Currently browsing posts filed under "Controversies"

Follow this category via RSS

Next Page →

Amended Complaint

Here is the 3rd Amended Complaint for the Safety Dance sexual assault case.

1) If you are interested in a week-long review, please let me know! As best I can tell, reader interest is lagging . . .

2) Summary: Male Williams student engages in two year long sexual relationship with female student-then-employee. In middle of that relationship, it is alleged that the two had sex without the female providing “affirmative consent.” That is, the male is not accused of a “rape” that any US prosecutor would ever pursue. The woman did not resist or say any form of “No.” Male student finishes all requirements for graduation but Williams expels him for sexual assault and refuses to give him his degree. He has sued.

It is a hard case to summarize! If anyone has a better version, leave it in the comments so that I can use it going forward.

3) I have not read the whole Complaint. (What do our readers think?) But it still seems sloppy to me, e.g.,

fulltime

It is impossible (?) to be a “full-time” student at Williams for 5 years. And there is no reason for Rossi, Doe’s attorney, to claim otherwise! Isn’t it the case that Doe was thrown out of Williams for a semester (if not a full year) because of a prior sexual assault case? And, during that time, he was not, I think, a student at Williams. (Although maybe you are still, officially, a Williams student even if you are currently away?)

4) Why won’t the College just give Doe his degree?

purpose

Does anyone disagree? I could, perhaps, understand why the College might fight to enforce an expulsion if settlement required allowing the accused student to come back on campus. But why the Ahab-like insistence om preventing Doe from getting his degree?

5) Can anyone provide more details on educational options for students expelled from places like Williams?

restrictions

Several students (how many?) have been expelled from Williams over the last 5 years for sexual assault. What happens to them? Presumably, they still want/need a college degree? Are they allowed to transfer to other schools? Can they use their Williams credits? I don’t know . . . but surely our readers do! In case it matters, Doe is a New York State resident. Could he transfer (almost) all his credits to some SUNY school, take a class or two, and then get his degree? Or would SUNY deny his transfer application because of his expulsion from Williams?

Facebooktwitter

Rumblings on Campus?

An editorial on the subject of alumni donations published in the Williams Record this week seems to suggest that *the student body* may have found a new reason to yell at the administration.

From the editorial:

That the school chose this area to make their cuts should be warning enough, but what is truly disheartening is that seven years removed from the depths of the financial crisis with a larger than ever endowment of at least $2.3 billion, the College has made no moves to reinstate the no-loan policy. Meanwhile, it has found the funds in recent years to begin several large-scale construction projects. In the realm of financial aid, it has instead hired a dean to oversee the Offices of Financial Aid and Admission. By all appearances, the history of the no-loan policy at the College is rather straightforward: the College introduced the no-loan policy to compete with peer institutions, ditched it when it prohibited it from spending on areas it cares about more than allowing students from lower incomes the freedom to pursue post-graduate options without debt and then, after finding its prestige relatively unaffected by the whole ordeal, never looked back.

There’s also this banner hanging off the front of Pareskey:

Wishful Thinking?

And fliers in the dining hall:

How many people do they think read these?

It is currently unclear if anyone actually plans to protest this, but it seems unlikely that there will be any discussion of the merits of resurrecting such a policy.

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Continues III

Let’s discuss the latest Safety Dance court order (pdf). Day 3 of 3.

s3

Other highlights:

1) Good sign for Doe that the Court recognizes the sloppiness/malice of the Williams process. They were out to get Doe from the beginning and, in the end, they got their (former) Eph.

2) New complaint is due May 12. Let’s hope (?) that Rossi, Doe’s attorney, gets her act together and produces a better pleading.

3) Any predictions? I guess (?) that it made sense for the College to fight up until this point on the (realistic?) chance that the case might have been thrown out. But now? Settle the case! Give Doe his degree.

Do other readers think the College should fight? If so, why?

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Continues II

Let’s discuss the latest Safety Dance court order (pdf). Day 2 of 3.

s2

rossiThat is a fairly harsh smackdown of Doe’s attorney, Stacey Elin Rossi. Are such direct criticisms of lawyerly competence common in court decisions? Are they justified in this case? Does this sort of language provide us with any clues as to where Judge Posner’s sympathies may lie?

lapp As we have commented before, no courtroom battle between the rich (Williams College and its highly experienced lead attorney Daryl Lapp) and the poor (John Doe, the son of poor Ecuadoran immigrants) is ever fair. But Lapp has been involved in several (a score?) of cases like Safety Dance. I believe that this is Rossi’s first. (Although the way that Title IX has evolved at Williams and elsewhere, she may eventually build up a thriving business. Informed legal commentary welcome!

The decision continues:

The evidence of gender-based discrimination offered in the complaint is thin. The unusual feature of this case, however, is that Plaintiff alleges that he was himself a victim of harassment, and even a physical assault, by the party he was alleged to have victimized. His allegations include claims that his own complaints of harassment were treated with less seriousness than the alleged victim’s complaints and that responsible administrators were more solicitous of her because of her gender than of him. At this stage, these allegations are sufficient to boost the complaint over the Rule 12 threshold.

A fair reading of the documents so far would convince most people that Doe’s allegations are most likely true. Smith, while a Williams employee, did slap him. His complaints were, obviously, treated much less seriously. The College was incredible solicitous of Smith. (And we still need to figure out how she got hired by Williams in the first place.) But the College will argue that, even if all of that is true, it was not driven by anti-male bias and that, therefore, Title IX does not apply. How can Doe demonstrate otherwise? What aspects of the case would you urge him to focus on?

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Continues I

Let’s discuss the latest Safety Dance court order (pdf). Day 1 of 3.

This is the best one paragraph summary of where we are:

s1

Kudos to Judge Michael Ponsor (and/or his clerk).

The central issues of the case are not so much: Is John Doe a bad guy? (Answer: Probably. It is not easy to get punished by Williams twice for sexual assault.) Nor is it: Should we believe Susan Smith? (Answer: Probably not. She is the very picture of a woman scorned.) The two key issues that the court will care about are:

1) What is the nature of the (implicit and explicit) contract between Williams and an enrolled student? The College would like to maintain that this contract is so loose that it can, more or less, kick anyone out, for any reason, and following any procedure that it chooses. As former Williams professor KC Johnson has blogged about extensively, several courts have been sympathetic to this view. Unfortunately (for Williams), courts in its jurisdiction have been less willing (at Amherst and at Brandeis) to grant the colleges free reign.[1] John Doe will argue that the College, implicitly, promises to not expel its students unfairly. Since he was unfairly expelled, the College has broken the contract.

2) Is there (and how can a plaintiff demonstrate) anti-male bias in disciplinary proceedings at Williams? This is a much harder task for John Doe, with much less support in other court cases. (Read The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor for more details.)

a) John Doe can try to provide evidence of anti-male comments/behavior at Williams, but we have not seen much of that in the exhibits so far. What we have seen is lots of anti-Doe comments and, to a lesser extent, anti-accused-students comments. But such complaints are more in the category of generic criticisms of the overall process itself. They aren’t anti-male per se.

b) Doe can try to argue anti-male bias on the basis of disparate impact:

Disparate impact in United States labor law refers to practices in employment, housing, and other areas that adversely affect one group of people of a protected characteristic more than another, even though rules applied by employers or landlords are formally neutral. Although the protected classes vary by statute, most federal civil rights laws protect based on race, color, religion, national origin, and sex as protected traits, and some laws include disability status and other traits as well.

Since all (?) the students punished by Williams for sexual assaults have been male, there is a case to be made. Of course, right-wingers like me think that disparate impact arguments are garbage, that we should no more expect an equal number of women (as men) to be expelled by Williams for sexual assault than we should expect an equal number of women (as men) to finish in the top 100 in the Boston Marathon. But there is no denying that, in other contexts, courts have used disparate impact to make findings of bias.[2]

Regardless of the above, however, Williams should settle this case. If they don’t, discovery will be a nightmare.

[1] I suspect that I am messing up terminology and other issues. Safety Dance is currently being adjudicated in a District Court. Could a lawyer-reader clarify whether Brandeis and Amherst precedents apply?)

[2] Has disparate impact ever worked as an argument in a college sexual assault case? Not that I know of.

Facebooktwitter

March Safety Dance Hearing

Latest update on Safety Dance:

Electronic Clerk’s Notes for proceedings held before Judge Michael A. Ponsor: Motion Hearing held on 3/28/2017 re [29] MOTION for Reconsideration filed by Williams College, [31] MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Williams College, [4] First MOTION for Preliminary Injunction John Doe v. Williams College filed by John Doe. Arguments heard. Court denies Motion for Reconsideration, denies Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Court takes Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under advisement. Orders to issue. (Court Reporter: Sarah Mubarek, Philbin & Associates, 413-733-4078) (Attorneys present: Rossi, Lapp, Kelly) (Healy, Bethaney)

Can anyone interpret this?

Facebooktwitter

The Simpsons on SJWs

Apologies for the temporary absence – the semester does get busy this time of year! Before we return to our regular programming, check out this chunk of a Simpsons episode. It’s hilarious!

Granted, this Simpsons bit is about Yale, but it echoes eerily familiar sentiments here in the Purple Valley…

Funny (relevant) quote:

But we also need to hire more deans to decide which Halloween costumes are appropriate. Eight deans should do it.

Remember the Taco Six? My sides are aching! Then again, in Dean of the College Marlene Sandstrom’s words, I wouldn’t want to “impinge on the fun of others“…

Facebooktwitter

Bias Incident Response Task Force Report

Before it disappears in a fit of historical memory-holing, let’s archive portions of the Bias Incident Response Task Force Report from October 2012:

On November 11, 2011, the words “All Niggers Must Die” were written on a wall on the fourth floor of Prospect Hall. This hate crime caused a large number of our Black community members to feel targeted and unsafe and, overall, placed extraordinary stress on the fabric of the campus. A variety of associated issues and concerns were exposed in subsequent open mic events, campus conversations, and related gatherings. Among the concerns that were raised by many members of the campus community were pointed criticisms of the administration’s initial response to, and early communications about, the crime.

President Falk commissioned the Bias Incident Response Task Force (BIRTF) as the central component of a detailed debriefing of both the initial incident response and related protocols.

This was written almost a year after the event, by which time it was obvious that the entire incident was a “hate hoax.” This graffiti was written by student of color Jess Torres ’12.

Perhaps most important, we affirmed the need to ensure that we’re providing immediate, meaningful, and effective support to the most affected parties, after which we should expand our support to individuals and groups as we track the impact of the incident across campus and over time. This includes the establishment of physical and virtual safe spaces for post-event processing and dialogue, as well as additional components of an institutional infrastructure of counseling and support.

The best “support” that Williams could provide is to tell people that this was a hoax, that minority students have nothing to fear from white racists wondering the hallways of Prospect.

If the Record were a better paper, it would revisit this topic next fall, call up the members of this task force and ask them some hard questions.

The “Culture of Silence”

Perhaps the most frustrating – and enabling – campus condition is what students and others have termed the “culture of silence.” In fact, the name of the student organization that developed in response to the Prospect hate crime is Students Against Silence. While we recognized the highly complex nature of this phenomenon, our conversations focused on a couple of related questions:

What prevents students, faculty, and staff from taking advantage of the reporting websites and formal support structures that exist? If people want to talk about their experiences and concerns, are there unknown barriers to using existing channels more frequently and consistently?
What is it about our campus culture that allows students to believe they can behave like this? Once they leave here for graduate school or the workplace, their behavior changes, by and large, because they know this isn’t acceptable anywhere else. Why does it feel acceptable to them here?

The students on the Task Force explained that this is such a small, interconnected place that if you do something that leads to a falling-out with your team or your close circle of friends, you have few places left to turn. The prevailing social pressure – particularly on women – is not to make waves, not to “make life harder than it needs to be.” There was a strong perception that more people would report acts of discrimination, harassment, and assault if the social backlash to reporting weren’t so strong.

This perception that Williams’ size and distinctive social interconnectedness – typically considered to be positive features – work against us in this way resonates with our perceptions of why staff and faculty also hesitate to report the incidents of discrimination that they deal with.

Or, just maybe, there are fewer instances of actual discrimination at Williams than there are almost anyplace else in the world.

Facebooktwitter

Cornel West Throws Shade at Adam Falk

Robert P. George and Cornel West have written a statement about truth and the importance of open debate. Background here. Key paragraph:

It is all-too-common these days for people to try to immunize from criticism opinions that happen to be dominant in their particular communities. Sometimes this is done by questioning the motives and thus stigmatizing those who dissent from prevailing opinions; or by disrupting their presentations; or by demanding that they be excluded from campus or, if they have already been invited, disinvited.

No one is more guilty of this sin than Adam Falk, with his absurd banning of John Derbyshire (and others?) from campus.

Professor Michael Lewis is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the only Williams faculty member to sign the statement so far. Will there be others? Would you be interested in joining a movement — including faculty/alumni/students/staff — to convince/cajole/force Falk to revisit this policy? The forces of freedom are on the march . . .

Facebooktwitter

Student Loans and Socioeconomic Diversity

I was having a conversation earlier today with a fellow classmate about socioeconomic diversity. The central question was, “Is Williams’ student body really diverse?” Doesn’t seem like it, my friend suggested. He pointed out the three (!) Tesla cars on campus that he saw in a couple of the student parking lots earlier this morning. “Mom’s Volvos,” as professors like to say.

Was my friend right? One way I thought of answering this question is by looking at the amount of loans Williams issues to students. Claim: Since Williams ended its no loan policy a decade ago and likes to say it has a more socioeconomically diverse student body, then the amount of loans owed to it by students increased over time (reasonable?).

According to the college’s financial statements (which I irritatingly spent quite a bit of time munging, since it’s only available as PDFs and (gasp) scans of printed paper) and assuming I am looking at the correct figure, it did not. Consider this plot of student loan receivables (the total amount owed to the college by students who take out loans) of every year since 2004:

Rplot

It is decreasing! Does this mean that Williams students have been taking on fewer loans despite the repeal of the no loan policy a decade ago? If so, why would students in an increasingly socioeconomically diverse campus take on fewer loans when tuition increases far faster than the rate of inflation? If the student body is really becoming more socioeconomically diverse, then maybe the terms of the Williams loan are worse than outside loans so my classmates just borrow externally (I have a number of friends who do!). OR, maybe the number is declining because most of the student body don’t need to take on debt. Why would they, if they had the money? But that would imply the college, contrary to some official claims, is not more socioeconomically diverse. What do readers think?

Also, the student loan number comes with this footnote:

Under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 107, Disclosure about Fair Value of Financial Instruments, the College is required to disclose fair value of student loans. Management believes that it is not practicable to determine the fair value of loans receivable because they are primarily federally sponsored student loans with U.S. government mandated interest rates and repayment terms subject to significant restrictions as to their transfer or disposition. College sponsored and donor provided loans are similarly restricted as to interest rate and disposition

I don’t know what this means (informed commentary please!). Perhaps the summers I spent in banking haven’t really prepared me to plow through the college’s financial statements just yet. As with the rest of the filings and my latest problem sets, I find this quite befuddling. On top of this there are also so many accounting changes and new categories year to year that are almost never properly explained/defined and are frequently shuffled around, so much so that a skeptic would think someone somewhere is obfuscating. Maybe only PWC (who audits these for the college) understands them. Any useful pointers/corrections/whatnot welcome, especially from those who are familiar with higher education financing!

Should we spend more time on the college’s financial statements?

Don’t forget to send tips/comments/whatever to concerned.ephs@gmail.com!

UPDATE: I also looked at Bowdoin’s financial statements. Unfortunately it’s only available from 2011, but the trend is the same. Student loan receivables are also decreasing. Perhaps I am missing something? Informed commentary always welcome! Education doesn’t just end in the classroom!

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Affidavits

Latest filings in the Safety Dance case include: Affidavit 1, Affidavit 2 and Revised Memo in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss.

1) Why won’t the Record cover this case? I don’t think that they have provided a single update after their original article.

2) Why won’t the College settle? Just give Doe his degree and move on.

3) The longer this drags on, the worse things like for Williams. Check out those affidavits!

aff

This is from current (!) Williams employee Brian Marquis. I do not think that the Brzezinski he is referring to his Mika . . .

Settle the case!

How much of this heartburn does Adam Falk want? Consider the other affidavit, from current (!) Williams Security (!) officer Joshua Costa.

aff2

Settle the case!

Facebooktwitter

Problematic Williams History

Harvard has unveiled a summary of its involvement with slavery. I don’t know enough about this aspect of Williams history as I should. Fortunately, our readers do!

I thought it was fairly well known that Eph and other prominent Williams family members, including founding trustee Elijah Williams, owned and traded slaves. Eph left brothers Elijah and Josiah his slaves in his will, the founding document of the college.

A considerable source of Williams family wealth, including Eph’s, in Berkshire County was in land that they had systematically cheated Stockbridge Indians out of.

Amos Lawrence, the most important early benefactor to the college, made his fortune in cotton–therefore on slave labor– before the Civil War. Late in life he supported forced resettlement of enslaved African Americans to Africa as a way to solve the slavery issue. His name graces Lawrence Hall, now WCMA.

[H]ere’s a heartbreaking document of indenture binding a 6-year old girl to Elijah Williams without any consent. If she lived to 18 out in the wilds of Berkshire County, she got some clothes. But she would have been free, unlike Elijah’s black slaves.

Slavery and an active program of displacing indigenous people aside, the Williams family were in large part Loyalist. There’s no indication at all that, had he lived, Eph would have fought for the Continental Army.

Tell us more about this history!

Facebooktwitter

’69 & ’93 Hall

hall

How did last Thursday’s march on Horn Hall go? The above image was sent by a reader.
Below is an image from Divest Williams.

hall2

1) Which faculty/staff were involved in this march? It would be fun to set up a debate with them make fun of them!

2) From the Facebook page:

On Thursday night, we gathered at a town hall discussion to assert student power and rededicate Horn Hall to two student activist movements of the past: 1969 Afro-American Society occupation of Hopkins Hall and the 1993 hunger strike for Latino/a studies.

Not bad reasoning. Few love Williams history more than EphBlog. And we certainly need someone to write a history thesis about the 1993 hunger strike. That all said, ’69 & ’93 Hall as a name for a building just does not work for me. Why not something simpler like Bolin Hall?

3) Should we be surprised at how heavily female (70%? 80%?) the march was?

hall3

I am surprised, but perhaps that just reveals my old-fashioned misogyny? Are other social movements at Williams so gender-skewed?

4) The pictures show that the Haystack Monument might be a source of controversy, as we discussed back in October. When will the Merrill Committee report on this topic?

Facebooktwitter

Overheard at Paresky: MORE Court Documents?!

(Hi everyone! I’m concerned eph, a member of the class of ’17 and your newest EphBlog author! Introduction post to follow – meanwhile, here’s the beginning of a new EphBlog series entitled “Overheard at Paresky”, where we’ll be discussing concerns of current students! Any news, tips, or leads you want to share, drop a comment or shoot me an email at concernedeph17 at gmail dot com!)

As two students enjoy their honey-nut buns on the bench outside Lee’s on a warm, sunny day:

Dude, I read the newest court documents on that sexual assault lawsuit. Did you see that part where there’s an actual ******* whistleblower that said they actually train committee members by telling them that the college’s rep is #1, like how disgusting is that, and that they just do whatever they want…

Indeed – an accurate account! Find the quote in the court documents here. While the skeptical among us may not be inclined to believe the words of one whistleblower, consider this quote from Dean Dave Johnson in John Doe’s original filing:

63. On March 8, 2016, Dean Johnson admitted to John and John’s sister, Lady Doe, that the disciplinary process is “unfair to students” and that the procedures are deliberately written in a way that allows Williams to maneuver itself in its favor. Johnson also stated that Pelaez should not have been aware of the outcome of the hearing or the likelihood of an appeal.

Corroboration! … or is Dean Johnson the whistleblower? Now we know that there’s an unfair adjudication process for students that at least one well respected, senior Dean knows about it.

And yet, still, here we are? *Sigh* More posts on this to come.

To the next point and to be fair, the administration does have a crucial responsibility to uphold the college’s reputation. Williams’ reputation is an asset – it’s how we all get jobs and into grad school! In fact, I am sure many of us came here because of the school’s reputation as an excellent institution of higher education. Even against the backdrop of a dodgy administration, Williams is a wonderful college filled with great and caring professors and staff and awesome students and kind alums, all of whom are very intelligent. Interestingly, though, because this issue is now, well, a lawsuit (hence public), Hopkins Hall did not even meet its supposedly greatest one priority! Instead, prospective students (and their parents!) will now be able to see and smell all our ghastly, dirty laundry. Gross!

Would readers be interested in more student perspectives on the current sexual assault lawsuit? The Record, unfortunately, doesn’t have much, but I am more than happy to pick up the slack!

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Second Amended Complaint

Here (zip) is a link to a zip folder of all the documents (including exhibits) associated with the latest amended complaint in the Safety Dance sexual assault care and here (pdf) is a highlighted version. Don’t have time to read all that? No worries. Former William professor KC Johnson provides this summary:

(1) Both parties to the case were unappealing. But unappealing students deserve fair treatment just as much as appealing ones.

(2) The accuser was a Williams employee, but received kid-gloves treatment throughout by Williams—in a way that would have been inconceivable if the employee were a man and the student he allegedly mistreated a woman.

(3) The employee had a pattern of filing what appear to have been retaliatory complaints against the student. Williams not only refused to treat the complaints as retaliatory, but refused to consider the effects of the first complaint’s failure on the employee’s credibility for the second complaint.

Beyond the troubling elements from the original complaint, the amended complaint raises four new areas of concern with how Williams handled the case:
Read more

Facebooktwitter

Safety Dance Defense Exhibits

Here are some of the defense exhibits from the Safety Dance sexual assault case: Exhibit E, Exhibit D, Exhibit C, Exhibit B, and Exhibit AA. From the last of these:

scorn

I realize that John Doe was probably an affirmative action admission at Williams, due to his ethnicity (Ecuadoran-American) and family income (low). But is it too much to ask that he get the quotation correct?! It is “like a woman scorned,” not “than a woman scorned.” Then again, perhaps we should be proud that accused-rapist Ephs are even educated enough to make a literary reference at all!

Does anyone have the energy to go through all 80+ pages of this document? Not me! But I can’t help quoting this section:

scorn2

Throughout, the red text is John Doe’s comments. From the document:

“literally all I ever wanted was to dance with you is that’s too much to ask?”

From the lyrics to Safety Dance:

‘Cause your friends don’t dance and if they don’t dance
Well they’re no friends of mine.

I rest my case.

Facebooktwitter

Doe Expelled; Hearing Set for March 28

Latest update about the Safety Dance case includes these two documents: Williams – motion for new scheduling order and Feb 17 2017 Order. Key section:

doe_out

In other words, Doe’s appeal failed. He has been permanently expelled from Williams, even though he has completed all the requirements for a degree. Comments:

1) The Order highlights the set of documents that we will soon get to read, before the hearing on March 28. I am not sure if we will learn much more than we already know. John Doe behaved problematically throughout his time at Williams. But to expel him based a completely implausible accusation of sexual assault, an assault that happened in the middle of a two year consensual sexual relationship, is a travesty of justice.

2) The Record should provide more coverage of this case and should send a reporter to the March 28 hearing.

3) Biggest winners are the attorneys. Rossi/Kelly/Lapp are all going to get to bill many more hours than if the case were just settled.

4) Does anyone know why the College is insisting on continuing on this path? I could, maybe, understand that, if Doe were still a student, the College might want to permanently prevent him from coming back to campus. But he has completed all his course work. He has walked in the graduation ceremony. What possible purpose does this vindictiveness serve?

Readers should let me know if they want more or less coverage of this case.

Facebooktwitter

Witch Hunt on the Quad

Glowing review for former Williams professor KC Johnson’s latest book:

In 1692, the Massachusetts Bay Colony found itself in the grip of a moral panic. Seemingly rational people turned on their neighbors, accusing them of witchcraft. The subjective testimony of children and “spectral” evidence, which only the accusers could see, were the basis for the arrest of more than 140 innocent people. Nineteen were hanged.

Today America is in the grip of another moral panic. We’re not afraid of witches but rapists, whom we are told lurk at our nation’s colleges in numbers that render the quad a more dangerous environment for women than downtown Detroit. In “The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities,” KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor Jr. dismantle this myth of a campus rape crisis and show how, with alarming frequency, colleges mistreat students accused of assault by failing to allow them any meaningful opportunity to prove their innocence.

At the same time that activists are expanding the definition of sexual assault, university disciplinary committees are systematically depriving accused students of basic due process protections. At the directive of the Department of Education, many campus tribunals today assign blame if there is a 51% chance that the accuser is telling the truth (the “preponderance of the evidence” standard). Many schools do not allow the accused to cross-examine their accusers. Some refuse to allow accused students legal representation and deny them the opportunity to present exculpatory evidence or witnesses in their defense.

According to the authors, Mr. McLeod is one of more than 100 students who are currently suing their former colleges or universities for wrongly punishing them for sexual misconduct. They recount so many examples that at times the book feels like the movie “Groundhog Day” and the reader soon forgets whether he is reading about a case out of Amherst or Michigan or Yale or USC—to name just a few of the many schools at which miscarriages of justice have occurred.

Unlike in Salem, where there were no witches, there are indeed too many instances of rape on campus. But as Messrs. Johnson and Taylor show powerfully, the current system has its own victims and ultimately undermines the credibility of actual rape survivors whose cases belong in court, not in Kafkaesque administrative tribunals.

Exactly right. Should we be pleased or sad that the Safety Dance court case happened too late for Williams to be featured in the book?

Facebooktwitter

EOP V

The Equality of Opportunity Project gathers amazing data on the incomes of college graduates and their families. The New York Times provides an overview and this summary (pdf) of Williams data. Day 5 of 5 on this topic.

I love this graphic:

scatter

At the same time, I don’t quite know what to do with it. Comments:

1) I encourage readers to poke around with the original. The big earners are mostly graduates of pharmacy schools. Is being a pharmacist really that lucrative? Is the median income of someone who graduates from the St. Louis College of Pharmacy really over $120,000 at age 32?

2) I have not figured out exactly how they handle complexities in the data. For example, how do they separate out the incomes from married couples filing jointly? How do they calculate the income for someone who is a stay-at-home mom or dad?

3) Another key attribute to control for is occupation. We don’t care much if Duke graduates earn more than Williams graduates if the cause is that more Ephs become teachers. But if Eph teachers and Eph investment bankers both earn less money than Duke teachers/bankers, we should figure out why.

Comments from our readers?

Facebooktwitter

EOP IV

The Equality of Opportunity Project gathers amazing data on the incomes of college graduates and their families. The New York Times provides an overview and this summary (pdf) of Williams data. Day 4 of 5 on this topic.

married

1) Are you surprised by the variation in marriage rates among NESCAC schools? I am! Why would 61% of Colby students be married but only 48% at Trinity? Should we be pleased or upset that the number at Williams is, at 57%, below average?

2) There is a great senior thesis to be written about changing patterns of marriage among Williams graduates. In the US population, marriages rates over the last 50 years have dropped dramatically. I think that this is true among the graduates of elite colleges, but can’t find the relevant data. Certainly, the percentage of heterosexual male Ephs who were unmarried at age 40 was very low, at least through graduating classes in the 80s. Single digits? My sense (contrary opinions welcome!) is that the marriage rate among female Eph graduates is lower, probably because of hypergamy.

3) Could a determined Williams president affect the marriage rate? I bet he could! Should he? I think so. Few things correlated better with life outcomes than marriage. (Of course, there are huge correlation/causation problems.)

4) Consider this recent comment, from “girls @ williams” on the annual fall in love post.

Contrary to what seems to be the general belief here, women at Williams do not actually exist as a selection pool from which to pick your future wife / future child-bearer. Of course, I’m sure that the group of men who spend their time obsessively posting distorted facts about the College at which they spent their peak years and now continue to pathetically long for are among the most attractive personages to have ever graduated the hallowed halls of Williams *sarcasm*.

That seems uncharitable! I was urging Williams male undergraduates to ask out female undergraduates. Does our commentator want more of that or less of it?

Perhaps more importantly, it seems that this Eph has not been given “the talk” by her family. EphBlog is here to help! Nothing, other than religious belief, is more associated with female happiness in the US than marriage. You will never be prettier than you are now. You will never have such a high quality pool of potential husbands to pick from. Choose one now. And invite EphBlog to the wedding!

Facebooktwitter

EOP III

The Equality of Opportunity Project gathers amazing data on the incomes of college graduates and their families. The New York Times provides an overview and this summary (pdf) of Williams data. Day 3 of 5 on this topic.

The central point about socio-economic diversity that I have been making for more than a decade is that there is no evidence that Williams is more economically diverse now than it was 30 years ago, and probably even 50 or 100 years ago. It is embarrassing how often the Williams administration (names like Payne, Schapiro, Hill, Falk and Dudley come to mind) claim that we are more economically diverse and how quickly naive reporters like David Leonhardt of The New York Times are to believe them. Recall the question that I have suggested for years:

In 1998, the 426th poorest family at Williams had a family income of $63,791. What is the family income of the 426th poorest family at Williams today? How has that number changed over the last two decades?

If the Record were a competent paper, or David Leonhardt were a competent reporter, than this is the question that would be asked. It/he isn’t, and so we have been left with just my rants. But now we have data!

bottm60

Summary: Williams did not become (meaningfully) more economically diverse between the classes of 2005 and 2013. Eyeballing the chart, it looks like about 19% of the students in the class of 2006 were from families in the bottom 60% of the income distribution. For the class of 2013, it was 20%. Surprised? You shouldn’t be. Recall my analysis from 2008:

We can see that there is no evidence that the socio-economic diversity of Williams has increased in the last decade and some circumstantial evidence that it has stayed the same.

The EOP proves that I was right. There was no good evidence that economic diversity had meaningfully increased at Williams between 1998 and 2008. The EOP data, which goes through the class of 2013, shows the same thing.

More importantly, we know that the same trend has continued up through the class of 2021, as we discussed on Monday. In fact, this sure seems similar to the data we know for the class of 1998.

Quibbles:

1) The above chart is drawn from this collection, which shows the trends for various cuts of the income distribution. There is no perfect single measure of income inequality. Other charts, like that for the percentage of students from the top 20%, might put Williams in a better light. But even these charts, to the extent that they show changes in the direction of more economic diversity, show incredibly small changes, perhaps even within the appropriate confidence intervals.

2) We are being fast and loose with many of the relevant details. The numbers we studied in 2008 were based on all the students at Williams over the years between 1998 and 2008. In other words, each number was provided for all 2,000 students on campus in a given academic year. The EOP data is, I think, based on birth year, which provides, at best, an imperfect mapping to graduation class.

3) We should try to get our hands on the underlying data for Williams and some other peer schools. Any volunteers? Any readers with connections to Chetty et al?

4) Any predictions as to whether or not US News will use this data in its next set of rankings? Should it?

Facebooktwitter

EOP II

The Equality of Opportunity Project gathers amazing data on the incomes of college graduates and their families. The New York Times provides an overview and this summary (pdf) of Williams data. Day 2 of 5 on this topic.

income2

Click on the image, or check out The Times directly, for more detail. But the basic message is simple: Williams is a rich families school in absolute terms, but less so than its NESCAC peers. Comments:

1) Again, this has little (nothing?) to do with the moral rectitude or policy preferences of the presidents and trustees of these schools. You really think that Joanne Berger-Sweeney, president of Trinity cares less about economic diversity than Adam Falk? Hah! Trinity is a (much?) poorer school than Williams so it can’t afford as much financial aid.

2) These differences are large and meaningful, even among schools with not-dissimilar endowments and student populations. For example, I would not have predicted that the median Middlebury family was 1/3 richer ($244k versus $186k). I also can’t decide if Wesleyan, one of the poorest schools in NESCAC, has such a lower median income and small percentage from the top 1% because of a serious (and expensive!) commitment to socio-economic diversity or because its reputation as a social justice warrior school makes it less appealing to the wealthy. Comments welcome!

3) One of the main mechanisms, I think, by which schools manage the distribution of median income is via the wait list. The rich schools, like Williams, claim that family income plays no part in who gets off the wait list. (I believe that claim, but sleaziness in the use of the term “low-income” makes me more suspicious than I want to be.) Less rich schools take family income into account, which I bet means that the vast majority of students who get off the wait list require no financial aid.

4) The other mechanism for controlling the income distribution is to squeeze out the upper middle class, especially folks making somewhere between $75,000 and $180,000. These folks aren’t “poor,” and so, according to NESCAC presidents/trustees, don’t really add to socio-economic diversity, but they can be very expensive. Indeed, creating a barbell distribution — lots of super-rich and very poor — is the natural strategy for any school which wants to have the resources needed for a first class education (for which you need families that require no aid) with a commitment to social justice (for which you need poor, and not just “low income,” families). However, I could be wrong about this. Perhaps the entire distributions are shifted?

Williams is, even among elite schools, somewhat extreme in pursuing this barbell approach. We have among the highest percentage of students from both the top 0.1% (2.8%) and from the bottom 20% (5.3%). And, as long as these students have very strong credentials — Academic Rating 1 or, maybe, 2 — I think that this is great thing.

Facebooktwitter

EOP I

The Equality of Opportunity Project gathers amazing data on the incomes of college graduates and their families. The New York Times provides an overview and this summary (pdf) of Williams data. Day 1 of 5 on this topic.

The entire discussion around socio-economic diversity at elite colleges is about to change, all because of this new data set, produced by Stanford Professor Raj Chetty and colleagues. But, if you have been reading EphBlog for the last 10+ years, little of this will be news to you. From The New York Times:

Students at elite colleges are even richer than experts realized, according to a new study based on millions of anonymous tax filings and tuition records.

At 38 colleges in America, including five in the Ivy League – Dartmouth, Princeton, Yale, Penn and Brown – more students came from the top 1 percent of the income scale than from the entire bottom 60 percent.

The Times should consult better experts. We have always pointed out that Williams, like all elite schools, is a bastion of privilege, that the student body is, and always has been, dominated by the very wealthy. Recall this discussion from two years ago. I get into trouble when I argue that this is largely inevitable — very smart people are both likely to be rich and blessed with smart children, because of both nature and nuture — and not necessarily a problem. See this ten (!) part series from three years ago for background.

The key data can be summarized in one table:

ratio

If you find this surprising, then you haven’t been paying attention. Or you have naively believed some of the drivel from Williams! Recall the news release about early decision for the class of 2021 from December:

[N]early 20 percent of Early Decision admits come from low-income families.

Before reading further, ask yourself, “What is a reasonable definition of the term ‘low-income’ when used in a press release?”

If you are an idiot — or merely one of the “experts” that The Times likes to interview — you probably take this at face value. Why would it be surprising that 20% of Williams students are from low income families? (Yes, I realize that this is just the early decision pool and that the Chetty data does not cover the class of 2021, but those factors don’t matter.) The answer, of course, is that Williams is being about as truthful as Trump’s press secretary when he estimates inauguration attendance. Mary Detloff kindly provided this clarification: at Williams, a “low-income” family is one with less than $85,000 in annual income.

I bet that not a single one of our readers picked a number that high as a fair definition of “low-income.” A much more reasonable definition of low income would be the bottom 20% of the distribution.

access

By that measure — which is probably what the vast majority of (naively trusting!) applicants and alumni had in mind when they read the College’s news release — only 5.3% of Williams students are low income, not “nearly 20%.”

I have always known (and shown!) that Williams is a place of privilege, a bastion of the economic elite. And that is OK! The elite have to send their children to college somewhere. My great annoyance has always been the College’s tendency to obfuscate this central reality, to pretend otherwise, to twist the meaning of phrases like “low income” in order to mislead. The EOP data makes those sorts of lies much less tenable. Hooray!

Any commentary on the specific values in that table? Richer colleges like Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore/Pomona have higher percentages from below the 60th percentile, not because the people who run those colleges are any more committed to socio-economic diversity than the people who run other schools, but because their endowments are so large that they can afford the extra-spending on financial aid. You really think that Will Dudley ’89 (new president of Washington and Lee) loves non-rich people less than Adam Falk? Hah! But some of the differences might have interesting explanations. Why would, for example, Swarthmore have less than half as many students from the 1% as Williams?

Facebooktwitter

College Reply on Safety Dance

KC Johnson provides an excellent update/summary on the College’s latest filings (Memo in Support of Motion to Dismiss, Memo v PI and for stay and Kurker Memo) on Safety Dance. Comments:

1) KC’s summary and comments are perfect. Read them! For history’s sake, I have copied them in their entirety below the break.

2) The next hearing in the case is scheduled for January 11. Does anyone have details on exact time/location? Perhaps a reader will be there . . .

rossi3) Does anyone else have the sense that Doe’s attorney is overmatched? Has she ever litigated a case like this in the past? How do attorneys with law degrees from Western New England University School of Law stack up, on average, with attorneys with degrees from Northwestern? As EphBlog likes to point out, money talks (and often wins), and you can be certain that Williams is paying its attorneys much more than Doe can afford to pay his . . .

lapp4) Stop being so snotty EphBlog! And, besides that, Rossi (Doe’s lawyer) has an undergraduate degree from Columbia while the College’s main attorney (Daryl Lapp) has a BA from Swarthmore. Call it tie.

5) How much money have Doe and Williams spent so far? How much can they expect to spend if this case goes to trial? (I would love to get some reasonable estimates from our attorney readers.)

6) Although the details are confusing (to me), it appears that, officially, the College expelled Doe for a single instance of sexual assault against Smith. (She accused him of a variety of violations, including various forms of “relationship abuse.”)

date

First, assuming that this is correct, that the key event happened on September 1, 2014 (in the middle of their approximately two year relationship), did this occur on the Williams campus? (Classes were not in session but perhaps Smith/Doe arrived early.) Second, would it (should it?) matter if it occurred off campus? I can understand (maybe!) why the College feels the need to regulate events on campus. But to do so off-campus seems insane . . .

7) The College is pulling no punches:

punches

EphBlog readers knew about Doe’s prior record two months ago.

8) Can anyone explain the logic of Doe pursuing this case while the College is still going through its own process?

appeal

If I were the Court, I would find this persuasive. Why not wait until the College rules on Doe’s appeal of his expulsion? But, if I were the Court, I would also press Williams on just how long its appeal process is going to take. And, if I were a cynic, I would note that all the lawyers involved benefit from maximizing the paperwork generated and time spent on the dispute . . .

Would readers like me to spend a week going through these documents item by item? Or should I move on to other stuff?

UPDATE: John Doe has filed a Withdrawal of Opposition v Motion to Stay, meaning, I think, that there will be no hearing until after February 28, at which point the College plans to issue its ruling on Doe’s appeal of his expulsion.

UPDATE II: KC Johnson notes that the Motion to Stay has been granted, with the next hearing scheduled for March 2. So, it looks like the judge agreed with EphBlog (unsurprisingly!) and will wait for the College to rule on Doe’s appeal.

Read more

Facebooktwitter

EphBlog Appears in Safety Dance Court Documents

Latest filings in Safety Dance feature the College’s attempt to unmask John Doe, justified, in part, by citing EphBlog. Should we be horrified or proud?

The Memo in Support of Motion for Reconsideration provides the College’s argument.

mem1

1) What do readers think of the College’s attempt to unmask John Doe? Seems sleazy to me!

2) What do attorneys (especially MRL ’91 and WW) think? Is this a negotiating ploy?

Here is part of what Doe’s attorney Stacey Elin Rossi wrote in that e-mail:

mem2

Harsh but fair? Susan Smith has not come off looking good so far . . .

By the way, why was Rossi sending Smith e-mails like this last summer? John Doe’s complaint is with Williams refusal to grant him his degree. How was Smith still a part of the conversation in August?

mem3

The other (unnamed) blog is Academic Wonderland, maintained by former Williams faculty member KC Johnson. Should we be proud or embarrassed to be called out by Williams’s counsel in this context? Should we be upset not to be mentioned by name? Also, any lawyers care to chime on about our use of a photo from the Internet Archive? Do we really need anyone’s “permission?”

The Attachment 2 to Memo Reconsideration is a screenshot of EphBlog. I believe that this is the second time that EphBlog has appeared in a court document. Who among our loyal readers remembers the first?

John Doe’s attorney argues against in the Reply Memo in Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration.

mem4

Did College attorneys Daryl Lapp and Elizabeth Kelly really violate an (important?) rule of civil procedure? I have my doubts. They seem like serious players, as one would expect of the attorneys hired by Williams. (Harvard hires few idiots.) Comments welcome!

mem5

Seems to be that Rossi has the better argument here. Am I missing something?

Facebooktwitter

Swart ’56 on Brackenridge

Our own Dick Swart ’56 added this comment (two years ago) to the Record article we discussed the other day:

The news as reported in this story is greatly dismaying to me as a parent and as an alumnus. I feel great sympathy for the victim and for her Alumni parents who felt so good as their daughter. entered her freshman year. I see the college attitude and policies as being developed with proper inputs, guarantees of confidentiality, and recently-enhanced and improved methods of investigation.

Yet the criticisms seem valid. In particular:

• The victim’s perception of the college not wanting to ruin the perpetrator’s life at this early stage when as she observes, hers has already been ruined.It is my guess that the perps will almost certainly be male and the victims female. Is the college standing in loco parentis at the final moment of judgement despite the rigorous process of investigation and determination of guilt?

• The parents’ belief as alums that their daughter was going to a safe place and their subsequent disappointment at the eventual steps taken.

• The separate but related question of the sanctity of mens sports, in this case hockey.

From the story cited above:

“She also hopes to bring into question a college culture she sees as too protective of athletes. “On the Williams campus, it should hopefully generate a conversation about this individual case and the fact that a winning team is not worth sexual assault on campus,” Lexie says.

Lexie and her parents believe that a culture of older, experienced hockey players — admitted as freshmen — played a role in her assault. Her alleged assailant was admitted as a 20-year-old after a year in a Canadian league. That same year, the college accepted five other freshmen hockey players, ranging in age from 19 to 22 years old, who had delayed entering college to play hockey.

• The victim’s treatment on campus by fellow students following the rape. If as the story reports, the word “heartless” comes to mind.

I believe that the statements by the college on policies and practices being referred to by different levels of administration will be seen as a screen and a shield for protection of the College rather than the protection of the victim involved.

Perhaps the college’s best course of action in cases like this is to turn the matters over to the proper level of local police and court authority.

“In loco Parentis” may not be a fitting role for a college in these more open times. Particularly in cases in which the punishments more accurately and appropriately are civil matters.

Dick Swart 1956

Would the College’s handling of the Safety Dance case cause Dick to revisit these suggestions? Should it?

Facebooktwitter

WBUR on Brackenridge

brackenridge

From WBUR in May 2014:

Amid increasing scrutiny nationwide of college administrators’ response to sexual assault cases, a former Williams College student and her parents have accused leaders at that college of mishandling her assault case.

Lexie Brackenridge, and her parents, Heidi and Alec Brackenridge, of Boston, also oppose the expected return to campus this fall of the alleged assailant.

(WBUR policy does not identify victims of sexual assault without their permission. In this case, both the woman and her parents agreed to be publicly identified.)

Lexie says the assault happened during her first semester at the private four-year institution in the Berkshires, during a party where alcohol was served.

“In October of 2012, I was sexually assaulted by a member of the men’s hockey team on campus at Williams,” Lexie says.

Lexie says she went to her alleged assailant’s room, and at that point realized how drunk and drugged he seemed to be. She does not want to discuss further details, because, she says, she does not want to re-victimize herself.

The next day, Lexie’s mother picked her up and drove her home to Wayland, where the family lived at the time. Lexie received medical attention. Her parents consulted an attorney. He advised against pressing charges, warning them that a trial would take two years and take their daughter out of college.

After a couple of weeks, Lexie returned to Williams. She met with two deans who, she says, persuaded her to file a complaint in the college’s disciplinary system against her alleged assailant. Originally, she says, she had refused.

“And they encouraged me that it would be very confidential,” Lexie says, “and the direct quote from Sarah Bolton, who is a dean at the college, she said that: ‘We want him off campus by tomorrow.’ ”

(WBUR is not naming the alleged assailant because no criminal charges were filed.)

When interviewed last week by WBUR in her office at Williams, Bolton said the college was unable to comment on the specifics of the case.

Lexie filed a complaint. The dean investigated. But Lexie was frustrated that she was not able to read what witnesses had said. She was also frustrated with the number of witnesses: 30, she says. Word got out that she was accusing a popular hockey player of raping her, and students — even some she had thought were her friends — started to turn against her.

Like other college officials, Bolton is in a tough spot. She can’t talk about the specifics of any case. But she can talk about how the college investigates reports of sexual assaults. And it does involve gathering information from as many witnesses as possible.

Bolton admits that it’s hard to maintain confidentiality at a small college.

“Often, the students know one another really well. They’re parts of the same social circles,” Bolton says. “And in a small community, the social pressures that build around that, and the way that pushes against reporting are things that we’re really concerned with.”

As word leaked out on campus about Lexie’s accusation, some of the witnesses changed their stories — among them, a friend of Lexie’s who started to date one of the hockey players. Lexie says the hockey player who assaulted her and a teammate concocted a false alibi, proved wrong by their ID card swipe records. Lexie says she received a letter from Bolton informing her that the two men had created a false story.

“And that’s why the dean of the college, that was one of the reasons that she was finding him guilty, but the boy who lied with him was never punished,” Lexie says.

The student Lexie says lied to help her alleged assailant concoct an alibi did not respond to a request for comment.

In an exchange on Facebook, the man Lexie accused of sexually assaulting her initially asked why WBUR wanted to talk to him. Informed that the Brackenridges are opposing his return, and that it was important to get his side of the story, he did not respond. That day, he deleted his Facebook page.

In 2012, Bolton was the chief judicial officer in sexual misconduct cases. She would look at the testimony and other evidence, such as patterns of students moving in and out of buildings. She would then decide whether it was more likely than not that the accused student violated the code of conduct, and if so, how. Then she would decide what the appropriate sanction would be.

Bolton found the alleged assailant had violated the code of conduct, and suspended him for three semesters.

“In our old process, both parties have a right of appeal, and they could appeal, under that old process, for any reason, whether they felt that I’d found the facts incorrectly or just simply that the sanction was inappropriate,” Bolton says.

The student appealed to a committee of four students and four members of the faculty, “who would reassess the evidence and decide whether there had been a violation of the code of conduct, and then redetermine what an appropriate sanction would be,” Bolton says.

The disciplinary committee confirmed Bolton’s initial decision in the case.

“My rapist was suspended for three semesters after being found guilty of sexual assault,” Lexie says. She remembers sitting in an office with the dean who had been assigned to her. She asked why her alleged assailant was suspended and not expelled.

“As they said, an expulsion would ruin their life, and they weren’t looking to do that, never mind that my life had been openly ruined by this man,” Lexie says.

Williams College estimates based on a 2011 survey that 50 sexual assaults occur on campus every year. According to the college’s website, the year Lexie reported she was sexually assaulted, she was one of six people; one took legal action; three, including Lexie, pursued disciplinary action; one student was suspended for two semesters; the other student who had been suspended for three semesters appealed, and was expelled.

Lexie says it became clear to her that as long as she was at Williams, it would be hard for her to focus on her academics because of the way she says some of the members of the hockey team kept harassing her.

“And one of the main occurrences, when it really, I would say, hit its peak was when they surrounded me and started throwing beer cans at my head and screamed that I should have kept my mouth shut,” Lexie says. She says the beer cans were full. She says the witnesses were the hockey team and one woman who a week after the incident started dating a hockey player. Neither the woman nor the hockey players responded to requests for comment.

The next morning, Lexie says, she reported the assault to the dean who had been assigned to help her. The college never disciplined the hockey players, Lexie says.

Bolton points out that retaliation is a violation of Williams’ code of conduct.

“We have in place strong policies that forbid people to take revenge on people who have reported,” Bolton says. “But you can have all of those things in place and still, social backlash can happen.”

Lexie says she finally decided to transfer after she found out she and a friend would be assigned housing with the hockey team her sophomore year. She is finishing her sophomore year at Columbia University, in New York.

Again, Bolton says she cannot discuss the specifics of the case, but says the college does make housing accommodations for a student who experiences an assault.

Lexie did not seem to get that message.

“And I think that the way in which the Williams administration handled it, it made it exceedingly clear that I was not welcome on that campus and that I was essentially being used as an example of why people should not come forward on that campus,” Lexie says.

Lexie says three Williams women have told her that after seeing how she was treated, they decided not to report sexual assaults against them.

Last fall, during his suspension, the man Lexie says raped her was arrested for possession of marijuana, according to a local news report. He had also been listed on the roster of a hockey team called the MILF Hunters, which Lexie’s parents say demonstrates that he has no remorse about what he did to their daughter.

Bolton says students must abide by the code of conduct even when they are suspended. But minor violations of the code would not prevent a student from coming back.

“There are things that are not permitted in our code of conduct for which we ordinarily have just a warning conversation with a student,” Bolton says. “Underage drinking is an example of that. So are low-level drug violations.”

Heidi Brackenridge, Lexie’s mother, opposes the alleged assailant’s return to Williams this fall, in part because she’s worried he may assault another student.

“My best friend’s daughter will begin as a freshman in the fall, and it appalls me that they would be willing to take that risk, and I don’t understand why they would,” Heidi says.

The Brackenridges say when the alleged assailant was suspended, they never expected him to be allowed back on campus. But Bolton explains that if she tells a student he is suspended for a fixed period of time, he receives a letter saying he is eligible to return in a particular semester. The letter may contain additional requirements.

“You might say you are required to receive alcohol treatment,” Bolton says. “And if they meet those requirements, then they are eligible to return on the date that we specify in the letter.”

Bolton says the college expects that students it finds have violated its code of sexual conduct may come back.

“Certainly students do return to campus following suspensions and reintegrate and succeed,” Bolton says.

By speaking out, Lexie says she intends to protect the next woman and to prevent anyone else from being placed in her position. She also hopes to bring into question a college culture she sees as too protective of athletes.

“On the Williams campus, it should hopefully generate a conversation about this individual case and the fact that a winning team is not worth sexual assault on campus,” Lexie says.

Lexie and her parents believe that a culture of older, experienced hockey players — admitted as freshmen — played a role in her assault. Her alleged assailant was admitted as a 20-year-old after a year in a Canadian league. That same year, the college accepted five other freshmen hockey players, ranging in age from 19 to 22 years old, who had delayed entering college to play hockey.

“So I think that yes, there’s obviously an athletic component that comes into play here, and I think an entire team mentality was also facilitated and created by their coach and also by that team themselves: ‘Hey, this is our teammate. We have to stick by him no matter what.’ ”

The head coach of men’s ice hockey at Williams, Bill Kangas, did not return a request for comment.

Lexie’s parents say Williams seems to have changed since they were students there in the 1980s.

But the college’s new director of sexual assault prevention and response, Meg Bossong, says sexual assault on college campuses is not something new.

“Those experiences were happening for decades, and we’re just talking about it a lot more publicly now,” Bossong says.

Heidi Brackenridge says she felt good when her daughter decided to attend Williams.

“It was a place that we felt safe,” Heidi says. “And it was a place that we trusted. And I can even remember talking about when Lexie was accepted how nice it was to drop her at a place where we thought, ‘Ah, it’s familiar. We know it. We loved it.’ ”

Alec Brackenridge says he and his wife were naive because they believed that their daughter would be protected by the college’s disciplinary process.

“Instead, I feel like the college was protecting themselves and making it possible for the assailant, the guy who raped our daughter, to get back on campus,” Alec says.

This spring, the college changed the way it investigates and adjudicates accusations of sexual assault. Professionals come in from off campus to conduct the investigations. And a panel from the student affairs staff now decides the cases.

Bolton says the changes are meant to instill confidence in victims of sexual assault so that they will file complaints.

“If students don’t believe that we will take these matters seriously, that we will listen to them carefully and support them through the process, then they simply won’t come forward, and we won’t have an opportunity to support them or to address the issues that may be happening,” Bolton says.

The Brackenridges have written to trustees, a former Williams College president, professors and alumni, many of whom are up in arms about the treatment Lexie received.

Williams College trustees and officials, in correspondence obtained by WBUR, indicate it’s unlikely the school will reverse a judicial decision to allow the accused student to return.

Indeed, the accused student is now a senior, proudly wearing the purple and gold while playing ice hockey for the Ephs.

Facebooktwitter

Record Reporting on Brackenridge

This 2014 Record article on the fall 2012 Brackenridge case is excellent. Kudos to Lauren Bender ’15.

A case of sexual assault at the College attracted media attention on Monday when a former student came forward to talk about her experience. Lexie Brackenridge, a current sophomore at Columbia who transferred from the College after she was sexually assaulted in fall 2012, discussed her treatment by the school’s administration and accused the College of mishandling her assault case.

The College responded quickly. President Adam Falk sent an all-campus email, which stated, “No sexual misconduct, including sexual assault, can have a place at Williams. We must all work together diligently to prevent it … Specific cases are confidential to protect the complainant, the respondent, and the students who were spoken to as part of the investigations. The future integrity of these processes depends on student confidence in their remaining confidential. Our commitment to confidentiality is firm, even if one party chooses to go public.” Falk’s email also included a link to his official statement on the matter.

Dean Bolton also sent an email to the student body, offering students the opportunity to gather in Dodd at 8 p.m. on Tuesday to discuss issues around sexual assault. An email was also sent to parents, assuring them that “In the matter raised by the former student and her parents, the College, as always, followed faithfully and fully its established written procedures in both adjudication and support.”

If not for the controversy unleashed by the Brackenridge family, would John Doe ’16 have been granted his degree in June? I don’t know.

The comment thread for this article is off the hook, as the kids say.

Would it be worth a week of commentary to go through the article, with the benefit of knowing some of the details about how Williams policy has evolved in the past four years?

Rest of article below the break: Read more

Facebooktwitter

Brackenridge in The Record

Lexie Brackenridge wrote in the Record two years ago:

In October 2012, when I was a 17-year-old first-year student, I was raped at Williams College by a 21-year-old freshman hockey player. I reported the assault to the dean’s office, and an investigative panel was appointed. The panel found the perpetrator guilty of sexual assault, suspending him from Williams for three semesters. My rapist appealed the finding, and the second trial once again found him guilty of sexual assault. At the end of the three-month ordeal, my attacker was suspended for three semesters from Williams. At the time, neither my parents nor I focused on his being suspended rather than expelled; it never occurred to us that the suspension was merely administrative and that Williams would readmit a known sexual assailant. By coming forward and sharing my story, my intentions are to encourage the College to take the adequate measures to prevent another student from being put in the position that I was: victimized, threatened and overwhelmingly isolated.

Read the whole thing. Rest of article below the break. Read more

Facebooktwitter

Amended Complaint in Safety Dance

An Amended Complaint has been filed in the Safety Dance sexual assault case. Most of it is the same as before, but there are some changes, especially at paragraph 174 (a-m) (pages 36ff) and 262 v and vi (page 64).

Highlights:

dance

Swear that I am not making this up! First, are we allowed to comment on the wonderful vibrancy that has come (via affirmative action?) to the Williams campus? Back in the day, if you were in a serious public relationship with girl A, it was considered bad form to rub up against girls B, C and D. Is this less true in Latin culture? Should Williams strive to encourage different behavior among its students?

Dick Swart’s ’56 classic question is, as always, relevant: Where did these people prep?

Second, I claim vindication on naming this scandal Safety Dance. Recall the song lyrics:

We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
‘Cause your friends don’t dance and if they don’t dance
Well they’re no friends of mine.

Is it time for EphBlog to make a spoof video, changing the words of the song to match more closely the facts of this case?

saylor

Can we get some lawyer input as to whether the Brandeis case will be used as precedent here? John Doe’s attorney certainly hopes so!

groom

I think that is a good summary of the key points from John Doe’s point of view.

If a female student can have sex with a male student for two years and then, after a vicious personal falling out, accuse him of a one-time assault that happened in the middle of that two year period, provide no contemporary evidence, and cause the College to refuse to give him his degree, I think we are going to see a lot more men spend four years at Williams without a BA to show for the effort.

Facebooktwitter

Next Page →

Currently browsing posts filed under "Controversies"

Follow this category via RSS