NCHERM-affiliated consultant Brian Van Brunt has suggested ten questions you may want to pose when choosing outside assessors to perform evaluations on students:
1) Does the mandated assessment create a “counseling” relationship with the student. If so, what does the informed consent for treatment and assessment look like (can we see a copy?). Is the relationship covered by HIPAA or FERPA---or is it medical in nature without electronic billing (HIPAA)
2) Is the student required to have information shared with the referring party regardless of the results or their wishes? If so, what does this release of information form look like (can we see a copy?)
3) What is the scope of the assessment? Will previous records (e.g. judicial files, out of state criminal records, third-party interviews, review of transcripts/GPA/class attendance, contact with RA or RD to determine residential life performance) be considered. If so, is the student informed of this prior to the assessment starting.
4) What kind of testing will be used to augment the clinical interview (e.g. symptom based measures (beck scales, EDIT, STAXI…), outcome measures (SCL-90-R, OQ-45, QOLI), personality testing (MMPI-2, TAT, Rorschach). How are the results reported back to the referring agent (e.g. letter, summary vs. overly technical data). Is there an additional costs for these assessments or are they provided as part of the overall cost?
5) What is a reasonable time frame for a first meeting? How long does a letter or results typically take to generate?
6) Is there a limit on the number of assessments that can be completed in a time frame (e.g. we know there are busy times where multiple students may be referred for an assessment---will this slow down the process)
7) Are there choices for the student in terms of who can do the assessment (e.g. is it only one person or a team that the student can switch to another person if they are uncomfortable)
8) What kind of ways does the assessment address concerns of “faking” or malingering responses? If assessments are used, do they address valid responses?
9) Who is paying for the assessment? If the student pays, do they then have a right to refuse having the results shared? If the school pays, how to you address the students right to see the results? (who gets the results first? Are both parties given the same results?)
10) What are the credentials of the person doing the assessment? Do they have specific training in the area of assessment and college student development?
Hope you find these helpful.
Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
Mandated Psychological Assessment
Another look at mandated assessment
The second step in Covey’s seven habits of highly effective people is “begin with the end in mind.” Keeping this simple statement in mind has the potential to improve the quality of any mandated suicide or risk assessment. Too often, clinicians become distracted by non-essential questions or external pressures which lead them away from what the referral source is really looking for in terms of feedback.
What is that primary focus when performing an assessment? Well, it depends. It may be a Dean or VP of Student Affairs needs to determine if the student is likely to be safe remaining on campus or if he should be removed them from campus housing. Police may be looking to gauge the severity of a given situation, perhaps a note that lists “people I hate” left on the outside of the student’s door or a creative writing essay that outlines a campus shooting scenario.
Before I start digging into the magic bag of assessments and structured clinical interviews, it is helpful to being any assessment with the end in mind. What is the referral source looking for? It is rarely a 10 page psycho-social assessment or summary of developmental milestones. More often, referral sources are looking for counseling to assist in their process of determining risk. Too much time and effort is spent on answering questions that no one is asking.
Deans, Housing directors and campus police know we can’t predict the future. They understand that a counseling assessment isn’t a guaranteed prediction of future behavior. What they are looking for is assistance in determining a future course of action. Too often, psychologists and counselors don’t focus enough on providing assistance to the questions being asked by the referral source.
Many of the difficulties which arise between counselors and BIT teams center on the lack of effort put into developing the expectations of the beginning of the referral process. Counselors end up guessing at what kind of information they need to provide and BIT teams try to decipher overly technical assessment reports that may be thorough, but miss answering the key questions.
I would suggest counselors and BIT teams come together and discuss what kind of help they can offer each other to build a better foundational conversation prior to beginning any assessment. Some of these questions might include:
1) Are decision makers trying to determine whether the student can live on campus? The real question or threat may be more focused on the dangers or difficulty experienced by roommates and community members. The assessment may want to focus on the relationships the student has and the likelihood of these relationships being disruptive to the residential life community.
2) Does the referral source need help developing educational sanctions or monitoring if the student remains on campus? Counseling may not be the office providing these, but often those performing these assessments are in an excellent position to offer some advice about what kinds of corrective action or treatment would be helpful to avoid future problems.
3) Does the student seem remorseful and show insight into the severity of the situation?
4) Are there personality or psychological issues that may impact the likelihood of the threat occurring again (future suicide attempts, poor impulse control, past behavior, difficult environmental stressors)?
5) Is there a specific timeline that needs to be adhered to? Performing a detailed assessment that will not be ready for a hearing will not be as helpful to the threat team.
6) How can the information best be shared? Is a formal letter needed or a conversation more helpful?
Have a great weekend.
Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D.
Director of Counseling and Testing, WKU
NCHERM-Affiliated Consultant
Brian@NCHERM.org
Brian Van Brunt and Brett Sokolow will explore the topic, "We've Intervened -- Now What?" in a webinar this Friday, November 6th. Details are posted at http://www.ncherm.org/webinars.html
The second step in Covey’s seven habits of highly effective people is “begin with the end in mind.” Keeping this simple statement in mind has the potential to improve the quality of any mandated suicide or risk assessment. Too often, clinicians become distracted by non-essential questions or external pressures which lead them away from what the referral source is really looking for in terms of feedback.
What is that primary focus when performing an assessment? Well, it depends. It may be a Dean or VP of Student Affairs needs to determine if the student is likely to be safe remaining on campus or if he should be removed them from campus housing. Police may be looking to gauge the severity of a given situation, perhaps a note that lists “people I hate” left on the outside of the student’s door or a creative writing essay that outlines a campus shooting scenario.
Before I start digging into the magic bag of assessments and structured clinical interviews, it is helpful to being any assessment with the end in mind. What is the referral source looking for? It is rarely a 10 page psycho-social assessment or summary of developmental milestones. More often, referral sources are looking for counseling to assist in their process of determining risk. Too much time and effort is spent on answering questions that no one is asking.
Deans, Housing directors and campus police know we can’t predict the future. They understand that a counseling assessment isn’t a guaranteed prediction of future behavior. What they are looking for is assistance in determining a future course of action. Too often, psychologists and counselors don’t focus enough on providing assistance to the questions being asked by the referral source.
Many of the difficulties which arise between counselors and BIT teams center on the lack of effort put into developing the expectations of the beginning of the referral process. Counselors end up guessing at what kind of information they need to provide and BIT teams try to decipher overly technical assessment reports that may be thorough, but miss answering the key questions.
I would suggest counselors and BIT teams come together and discuss what kind of help they can offer each other to build a better foundational conversation prior to beginning any assessment. Some of these questions might include:
1) Are decision makers trying to determine whether the student can live on campus? The real question or threat may be more focused on the dangers or difficulty experienced by roommates and community members. The assessment may want to focus on the relationships the student has and the likelihood of these relationships being disruptive to the residential life community.
2) Does the referral source need help developing educational sanctions or monitoring if the student remains on campus? Counseling may not be the office providing these, but often those performing these assessments are in an excellent position to offer some advice about what kinds of corrective action or treatment would be helpful to avoid future problems.
3) Does the student seem remorseful and show insight into the severity of the situation?
4) Are there personality or psychological issues that may impact the likelihood of the threat occurring again (future suicide attempts, poor impulse control, past behavior, difficult environmental stressors)?
5) Is there a specific timeline that needs to be adhered to? Performing a detailed assessment that will not be ready for a hearing will not be as helpful to the threat team.
6) How can the information best be shared? Is a formal letter needed or a conversation more helpful?
Have a great weekend.
Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D.
Director of Counseling and Testing, WKU
NCHERM-Affiliated Consultant
Brian@NCHERM.org
Brian Van Brunt and Brett Sokolow will explore the topic, "We've Intervened -- Now What?" in a webinar this Friday, November 6th. Details are posted at http://www.ncherm.org/webinars.html
Sunday, October 25, 2009
NCHERM Consultant Brian VanBrunt Comments on UCLA Stabbing
Colleagues,
You may find this article of interest.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-college-mental25-2009oct25,0,2132918.story
Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
You may find this article of interest.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-college-mental25-2009oct25,0,2132918.story
Regards,
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
NCHERM Joins Corporate Partnership Program to Support IACLEA and Campus Public Safety
NCHERM Joins Corporate Partnership Program to Support IACLEA and Campus Public Safety
WEST HARTFORD, CT. – NCHERM has become a Corporate Partner of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, Inc., (IACLEA), under a program developed to honor IACLEA’s 50 years of service and to support initiatives to enhance the ability of campus public safety to protect higher education institutions in the future.
NCHERM is a Titanium Sponsor and, as such, has pledged a significant donation to support IACLEA’s 50th Anniversary and future initiatives. The goals of IACLEA’s Corporate Partnership program are to highlight the growth and importance of campus public safety during IACLEA’s first 50 years and to support initiatives to strengthen campus public safety and expand its impact on higher education and its service to stakeholders worldwide.
IACLEA celebrated its 50th Anniversary with a series of events, beginning in Las Vegas in 2007 and culminating with its 50th Annual Conference and celebration in Hartford, CT, in June of 2008. These included a commemorative anniversary book entitled, “IACLEA: The First 50 Years,” and a video called, “Five Decades of Success.”
NCHERM, the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, is a law and consulting firm dedicated exclusively to higher education practice. NCHERM’s 11 consultants offer more than 100 training and consulting workshop topics, focused on prevention, risk management and preventive law. Started in 2000, NCHERM’s recent work on behavioral intervention and threat assessment has taken it into far greater interaction with campus law enforcement, though many in IACLEA are already familiar with NCHERM’s Managing Partner Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., and his work on the Clery Act since 1996. In a short time, NCHERM has received national prominence for its CUBIT Behavioral Intervention Team model, now in place at nearly 300 campuses, its threat assessment model, and its recent creation of NaBITA, the National Behavioral Intervention Team Association. More information is posted at www.ncherm.org and www.nabita.org
NCHERM continues to support IACLEA and the campus public safety profession. IACLEA asks all of its members to thank NCHERM for its support by keeping their services in mind for any future assistance they can provide in developing mission critical solutions for campus public safety departments.
WEST HARTFORD, CT. – NCHERM has become a Corporate Partner of the International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators, Inc., (IACLEA), under a program developed to honor IACLEA’s 50 years of service and to support initiatives to enhance the ability of campus public safety to protect higher education institutions in the future.
NCHERM is a Titanium Sponsor and, as such, has pledged a significant donation to support IACLEA’s 50th Anniversary and future initiatives. The goals of IACLEA’s Corporate Partnership program are to highlight the growth and importance of campus public safety during IACLEA’s first 50 years and to support initiatives to strengthen campus public safety and expand its impact on higher education and its service to stakeholders worldwide.
IACLEA celebrated its 50th Anniversary with a series of events, beginning in Las Vegas in 2007 and culminating with its 50th Annual Conference and celebration in Hartford, CT, in June of 2008. These included a commemorative anniversary book entitled, “IACLEA: The First 50 Years,” and a video called, “Five Decades of Success.”
NCHERM, the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, is a law and consulting firm dedicated exclusively to higher education practice. NCHERM’s 11 consultants offer more than 100 training and consulting workshop topics, focused on prevention, risk management and preventive law. Started in 2000, NCHERM’s recent work on behavioral intervention and threat assessment has taken it into far greater interaction with campus law enforcement, though many in IACLEA are already familiar with NCHERM’s Managing Partner Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., and his work on the Clery Act since 1996. In a short time, NCHERM has received national prominence for its CUBIT Behavioral Intervention Team model, now in place at nearly 300 campuses, its threat assessment model, and its recent creation of NaBITA, the National Behavioral Intervention Team Association. More information is posted at www.ncherm.org and www.nabita.org
NCHERM continues to support IACLEA and the campus public safety profession. IACLEA asks all of its members to thank NCHERM for its support by keeping their services in mind for any future assistance they can provide in developing mission critical solutions for campus public safety departments.
Friday, October 9, 2009
More Trouble in Cyberspace
Social networking sites, such as Facebook, My Space, You Tube and Twitter continue to provide a source for new legal challenges and new applications of law. A Federal judge in Kentucky ordered the reinstatement of a University of Louisville nursing student who had posted a blog on MySpace recounting, in detail, the experiences of a patient giving birth. The nursing student included information about the date of the birth, the number of children the patient already had, the fact that she had an epidural and the reactions of her family. In addition, she described the newborn as “a wrinkly, bluish creature, all Picasso-like and weird, ugly as hell, covered in god knows what, screeching and waving its tentacles in the air”. The nursing student was subsequently dismissed from the University for violating patient confidentiality by providing sufficient personal information in her blog about the patient to enable the patient to be identified, and, in addition, for violating the principles of professionalism in the code of nursing.
The dismissed student argued that the University violated her First Amendment rights by dismissing her for the comments and information she posted in her blog. The student also argued that the University could not take the dismissal action because she was not using University technology to create her blog, she did not post the blog as a representative of the School of Nursing, and that she used the blog to create a “mixture of fiction and satire” as an emotional relief from the daily stress of her academic program.
We advise colleges and universities that students enrolled in professional programs who violate the standards and ethics of the profession may be disciplined if that expectation is clearly stated as a condition of enrollment in the program. Although the article does not address whether the nursing student had a due process hearing prior to her dismissal, the case was not presented as, nor decided as, a due process issue. Rather, the judge seemed to be substituting his opinion of the professional standards for that of the University by stating, “the post was not written in a professional medical context and thus fell outside the code of professionalism for nursing”. It seems to me that providing patient confidentiality, consistent with both ethical standards and HIPAA, is an across the board expectation for both students and professionals in the medical field, and not one confined to writing in a “medical context”.
This case raises concerns because of the judge’s involvement in the academic context, and the presumption that something posted on a personal blog protected the poster from being held accountable for violating legal and ethical standards of her profession. What do you think? Should she be disciplined? Dismissed from the program? Or is her comments protected by the First Amendment because of the vehicle for expression she used.
Regards,
Saunie Schuster
The dismissed student argued that the University violated her First Amendment rights by dismissing her for the comments and information she posted in her blog. The student also argued that the University could not take the dismissal action because she was not using University technology to create her blog, she did not post the blog as a representative of the School of Nursing, and that she used the blog to create a “mixture of fiction and satire” as an emotional relief from the daily stress of her academic program.
We advise colleges and universities that students enrolled in professional programs who violate the standards and ethics of the profession may be disciplined if that expectation is clearly stated as a condition of enrollment in the program. Although the article does not address whether the nursing student had a due process hearing prior to her dismissal, the case was not presented as, nor decided as, a due process issue. Rather, the judge seemed to be substituting his opinion of the professional standards for that of the University by stating, “the post was not written in a professional medical context and thus fell outside the code of professionalism for nursing”. It seems to me that providing patient confidentiality, consistent with both ethical standards and HIPAA, is an across the board expectation for both students and professionals in the medical field, and not one confined to writing in a “medical context”.
This case raises concerns because of the judge’s involvement in the academic context, and the presumption that something posted on a personal blog protected the poster from being held accountable for violating legal and ethical standards of her profession. What do you think? Should she be disciplined? Dismissed from the program? Or is her comments protected by the First Amendment because of the vehicle for expression she used.
Regards,
Saunie Schuster
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Whoopi Goldberg, Roman Polanski, and Rape
Colleagues,
Wendy Murphy wrote this with such clarity of vision that I wanted to pass it along, with her permission and my gratitude.
AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG
Dear Whoopi;
Yesterday on "The View", you said Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to
"unlawful sex with a minor", but that it wasn't "rape rape".? So I've
been wondering -
What the hell is "rape rape"?
I know you said your point was to articulate the nature of the crime
to which he pleaded guilty - which, you said, was somehow DIFFERENT
from "rape".
It isnt.
"Unlawful sex with a minor" IS the crime of child rape in California.
So again - I ask you - how is "rape rape" different from "rape"?
Regular folks understand "rape" to mean "sexual penetration without
consent" - and of course, consent is irrelevant when the victim is a
child.
The law says "rape" means:? "sexual penetration".
The dictionary says "rape" is:? "forced sexual intercourse".
No matter which definitional source you use, Whoopi, Polanski "raped"
his victim.
So I'm trying to understand what you meant when you say it wasn't
"rape rape".
Did you mean it wasn't "real rape"? ?
What wasn't "real" enough about the crime for you, Whoopi?
A 43 year old man forced his penis into a 13 year-old child's vagina -
and then he forced his penis into her anus.? How is this "rape", but
not "rape rape"?
The victim was not only a child, she was also intoxicated because
Polanski gave her booze and drugs before the crime.? The child
protested - told him to stop - but he continued.? She was
incapacitated to a point where she could barely walk, much less defend
herself against her 43 year-old attacker.? Is that enough for "rape
rape", Whoopi?
What would have done it for you?? If he'd used a knife - or jumped on
her in a dark alley instead of a bed?? If it had happened at a
homeless shelter instead of the mansion of a famous Hollywood actor??
If he'd had to remove a trench coat before committing the crime,
rather than silk underwear from a fancy shop on Rodeo Drive?
What if the victim had been a little black girl from a triple decker
in the poorest part of Los Angeles?? Would that have been "rape rape",
Whoopi? Or would you have still offered the same lame excuse you came
up with on The View - that "people in other countries see things
differently" when middle-aged men force themselves on children.
If it's true that 13 year-old kids in France are so disrespected they
can anticipate being attacked by men - you can and should condemn the
practice - not chalk it up to a "cultural difference" - as if to
suggest that the United States might evolve one day to a period of
enlightenment when we will be "liberated" enough to celebrate the
sexual abuse of children. ?
Your audience is filed with women who need and deserve the empowerment
potential in a show like yours. Cultural values are created, in part,
through the dissemination of ideas.? You had a chance to explain to
millions of people why the personal autonomy, bodily integrity and
liberty of all women and children is at stake when even one rapist is
not held accountable for his actions.? At a minimum, you could have
explained how backward we really are in this country - and how the
epidemic of rape and child sex abuse serves as a kind of domestic
terrorism that interferes with the freedom of millions of people who
are affected by the disproportionate failure of our legal system to
redress sexual violence.? According to a study submitted to Congress
in support of the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, by then
Senator Joseph Biden, only 2% of rapists spend even one day behind
bars.? Violence against women and children is grossly underreported
and underprosecuted, and the data c
onsistently shows that crimes against property are punished much more
harshly than crimes against female bodies.
Rather than highlight this profound and pervasive injustice, you
bemoaned the fact that Mr. Polanski was compelled to flee the United
States after pleading guilty to child rape because he was about to be
go to jail for "a hundred years". ?
Many people would argue he deserved such a sentence, and under
California law today, but not back then, drugging and raping a child
would expose Mr. Polanski to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.?
But because he was allowed to plead guilty to only one of six felonies
with which he was originally charged - he faced no more than four
years behind bars, and some reports say the judge intended to impose a
sentence of only a few weeks of incarceration.
Mr. Polanski arrogantly decided that he shouldn't spend any time in
jail, and he fled this country spinelessly for a nation he knew would
not extradite him for his crime.? If it's true, as has been reported,
that he took off because he thought it was unfair that he should go to
jail after his lawyer worked out a "no jail" deal with the prosecutor,
he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea and go to TRIAL - not PARIS.
That Mr. Polanski would show such disrespect for this country's legal
system is a reason to punish him MORE, not less, for his crime.? It
may be a decades-old case, but it bears stating the obvious that the
law should not reward fugitives for their successful efforts to evade
justice.
Nonetheless, Mr. Polanski is a man of wealth and power, and kids don't
vote or have any money.? Which is why people like you are so quick to
say things that degrade children.? Admit it Whoopi, you'd be talking
out of the other side of your mouth if filmmaker Polanski were
garbageman Polanski.
Next time, try reading the Constitution BEFORE speaking on this
topic.? There's nothing in there that says people of influence should
not be held accountable for their crimes.? In fact, try focusing on
the 14th Amendment for a few minutes - especially the part about how
all citizens are entitled to "equal protection" of the laws.? Then try
reading some of our most basic court decisions that discuss how the
law is supposed to protect the weak, and deter the cunning.
You have a 13 year-old granddaughter, Whoopi.? What does she call
you?? "Nana"? "Grandma"?.? What if she told you that she had been
"raped" by a 45 year-old man who stripped her naked and then
penetrated her private parts even as she cried "no".? Would you
correct her for using the word "rape"?? Would you say, "sorry
sweetheart -? what happened to you was not a 'rape rape'". ?
No matter how hard some people try to make the crime seem harmless and
full of gray areas - - it really is quite simple if you think about it
the way someone famous once did:? "rape is to sex what a punch in the
mouth is to a kiss".? Not all punches knock teeth out - but nobody
ever says "it wasn't a 'punch punch'". ?
I will say one thing, Whoopi - in your defense.? Maybe we SHOULD give
up the term "rape" altogether, and start calling it "bodily
enslavement".? We could put it in the Constitution as a civil rights
crime, rather than in the lowly statute books alongside shoplifting. ?
I'm thinking if we had initially codified the offense in law where it
truly belongs - under the umbrella of fundamental liberty - you might
have stopped yourself before saying "it wasn't a violation of civil
rights civil rights".
Can you see how dumb that sounds, Whoopi?
I hope so - because you are an important voice for women and children
and I want you to sound smart.
Yours truly,
Wendy Murphy
New England Law|Boston
Wendy Murphy wrote this with such clarity of vision that I wanted to pass it along, with her permission and my gratitude.
AN OPEN LETTER TO WHOOPI GOLDBERG
Dear Whoopi;
Yesterday on "The View", you said Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to
"unlawful sex with a minor", but that it wasn't "rape rape".? So I've
been wondering -
What the hell is "rape rape"?
I know you said your point was to articulate the nature of the crime
to which he pleaded guilty - which, you said, was somehow DIFFERENT
from "rape".
It isnt.
"Unlawful sex with a minor" IS the crime of child rape in California.
So again - I ask you - how is "rape rape" different from "rape"?
Regular folks understand "rape" to mean "sexual penetration without
consent" - and of course, consent is irrelevant when the victim is a
child.
The law says "rape" means:? "sexual penetration".
The dictionary says "rape" is:? "forced sexual intercourse".
No matter which definitional source you use, Whoopi, Polanski "raped"
his victim.
So I'm trying to understand what you meant when you say it wasn't
"rape rape".
Did you mean it wasn't "real rape"? ?
What wasn't "real" enough about the crime for you, Whoopi?
A 43 year old man forced his penis into a 13 year-old child's vagina -
and then he forced his penis into her anus.? How is this "rape", but
not "rape rape"?
The victim was not only a child, she was also intoxicated because
Polanski gave her booze and drugs before the crime.? The child
protested - told him to stop - but he continued.? She was
incapacitated to a point where she could barely walk, much less defend
herself against her 43 year-old attacker.? Is that enough for "rape
rape", Whoopi?
What would have done it for you?? If he'd used a knife - or jumped on
her in a dark alley instead of a bed?? If it had happened at a
homeless shelter instead of the mansion of a famous Hollywood actor??
If he'd had to remove a trench coat before committing the crime,
rather than silk underwear from a fancy shop on Rodeo Drive?
What if the victim had been a little black girl from a triple decker
in the poorest part of Los Angeles?? Would that have been "rape rape",
Whoopi? Or would you have still offered the same lame excuse you came
up with on The View - that "people in other countries see things
differently" when middle-aged men force themselves on children.
If it's true that 13 year-old kids in France are so disrespected they
can anticipate being attacked by men - you can and should condemn the
practice - not chalk it up to a "cultural difference" - as if to
suggest that the United States might evolve one day to a period of
enlightenment when we will be "liberated" enough to celebrate the
sexual abuse of children. ?
Your audience is filed with women who need and deserve the empowerment
potential in a show like yours. Cultural values are created, in part,
through the dissemination of ideas.? You had a chance to explain to
millions of people why the personal autonomy, bodily integrity and
liberty of all women and children is at stake when even one rapist is
not held accountable for his actions.? At a minimum, you could have
explained how backward we really are in this country - and how the
epidemic of rape and child sex abuse serves as a kind of domestic
terrorism that interferes with the freedom of millions of people who
are affected by the disproportionate failure of our legal system to
redress sexual violence.? According to a study submitted to Congress
in support of the Violence Against Women Act in the 1990s, by then
Senator Joseph Biden, only 2% of rapists spend even one day behind
bars.? Violence against women and children is grossly underreported
and underprosecuted, and the data c
onsistently shows that crimes against property are punished much more
harshly than crimes against female bodies.
Rather than highlight this profound and pervasive injustice, you
bemoaned the fact that Mr. Polanski was compelled to flee the United
States after pleading guilty to child rape because he was about to be
go to jail for "a hundred years". ?
Many people would argue he deserved such a sentence, and under
California law today, but not back then, drugging and raping a child
would expose Mr. Polanski to a mandatory minimum term of 25 years.?
But because he was allowed to plead guilty to only one of six felonies
with which he was originally charged - he faced no more than four
years behind bars, and some reports say the judge intended to impose a
sentence of only a few weeks of incarceration.
Mr. Polanski arrogantly decided that he shouldn't spend any time in
jail, and he fled this country spinelessly for a nation he knew would
not extradite him for his crime.? If it's true, as has been reported,
that he took off because he thought it was unfair that he should go to
jail after his lawyer worked out a "no jail" deal with the prosecutor,
he had a right to withdraw his guilty plea and go to TRIAL - not PARIS.
That Mr. Polanski would show such disrespect for this country's legal
system is a reason to punish him MORE, not less, for his crime.? It
may be a decades-old case, but it bears stating the obvious that the
law should not reward fugitives for their successful efforts to evade
justice.
Nonetheless, Mr. Polanski is a man of wealth and power, and kids don't
vote or have any money.? Which is why people like you are so quick to
say things that degrade children.? Admit it Whoopi, you'd be talking
out of the other side of your mouth if filmmaker Polanski were
garbageman Polanski.
Next time, try reading the Constitution BEFORE speaking on this
topic.? There's nothing in there that says people of influence should
not be held accountable for their crimes.? In fact, try focusing on
the 14th Amendment for a few minutes - especially the part about how
all citizens are entitled to "equal protection" of the laws.? Then try
reading some of our most basic court decisions that discuss how the
law is supposed to protect the weak, and deter the cunning.
You have a 13 year-old granddaughter, Whoopi.? What does she call
you?? "Nana"? "Grandma"?.? What if she told you that she had been
"raped" by a 45 year-old man who stripped her naked and then
penetrated her private parts even as she cried "no".? Would you
correct her for using the word "rape"?? Would you say, "sorry
sweetheart -? what happened to you was not a 'rape rape'". ?
No matter how hard some people try to make the crime seem harmless and
full of gray areas - - it really is quite simple if you think about it
the way someone famous once did:? "rape is to sex what a punch in the
mouth is to a kiss".? Not all punches knock teeth out - but nobody
ever says "it wasn't a 'punch punch'". ?
I will say one thing, Whoopi - in your defense.? Maybe we SHOULD give
up the term "rape" altogether, and start calling it "bodily
enslavement".? We could put it in the Constitution as a civil rights
crime, rather than in the lowly statute books alongside shoplifting. ?
I'm thinking if we had initially codified the offense in law where it
truly belongs - under the umbrella of fundamental liberty - you might
have stopped yourself before saying "it wasn't a violation of civil
rights civil rights".
Can you see how dumb that sounds, Whoopi?
I hope so - because you are an important voice for women and children
and I want you to sound smart.
Yours truly,
Wendy Murphy
New England Law|Boston
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Juicy Campus Title IX OCR Investigation Follow-up
Colleagues,
We posted several weeks ago on the OCR investigation of Hofstra University with a promise to update it when we had more information. I made a FOIA request for the letter of findings. Those who are interested may find the letter posted at http://www.ncherm.org/documents/Hofstra02092051.pdf
Here is my initial take on it. What are your thoughts?
Having read the letter now, I can understand the downplaying comments by OCR, as I don't think the interpretation is as expansive as Wendy Murphy or SOC would like, though I think it does establish the requirement that a college at least investigate such a complaint. Thus, failure to do so could result in a Title IX violation. If Hofstra knew the alleged harassee's name, it would have been required to do more by OCR. How much more is the question, given the online nature of the harassment. But, OCR did not wash their hands of the complaint, and that has significance.
What they said may be as significant here as what they did not. On the question of what they did not say, as potentially significant -- OCR did not address first amendment concerns at all, which I find to be an oversight. While Hofstra is private, the forum was public. AND, I'm not as congratulatory on how Hofstra's response is described here. If the mother and daughter approached student affairs, were told they could not be helped by students affairs because the conduct was online, and then pushed the alleged victim off on campus law enforcement, who were unresponsive or unreachable, this is a pattern that occurs too often.
There should be on every campus a "no wrong door" policy on reporting sexual harassment. Shunting a potential victim from disinterested office to disinterested office is what provokes this kind of complaint to OCR in the first place. And I find it disingenuous that campus police is a more appropriate department to report harassment than student affairs, which has jurisdiction over conduct code violations.
It is convenient that no one had the alleged victim's name after a face-to-face meeting between student affairs officials, the mother and daughter, but that seems sloppy to me. It also seems sloppy that OCR could approve of trying to avoid actual notice.
Could we improve on how Hofstra responded? An intake form? An offer, "let me help you contact campus police...". "Let me get your contact information." "Are the harassers students?"
Any of that follow-up would have seemed less deliberately indifferent to a situation that was important enough that daughter and mom both showed up looking for help.
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
We posted several weeks ago on the OCR investigation of Hofstra University with a promise to update it when we had more information. I made a FOIA request for the letter of findings. Those who are interested may find the letter posted at http://www.ncherm.org/documents/Hofstra02092051.pdf
Here is my initial take on it. What are your thoughts?
Having read the letter now, I can understand the downplaying comments by OCR, as I don't think the interpretation is as expansive as Wendy Murphy or SOC would like, though I think it does establish the requirement that a college at least investigate such a complaint. Thus, failure to do so could result in a Title IX violation. If Hofstra knew the alleged harassee's name, it would have been required to do more by OCR. How much more is the question, given the online nature of the harassment. But, OCR did not wash their hands of the complaint, and that has significance.
What they said may be as significant here as what they did not. On the question of what they did not say, as potentially significant -- OCR did not address first amendment concerns at all, which I find to be an oversight. While Hofstra is private, the forum was public. AND, I'm not as congratulatory on how Hofstra's response is described here. If the mother and daughter approached student affairs, were told they could not be helped by students affairs because the conduct was online, and then pushed the alleged victim off on campus law enforcement, who were unresponsive or unreachable, this is a pattern that occurs too often.
There should be on every campus a "no wrong door" policy on reporting sexual harassment. Shunting a potential victim from disinterested office to disinterested office is what provokes this kind of complaint to OCR in the first place. And I find it disingenuous that campus police is a more appropriate department to report harassment than student affairs, which has jurisdiction over conduct code violations.
It is convenient that no one had the alleged victim's name after a face-to-face meeting between student affairs officials, the mother and daughter, but that seems sloppy to me. It also seems sloppy that OCR could approve of trying to avoid actual notice.
Could we improve on how Hofstra responded? An intake form? An offer, "let me help you contact campus police...". "Let me get your contact information." "Are the harassers students?"
Any of that follow-up would have seemed less deliberately indifferent to a situation that was important enough that daughter and mom both showed up looking for help.
Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
