The original version of this article contained information that was inaccurate and has been changed. See the bottom of the article for more information.
Assembly member Das Williams recently announced a legislative package that seeks to increase disciplinary punishment for students found guilty of sexual assault at the state’s public college campuses.
Williams, who represents Santa Barbara and Ventura, said his position as chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, which involved listening to cases concerning sexual assault on multiple campuses, influenced his proposals, which were announced Feb. 10.
“There is very little accountability for rape, and people are not getting convicted or punished through the judicial affairs process on campus even though we know thousands of rapes are taking place,” Williams said. “It’s disturbing.”
Currently at the University of California, a campus’ Title IX officer decides whether to launch a formal investigation based on various factors, such as the seriousness of an allegation. Reports from an investigation, which include interviews and the examination of relevant documents, can be used as evidence during a disciplinary hearing. Investigations can lead to a student’s probation, suspension or dismissal, with university officials deciding the result on a case-by-case basis.
UCLA defines sexual misconduct as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, nonverbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature.
According to UCLA’s sexual misconduct report, there were 15 cases of sexual misconduct reported to the university in 2013. In 11 of these cases, the university found the accused responsible.
According to UCLA’s sexual misconduct report from 2011 to 2014, the university has issued dismissals or suspensions lasting between one quarter and two years to students found guilty of sexual misconduct. In some cases, the student received “sanctions that do not interfere with classes,” such as restrictions on communication or contact with the accuser.
The legislation proposes that the college campus adjudicators must consider suspension for at least two years up to expulsion if an individual is found guilty of sexual assault by a university. Williams said the proposal aims to make survivors of assault feel that perpetrators are punished adequately.
In addition, the package would require university academic transcripts to include a notation if a student is found guilty of committing a sexual assault.
“We discovered that in many campuses, you can cheat on a test and that will end up on your academic record, but a rape won’t,” Williams said.
Currently, only dismissals from the university appear on transcripts permanently.
Savannah Badalich, founder of the 7000 in Solidarity campaign against sexual assault at UCLA, said she thinks Williams’ proposal will make the adjudication process on campuses somewhat uniform in comparison to the current UC system, which does not have a standardized minimum punishment for students found guilty of sexual assault.
The UC is already planning to implement systemwide standards for adjudication and investigation for sexual misconduct, following recommendations from its Task Force on Preventing and Responding to Sexual Violence and Sexual Assault.
She added, however, that the UC is doing a number of things in response to concerns about sexual assault on campus, such as establishing a response team model at each campus and seeking to improve education and training on sexual violence.
Hans Bader, a senior attorney at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is a nonprofit, libertarian think tank that seeks to promote liberal ideas, said he is concerned that students found guilty of sexual assault charges other than rape would receive similar punishments to students guilty of rape, under the proposed legislation.
Joseph Cohn, the legislative and policy director for the Foundation of Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, which advocates for free speech on college campuses, said he thinks the lack of involvement of criminal justice, such as forensic investigators, in the campus judicial system makes the campus system unreliable and farcical.
Williams added that he thinks the campus system is more likely to punish perpetrators than the criminal justice system.
“The criminal justice procedure threshold is ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ and it’s hard to get evidence to that effect,” Williams said, “The campus procedure requires the preponderance of evidence (which is a lower standard for burden of proof).”
Badalich said the standard of proof within the campus system is one of the reasons survivors may choose this system over the criminal justice system.
“Survivors don’t go to the police for many reasons. Some don’t feel the police are sensitive or will take them seriously. Students of color may not go because of fear of discrimination by the police. Undocumented students may fear deportation and retaliation if they come forward,” Badalich said, “(Furthermore), the campus process is more immediate and also requires a smaller threshold of proof.”
Brooke Converse, a UC spokesperson, said the UC cannot comment on Williams’ proposal because a bill has not yet been introduced.
The UC seeks to implement a unified adjudication standard across campuses by July.
Clarification: Brooke Converse said the UC cannot comment on the proposal because Williams’ bill has not yet been introduced, not because the proposal hasn’t been introduced to the UC.