Stanford Mis-Trains Student Jurors In Sexual Assault Cases

The folks at TheFire.org issued a statement this week regarding Stanford University's controversial new instructions for student jurors in sexual assault cases

From TheFire.org:

SAN FRANCISCO, July 20, 2011—Displaying a shocking disregard for fair procedures on campus, Stanford University is training student jurors in sexual misconduct cases to believe that “act[ing] persuasive and logical” is a sign of guilt. Stanford also instructs campus tribunals that taking a neutral stand between the parties is the equivalent of siding with the accused.

It was amidst this tenuous climate that last semester Stanford found a male student guilty of sexual assault solely because it determined that both he and the girl in question were under the influence of alcohol.  Stanford’s policy states that students cannot consent to sex, even with a spouse, if either party is intoxicated to any degree.  To make matters worse, after receiving an April 4 open letter to all colleges from the federal Department of Education, Stanford lowered its standard of proof from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to the “preponderance of the evidence” standard during the middle of the proceedings.  This is our judiciary system’s lowest standard of proof.

The student, who wishes to remain anonymous, has come to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. Samantha Harris, FIRE’s Director of Speech Code Research, tells the story in today’s New York Post.

“One of the most basic tenets of due process is that the accused deserves a hearing in front of an impartial panel. My alma mater’s ‘training,’ however, ensures that this panel is biased against the accused,” said FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. “Add to that both the recent, unwise ‘guidance’ from the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, and Stanford’s policy that makes virtually any sex after drinking tantamount to rape, and the accused have little hope of fundamental fairness.”

The training materials which handle sexual harassment and misconduct cases also inform student jurors that they should be “very, very cautious in accepting a man’s claim that he has been wrongly accused of abuse or violence.”  It goes on to say that, “the great majority of allegations of abuse—though not all—are substantially accurate,” and that “an abuser almost never ‘seems like the type.’”  The material provided to student jurors, much of which comes from a book titled Why Does He Do That: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men, is generally directed not at ensuring a fair trial for both the accuser and the accused, but at ensuring that accused men are presumed guilty.

Stanford’s definition of consent to sex imposes a concept that is foreign to most people’s idea of adult consent and inconsistent with California state law. Stanford policy states that sexual assault occurs “when a person is incapable of giving consent. A person is legally incapable of giving consent … if intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol.” In other words, any sexual activity while intoxicated to any degree constitutes sexual assault. This is true even if the activity was explicitly agreed to by a person capable of making rational, reasoned decisions, and even if the partners are in an ongoing relationship or marriage. Further, under a policy like Stanford’s, if both parties are intoxicated during sex, they are both technically guilty of sexually assaulting each other.

Read the full press release here.