What Colleges Can Learn from the Detroit Almost-Bombing

Dear Colleagues,

A short blog thought for you in this holiday interstice about the attempted terrorist bombing over Detroit on Christmas, and its implications for threat assessment in higher education. More reports come out each day about this incident, but a central question that everyone is asking is why was this bomber not identified sooner, and why didn't some responsible agency have a closer eye on him?

There are only a few possible answers, all of which have implications for colleges and universities:

1. Responsible agencies did have intel on Abdulmutallab, but did not accurately classify the level of risk the intel indicated. This is a rather unlikely conclusion, though we make sport of constant charges of government incompetence. The risk assessment tools in use by intelligence agencies are sound, and are implemented by some of the world's foremost threat experts. Nothing suggests a misclassification so far. The implications for colleges and universities lie in using informal risk classification mechanisms, "feel-based" approaches, inconsistent measures (we often get this from over-reliance on mental health assessments by different assessors, or using different inventories/scales) or risk rubrics that are not meant to be used for the kinds of risk being assessed.

2. There were reports raising red flags about Abdulmutallab, but they did not provide sufficient intel to be actionable -- to peg him high enough on the risk scale for "no-fly" or any other kind of action/intervention. In higher education, this is a real fear, as well. Someone within our communities is a real and present danger, and we don't know it. We have bits and pieces, but nothing to indicate the impending crisis with any accuracy or forewarning. This reminds us of the need to continue to build and empower cultures of reporting, where the right decisionmakers know what the people on the frontlines know. A culture of reporting exists when all members of the community recognize when they come into possession of key pieces of intel, know who to pass the intel along to, and do so in real time and with accuracy.

3. Nigeria knew, but America or the intelligence agencies of other countries did not. This is the silo effect where communication either does not flow, or is impeded. This is one of the main challenges for any organization, whether it is an intelligence agency, college or university. Some level of communication barrier is inevitable. Perhaps it is reasonable to argue that a report in Nigeria by a father of a remotely radicalized son is not something that should be known immediately by intelligence agencies around the world. There must be hundreds of thousands of such young men, and concerned parents. Yet, when the father of Cho's suitemate learned that Cho had threatened suicide, he reported it immediately, and Virginia Tech's police department took action immediately. To me, it speaks to the value of intel that can come from outside our jurisdictions, campuses, and communities that can bear directly upon our communities. Perfect communication is impossible, but priority communication can help to ensure the flow of critical intel, even if lesser intel may not always get through.

4. Finally, it may be that the red flags raised about Abdulmutallab were sufficient for a watch list or or risk status elevation, but there was insufficient man or womanpower to investigate and make that critical judgment call. This is a persistent detriment in the intelligence world, where no action is taken on actionable intelligence either because the agency has insufficient resources, there is just too high a volume of reports to investigate all of them adequately, or there is a language or other barrier to effective follow-up. It is also a potential hazard for colleges and universities that are experiencing a high volume of reports of concerning behaviors, but do not have the resources to adequately follow-up and investigate. While we may feel this is inexcusable, it happens on many college campuses, and the best band aid is an effective triage system where all reports are follow-up, but some more quickly and with more intensity than others. This brings us back to have a risk rubric we can trust, because we can rely on it for initial triage and ultimately overall threat, too, once we have collected more intel and engaged a preliminary investigation.

Those are my thoughts for now. Happy New Year, and for those of you who, like me, are headed back onto an airplane soon, the vigilance and action of those who engaged Abdulmutallab on flight 253 may have made all the difference. Keep your eyes open, and be willing to intervene when something smells wrong, or like smoke.

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

VA Tech Governor's Panel Report Revised

Colleagues,

The revised report is posted at this link: http://www.nabita.org/documents/VATechRecordRpt179-09110909final.pdf

Regards,

The NCHERM Team

Sexual Assault on Campus

Thought you would want to see this in-depth, investigative, multi-media story about sexual assault on college campuses by Kristen Lombardi and Center for Public Integrity

http://www.publicintegrity.org/investigations/campus_assault/

Campus Sexual Assault Policy Press Release

PASSING ALONG A PRESS RELEASE...

V-Day and Students Active for Ending Rape Launch Campus Accountability Project: A Demand for Sexual Assault Policy Reform

New York, NY, December 1, 2009—V-Day and Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER) are proud to announce the launch of their joint “Campus Accountability Project: A Demand for Sexual Assault Policy Reform.” For the past ten years, both V-Day and SAFER have been helping college and university students organize to fight sexual violence and challenge rape culture on their campuses. By combining forces on the multi-phase Campus Accountability Project (CAP), both organizations hope to empower more students to take an active role in changing the ways in which their campuses prevent and respond to sexual assault, and spark a nationwide dialogue on what schools should be doing to properly educate and protect their students.

Sexual assault on college campuses is a pressing issue. One in four women will survive rape or attempted rape during their college career and rape is the most common violent crime committed on college campuses. Colleges and universities have the power to change these statistics and foster healthy sexual attitudes on campus by implementing comprehensive and easily accessible sexual assault policies and prevention programs. V-Day and SAFER believe that students have the power to hold their schools accountable for these key provisions and to fight for and win reforms when necessary.

The CAP kicks off this winter as V-Day and SAFER invite college students across the country to become part of the movement by researching their school’s current sexual assault policy and providing feedback. Students can register for the V-Day/Safer Campus Accountability Project Database where they will be guided through a thorough policy analysis process, answering questions meant to assess the policy’s thoroughness, inclusivity, and adherence to federal law. Once completed, these analyses will be reviewed by staff and submitted to the Database, creating a powerful tool for student activists and administrators to see how their schools match up to peer institutions and what improvements can be made.

After the first batch of policies have been submitted, SAFER trainers will be available for students who want to make changes on their campus. During the 2010–2011 school year, V-Day and SAFER will review the compiled information to assess the state of the nation’s campus sexual assault policy’s and establish a thorough list of key criteria to effectively prevent, track and respond to sexual assaults on college campuses. We hope to eventually integrate our database into existing college ranking systems, so students and parents have easy access to the information.

Please visit http://safercampus.org/campus-accountability-project or http://www.vday.org/cap for more information.

About V-Day

V-Day is a global activist movement shattering taboos, raising millions and transforming communities to end violence against women and girls. Annually, activists stage thousands of benefit productions of Founder/playwright Eve Ensler’s The Vagina Monologues and other works. Working at the intersection of art, social action, and politics, V-Day empowers grassroots activists to become leaders, turning pain to power. To date, the V-Day movement has raised over $70 million, crafted international educational, media and PSA campaigns, reopened shelters, and funded over 11,000 community-based anti-violence programs and safe houses in Democratic Republic Of Congo, Egypt, Haiti, Iraq, Kenya, Pakistan, and South Dakota. V-Day was named one of Worth magazine's "100 Best Charities" in 2001 and Marie Claire’s “Top Ten Charities” in 2006. The 'V' in V-Day stands for Victory, Valentine and Vagina. http://www.vday.org

About SAFER

Started by Columbia University students in 2000, Students Active for Ending Rape (SAFER) is the only organization that fights sexual violence and rape culture by empowering student-led campaigns to reform college sexual assault policies. An all-volunteer collective, SAFER facilitates student organizing through a comprehensive training manual; in-person workshops and trainings; free follow-up mentoring; our Campus Sexual Assault Policies Database; and a growing online resource library and network for student organizers. Committed to social change through community mobilization, SAFER arms students with the tools needed to mobilize communities and make lasting change on campus. www.safercampus.org

Mandated Psychological Assessment -- Best Practices

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Sexual Assault and the Millennials

Greetings Colleagues,

I'll make this short, but wanted to weigh in on my travels, and the anecdotal information that I'm getting from my interactions with students. As you know, this is the time of the year when I'm keynoting orientation programs across the country for four straight weeks. It gives me a real insight into the student mores of the class of 2013, as it does every year. While Millennials literature can forecast, and the Beloit list can look back, I always consider orientation my most accurate barometer for the year to come. It hasn't led me wrong yet. Most of my orientation programs have focused on sexual assault, with several addressing alcohol and bystander intervention instead as their primary focus. What can I relate so far -- three important initial impressions:

1. The class of '13 is slightly more alcohol naive than the class of '12. They're a little less experienced coming in, though only a little. They are about as well-informed on alcohol as previous classes, maybe slightly more so, but it is clear the high schools are still not giving them critical information and that colleges still need to fill that gap.

What are the implications? Depends on how quickly they acclimate to campus and begin to reflect the campuses alcohol mores, rather than those of their high school. Often, when the incoming class is inexperienced, it's bad for college administrators. Coming in with more experience often means savvier drinkers, and less fallout from first-time drunkfests. With a naive class like '13, it suggests to me higher risk when and if they do drink, as they have less experience with the effects of different types of alcohol, and how they will react.

2. About 6 years ago, there was a 2-3 year period in which it was not uncommon for young women to excuse themselves (sometimes running) from my sexual assault program when it triggered them. We beefed up counselors outside as a result, and that made for some valuable support structures. It happened practically every night. Then, for the last four years, I've watched powerless as sometimes a few or even a dozen women just sat through the presentation in tears. Every night. But, almost never left. Hopefully, they had someone to talk to, or sought help after the program, but there was enough emotional control that fleeing was rare. This year, I've had multiple women flee in almost every program.

What are the implications? I'd generalize and say this class has less emotional control than the classes over the last four years. We've been watching this erode, and dealing with flare-ups, conflict and other emotional control issues more and more, but it may come to a head with this class. It's all on the surface, for better or worse. Also, we need to again beef up the counselor presence outside in the halls, so there is an emotional safety net for these women as they go running out.

3. The audience is splitting along gender lines in the Drunk Sex program based on a case study. I have the audience vote as if they are a jury, and it has been 10-11 years since I saw gender-split audiences, and only then primarily when I was visiting campuses in the South. This year, after three weeks, only two juries out of 12 have split with men and women equally divided. All the others have voted with a clear majority of men siding with the male defendant in the case, and women voting with the female victim. I've never seen this before, and it is widespread, from CA to VT.

Implications: this class seems to have regressed in gender role assumptions and stereotyping, and based on their comments, possesses a rather 1950s sensibility of "men can't keep it in their pants, so women better cross their legs." A lot of that is coming from women, too. It will be fascinating to see what has caused such an interestingly narrow gender-role perspective that seems to affect this entire class from campus to campus. Perhaps we are reaping the message of the Girls Gone Wild generation, and it seems to me, this is clearly not for the better.

Just some preliminary thoughts from the road. I'll more comprehensively summarize my impressions at the end of the semester, after another 30 programs or so.

Have a great long weekend and happy holiday.

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

A Blog from Saunie

Dear Colleagues,

The Columbus Dispatch, my hometown newspaper, has been running a series of ”exposes” about how the colleges and universities in the state address questions regarding release of certain information. Mostly the questions involved athletes and involved travel info and job info. The responses were all over the place, with most institutions who refused to give up the information citing to FERPA. Some of the institutions provided the information saying it was a public record. This has set off quite a firestorm regarding “what constitutes a record” under FERPA.

Our state senator is calling for clarification and our state Attorney General is sending requests for clarification to the Dept. of Ed. But this issue is also receiving national attention, bolstered by the involvement of former Senator James Buckley, the original drafter of the legislation.

The new head of the Family Compliance Office, Paul Gammill, stated that he intends to meet with the NCAA reps to discuss better transparency in records, but what is badly needed is a comprehensive review of the law, the legislative intent and the application to practice.

The only time a federal court of appeals evaluated what constituted a “record” under FERPA was in 2002 when the Sixth Circuit ruled that student discipline records constitute a “record” under FERPA. The court stated that since the regs specify exceptions to FERPA, if a record was NOT identified as an exception, then it would be encompassed by the privacy provisions of the law.

So, do we look forward to greater specificity in the language of the law imposed by the Dept. of Ed., or to continued interpretative discretion on the part of the institutions?

Have a great weekend.

Saunie Schuster

Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment Association Annual Conference

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- August 17, 2009

Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment Association Annual Conference

Today, NaBITA (The National Behavioral Intervention Team Association) announced its 1st Annual Conference and Call for Programs. This two-day international conference will be hosted by the University of Texas at San Antonio from December 10-11, 2009. NaBITA is the national association for behavioral intervention and threat assessment teams operating to prevent violence in schools, on college campuses, and in workplaces.

Dr. Rick A. Myer, Professor of Counseling and Psychology at Duquesne University will give the Keynote address, entitled: "Crisis Intervention and Prevention: The Three `C's." NaBITA's 2009 President, Brett A. Sokolow, Esq., issued the following statement:

We think participants will appreciate the format of the NaBITA Annual Conference, which has been given much thought and consideration by the NaBITA Conference Committee. In addition to Dr. Myer's speech, the conference has three types of presentation slots: Featured Speakers, Concurrent Sessions, and Roundtables. There are three Featured Speaker sessions in addition to the Keynote. Ten Featured speakers have been invited to present by the conference committee based upon their prominence and contribution to the thought, theory, practice and evolution of behavioral intervention efforts. Their topics have been assigned to them, with the intention of creating a dynamic and progressive Institute-style curriculum for participants. These Featured Speakers include: W. Scott Lewis, J.D., Saundra K. Schuster, Esq., Carolyn Reinach Wolfe, Esq., Elizabeth Brody Gluck, Esq., Michael Dolan, Aaron Hark, Mitchell Levy, Ph.D., Brian Van Brunt, Ed.D., Brett A. Sokolow, Esq. and Rick A. Myer, Ph.D.

The conference committee also recognizes that expertise exists beyond the ten featured speakers, and has slated four concurrent sessions so that practitioners from schools, college campuses and workplaces can share their promising models, valuable experience and professional expertise with the participants. Click here to access the Call for Programs or visit www.nabita.org. NaBITA invites and encourages the submission of program proposals. The Call for Programs submission deadline is September 1st.

The conference planners have recognized that learning is more powerful when participants get a chance to digest and apply the concepts shared at a conference. As a result, the conference incorporates Roundtable and panel sessions, to engage participants interactively. There are Roundtable sessions at the end of each day. On the first day, participants will be able to join themed Roundtables facilitated by the Featured Speakers based on topics of interest. On the second day, there will be track-based roundtables facilitated by concurrent session presenters and then a Featured Speaker panel to close the conference.

The NaBITA conference, in addition to offering three types of presentations, is designed to allow participants to follow presentations in three tracks, by level of sophistication. NaBITA intends this conference to be relevant to all participants, whether they are just beginning a team, have one already established, or have been doing behavioral intervention well for years. The three tracks are Basic, Intermediate and Advanced, and participants may follow their track, or jump around to topics that interest them.

Conference registration is open and details are posted on the conference site at www.nabita.org/annualconference.html.

For more information, contact:

Samantha Dutill, Associate Executive Director
NaBITA
610.993.0229
samantha@nabita.org
www.nabita.org

OCR, Title IX and Juicy Campus

Colleagues,

Many of you are following the stories on the OCR investigation of Hofstra regarding harassment of a student that occurred on the defunct JuicyCampus website. I've been talking yesterday and today to Wendy Murphy, the lawyer who filed the complaint, to get more insight. I've made a FOIA request for the OCR letter and will share it as soon as I get it. Anyone have a copy already?

The substance concerns whether colleges and universities will be required to remedy gender discrimination of a student occurring on 3rd party Internet sites not owned or controlled by the institution. Wendy's interpretation is that by making a finding on the complaint (no Title IX violation by Hofstra), the OCR believes it has jurisdiction over online harassment of a student. The OCR itself has today declaimed that reading of its finding, instead saying it found no violation, and nothing more. Security-on-Campus, of course, disputes the OCR characterization, and believes this is a landmark ruling.

There is no authority in Title IX for such an action, but OCR does essentially make law with its administrative rulings. Harassment must be within a program of a funding recipient to come under OCR jurisdiction, and 3rd party Internet sites don't meet that requirement. And only the most egregious of Internet harassment could rise to the level of being severe, pervasive and objectively offensive enough to overcome the 1st Amendment rights of the speaker. I could see a requirement to address harassment occurring on a campus network, or by university email, as being within OCR's jurisdiction programmatically. I could see an argument that harassment occurring in a university-sponsored Second Life could be seen as occurring within the programs of a funding recipient. I could even see OCR weighing in on a campus remedy of such discrimination, if the campus exercised its conduct jurisdiction to do so, even if Title IX did not require it to. How OCR saw a nexus between the harassment and Hofstra will hopefully be illuminated by the letter.

I'll share more about this case when I know more...

Here are some relevant articles:

http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?view=article&id=2027%3Acampuses-wont-be-so-juicy-this-fall&option=com_content&Itemid=79

August 11, 2009, 10:00 AM ET


And, this article, posted by blog to the Chronicle of Higher Education

Education Dept. Disputes Nonprofit's View of New Internet Harassment Ruling


By Erica Hendry


The nonprofit group Security on Campus (http://www.securityoncampus.org/) issued a news release (http://www.securityoncampus.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2027:campuses-wont-be-so-juicy-this-fall&catid=3:sexualassault&Itemid=79) this week about a U.S. Department of Education ruling that it said held institutions responsible under Title IX for responding to sexual harassment on the Internet. But the department says the ruling does not have those implications.

The ruling came out of the department's Office for Civil Rights in New York, which investigated Hofstra University, after a student complained the institution did not "appropriately address" her complaints about peers who made sexually explicit and sexist comments about her on the now-defunct (../../../article/JuicyCampus-Shuts-Down-Bla/1506) gossip Web site JuicyCampus.

According to a letter sent to the student's lawyer, Wendy Murphy, who is also a board member of the nonprofit, the office had "jurisdictional authority to investigate this complaint under Title IX," but found "insufficient evidence to conclude that the university failed to respond appropriately."

Ms. Murphy said the ruling indicated institutions could be similarly investigated or held responsible for violations of Title IX or sexual harassment on the Internet in the future.

Jim Bradshaw, a representative from the Office for Civil Rights (http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/reports-resources.html), said the office "would not characterize this as a "landmark ruling."  He said the office found insufficient evidence of a violation of Title IX, and the findings should not be "interpreted beyond those parameters."

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

NCHERM Affiliated Consultant Carolyn Wolf Interviewed by ABC

Colleagues,

Please find the link to Carolyn's comments here

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0809/647102.html

Have a pleasant weekend.

Brett Sokolow

Special Announcements

This week, we are pleased to announce two pieces of news:

1. JOHN WESLEY LOWERY JOINS NCHERM

John Wesley Lowery, Ph.D. has joined NCHERM as an Affiliated Consultant.

John brings a wealth of expertise in legislative and regulatory mandates, compliance, student conduct and CAS standards.

Our first event featuring Dr. Lowery will be a webinar on the new Higher Education Reauthorization Act Final Regulations in December.

To learn more about Dr. Lowery, visit http://www.ncherm.org/consultants.html#JWL

2. The 1st Annual NaBITA Conference website is live. Registration is open, and the Call for Programs is posted. Please join us in San Antonio in December. For details, visit www.nabita.org

Regards,

Brett A. Sokolow, J.D.

Suicide Study

Colleagues,

Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin have published a study on student suicide that contains important insights.

The study is posted at http://www.nabita.org/documents/NewDataonNatureofSuicidalCrisis.pdf

Have a pleasant weekend.

Brett Sokolow

Article Published in Journal

A version of the article, 2nd Generation Behavioral Intervention Best Practices, by Brett A. Sokolow, J.D. and W. Scott Lewis, J.D. has been published in the URMIA Journal.

It is posted at http://www.nabita.org/documents/Article_SokolowLewis_URMIAJournal2009_20090722.pdf

Colleges Ignore Risk Management?

Colleagues,

The link below leads to a valuable study.

The State of Enterprise Risk Management at Colleges and Universities Today
http://www.agb.org/user-assets/documents/AGBUE_FINAL.pdf

This survey was jointly conducted by the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) and United Educators (UE) and reports data on attitudes, practices and policies regarding enterprise risk management among American colleges and universities. The survey was completed by more than 600 respondents in June 2008.

"A wide-ranging study of best practices and policies for higher education governance reveals that while many important policies and practices are in place to guide the work of college and university governing boards, there is also room for improvement. Covering issues such as assessment of individual trustees to presidential compensation, the report, based on a survey of 700 respondents, is the first comprehensive and focused look at higher education governance: how well boards are meeting their responsibilities, what issues are at the top of their agendas, and which policies and good practices guide their work."

Happy Reading!

Brett

7-1-09 - MORE DIFFICULTIES FOR OUR TROOPS

NCHERM Partner Scott Lewis blogging this week.

Dear Friends,

This week marked the official beginning of the well-publicized withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The media and government trumpeted the end of these operations and I saw at least one report (USA Today) that commented on the mass return of these troops.

What was less publicized was that the order actually withdrew troops from the urban regions of Iraq, with the relocation of some troops to the rural regions. Also underway is the redeployment of many of our troops to Afghanistan. Why this is significant has to do with the highly documented incidence of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), substance abuse/misuse and Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) related mental health issues in our returning veterans, and also more critically some of the reasons behind these issues.

The difficulties our troops may face in the rural regions in Iraq may mirror the difficulties that they face in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan – difficult terrain, lack of contact, difficulty telling the “friendlies” from the “hostiles,” etc. Some of these issues for soldiers have been exacerbated not just by these conditions (they existed in other wars as well), but by the number of days the troops are exposed to these difficult conditions.

To explain: with the Stop-Loss provisions implemented by the Bush administration increasing the number of tours, the increase in the length of tours, and the shrinking of the required number of days between tours, our veterans find themselves facing combat and/or hazard at a level three to five times the number of days per year, and two to three times the total number of combat days as were served by veterans of past wars. (NOTE: technology has played a significant role here as well over time, especially in the area of troop movement.)

This is even more significant when you consider the number of Reservists and National Guard members who have served, as the data seems to indicate increased difficulties with those populations versus “regular” military http://www.defenselink.mil).

Almost 2 years ago, we at NCHERM predicted some of these continued difficulties, as well as the difficulties a struggling job market may have on this group and on colleges and universities (this was pre-recession too). And what we said then is even truer today, with two notable adjustments.

First, we understated the initial impact this will have on community colleges and open enrollment institutions. These schools will see more than just an initial surge of returning vets (they already are), but the pressure on these institutions to increase their counseling services with counselors able to respond to these very serious issues will increase proportionally.

Second, as the Millennials continue to tax current mental health services and the evolution of the BIT continues to increase the need for qualified assessments to be performed (for not only students, but faculty and staff), there will be an increased need to find a way to do these assessments through an independent (probably off-campus) resource.

We will continue to monitor these changing dynamics and hope that we can help one another in these trying times.

Have a great holiday.

W. Scott Lewis, JD

June 28

Dear Friends,

NCHERM's blog this week takes the form of an article by Scott Lewis and Brett Sokolow on the difference between threat assessment teams and behavioral intervention teams. It can be accessed at: http://www.ncherm.org/documents/BehavioralInterventionThreatAssessmentArticle.pdf

Happy reading and have a great weekend.

Brett

NaBITA Newsletter Vol. 1 No. 1. June 2009.

Friends,

This blog is longer than it looks :)

Copy the link below into your browser to read the first volume of the NaBITA Newsletter.

http://www.nabita.org/nabita_newsletter_template_single_article_FINAL.html

Have a great weekend.

Regards,

Brett Sokolow

Myths of Primary Prevention

Hi Friends,

I will keep this short, but have a point I have wanted to make for quite some time. Based upon solid research findings, many colleges and universities have shifted to an emphasis on primary prevention approaches to sexual assault. The term primary prevention refers to those efforts that are directed specifically toward stopping a rapist or perpetrator of sexual assault, as contrasted with information-based programming and risk reduction approaches, which often focus on the victim, rather than the assailant.

Initially, many of the campuses that made this shift were pleased with early data and initial assessments, especially of work to decrease the bystander effect through empowering more effective peer intervention. However, those early promising results have not held up well over time, for many of the campuses that made the shift. Why?

This is just my theory, and I'm open to your perspectives. I believe the emphasis on primary prevention at most of the campuses that made the shift isn't having the hoped-for effect because we threw the baby out with the bathwater. We decided that because information-based programming was of limited measurable effectiveness, and because of the philosophical objection to inherently victim-focused risk reduction programming, that we were going to go full-tilt into primary prevention and leave these marginal other approaches behind.

Whoops! Now we're finding that our students lack the foundation of information, empathy and risk-reduction skills that efforts on bystander empowerment and normative messaging need as a foundation for success. We went with an either/or approach, rather than a both/and. What we're starting to see emerge now is a recognition that developmentally, primary prevention efforts need a solid foundation, or they lack context.

You can't ask people to intervene in high-risk situations if they don't know how to recognize those situations. They need to know more about consent, the role of alcohol, blackouts, rape drugs, etc. to be able to act. I'm a fan of emphasizing primary prevention, but I hope we're learning something interesting as we try to find effective models. The literature on risk reduction and information-based programming didn't say that it didn't work. It just showed that in a vacuum, it was ineffective. Without other supportive and mutually reinforcing efforts, that result makes sense. The same will be shown to be true for primary prevention efforts. In a vacuum, they're not giving us the results they potentially could. So, maybe the problem is the vacuum?

I've argued for years the need to be strategic. We need to research the knowledge and behavioral gaps that exist for our students, and then plug them, methodically with a long-term programmatic strategy. We need a both/and approach. Either/or is useless. I wrote on this in 2006 with the Whitepaper posted at http://www.ncherm.org/pdfs/2006-whitepaper.pdf.

We need these ideas now, more than ever, in my opinion.

Have a great weekend,

Brett Sokolow

Upcoming Student Suicide Webinar

Brett Sokolow gave the following interview to Chris Hill from MAGNA Publications about an upcoming webinar addressing student suicide.

Q: Most reputable schools don’t want to let fear of legal liability outweigh concern for the student. But it’s a blurry line to keep in focus. How can administrators tell if they’ve crossed it?

A: While the answer requires a lot more complexity than I'll offer here, one good way to keep on the legal side of the line is to utilize interim suspension or voluntary withdrawal when a student needs to get help externally, and try to avoid involuntary separation longer-term unless absolutely necessary. When you have to go that route, only separate the student based on suicidal threats or attempts, rather than on lesser ideation or gestures.

Q: Shin vs. MIT is generally thought to have changed the landscape in the area of student suicidality. Is it possible that, with time, that case will come to seem one exceptional incident, instead of grounds for changing our whole approach?

A: Actually, just the opposite. We've become all things to our students -- we feed them, house them, entertain them, clothe them, provide for their fitness, health, and mental health. The law is actually just catching up with the FACT that we have changed our legal relationship to our students. In ten years, the majority of courts will operate from the principle that colleges are in a special relationship to students, and that we owe them a commensurate duty of reasonable care. Having said that, I don't think Shin or any other case requires us to change our whole approach. We have to ensure that we bring reasonable care to our interactions with suicidal students. I'd like to think that we do that regardless of a legal mandate. In fact, I think one of the lessons of the Shin case may be that MIT tried too hard, rather than that they did not do enough. We need to have some tough conversations on all of our campuses about how and why we are coming to resemble mental health facilities rather than colleges, and whether that is a direction we really want to be taking.

Q: Because colleges and universities are so exposed in student suicide cases, does that justify us in intruding on student privacy, i.e., requesting mental health records from incoming students?

A: Just as we must challenge how far we want to go in providing mental health services, I think there must be a healthy debate on every campus about how to more successfully balance individual rights with the welfare/safety of the community. Prior to Virginia Tech, I think the balance skewed too heavily toward privacy on many campuses, and now we are charged with finding a more successful happy medium. If that means better data mining, I think that option should be on the table for discussion not as a mandate, but as a voluntary sharing option.

Q: How can we establish such a behavioral baseline for each student that we are able to detect significant variation from it? How can we possibly find the time and person-power for such a project?

A: I don't think we can or that we should. I think establishing a baseline for those who are at-risk (e.g., those whose conduct brings them to the attention of a behavioral intervention team) is the best we should be doing now, and then we need to keep tabs at intervals to see if there is a substantial departure from that baseline that causes us concern. A baseline for everyone is neither desirable nor possible. In fact, I think just accomplishing the task of establishing a baseline for only the known at-risk individuals may be overwhelming. As currently practiced, behavioral intervention will overwhelm many campuses. More are hiring full time team chairs and case managers. More are looking to options to mandate assessment externally, and even then are finding that local mental health providers are as overwhelmed as campus resources. We are, unfortunately, well behind the 8 Ball in addressing campus mental health issues. We're scrambling to catch up. Yet, we're still addicted to spending money and time on cameras, text warnings, and door locks, rather than allocating what we really need to the NECESSITY of a comprehensive behavioral intervention capacity. That will change by choice or by tragedy, but it will change.

More on this June 9th webinar can be found at: http://www.magnapubs.com/calendar/319.html

Various BITs

This week’s blog is going to address a few recurring questions that we are getting about behavioral intervention teams.

1. What do you see as the ideal/appropriate functions of a BIT?

• Centralize reporting
• Triage reports
• Assess threat/risk
• Assess available resources
• Perform or empower interventions
• Coordinate follow-up
• Assess long-term success/outcomes
• Educate the community

2. What are some affirmative steps we can take to implement our BIT once we have formed it?

• Fully implement all twelve 2nd gen BIT best practices as identified by NCHERM in the Whitepaper posted at http://www.ncherm.org/pdfs/2009NCHERMwhitepaper.pdf
• Develop and implement strategies to empower a culture of reporting within your campus and community
• Conduct bystander intervention training for your students and staff
• Ensure access to adequate mental health services
• Train faculty & staff on what to report, how, when and to whom – supplement training efforts by your team members with the new online course Campus Safety 101 from MAGNA Publications (http://www.magnapubs.com/courses/cs101.html)
• Offer suicide gatekeeper training to your community (QPR, Campus Connect, etc.)
• Provide team training on aggression management (www.aggressionmanagement.com)

3. What are the responsibilities of a BIT post-intervention?

• Case management, such as:

-- Coordinate care, pharmacology and insurance issues that may inhibit long-term therapeutic goals
-- Prophylactically inhibit triggers that may impede an individual’s current level of coping (e.g., helping someone avoid over-involvement in activities that overwhelm; blocking opportunities such as study abroad, if access to needed supports will be an issue when abroad; coaching the individual on techniques to maintain a regimen of needed medications, etc.).

• Mind the gaps by occasionally checking in on the at-risk individual or those who can update on that individual’s status
• Coordinate compliance with team mandates
• Coordinate communication with parents, spouses, faculty, and other relevant stakeholders
• Ease voluntary withdrawal options (if necessary) by addressing financial and academic disincentives to withdrawing
• Assess areas where a referral or mandate for skills training is an ongoing need

That’s all for now. Have a great weekend and holiday.

Brett Sokolow

Discrimination by Student Organizations

Yesterday I participated in a day-long seminar on the topic of religious student organizations and denial of recognition and/or funding by the college or university for refusal to agree to institutional non-discrimination policies. I have been involved with many controversial legal issues over the years, but none that seem to have held the deep personal impact that this issue holds on individuals. The lines of this controversy are unpredictably drawn and not predictable based on religious beliefs, race, sexual identity or gender.


I provided the introductory presentation that set forth the legal issues and the court decisions handed down over the past few years. The panel discussions that followed my presentation provided an eye opening experience of passion, anger and perspective that was like peeling back the layers of an onion. From a legal perspective the issue revolves around First Amendment rights. Those rights encompass freedom of expression, freedom of religion and freedom of association. Generally a Constitutional issue requires a “compelling governmental interest” to limit or regulate. However, the courts have carved out circumstances, based on a forum analysis, that allows a lower standard for regulation of expression in certain circumstances. The higher requirement of strict scrutiny applies in all circumstances regulating religion or association, however. Thus, across the country courts, from district courts to courts of appeals, are rendering opposing opinions on identical sets of circumstances using standards based on expression versus religion or association. The coming years will provide an interesting opportunity to watch judicial bodies address this issue and the legal arguments put forth.


BUT...what I observed throughout the rest of the day was not just a scholarly legal debate of the issue, but was even more interesting, and perhaps more significant from a social justice perspective—and that was the passion and anger and outrage expressed by individuals involved with the actual controversy. Throughout the day participants challenged one another about equality and belief systems and recognition and affirmation. The discussions were loud, emotional and personal.

Clearly this issue cuts far deeper than just a scholarly legal analysis.

Have a great weekend,

Saunie Schuster

What a Disaster!

Preparing for the next disaster

With all of the school closings, a group of recent students being “quarantined” from graduation, and Vice President Biden telling everyone not to travel on public transit (later recast as “if you are SICK, don’t use mass transit”), the H1-N1 virus(we have now been told not to call it the “swine flu” so as not to negatively impact pork sales in the US, where no swine have been infected – true story) has dominated headlines. But, as we at NCHERM are in the business of PREVENTIVE law and risk management, we hope that our clients (and readers) will pay attention to other potential threats and prepare accordingly, so as to avoid being stuck in reactionary modes.

So, in that vein, here are some other things to consider over the next year:

A recent forecast for the 2009 Hurricane Season predicted 12 named storms with 2-3 being “intense.” While the Gulf Coast states are painfully aware and prepare every year, the East Coast schools tend to sporadically prepare – as other things (e.g., H1-N1, school deaths, etc.) tend to get in the way. But I would offer yet another cautionary suggestion to our inland colleagues. While I am confident that the Federal response to another Katrina-esque storm will be better, (could it possibly be worse?!?), our inland colleagues should dust off the post-Katrina reports (if you have them) and make sure you are ready to house, enroll, treat, and/or shelter a group if need be. Not only is it the right thing to do, but the positive PR cannot be ignored (kudos to Mayor White and the city of Houston and Stephen F Austin State University among many others). From a risk management perspective, this is a “Natural Disaster;” an inevitability, not a possibility, so get ready – you will be measured not on prevention, but response.

Another news story has been tracking the wildfires over the last year in California, Florida, New Mexico, Arizona, Texas, and South Carolina and predicts that, as global warming continues to increase drought days in these areas, the wildfire phenomenon will continue. While these events feel like “Natural Disasters,” I classify them in my Risk Management Arena as “Man-Made Disasters.” Not because of the arson possibility or to make some global warming political statement, but because, especially for those schools in high-risk states and areas, you will be measured – in the risk management world – on your risk reduction activities as well as your response.

In the same arena as Hurricanes, an interesting, yet not well publicized report was made analyzing fault lines around the world. Of particular note was the Heyward fault, which runs through Northern California, and directly through SF and Oakland. For over 700 years, there has been a major earthquake roughly every 104-140 years(defining “major” is apparently a sticking point, but doesn’t matter here). If you count the “Big One” of 1906 (no one seemed to count the World Series interrupting 1989 quake as “major” – except for the victims, I am guessing), we are coming up on time for the next one. If you don’t, we are long overdue (by about 25 years). Either way, imagine a minimum 3500 dead, 50,000+ injured, 75,000-100,000 homeless, and the 30+ schools in the area devastated. These are Katrina-esque numbers, but in larger metropolitan areas.

I certainly don’t want to ruin your summer, but I do want us all to be prepared. In an odd way, this makes even more critical the need to have practiced, established preventive protocols and solid risk management practices in place for the (by comparison) “mundane” issues like student self-injury – intentional or otherwise – and other mental health issues.

Have a great weekend.

Scott Lewis

A Month of Violence

On the Predictability of Virginia Tech

I am struck by the awesome change in the landscape of higher education since the shootings at Virginia Tech. Not because of the fact that so many were killed in such a horrific manner – that number of people dying at any one time always warrants significant analysis, like in a plane crash, hurricane (i.e., Katrina), etc., and it should. What struck me then, and continues to strike me, is how it was (and continues to be) treated like such an anomaly.

Let me preface this by stating that I mean no disrespect to the victims, the families of the victims, the members of the community, or the staff and faculty at Virginia Tech. My shock is aimed at all of us in higher education, that we ignored the signs for as long as we did, and continued doing our work, “business as usual” in the face of such overwhelming data.

Allow me to explain. I was giving a presentation when a colleague referred to the murders (I also don’t like referring to it as a “tragedy,” I think that term misrepresents the horrific nature of the intent of the act) at Virginia Tech as “the 9/11 for Higher Education.” I have thought about that for a while, and I think he is almost right. It is the 9/11 for education, not just higher education.

(NOTE: I will acknowledge now the dissent that some may take with the political assertations and analogies I am going to make, but bear with me – we can argue about it later.)

Much like 9/11, there were multiple warning signs prior to Virginia Tech that – like 9/11 – were ignored in their increasing dynamic. The 1st bombing of the WTC, the bombing of the US Embassies and the USS Cole are analogous with the shootings at Paducah, Jonesboro, and Columbine.

The journal articles by K-12 teachers about increasing violence by and violent reaction of students, the crime statistics, and the anecdotal stories they were sharing – that higher education administrators and faculty ignored – are analogous to the memos (“Bin Laden determined to attack in US” and the memo outlining the threat of a repeat attack on the WTC come to mind) ignored by the Bush Administration in the year and a half prior to 9/11.

And now, sadly, the rush to implement response measures and the arguable overspending on them – text messaging systems, loudspeaker systems, security cameras to name a few – in lieu of equal spending on effective preventive measures – like well trained behavioral intervention teams at the college and K-12 level – are analogous to the monies spent on the initial response to 9/11 – the invasion of Iraq – which we now know had nothing to do with 9/11, and which has arguably not resolved the problems that led to 9/11.

Let’s hope that we are wiser in the future in both the observation of warning signs and the focus on actions that make us safer in the long run – preventive measures. Let’s hope our government does the same.

Have a great weekend,

Scott

Part II -- Lewis Takes On

This blog picks up where I left off last week...

“Kill the Messenger”

Faculty members may see this manifest itself in a variety of ways, but most likely during in-class discussions/debates or in on-line discussions. Of course, those courses which lend themselves to debate will be most prone to this unprincipled attack. Other areas where this may rear its ugly head may include elections (student government, greek letter organizations, etc.) In these arenas, student affairs professionals have a great opportunity to engage in not just traditional student development, but in “classroom-esque” academic development as well.

In order to properly address this, we – faculty and staff – must engage students preemptively in discussions about the differences in principled and unprincipled debate. Also, we cannot shy away from using current events and current commentators to illustrate not only the weakness of these arguments, but the social irresponsibility of those who engage in them (usually under the guise of “journalists”). It will be clear in a moment where I stand politically on most issues, but, politics aside, the effect cannot be ignored. Commentators like O’Reilly (who resorts to name-calling – e.g., “Pinheads”), Hannity (who will “shout down” those who disagree, or turn down their microphones), and Coulter (whose work at times is not only poorly argued, but poorly researched) are lowering the standard of discourse, and our students are, at times, following suit. It is up to us to teach them how to engage in debate that speaks to the message, not the messenger; and is well thought out, well researched, well organized, and amicable.

Note: I am sure that Franken, Stewart and Colbert will come up as well – and they should – they are good illustrations of satire, a good form of entertainment, not argument. (Although I did have one first year student who did not get the “joke” of Colbert’s show – he thought he was serious. Sigh.)

“Stop the Madness”

Again, it is imperative that we address this issue “head on.” There is no shortage of data on this, and Student affairs professionals should start engaging in programming that addresses how and why society’s threshold for violence has lowered, while the use of violence has increased in severity (and subsequently, frequency). Even utilizing students’ own emails – where they use inappropriate or aggressive tone – as instructional tools should be considered. Too often, we are afraid to use these “real life” examples to illustrate how students’ aggressive behavior is considered (by students) to be “acceptable” and/or “assertive.” It is only by addressing these low-level or “entry-level” behaviors that we can begin to make a societal difference on our campuses.

“All or Nothing”

It is this construct where I am most concerned about our millennial students (and increasingly about our non-millennial students, given the “osmosis effect” I speak about in my faculty/staff training programs). Given their well documented mental health issues, lack of basic stress coping mechanisms, increased propensity for self-injury, and the above mentioned issues, confronting their hyperbolic response is fast becoming not just a student developmental issue, but a health and safety issue. It is critical that we teach them that one bad grade is not the end of their academic career, that a lost relationship is not the last one they will have, and that there are healthy and appropriate outlets for these stressors. But, we must use real life illustrations and examples – or they will see us as disingenuous.

So, what about the students I mentioned in Part One? We must focus on:

1) Preventive efforts, especially in the area of mental health,
2) Challenging intellectual dishonesty, and
3) Changing the construct that allows for zero-sum argument and outcome only.

I realize that the last two are large initiatives, but it is fast becoming a health and safety crisis. Finally…what do we do when they are already acting out? How do we respond on the scene? That is for another entry.

Have a great weekend.

Scott

Scott Blogs This Week PART 1

Dear Colleagues,

There were three seemingly unrelated news items this week which – when viewed through a different lens - are actually very related to the work that we do, the climate we are in (with our students and in society) and speak very clearly to the approaches we need to take.

“Kill the Messenger”

The first is the “breaking” news regarding Sarah Palin’s response to her daughter’s former fiancée speaking out about their relationship. In his interview (on the Tyra Banks show, which speaks to another phenomenon), he discussed whether or not Gov. Palin knew that he and Bristol were sexually active, whether they used protection, etc. Gov. Palin’s response was to attack him, essentially referring to him as an opportunist, as opposed to addressing his message.

This is not new to politics, but has seeped further and further into “everyday life” and our students have noticed. See the Facebook pages, Ratemyprof.com, etc. where the individual is attacked not for the substance of their work or teaching, but for seemingly unrelated characteristics that border on defamation (Actual poor Professor ratings included “I’ve seen him out drinking at bars,” “she dresses like a (tramp)” – Actual Facebook Group: “Students who took and hate Dr. Smith”). One fraternity even went so far as to dig up criminal background on a dean they were unhappy with to put it in the paper. This ignores the professional/faculty substance in their teaching and decision, and makes it personal.

“Stop the Madness”

The second news item involved the violent incidents in Oakland, Alabama, Binghampton, and Pittsburgh – all of which involved individuals seemingly at their breaking points for a variety of reasons. The media attributed the violence at some level to the economic downturn/recession, rather than looking at the broader scope and context of violence in the United States over the past 10 years.

While the economic situation may be a contributing factor to the desperate actions of these men (certainly the one who took his daughter with him to rob a convenience store is an example), we cannot ignore the growing trend toward the lower threshold for extreme violence. It has been creeping up on us (in the US) for 40+ years, and this is where we find ourselves. We should not be surprised, we should be appalled.

“All or Nothing”

The third was the recent conservative response to President Obama’s trip overseas. From Rush Limbaugh on the radio to Glen Beck on Fox, the response to him “apologizing for America’s arrogance” to his “rejecting Christianity” has been, to put it mildly, hyperbolic (with one call for his removal from office, and another to “start a fire” reminding viewers that “(we) outnumber them, and they need to remember that”).

While this may make for good ratings, it is inappropriate and irresponsible for anyone with a pulpit to ignore the sociological ramifications of their statements. This immediate call to hyperbole does not represent the “fringe arguments” that advanced certain movements (e.g. civil rights) in history, but instead represent arguments that ignore opposing principles, value systems, and worse -- call for the removal of those with opposing views.

Why are these related and why do they matter to student affairs professionals and faculty? Well, when combined with what we already know about the troubling trends regarding our student populations, they paint a dismal picture if not addressed properly. I certainly do not want to be “Beck-esque” in my assessment (that is to say – hyperbolic), but it merits analysis from a college and university perspective.

Imagine the student who:

1) Doesn’t like your message so s/he wants to attack you personally,
2) Has a lower threshold for violence, and
3) Believes that your values are different, so you must “be removed”.

I will blog in Part II of this blog thread next week about how to address this...to be continued.

Have a great weekend,

W. Scott Lewis

A Great Campus Visit

Hello Colleagues,

I had a great campus visit this week. What made it so great? Well, I had three good ones, but my visit to Columbus State Community College stood out because it gave us a challenge that is new for NCHERM. It was engaging and compelling. Saunie Schuster and I visited on Monday, for the purpose of helping CSCC to assess and overhaul its admission process for those with histories of criminal activity or misconduct.

We've never had a chance to re-envision such a process from scratch and our charge was aided by the administrators at CSCC who are really proactive and looking to design a new process that is fair and protective of their community. They don't want to do just enough, they want to create a process that will be a model for the other community colleges in Ohio, and I think that is just what the end result will be.

Some community colleges are open admissions with no exceptions. In Ohio, community colleges have more latitude for excluding those who may not be safe, and for placing restrictions on those who are admitted, but on whom restrictions are needed. The campus has both a day care center and an adjacent high school, which are complications for the admission of sex offenders. So, we're creating objective criteria and a secondary admissions process to help screen and make admissions determinations.

Key to this effort is that CSCC has recently put a Behavioral Intervention Team (BIT) in place. By broadening this team to a second tier, each BIT member will have a backup and that backup will also serve as the primary member of the newly named Enrollment Review Committee. Why is this key? Because the training skill sets are similar. Both teams need to know how to do threat assessments, and need to be able to address issues of pattern violence, recidivism, rehabilitation, criminal background screening, and more.

It is efficient to parallel their efforts, and once our proposal is submitted, Saunie and I will return in May to spend a day training both teams on these key topics. We'll blog about that then. Happy Easter and Passover.

Brett Sokolow

NCHERM and the AUCCCD

Dear Colleagues,

Two weeks ago, a member of the AUCCCD (Counseling Center Directors) listserv posted an inquiry about the value of attending an NCHERM seminar. List responses were less than glowing, focusing on two critiques:

1) NCHERM is in this field to profit and therefore of questionable merit;
2) NCHERM seems to make ever-growing claims to areas of expertise that are suspect.

NCHERM clients on the AUCCCD list concerned with the tenor of the exchange let me know, and I forwarded an email to their list as a response. Here is what I wrote:

"Dear list members,

I heard that I have come up in discussion on your list. An NCHERM client who participates in your list contacted us today in distress over comments being made about NCHERM and me. While details were not provided, some of the substance was. I am glad you are questioning the sincerity, expertise and/or validity of the contribution we make at NCHERM. If I were in your position, and an outsider like me who has no experience working on a college campus claimed expertise that would be valuable to you, I’d have hesitations, too.

I entered into higher education with a single purpose, to help colleges and universities prevent sexual assault. The experiences of the women in my life have made that a command for me, not an option. I am an activist, and I am passionate and dedicated. I never expected that NCHERM would become the wide-ranging source of risk management expertise it has, but as my work became known and trusted, our clients called upon us for help with more and more of the issues vexing higher education…alcohol, hazing, campus security, etc.

I am not an expert in all things and don’t claim to be. I do diligent research, and I talk to lots of people who are experts who are a lot smarter than I am, and they inform my perspective. Your colleague Brian Van Brunt has been an excellent teacher. I teamed with my partner Scott Lewis on a webinar on Returning Veterans issues to force myself to learn more about this population who are challenging us to serve them better. I am not and have never held myself out to be an expert on veterans’ issues. Scott is, and he took the lead on that event. In fact, when a campus called and asked me to consult with them on veterans, I refused the engagement, because I am not an expert on veterans.

NCHERM was created to have a positive impact on student health and safety – these have been and continue to be my passions. It is true that NCHERM is also how I make a living, but to imply that I do this solely for money is contrary to my work history, ethic, and ignores the fact that I could have made money in any area of law. I will not apologize for making a living and providing for my family, as I suspect none of you would.

Also, I’d like to think that NCHERM is a good corporate citizen. We give generously to higher education foundations, and of our time in volunteering. Our websites are full of free resources. When we created the CUBIT model in 2007, we could have charged for it, but that is not our mission. If it can help to improve the safety of campuses, it is not our philosophy to consider it proprietary. It is free and posted on our website. We are a not-for-profit corporation, and not many law firms are. That doesn’t mean that we are a charity or tax exempt foundation, but it does mean we take seriously our obligation to give back and benefit not just ourselves, but our field and community.

Value received for value given is honest, ethical and part of the integrity of who we are and what we do. It’s not a detriment to charge for our services, it is a compliment that more than 1,800 colleges have done so in the last nine years.

It is true that I have never worked as a college or university administrator. That means I can’t see some things that you can, but could it also mean that I may objectively see some things that you can’t. NCHERM consultants visit almost 200 colleges a year. Our national travel and constant campus-hopping actually give us a perspective on trends as they are emerging that a geographically fixed perspective cannot provide. We can synthesize what is going on across campuses in a way that is unparalleled, because of our reach and access. And both of my partners have long careers as college administrators, rounding out our skill set very nicely. My purpose in writing this is not to advertise NCHERM to you. Instead, I’d like to ask you to judge us on the quality of our work, as that is the only way you really have a basis from which to accurately critique. I invite each of you who has never attended an NCHERM regional event to come to one in the next year. Your registration fee is waived. Please be our guest. Then, feel free to come to us, as others have, with the perspective of what you saw, what you learned, and whether you feel our contribution to the field is deserving of merit or demerit. This is one way in which we grow and learn as well. Thank you for this opportunity to address your list, and thank you for what you all do to advance the health and safety of our campus communities.

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq."

Events Upcoming

Hello Friends of NCHERM,

We had a flurry of calls this week asking about upcoming events, as many of you are trying to plan ahead and budget ahead. Here is what we have in store for you in the coming months. I hope you'll join us. Below are the five events (two webinars and three regional seminars) that are already posted on our website, but let me also give you a sneak peek at those that are coming and will be officially announced shortly. We're trying to give you a variety of online, one-day and two-day events to give you budget flexibility, and we're trying to do more regional events so that if you'd like to come, hopefully you'll have lower travel expenses if our event is close by.

May 19 & 20, our 6th Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment two-day Institute will be hosted by Tulane University. Details will be posted to the homepage by Wednesday of this coming week.

Last week of May -- John Byrnes and I will be presenting a one-day drive-in regional seminar on Threat Assessment and Aggression Management in northern Virginia. Details will be posted by next week.

Between June and August, two more of our two-day events are planned, but have not yet been officially scheduled. One will be in eastern Pennsylvania, and one will be at St. Mary's in Notre Dame, IN. We should have those finalized and announced by the end of April.

Finally, the roster of our monthly webinars with MAGNA is set until August. Events up to May are already posted to www.ncherm.org. In June, we're revisiting the current state of efforts to address student suicide on campuses. This event on June 9th will feature Carolyn Reinach Wolf, Esq., a mental health law expert, Jacqueline Wiebe, M.D., a psychiatrist on staff in the health service at the University of Southern Mississippi, and me.

In July, we'll present two webinars, one on the 14th and the second on the 28th. Scott Lewis will present the first one, entitled The Perfect Storm, about how the Millennial challenge became the vexing phenomenon we address daily, and how we can best function to support and cope with this generation of students.

July 28th will be a joint presentation by Saunie Schuster, Scott and me, bringing the three NCHERM partners together for our first joint webinar as partners. This event will focus on the growing trend of personal liability for college administrators, and what it may mean for you.

All our events are hosted by MAGNA Publications (www.magnapubs.com), and are listed on their site and ours 12 weeks prior to the event.

Below are the upcoming events already listed on our site.

NCHERM EVENTS

UPCOMING WEBINARS & SEMINARS

4/14/09 - Challenges in Creating and Assessing Campus Emergency Management Plans - NCHERM ONLINE SEMINAR
Presented by William L. Kibler, Ph.D. and Maureen Connolly, MBA
12:00 - 1:30 PM CDT. Hosted by Magna Publications.

4/17/09 - Best Practices for Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment - REGIONAL SEMINAR HOSTED BY LIPSCOMB UNIVERSITY, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE. Presented by Brett A. Sokolow, JD and W. Scott Lewis, J.D. Two tracks, 9:00am-12:00pm & 1:00pm-5:00pm.

4/22/09 - NCHERM Threat Assessment Seminar
REGIONAL SEMINAR HOSTED BY EDINBORO UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Presented by Brett A. Sokolow, JD. Registration is through the host campus.

5/13/09 - Best Practices for Behavioral Intervention and Threat Assessment - REGIONAL SEMINAR HOSTED BY CLAYTON STATE UNIVERSITY NEAR ATLANTA, GA. Presented by Brett A. Sokolow, JD and W. Scott Lewis, JD

5/19/09 - Clery Act Compliance -- Getting the Big Picture - NCHERM ONLINE SEMINAR Presented by John Wesley Lowery, Ph.D., Brett A. Sokolow, JD and Douglas Tuttle, M.P.A. 12:00 - 1:30 PM CDT. Hosted by Magna Publications.

Well, Scott, Saunie and I are off to the ACPA conference. We hope to see you there.

Brett

March Madness

NCHERM Partner W. Scott Lewis here, with my first ever blog. Not just for this site, but my first ever. Period. I just returned from a series of speaking and conference engagements including NASPA and the NCHERM event at Occidental College. This was right on the heels of the SC Safety Conference, ASCA, and the Community Colleges Legal Issues Conference (with a webinar for Magna Publications in the midst of that as well).

At all of the national and regional events, I noticed a similar theme from presenters who were providing information on Behavioral Intervention Teams – the lack of distinction between “threat assessment” and “behavioral intervention.” I noticed (especially in the five sessions I attended at NASPA) that the terms were being used interchangeably. I believe that, in doing so, we do ourselves and the students, faculty and staff we serve a disservice by this misnomer.

Let me begin by saying that I am truly excited in seeing these teams (whatever they may be called) become more formalized and better developed than they were previously. As one who found himself in a quasi-hostage situation, seeing this “next generation” of teams evolve assures me that we will truly be saving students lives as we continue to develop these practices and teams.

Where I fear we may go astray is if we think in terms of “threat assessment” instead of “behavioral intervention,” and I think it goes beyond semantics. I recognize that the Presidential/Gubernatorial report(s) and multiple entities (including NCHERM, at times) have used the term “threat assessment” to describe these intervention teams, so I want to draw a clear distinction, in the hopes of creating better terminology, better practices, better reporting, and therefore, better teams.

“Threat Assessment” in my mind – and likely in the minds of many of our constituents – means exactly what it says, the assessment of threats (or threatening behavior). While Intervention teams certainly need to be able to assess the level of threat in certain behaviors, I would assert that we (and our communities) are better served when we are able to intervene long before the behavior reaches that which a layperson would think of as “threatening.”

This is where I think the use of “Threat Assessment Teams” as a term of art “threatens” (get it?) to undermine the early reporting culture we are trying to foster. Additionally, in marketing these teams, the terminology makes the assumption that all of the students we work with are “threats” as opposed to students who need some (hopefully) low level assistance. The language is limiting.

Rather than try to get everyone to switch the everyday definition of “threat,” I think we are better served by utilizing the term “behavioral assessment” or “behavioral intervention,” and then training the community to recognize low level and early warning signs of students headed toward crisis instead of waiting until their “threatening” behavior indicates that they are already in crisis. Then we can ensure that the teams are trained in behavioral recognition (and intervention) as well as in threat assessment.

In short, I think of threat assessment skills as an integral tool for Behavioral Intervention Teams, but as a subset of overall behavioral recognition skills that these teams – and ideally, the entire community – possess. I have engaged some teams in dialogue about this distinction, and I am glad to report that some teams are already changing their names to reflect this shift, as well as their training practices. I welcome the continued discussion, and look forward to hearing from you.

On a lighter note, speaking of “teams,” happy March Madness to everyone! Hope your brackets, favorite teams, alma maters, etc. are going well! Be safe and have a great weekend!

Scott

Middlemarch

It has been an interesting and engaging week at NCHERM. I visited the University of New Hampshire. Great to see my old friends there. In the course of our dialogue, a tough question came up for us. If a student submits a conduct hearing appeal letter, including some things that form the basis for the appeal, and other things which should not (and might take the form of rearguing, new evidence, etc), should the appeals officers see the entirety of those letters, or should some “gatekeeper” redact them first, to ensure the purity of the appeal? Not sure there are right and wrong answers. What do you all think?


The tail end of the week found Scott and me in Los Angeles at Occidental College for our Threat Assessment event. Oxy is an oasis, and a truly beautiful campus. Unlike many campuses where the architecture is haphazard, the buildings at Oxy blend stylistically, creating an effect unmarred by the “Howard Johnsons looking res hall” in the middle of campus that so many campuses suffer from. Obama went there before transferring to Columbia, and apparently, “90210 – The College Years” was set there. I can see why. Jon and Emily were amazing hosts, and went well above and beyond for us. Thanks!


Unlike our previous four such events where attendance ranged as high as 175 people, the Oxy event was more intimate; 30 and change. We can thank the economy for that, but also thank the economy for a different kind of event, engaging on a level and depth that the larger events could not attain. And thanks to the attendees for challenging questions. We had risk managers, campus law enforcement, student affairs, counselors, auditors, registrars and case managers forming our diverse group.


Scott and I enjoyed dinner with folks from William Rainey Harper College, Alta Colleges and Southwestern Michigan College. I went to my first Churrascaria, a delight for the carnivorous. It is interesting to hear about Alta, and the truly innovative things that proprietary colleges are able to do.


Finally, the week ended with an unusual twist. Filmmakers producing a documentary about the rape and activism of Linor Abargil, the 1998 Miss World, contacted me. They wanted to talk about an event I have upcoming at Princeton University, but when they found out I was in LA, and they were too, we agreed to meet Friday after the seminar. Scott dropped me off on his way to the airport, and I felt some irony on heading to a discussion on a documentary about rape as we crossed Rockingham Rd. in Brentwood (OJ’s former and more capacious digs) and headed into Santa Monica.


Our meeting was at a private home, and upon entering I could not help but notice that pictures of Gregory Peck were featured prominently. I asked if Peck had once lived there, only to find out that the film’s producer is Peck’s daughter Cecilia Peck Voll. The producers wanted some insights on how rape is impacting college campuses, and I am pleased to be able to inform their project. I saw some clips of footage they have taken already, and it is compelling. For more information, visit www.linordocumentary.com.


The home was graceful and my hosts gracious. A word about Gregory Peck. There are probably many young men and women who were inspired to become lawyers by Peck’s portrayal of Atticus Finch in “To Kill a Mockingbird”. While that is true of me, it was Peck’s social activism that I admired most. Long before Clooney, Pitt, Penn and Robbins used fame as a tool of social justice, Peck was a great crusader. It is a pleasure to see his daughter carrying on this legacy with this film, and I am in awe of Linor’s strength and courage to speak out.


Have a great weekend.


Brett