Some members of University of Idaho’s Faculty Senate raised questions about a bill passed this Tuesday to comply with a Title IX policy. The concerned members thought the bill, which complies with a national sexual harassment dispute policy, could deter people from coming to the university about sexual harassment.
The policy aimed to make sure all sexual harassment cases are handled with the same procedure, burden of proof and appeal rights, Jim Craig of the UI General Counsel Office said. Before, the code of conduct handled sexual harassment disputes differently depending on whether the incident involved a student, staff member or faculty member.
Erin Agidius, the director of the Office of Civil Rights and Investigations, brought the bill, also known as FSH 6100, to Faculty Senate. Agidius said there were a handful of changes, with the biggest change being a live hearing component, where involved individuals can be cross-examined. In the past, information from victims in sexual harassment complaints could be submitted for review in writing.
The new policy “expressly prohibits students from directly cross-examining one another, and it requires schools to provide support services to students, even if a student chooses not to move forward with a formal complaint process,” according to a press release from the Department of Education.Filing a formal complaint will prompt an investigation, formal notice to the accused and live hearings, Agidius said. Universities are now obligated to provide advisors for the cross-examinations.
Those who do not want to participate in the formal disciplinary process can opt for an informal resolution process, but this is only available after filing the formal complaint, Agidius said.
The victim does not need to be in the same room as the accused for the cross examination, according to earlier reporting from The Argonaut.
A senator asked Agidius if this new process could potentially discomfort people put on the stand.
“Yes, and this is one of those things that is not an option for institutions,” Agidius answered.
Craig said that even in the drafting process, concerns for the policy were not up for discussion. A working group, composed of the Provost’s Office, Faculty Senate, Staff Council, ASUI, Human Resources, student body representatives and other campus organizations, was assigned only to find how the university could comply to the policy.
“We pulled together a very broad working group to discuss these changes…,” Craig said. “There’s enough stuff in these regulations that everybody can find something to disagree with.”The policy is required by federal regulations. If it’s not adopted, we will be out of compliance with federal regulations. Not complying is not an option.”
One senator asked Agidius if, in her professional opinion, the new measures could deter people from coming forward with complaints.
“Genuinely, yes,” Agidius said.
Cody Roberts can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter @CodyRobReports.