Both federal law and corresponding University policy preserve the confidentiality of student judicial records. We cannot speak about individual cases. That being said, sexual assault victims experience significant trauma associated with such crimes, and accused students found "not responsible" could bear a lasting stigma associated with the charge alone. When a victim chooses not to invoke criminal and civil remedies, the University is placed in the unusual position of deciding a case without the powers attendant to a court in securing and evaluating evidence and enforcing its orders. It endeavors to fulfill its responsibility to discover the truth and serve the best interests of students and the University community in ways that encourage a full and fair examination of the facts. Such inquiries are frequently exhausting for all parties concerned. Hearings can often last for days. The cases are often murky and rarely susceptible to easy resolution.

The university's hearing practices in sexual assault cases and felony cases are different from ordinary practices that students encounter in the judicial system. See "Hearing Practices for Students Before University Officers," Student Handbook, pgs. 82-84. These procedures resulted from an extensive study of such practices many years ago, motivated in part by PREPARE concerns that the student judicial system was ill suited to handling allegations of such gravity. An outside consultant has reviewed our processes and practices involving sexual assault cases. After each case University officers associated with the system review the case to determine if any changes in practice should be considered to make the system more accessible, responsive, and fair.

The process allows the hearing officer to request up to four students, faculty, and administrators to assist in hearing the case. In every case the hearing officer has used such a panel. Panels are usually composed of two students, one faculty member, and one administrator. The panels have always been equally divided between male and female members. People are chosen who have direct knowledge and experience with our judicial system. Often students have been PREPARE facilitators. Hearing officers have attended training programs on the subject of sexual assault and the handling of such cases.

Our system is not an adversarial one. The panel members question witnesses first and then the victim's advocate or advisor may ask questions for purposes of clarification. Sometimes, the alleged victim or the accused student may ask questions. Often, medical evidence is presented, but such evidence must be interpreted by a trained medical professional who is subject to questioning. Such evidence may not present definitive answers about whether sexual intercourse was consensual or non-consensual, although it is always considered very important. All evidence must be weighed in reference to the circumstances surrounding an event and the testimony of witnesses who may have observed the conduct of parties -- immediately before, during, or immediately after the event. The demeanor and credibility of witnesses also plays a role in trying to piece together the facts. Finally, the hearing panel and officer must be persuaded that the charges are true in order to find the student responsible for the conduct charged.

Contrary to representations made in the OGB there is no specified "burden of proof" that resembles legal standards. Each member of the panel must finally be satisfied with their interpretation of the facts. In its deliberations the panel endeavors to test every possible hypothesis and evaluate every piece of evidence to arrive at its conclusion that it is persuaded that a charge is true and that the accused student is responsible. In every case that I have served as a hearing officer, the panel has unanimously agreed on these questions, although they have occasionally differed about sanctions when responsibility has been found.

It would be hard to devise a process for deciding such cases that satisfied all parties. No matter what the outcome, one party will claim that justice was not served. Stories often differ and observations are often clouded. Judicial resolutions cannot heal the injured nor can they restore the reputation of the accused. Those who take part in such deliberations are indelibly affected by what they hear about campus life. They lament the confounding nature of such circumstances, and they often wish that some greater and more perfect force for justice could intervene to resolve it. Such situations are always tragic. Yet, as I have observed the careful, serious, and dignified manner in which our colleagues have struggled with these issues and challenged each other, I have come to appreciate the goodness of people who want to do the right thing for the university and its students.

We long for an end to the scourge of sexual misconduct on campus. In this "Rape Awareness Week" we especially need to dedicate ourselves to seeing that it ends. All of us should look deep within our conscience and ask if we can create a better climate in which to live, learn, and love one another.