >> we'll look at that as we look at the grant funds that we're going to try to put in. it's sad to me, because i was involved in establishing first rape kit examinations in the kansas city hospital at st. luke's in 1979? and that we're still talking about this? it's sad to me that this has not become -- >> we've had programs before, but they failed because of the funding issues. there's different models. there's, you know, your rape crisis center based model. there's your medical facility based model. so there's a difference of opinion an philosophy on those, but it comes down to funding. >> right. okay. >> speaking of funding, it really comes down to funding for all of this.

we've just created new reg lalgsz for cleary, and all these coming out of title ix. i'm lucky that i look at a place where we have a dedicated victim assistance service, but their title ix cured senator, who has many hats, doing prevention, response and there's just not enough funding. i know i watch the last roundtable of a grant on you there, but they -- i'm grateful for it, because that's how i'm a standing office now, about you there's not enough to do a prevention, to do crime statistics, to do response. >> we have to look -- one of the things we're going to try to draft this legislation is address the problems we've heard about, but also see if there's places we can simplify and make things less complicated, because the worst thing is to have someone in your job that family they are so overburdened, that -- to see whether the underlying policies are taking

root and whether or not they're making a difference in terms of establishing protocols and processes that are supportive. this is an area that we can definitely over-legislate. it sounds good and we want information. the saddest part is a lot of the information we demand, there are very few people that actually consume it. that's really a waste of time. >> that's a large concern, to have mass quantities of support -- you know, i think that having the funding there for the crime statistics is so important, but as a prevention person, i would be remiss to say that's where we should be throwing or money. we can be doing a lot of work -- and the judicial process, but how wonderful it would it be if that -- i talk to students all the time about culture change. it takes time. it's not an overnight process, but it is doable. pick any cultural aspect of our community and we can talk about how it's changed over 30, 40, 50 years, but i truly believe that we can work with college

students to then become the future jurors and future prosecutors and defense attorneys, so they're changing that culture overall. when students get to us, they're 18 years old and have a set idea of how to treat people. how do we change that culture when they're 5 and learning xw consent and somebody is tickling them and not stopping. so they're -- how can we change that? and personally i think that's where the money should be going. >> i would like it echo that sentiment, one of the strong urges i have to share with you that we really are dealing with people who have been socialized for 18 years on the gender roles, on respect, on civility, on differences that are still

present of boys will be boys and girls need to be polite. and it's very -- we can be reactive, but i'm can darcy on there. let's get the education in there sooner and where the conversation is started much earlier. >> is there anything else we haven't talked about today that any of you feel we have skip over? it's interesting, because i had a list of questions. as i looked through them, we covered almost all of them in the natural course of talking about the things we have talked about in these two hours. is there anything we have neglected to address that we need to bring up before we finish today? >> i guess i would like to say building of this discussion of prevention that enforcement is good prevention. if we're going to talk about what we require of schools, we need to make sure that somebody is aholding them account ac. it circles back to our conversation about money. the department of education

needs to be big enough to be on the ground actually conducting investigations, to identify the gaps between what they did see on paper of a university as policies and how survivors are actually being treated. >> on that regard, i would encourage a collaborative process with the department of ed and office the civil rights rather than an adver searial process, and we've been exposed to voluntary compliance reviews that were then crafted in reports of something else. so i think, if you want compliance, if you want enforcement, it has to be a different flavor to it, so to speak, to encourage compliance through training, through education. as it stands now there's a fear, if you call the office of civil rights or the department of ed for guidance, you're waving a red flag, and the focus becomes

on you in terms of resolving a problem. >> i have to respectfully really disagree. i'm on a campus where the department of education came in, identified a series of violations and said, sorry we're not going to find them out of the compliance. that's not just what we do. i think that's one of the reasons that title ix's 42nd birthday and that's why we're still having this conversation. that does feel in some ways gendered to me as we're supposed to give perpetrators and schools second chance after second chance after second chance. >> i think that there's value to both points of view. i think there's value to cooperatings, but then there's also value to bringing the hammer down, and we've got to figure out -- if no school ever thinks the hammer is going to come down, then that's also a problem, and frankly we've talked a lot about the statute. the only real penalty they have

is to remove all federal funding which we all know is totally unrealize tilling and never going to happened, so we need some kind of middle ground of a problem. they're adamant about wanting to stay with the voluntary compliance program. i've got no problem with the voluntary compliance program with maybe a first offense, but if a campus -- if you're back on that campus and they have not kept their end much the bargain, not done what they agreed to do, then there needs to be something other than an idle threat, and i don't think they have that right now. >> and the hammer has to be something that doesn't punish students, who are, after all potential the victims. so to have a penalty that's in effect a nuclear option without any other kinds of graduated responses, and also to have the penalty hit the people whom you're trying to protect, and

trying to give those rights of equality to, it doesn't seem very smart, either. >> it's hard. >> it is, you know, to kind of follow up on both the enforcement and technical assistance and training that we were talking about earlier, you know, one good way to sort of -- one good place to pull our money as the federal government, is to require training from not only law enforcement or, you know, the sort of front line first responders, but also those trauma informed interviewing techniques should also, every title rett coordinator should be required, and that training should be provided by the federal government. you know, it doesn't have to be provided by, you know, staff of

the office for civil rights. it can be provided by, say a technical assistance provider who is identified by office vw, and the justice department, which is what they do with the campus grantees. there are a number of different ways to do it, but the training should be as uniform as possible and therefore it should come -- it should be controlled in -- at a fairly detailed level by the federal government, and should be required. you also deal with the funding issues, because if the federal government is providing that training then schools don't have to come up with the money to provide it themselves. you know, from my perspective, that's part of the way you get these various messages and

information about multiple goals and the fact there are title ix rights as well as the right to be free from crime and things of that sort. >> i agree with nancy, and something that i -- in terms of the administrative process that we've discussed, i would really recommend looking to the association of student conduct administrators for best practices. i recognize clearly there's outlier institutions, institutions that are not -- >> but there are a lot that are doing the right thing. >> there are a lot. i would look to the association that provides leadership. >> i do believe that on many of the issue that is we're talking

about today, do have an enforcement answer to a point. however, when you break from the traditional model, and start providing an environment, and therefore identifies seer atperpetrators, to prosecute those offenders, that's a form of prevention. it will have an impact on our college campuses. we're sending a message to offenders that they can no longer keep people silent in the same way they have before. i do believe if we focus some of these other issues will be affected. >> i think i love you. >> ditto. >> i think all the prosecutors

are going yes! and, by the way, i think it is very interesting that you have kind of reworked the traditional law enforcement model. i think one of the things we need to do, we need to figure out a way to make that model title ix compliant. if we could do that, we might be on to something that would have a positive impact on empowering victims and holding perpetrators accountable, which is what we want to do, first empower victims and take care of victims, but second, hold them accountable. i know it's not title ix compliant. i've already talked to the white house about this challenge, and i think we're going to try to get our heads together and figure out if we can somehow legislate a way to make that particular model title ix compliant. it's tricky because of the reporting stuff. >> we have over 40 that have

reached out and said i want to do this. we have to tell them right now you are amazing and that's so great and i'm sorry. you know, so i think it's a positive thing they are reaching out. it's an unfortunate answer that they can't provide the model. >> that's one of the things that technically it's not compliant, but i think what you're doing embraceses what we want to see happen within title ix. >> that would be great. >> i have to give ocr credit, from my perspective, acknowledging there's a wide diversity among how well schools are handling this issue, that it might not be enough. what we set up what this

three-past approach where i had privilege reporters and confidentable reporters and then you have responsible employed uses who wear that confidentiality as ultimately the decision of the title ix coordinator, but the confidential employees, that middle category is now based on the judgment of the school, and so the school could not identify anybody, including people who are sort of very obviously should be confidential employees. they can refuse to identify them as confidential employees, if you hear of a school that's done that, maybe sure you let me know, because i'll have them as

a witness. that would be really bad if they tried to -- >> no, i'm not talking about those folks. those folks have privilege based on state law. i'm talking about the folks like women's center directors like i used to be, who do not have privilege based on a counseling license, for instance, but are -- but are likely to be considered by students as being someone i can two to confidentally and my report will not be automatically advanced to the title ix keir nate or part the idea that you have options is that you have options. there might be a way to retain the sort of enforcement idea, but still give options.

but that may not be adviceable to leave it up entirely to the school to be determined and actually identify folks on campus in certain roles that should be confidential regardless of whether they have privilege. >> in this model, the only person who had decide whether someone was confidential or not would be the victim. >> right. >> it wouldn't be the schools. >> the hangup that we have seen is for this to truly be effective, you would have to make your campus law enforcement not title ix reporters. in order for this to truly be effective, and i think a lot of people have a hard time saying campus law enforcement employed by campus isn't a responsible person, so that's a departure. >> well, we've got to work on it. i want to thank all of you. >> thank you all. >> it's been terrific. we've learned a lot, and i think we are better informed than when we began. you all are doing tremendous

work, and i appreciate you taking the time, traveling to be here today and helping us with this. and please continue to communicate with us, especially as once the legislation is drafted and you have a chance to look at it, we will tell you with certainty that a piece of legislation being drafted does not mean it will look nick like that when it's finished, so there will be plenty of opportunities to shane it and change it and tweak it, and amend it, and we will look to you for guidance on the best ways kell can get the best package possible to get at this problem in a i know you all look at every single day. thank you very much. >> thank you.

so that wraps up the third round 2k7 table discussion. if you missed any of first two or want to see this one again, check out our video library. we've been asking for your thoughts on the matter. our question -- who should handle college sexual assaults? campus or local police? betty writes -- local police and they should be required to report it to the local police.

meanwhile, bonnie says not campus police, because they are told to cover it up and not report it. for your thoughts visit or facebook page. we'll return for the wrap-up of the white house summit on working families. first lady michelle obama expected to deliver closing remarks. we'll have that live at 5:30 eastern, and join us later for another hearing look at veterans health care issues. lawmakers will discuss -- the house veterans affairs commit year hosts the event live at 7:30 here a c-span p. on c-span2 it's a hearing on the i.r.s. recordkeeping. the commissioner will return to capitol hill to testify. waffle that live starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern. religion is a powerful identity forming mechanic

temple. it's part of human sewing is figuring out who is us, who is my group? religion answer that is question, if you pray like me, if you eat like me, if churches i do, then you're us. if you don't, you're then. and you can see how easily this us, them, in-group, out-group mind set can very easily lead to extremi extremi extremism, marginalization. religion may be the most powerful form of identity formation, but just as powerful is violence. how codo y how do you know who's us and them? if you're fighting alongside of us, you're us. if you're not, you're then. as everyone knows, throughout history, they've been more aligned than we would like them

to be. in the months ahead, august 3rd and september 7th, the former chair of the u.s. commission on civil rights, mary abbot. start reading and join others in our chat room.

>> good morning. and thank you all for coming. welcome to our conference on interfashlism. i'd like to thank george washingt washington university and thanks to the american concern and the american prospect. my name is daniel ericson. i am a senior editor at the american conservative and i'll be monitoring this morning's panel. we will be addressing some of the followings actions. which u.s. interests are truly vital and take priority. how can the u.s. ensure long-term stability without vk to resort to military reaction and what will aid the u.s. in doing this. each of the panelists will begin with some of his own remarks and

then return to panel discussion for the remaining time with a little bit of time for questions from the audience. joining me today, william lind. dan dreshner, a non-resident senior fellow and contributor to the washington post and most recently, the author of the system worked. how did the world stop him at the great depression. and a concentration on iran and the israeli and palestinian conflict. he's also a co-sponsor for the american prospect. to begin the conversation, i'll say a little bit about how we tend to discuss threats and i'll try to change this.

>> in general, proports. it tends to be a vital importance. the number is kpaj rated and so is the significance of the interests involved. the u.s. does face real threats from terrorism. the more manageable threats are the ones that are over-rated and over-reacted to. the mograndiose and ambitio rule that have knock to do with allied security.

senator described the events of isia in iraq. had you sustained your global order, americans were often there since world war ii. but the u.s. and its allies are far more dangerous than that. it's a dangerous habit that needs to be broken. but there is an alternative to exaggerating threats and e overreacting to them. and to distinguish them from peripheral concerns. it requires giving us priority.

we will be hearing much more from the professor with his new book rater this moning. it will give us an idea of what this foreign policy of restraint might look like in practice and how it would address threats of the united states. >> he writes the united states should focus on a small number of threats. the world is resis tent to heavy-handed solutions. it can do that because the united states is economically and militarily strong, well-endowed, well defended by nature. any effort to reorient away will have to preserve with warfare. prevention makes sense as a policy only if one accept that

is some governments cannot be deterred and there's reason to believe that such governments exist. the u.s. would need to use cause in internal conflicts and other countries. while the u.s. has dem strated that igts military isn't suited for nation and state-building nations. one thing that the u.s. can very easily do to contribute to international stability is to see that unnecessary wars change. >> i'll suggest two other possibilities before turning things over to matt. the first is to minimize tensions.

one of the greatest dangers is the consumption of that kind of power in the previous century. it also has with it, the potential, however remote, of nuclear war. the u.s. had necessary policies in containment drektsed against any orr major pow r. it should focus on assets from other states. that might involve offering direct mediation for conflicts or plilt kal crises.

in order to br perceive ds as a mutual radiator, they cannot come back for any other conflict. they seemed to provide a quick response that other methods, diplomacy, economic sanctions, coordinations through international institutions can be the necessarily have. >> it follow frs this what the u.s. should not do. >> the u.s. shoulds generally avoid military action when it is strictly necessary for the security of the u.s. and its treaty allies.

that doesn't mean fiekting a war because one or two of the u.s. wants them to do this. the u.s. shouldn't extend vague or half-hearted commitments and shouldn't be willing to ignore international law. we shouldn't enable reckless driving. we should encourage our allies to securing our guarantees to draw us into new con flikts. as the professor