Office for Civil Rights Complaint No. 04-03-2043 (Christian Brothers University) Findings Letter (PDF) Commitment To Resolve Agreement (PDF)

Memphis, Tenn.-In the wake of charges that it failed to properly respond to a sexual assault complaint in the fall of 2002, a federal review conducted by the U.S. Department of Education has found that Christian Brothers University (CBU) did not have adequate response procedures in place and violated the civil rights of the victim in that case. According to the review, which was concluded in March of 2004 and recently obtained by the non-profit advocacy organization Security On Campus, Inc. (SOC), CBU's policies and practices in place at the time didn't comply with Title IX, a federal law designed to prohibit sexual harassment and assault.

Sexual assault is a widespread problem on college campuses across the country, with as many as one in five female students being victimized during their undergraduate careers according to the U.S. Department of Justice. Because less than five percent of these students report their assault to the police, how colleges respond to these complaints is extremely serious according to crime victim expert S. Daniel Carter the Senior Vice President of SOC.

"Rulings like the one in the Christian Brothers University case are critically important because they make it clear to these schools that they have to take their response to sexual assaults seriously," Carter said. "Too often sexual assault victims are revictimized by a flawed process which then discourages reporting by other students thus endangering the rest of the campus by permitting sexual predators to roam the campus freely without any corrective action being taken."

The victim, Kate Paylor now a recent CBU graduate, also applauded the ruling, and hoped that it would send a strong message to CBU and other schools. "I hope my efforts will encourage greater awareness by the University of the vital role they play in dealing with sex crimes on campus," she said. "What happened to me should not happen to other female students."

Title IX, best known for requiring gender equity in collegiate athletics, is designed to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex in any education program receiving Federal financial assistance. Sexual harassment is prohibited, as is sexual assault as an extreme form of hostile environment harassment. In order to comply with Title IX a school must respond promptly and effectively to eliminate harassment. In Paylor's case, the review found that the University's sexual harassment policies and procedures did not meet the requirements of Title IX.

The U. S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights Chief Attorney, Howard Kallem, wrote in a letter to CBU, "the University did not... have adequate complaint procedures in place. The procedures do not, as written, provide for prompt and equitable resolution of sex discrimination complaints, including complaints of sexual harassment and assault."

The OCR findings cited several inadequacies in the procedures: ineffective distribution of policies to students each year; no requirements for confidentiality; no statement of rights for the accuser; a lack of focus on the protection of the accuser; and a lack of training in sexual harassment for the President, Dean of Student Life, Director of Campus Security, and Disciplinary Committee Members (who adjudicate student complaints of sexual harassment and assault).

OCR also determined that CBU failed to respond to Paylor's original complaint of assault as required by the Title IX regulations. In September of 2002 she had been the victim of a sexual battery, allegedly committed by one of her classmates in his residence hall room. She promptly reported her assault to campus security, but they closed their review without a full investigation when the accused student simply denied the allegations according to the OCR review.

OCR found several significant problems with CBU's response. According to the findings, the Director of Campus Security failed to consider pertinent evidence and did not prepare written documentation of his investigation. Paylor then reported the alleged sexual assault to the Office of Student Life which also failed to properly respond.

Kallem reports "OCR's investigation, including an interview with the Dean of Student Life, disclosed that [the Dean] was not familiar with the University's procedures or her role in them." OCR determined that the Dean "lacked adequate training in sexual harassment and in how to conduct an investigation."

Paylor's case eventually went to the University's Disciplinary Committee where she sought sanctions against the accused classmate. "The [Discipline] Committee made a decision in the classmate's favor. However, OCR has determined that they did not have a sufficient basis for this conclusion nor were adequate procedures followed to provide [Ms. Paylor] the due process protections inherent in the Title IX regulatory requirements."

CBU's policies allow the accuser to choose the desired sanction against the accused. Paylor had asked that the accused receive education about sexual assault and that he do community service. According to Kallem, "It was clear from our interviews that the committee members relied greatly on [Paylor's] desire for the student to be educated about issues regarding sexual harassment and have his punishment limited to community service rather than something harsher in concluding that she had not been harassed, when they had not been trained as to how to interpret its significance."

The President of the University later upheld the decision of the Disciplinary Committee when Ms. Paylor appealed. According to the OCR, "[The President] stated that he listened to the tape of the committee hearing, but then decided that he could not—and did not want to—attempt to reconstruct what happened during the investigation and hearing."

The University may not discriminate against any individual because she has made a complaint under the laws OCR enforces. However, the OCR discovered that Paylor was "asked to sign a statement containing several conditions that could be reasonably construed as retaliatory... OCR raised several concerns with the University regarding the content and timing of this letter."

In its letter to CBU, "OCR has determined that the University's policies and procedures regarding sex discrimination and sexual harassment should be revised to ensure that they provide for prompt and equitable resolution of such complaints."

In a Commitment to Resolve, CBU's Vice President for Student Life agreed to revise its policies and develop an annual training program regarding issues of sexual assault and harassment. Under this agreement policies were to be revised, and sexual harassment training implemented by September 15, 2004.

Two other Christian Brothers schools have also come to the attention of the U.S. Department of Education in recent years. In 2002, St. Mary's College of California was accused of improperly reporting campus crime statistics and omitting required sexual assault policies from an annual report given to students. In June of this year, SOC asked the Department to review LaSalle University's sexual assault policies after a female basketball player claimed she was raped by a men's basketball player and then was allegedly discouraged from reporting by coaches. Federal reviews in both cases are still ongoing.