The Chronicle reports on the problem of intimate partner violence, which gains less attention nationally than sexual assault but is common, poorly understood, and easily overlooked on college campuses. Intimate-partner violence is a broad term that encompasses not just physical and sexual abuse but also psychological abuse, like stalking or belittling. Research shows that at least one out of every 10 college students has experienced some form of violence from a current or former partner, with some estimates reaching 40 percent or higher. Often, campus administrators and officers do not recognize the signs; the campus safety net wasn’t designed to detect the full spectrum of intimate-partner violence. Under the federal campus-crime-reporting law known as the Clery Act, changes that took full effect in 2015 required colleges to start tracking reports they receive of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. But in 2016, nearly 90 percent of colleges said they had received zero reports of dating violence, says Anne Hedgepeth, director of federal policy at the American Association of University Women. “That doesn’t really square with the experiences students are having,” she says.
A former UCLA physician, James Heaps, was charged with sexual battery in connection with two patients (not students) he treated at UCLA Health. The case joins the myriad incidents in academe involving physicians and alleged sexual assault, including UCLA’s neighbor, the University of Southern California. The parallels in these cases call into question the oversight of college health centers and demonstrate how a powerful figure such as a campus doctor can intimidate and prevent students from reporting abuse. “Especially when trusted figures are abusers, they know they can weaponize the trust in them to further get away with abuse,” said Jess Davidson, executive director of advocacy group End Rape on Campus. In March, UCLA began reviewing its handling of sexual assault cases in a clinical setting with the intent of revising any policies it viewed as weak. Ohio State, a school that recently dealt with a similar situation, in a statement, touted a number of reforms it has made, among them mandatory sexual misconduct prevention training for students, professors and staff members.
The former University of Oklahoma president David L. Boren has agreed to resign from and sever all ties with the institution following the conclusion of a Title IX investigation. Boren, who retired as president in June 2018 but continued teaching political science, has been accused of sexual harassment by university aides, news of which surfaced in March. Boren, who is also a former governor and U.S. senator, chose to resign from his teaching post after the investigation, according to a statement issued on Wednesday by the university.
Grand Canyon University has fired Roy Shick, vice president of advancement, after learning he was accused of and investigated for sexual assault of a student athlete while serving as senior associate athletic director at the University of Washington. Washington investigated Shick after a student athlete alleged he assaulted her. The report found the allegations to be credible, after which, Shick resigned. Grand Canyon University administrators say that they were unaware of UW’s finding and that the investigation did not come up during a background check of Shick. Colleges are required to investigate reports of sexual violence, but those findings don’t appear on background checks, allowing schools broad discretion over what to share with the public, police or prospective employers. Federal law doesn’t require schools to share such information with each other. Cassandra Strickland, the student athlete assaulted by Schick said, “My story is not unique. There are hundreds, if not thousands of other girls at other universities, whose stories are being buried to protect the reputation of the schools they attend,” Strickland said in an email. “It’s a problem, it’s been a problem for far too long and we need to change that.”
A Marshall University student was found responsible for sexual assault in 2016, cleared on appeal, and allowed back on campus in 2017. He then allegedly committed two more sexual assaults in 2018 for which he has been indicted. The case highlights the difficult decisions college administrators must make about students accused of sexual misconduct, and how due-process concerns, the criminal-justice system, and federal policy don’t always align.