Title IX reform needed for Pat Hall resolution
This is the Our View, prepared by the Editorial Board and the institutional voice of The Record.
The Record released an article that detailed the basics of sexual misconduct allegations in two floors of an SJU dormitory on October 19, 2021.
In two emails since that article was published, the presidents and vice presidents have requested people with knowledge on the situation to come forward, condemned the alleged activities, notified the CSB/SJU community of the hiring of a private investigator and more.
However, since November, the community has received no further information regarding the verdict of this case, nor how our institutions will promote student safety moving forward.
The Record Editorial Board believes that aspects of the Title IX sexual harassment policy will inhibit transparency and truth in the Pat Hall situation and call for this policy to be significantly altered.
In a Nov. 4, 2021, Letter to the Editor, Cullen Trobec ’20 wrote “Under the current Title IX process, if a student is found guilty of sexual misconduct, both parties (the complainant and the respondent) are required to sign an NDA that prohibits the sharing of the outcome.”
Trobec continued by stating, “The signing of NDAs virtually guarantees that the only penance guilty parties serve as a result of misconduct are whatever sanctions the Title IX adjudication board recommends.”
The significant duration of time since the administration has last communicated with the CSB/SJU community regarding the alleged Pat Hall incidents serves as a testament to the necessity of reform. With current application of Title IX policy, any transparency is inhibited.
The investigation could be at any number of stages: ongoing, concluded or in another phase. Regardless, the important takeaway is that current Title IX policy does not allow a community to reap the closure of transparency or the benefit of understanding.
In a much more serious manner, current Title IX policy also enables perpetrators of sexual assault to remain on campus in confidentiality, depending on the punishment from each individual case and school.
Title IX’s sexual assault policy, particularly the aspect that requires all parties to sign a non-disclosure agreement, is written with the intention of protecting survivors. However, the practical result of such a clause serves to protect the perpetrator, allowing that person’s role and final verdict to remain sealed.
Further, the necessity for reform of Title IX sexual harassment has become increasingly relevant considering the current state of our campuses.
CSB and SJU find themselves at a crucial point. Will our campuses be nimble, set an example of how to adjust to changes and advocate for survivors? Or will our campuses be stagnant, refuse to adapt and protect alleged perpetrators?
We will never hear the verdict of the alleged Pat Hall situation. But we can use the Pat Hall allegations to advocate for alterations to the Title IX policies that would enact a positive change in culture.