R , F , A : How Universities Are EADY IRE IM Failing the Constitution in Sexual Assault Cases Tamara Rice Lave ABSTRACT This Article looks critically at the procedural protections American universities give students accused of sexual assault. It begins by situating these policies historically, providing background to Title IX and the different guidelines promulgated by the Department of Education. Next, it presents original research on the procedural protections provided by the fifty flagship state universities. In October 2014, university administrators were contacted and asked a series of questions about the rights afforded to students, including the standard of proof, right to an adjudicatory hearing, right to confront and cross examine witnesses, right to counsel, right to silence, and right to appeal. This Article describes findings and then compares them with prior studies. After arguing that state university students are entitled to procedural due process, this Article uses the balancing test from Matthews v. Eldridge to evaluate whether universities are adequately protecting the due process rights of the accused. This Article concludes by considering how universities can more fairly and effectively respond to sexual assault. ABSTRACT ................................................................................................... 637 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 638 I. BACKGROUND ....................................................................................... 647 A. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights .......................... 649 1. 1997 Guide ............................................................................... 650  Associate Professor, University of Miami School of Law. BA, Haverford College; JD Stanford Law School, PhD, University of California, Berkeley. I am indebted to Gabriel (Jack) Chin, Donna Coker, Charlton Copeland, Caroline Corbin, Michael Froomkin, Patrick Gudridge, Edward Rubin, Steve Schnably, Scott Sundby, and Bob Weisberg for their insightful comments and criticisms. I would also like to thank the participants at the 2015 New Voices in Legal Theory Roundtable (especially Helga Varden) for their helpful feedback. I additionally owe a tremendous thank you to fabulous research assistants that have helped with this project: Shanise Lawrence, Melanie Spencer, Andrea Sinner, and Dexter Whitley. Finally, I would like to thank the editors at the Arizona State Law Journal for their careful editing. 638 ARIZONA STATE LAW JOURNAL [Ariz. St. L.J. 2. 2001 Guide ............................................................................... 651 3. 2011 Dear Colleague Letter ..................................................... 652 B. Enforcement ................................................................................... 653 II. SURVEY RESEARCH: PROCEDURAL PROTECTIONS AFFORDED BY AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES ..................................................................... 654 A. Findings .......................................................................................... 656 B. Comparison with Other Studies ..................................................... 659 III. DO THESE PROCEDURES SATISFY PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS? .......... 662 A. Does the Punishment Constitute a Deprivation of Liberty or Property? ........................................................................................ 662 B. What Procedural Protections Does Due Process Require .............. 666 C. Applying the Mathews v. Eldridge Balancing Test ....................... 669 1. Factor One: Private Interest at Stake ........................................ 669 2. Factor Two: The Risk of Erroneous Deprivation of Liberty and the Value of Additional Safeguards ......................................... 671 3. Factor Three: Government Interest and Burdens of Additional Protections ................................................................................ 684 D. Balancing all the Factors ................................................................ 692 IV. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE –A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE ................................ 696 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 700 INTRODUCTION On December 7, 2012, Erica Kinsman,1 then a freshman at Florida State University (FSU), reported to campus police that she had been raped.2 Because the attack occurred off campus, Tallahassee police were called.3 Erica stated that she had been drinking at a popular bar, when she ended up in a taxi with three men, all strangers.4 They brought her to an apartment 1. Erica Kinsman is being called by name because she publicly identified herself in a documentary first shown at the Sundance Film Festival entitled, The Hunting Ground. Tyler Kingkade, Erica Kinsman, Woman Who Accused Jameis Winston of Rape, Goes Public for the First Time, HUFFINGTON POST (Jan. 26, 2015, 12:38 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/26/erica-kinsman-jameis-winston_n_6539916.html. 2. TALLAHASSEE POLICE DEP’T, INCIDENT REPORT 2 (2012), http://www.talgov.com/uploads/public/documents/assets/news/tpd-documents.pdf. 3. Id. 4. Id. 48:0637] READY, FIRE, AIM 639 where she claimed that one of them raped her.5 After being transported back to campus on the back of her assailant’s scooter, Erica told a friend what happened, and the friend called the police.6 The responding officer wrote that “as the investigation continued several bruises began to appear on the victim.”7 Erica was transported to the hospital where her injuries were photographed, and samples were taken to test for the presence of semen.8 One month later, Erica told the investigating officer that she recognized the man who raped her from one of her classes.9 His name: FSU football sensation, Jameis Winston.10 Despite the identification, it took eleven months for Jameis’ DNA to be tested and compared with the semen found on Erica’s underwear.11 In the meanwhile, the FSU police secured a copy of the Tallahassee report, which they gave to administrators in the Athletic Department, who then turned it over to Jameis’ lawyer.12 All this happened before the prosecutor was even notified of the case. Jameis’ lawyer was able to secure signed affidavits from Jameis’ friends before they were interviewed by law enforcement, and both swore that they had seen Jameis and Erica having consensual sex. Claiming he would be unable to secure a conviction, the prosecutor chose not to file charges.13 Soon after, Jameis won the Heisman Trophy and led FSU to a national championship. Although Title IX requires that allegations of sexual assault be resolved quickly, Jameis’ conduct hearing did not take place until twenty- four months after the purported attack.14 Retired Florida Supreme Court 5. Id. 6. Id. 7. Id. 8. Id. 9. Id. 10. Id. 11. E-mail from Erica Buckley, Investigator, to Jill Allison (Nov. 27, 2013, 12:53 PM) (on file with author); Jill Allison, Report from Fla. Dep’t of Law Enf’t (Dec. 2, 2013) (on file with author). 12. Kevin Vaughan, Documents: Police, FSU Hampered Jameis Winston Investigation, FOXSPORTS (Oct. 10, 2014, 4:23 PM), http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/jameis- winston-florida-state-tallahassee-police-hindered-investigation-documents-101014. 13. One of the reasons given was that Erica Kinsman had semen from two sources, Jameis Winston and another person. Erica explained that the other person was her boyfriend, but that explanation did not change the prosecutor’s decision. Julie Montanaro, FSU QB Jameis Winston Won’t Face Charges, WCTV (Dec. 6, 2013), http://www.wctv.tv/sports/headlines/BREAKING- 231816891.html. 14. Jerry Hinnen, Jameis Winston’s Conduct Hearing Concludes on Its Second Day, CBSSPORTS.COM (Dec. 3, 2014), http://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/jameis- winstons-fsu-conduct-hearing-concludes-on-its-second-day/. 640 ARIZONA STATE LAW JOURNAL [Ariz. St. L.J. Justice Major Harding conducted the inquiry, and on December 19, 2014, he issued a finding that Jameis had not violated the FSU Code of Student Conduct.15 Erica voiced dismay at the result and later filed civil suit against the university.16 On January 25, 2016, FSU agreed to pay Kinsman $950,000 to settle the case.17 Although it did not admit fault, FSU did assent to provide five years of sexual assault awareness programs and to publish the results of those programs.18 Exactly two years later, on December 7, 2014, San Diego State University (SDSU) sophomore, Francisco Sousa, met Jane Doe19 at an off-campus party. Although Jane would later claim otherwise, text messages show that they planned on meeting at the event.20 At one point in the evening, Francisco led Jane by the hand to the bathroom where she orally copulated him.21 Francisco contended that the sex was consensual; indeed he said that she had done this to him on a prior occasion.22 Despite a picture of the two kissing a few weeks earlier and flirtatious text messages stretching for several weeks before, and then immediately after, the alleged attack,23 Jane told the police that she did not know Francisco well. She said the sex was forced. Two days after the party, San Diego Police arrested Francisco for forcible oral copulation and false imprisonment.24 He bailed out the next day.25 On December 9, SDSU issued a notice of interim suspension,26 and on December 15. Kevin Vaughan, Full Copy of Jameis Winston Hearing Decision, FOXSPORTS (Dec. 21, 2014, 6:27 PM), http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/story/full-copy-of-jameis-winston- hearing-decision-122114. 16. Doe v. Fla. State Univ. Bd. of Trs., No. 4:15-cv-00235-MW-CAS (M.D. Fla. Jan. 7, 2015). 17. Marc Tracy, Florida State Settles Suit over Jameis Winston Rape Inquiry, N.Y. TIMES (Jan. 25, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/26/sports/football/florida-state-to-pay-jameis- winstons-accuser-950000-in-settlement.html?_r=0. 18. Id. 19. Jane Doe is not her real name. 20. Letter from Michael D. McGlinn, Att’y for Francisco Sousa, to Dr. Lee Mintz, Dir., Ctr. for Student Rights and Responsibilities, San Diego State 2 (Mar. 12, 2015) [hereinafter Letter from McGlinn] (on file with author). 21. Id. 22. Id. 23. Id. at 2–3. 24. Michael Fleeman, Arrest Made in San Diego Rape, One of a String near College Campus, REUTERS (Dec. 10, 2014, 4:11 PM), http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/10/us-usa- rape-california-idUSKBN0JO2AQ20141210. 25. Angie Lee & Richard Allyn, SDSU Sex Assault Suspect Out on Bail, CBS8.COM (Dec. 10, 2014, 6:23PM), http://www.cbs8.com/story/27599987/sdsu-sex-assault-suspect-out-on-bail. 26. Petition for Writ of Mandate at 18, Sousa v. San Diego State Univ., No. 37-2015- 00011119-CU-WM-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct. Apr. 2, 2015), http://www.avoiceformalestudents.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Petition-for-Writ-of- 48:0637] READY, FIRE, AIM 641 12, Francisco was notified that he was alleged to have sexually assaulted a member of the campus community. An investigatory meeting was set with SDSU Title IX Coordinator, Lee Mintz, for December 15.27 SDSU also issued a community Safety Alert via email notifying students of the alleged assault and naming Francisco as the suspect. At the hearing on December 15, Francisco requested to review the basis of the allegations against him, including any written statements made by the complainant or any other witnesses. Mintz told Francisco she would turn over this information at some future date and then urged him to make a statement, saying that she could “reach a decision in the Title IX portion of the investigation at any point.”28 Mintz also informed Francisco that “he would not be entitled to a hearing on the Title IX portion of the matter, he would not have the right to confront his accuser, he had no right to direct participation of counsel, she would make findings of fact and reach conclusions of law and mete out a sanction, and he would not be entitled to an appeal.”29 On nine different occasions, from December 12, 2014 to March 12, 2015, Francisco sent letters through his attorneys formally requesting information about the charges against him. On February 6, 2015, he sent Mintz a letter containing evidence that supported his innocence. Five days later, the San Diego County District Attorney’s Office elected not to file charges in the case. On March 5, Francisco sent another letter to Mintz, this time with copies of the San Diego State Police Report that his lawyer independently obtained. In this letter, Francisco pointed out inconsistencies between Jane’s account (which he was reading for the first time) and text messages and other documentation. Once again, Francisco requested information about the case, including a copy of the complaint that Jane had made with Mintz, which was referenced but not included in the police report. On April 2, after sixteen months of waiting, Francisco filed a writ in superior court, requesting that SDSU be ordered to provide notice of the allegations and evidence against him as well as a reasonable opportunity to provide responsive evidence.30 Mandate-Francisco-Sousa-San-Diego-State-University-filed-2015-4-2.pdf (attached “Notice of Interim Suspension” from Eric Rivera San Diego State University’s Vice President for Student Affairs to Francisco Sousa). 27. Letter from Lee Mintz, Dir., Ctr. for Student Rights and Responsibilities, San Diego State Univ., to Francisco Sousa (Dec. 12, 2014) (on file with author). 28. Petition for Writ of Mandate, supra note 26, at 6–7. 29. Letter from McGlinn, supra note 20, at 4. 30. Petition for Writ of Mandate, supra note 26, at 6–7. 642 ARIZONA STATE LAW JOURNAL [Ariz. St. L.J. High profile cases like that of Erica Kinsman and Francisco Sousa have brought a much-needed spotlight to campus rape. In 2011, the Department of Education, Officer of Civil Rights (OCR) issued its Dear Colleague Letter (DCL), in which it called the statistics on sexual violence “deeply troubling and a call to action for the nation.”31 It then cited a study by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) which, according to OCR, had found “about 1 in 5 women are victims of completed or attempted sexual assault while in college.”32 As it turns out, OCR’s statement was misleading. The NIJ study looked only at two large public universities, and the findings were not nationally representative.33 Nor in subsequent communications did OCR ever discuss the results of a nationally representative study conducted by the Department of Justice that found significantly lower rates of rape and sexual assault among college women. 34 OCR reminded universities that sexual violence constitutes a form of discrimination under Title IX.35 It told universities that in order to be in compliance, they had to change disciplinary proceedings to more effectively hold rapists accountable.36 Since college discipline is civil and not criminal, it is not subject to the same constitutional constraints like the accused’s right to confront and cross examine witnesses37 and the state’s burden to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.38 In no uncertain terms, OCR told universities that they had to reduce the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings to a preponderance of the evidence, and it strongly discouraged 31. Letter from Russlyn Ali, Assistant Sec’y for Civil Rights, Office for Civil Rights, U.S. Dep’t of Educ., to Title IX Coordinators 2 (Apr. 4, 2011) [hereinafter Dear Colleague Letter], http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201104.pdf. Statistics on campus sexual assault will be discussed in more detail below. 32. Id. 33. See CHRISTOPHER P. KREBS ET AL., THE CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT STUDY vii (2007), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/221153.pdf. 34. SOFI SINOZICH & LYNN LANGTON, U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, SPECIAL REPORT: RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT VICTIMIZATION AMONG COLLEGE AGE FEMALES, 1995-2013, at 1 (Dec. 2014). Note that the NCVS has been criticized for underestimating the incidence or rape and sexual assault. See PANEL ON MEASURING RAPE & SEXUAL ASSAULT IN BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS HOUSEHOLD SURVEYS, NAT’L RESEARCH COUNCIL, ESTIMATING THE INCIDENCE OF RAPE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT 4–5 (Candace Kruttschnitt et al. eds., National Academies Press, 2014). 35. Dear Colleague Letter, supra note 31, at 1. 36. Id. at 1–3, 7–14. 37. See U.S. CONST. amend. VI; Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 406 (1965) (holding that this bedrock procedural guarantee applies to both federal and state prosecutions); see also Crawford v. Washington 541 U.S. 36, 61 (2004) (The Sixth Amendment “commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination.”). 38. In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970). 48:0637] READY, FIRE, AIM 643 them from allowing the parties to directly question one another.39 It also told universities that they should not allow the respondent to review the complainant’s statement unless she was able to review his.40 OCR threatened to withhold federal funding to universities that did not adequately respond,41 and it later published a list that continues to grow of those under investigation.42 OCR has found that a number of schools were in violation of Title IX, including Princeton University43 and Harvard Law School.44 These schools have since reached settlements with OCR, in which they agreed to change the way they handle sexual assault so as to meet the protocol set forth in the DCL.45 Some applaud OCR’s efforts,46 including at least ninety professors who signed a recently released White Paper in support of the DCL,47 but others contend that universities have gone too far in sacrificing the rights of the 39. Id. at 11–12. 40. Id. 41. Id. at 16. 42. See infra notes 100–01 and accompanying text. 43. Princeton University Found in Violation of Title IX, Reaches Agreement with U.S. Education Department to Address, Prevent Sexual Assault and Harassment of Students, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Nov. 5, 2014) [hereinafter Princeton Violation], http://www.ed.gov/news/press- releases/princeton-university-found-violation-title-ix-reaches-agreement-us-education- department-address-prevent-sexual-assault-and-harassment-students. 44. Harvard Law School Found in Violation of Title IX, Agrees to Remedy Sexual Harassment, Including Sexual Assault of Students, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Dec. 30, 2014) [hereinafter Harvard Violation], http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/harvard-law-school- found-violation-title-ix-agrees-remedy-sexual-harassment-including-sexual-assault-students. 45. See Harvard Violation, supra note 30; Princeton Violation, supra note 29. 46. See Michelle J. Anderson, Campus Sexual Assault Adjudication and Resistance to Reform, 125 YALE L.J. 1940, 1978 (2016); Amy Chmielewski, Note, Defending the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard in College Adjudications of Sexual Assault, 2013 BYU EDUC. & L.J. 143, 149–74 (2013); Lavinia M. Weizel, Note, The Process that is Due: Preponderance of the Evidence as the Standard of Proof for University Adjudications of Student- on-Student Sexual Assault Complaints, 53 B.C. L. REV. 1613, 1642–55 (2012). 47. See KATHERINE K. BAKER ET AL., TITLE IX AND THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE: A WHITE PAPER 12–15 (2016). 644 ARIZONA STATE LAW JOURNAL [Ariz. St. L.J. accused.48 Members of the law faculty at both Harvard49 and the University of Pennsylvania50 have publicly called for greater procedural rights for the accused, and a Senior Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institute decried OCR’s Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) for “institutionalizing a presumption of guilt in sexual assault cases.”51 In addition, the popular press started to call attention to the experiences of men who say their universities never gave them a meaningful chance to defend themselves before finding them responsible for rape and expelling them.52 More significantly, Congress and the courts have begun to take notice of the impact the DCL has had on college campuses. On January 7, 2016, in a move that may signal the demise of the DCL in a Republican controlled Congress, Senator James Lankford, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, U.S. Senate Committee on Government Affairs and Homeland Security, wrote a letter to the Acting Secretary for the Department of Education demanding that DOE provide 48. See William A. Jacobsen, Accused on Campus: Charges Dropped, but the Infamy Remains, LEGAL INSURRECTION (May 16, 2015, 8:30 PM), http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/05/accused-on-campus-charges-dropped-but-the-infamy- remains/; see also Ryan D. Ellis, Note, Mandating Injustice: The Preponderance of the Evidence Mandate Creates a New Threat to Due Process on Campus, 32 REV. LITIG. 65, 80–81 (2013); Barclay Sutton Hendrix, Note, A Feather on One Side, a Brick on the Other: Tilting the Scale Against Males Accused of Sexual Assault in Campus Disciplinary Proceedings, 47 GA. L. REV. 591, 599 (2013); Stephen Henrick, Note, A Hostile Environment for Student Defendants: Title IX and Sexual Assault on College Campuses, 40 N. KY. L. REV. 49, 50–51 (2013); Naomi Shatz, Feminists, We Are Not Winning the War on Campus Sexual Assault, HUFFINGTON POST (Oct. 29, 2014, 6:44 PM), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-shatz/feminists-we-are-not- winn_b_6071500.html. 49. Elizabeth Bartholet et al., Rethink Harvard’s Sexual Harassment Policy, BOSTON GLOBE (Oct. 15, 2014), https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/10/14/rethink-harvard- sexual-harassment-policy/HFDDiZN7nU2UwuUuWMnqbM/story.html. 50. David Rudovsky et al., Open Letter from Members of the Penn Law School Faculty, Sexual Assault Complaints: Protecting Complainants and the Accused Students at Universities, PHILLY.COM (Feb. 18, 2015), http://media.philly.com/documents/OpenLetter.pdf. 51. Peter Berkowitz, College Rape Accusations and the Presumption of Male Guilt, WALL ST. J. (Aug. 20, 2011), http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240531119035969045765 16232905230642. 52. Tovia Smith, Some Accused of Sexual Assault on Campus Say System Works Against Them, NPR (Sept. 3, 2014, 1:12 PM), http://www.npr.org/2014/09/03/345312997/some-accused- of-campus-assault-say-the-system-works-against-them; Teresa Watanabe, More College Men Are Fighting Back Against Sexual Misconduct Cases, L.A. TIMES (June 7, 2014, 6:15 PM), http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-sexual-assault-legal-20140608-story.html; Emily Yoffe, The College Rape Overcorrection, SLATE (Dec. 7, 2014, 11:53 PM), http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2014/12/college_rape_campus_sexual_assault_ is_a_serious_problem_but_the_efforts.html. 48:0637] READY, FIRE, AIM 645 statutory authority for the DCL.53 Although Catherine E. Lhamon, the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, wrote a response,54 Lankford was not satisfied: I again call on you personally to clarify that these policies are not required by Title IX, but reflect only one of various ways schools may choose to develop and implement policies for the prevention and remedy of sexual harassment and sexual violence that best meet the needs of their students and are compliant with federal law. I further ask that you immediately rein in the regulatory abuses within the Department of Education and take measures to ensure that all existing and future guidance documents issued by your agency are clearly and firmly rooted in statutory authority.55 Even if Congress does not pass legislation that specifically strikes down the DCL, courts across the country have been finding that current protections violate procedural due process.56 For example, in July 2015, a judge ordered the University of California, San Diego to reverse the suspension of a male student because the disciplinary proceedings violated his due process rights,57 and nine months later, a different judge overturned the suspension of a University of Southern California student on the ground that he was denied a fair hearing and the substantive evidence did not support the Appeal Panel’s findings.58 On March 31, 2016, the Massachusetts District Court ruled in favor of a Brandeis University student who had been found responsible for 53. Letter from Sen. James Lankford, Chairman, Subcomm. on Reg. Aff. & Fed. Mgmt., Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Aff., U.S. Senate, to The Hon. John B. King, Jr., Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (Jan. 7, 2016), http://www.scribd.com/doc/294821262/Sen-Lankford-letter- to-Education-Department. 54. Letter from Catherine E. Lhamon, Assistant Sec’y of C.R., to The Hon. James Lankford, Chairman, Subcomm. on Reg. Aff. & Fed. Mgmt., Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Aff., U.S. Senate (Feb. 17, 2016), http://chronicle.com/items/biz/pdf/DEPT.%20of%20EDUCATION%20RESPONSE%20TO%2 0LANKFORD%20LETTER%202-17-16.pdf. 55. Letter from Sen. James Lankford, Chairman, Subcomm. on Regulatory Affairs & Fed. Mgmt., Comm. on Homeland Sec. & Gov’t Affairs, U.S. Senate, to The Hon. John B. King, Jr., Acting Sec’y, U.S. Dep’t of Educ. (Mar. 4, 2016), http://www.lankford.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/3.4.16%20Lankford%20letter%20to%20Dept. %20of%20Education.pdf. 56. See Jake New, Court Wins for Accused, INSIDE HIGHER EDUC. (Nov. 5, 2015), https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/11/05/more-students-punished-over-sexual-assault- are-winning-lawsuits-against-colleges. 57. Doe v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. San Diego, No. 37-2015-00010549-CU-WM-CTL, 2015 WL 4394597, at *6 (Cal. Super. Ct. July 10, 2015). 58. Doe v. Univ. of S. Cal., 200 Cal. Rptr. 3d 851, 877 (Ct. App. 2016). 646 ARIZONA STATE LAW JOURNAL [Ariz. St. L.J. “serious sexual transgressions.”59 The court wrote, “Brandeis appears to have substantially impaired, if not eliminated, an accused student’s right to a fair and impartial process.”60 The court was particularly troubled by the deprivation of the right to cross-examine61 as well as the lack of notice about the underlying allegations.62 Although many have opined on this new world of university disciplinary proceedings, inadequate attention has been paid to the rights actually being afforded to students. A 1999 study by Berger and Berger looked at procedural protections in state and private universities, but they focused on cases of academic misconduct.63 In 2002, Karjane, Fisher, and Cullen conducted a Department of Justice funded study into how institutions of higher education (IHEs) respond to sexual assault.64 Their study was extensive, and it included a content analysis of published sexual assault policy materials from a nationally representative sample of IHEs.65 Although the scope of this work is extraordinary, it took place before the 2011 DCL, and so it may not reflect current practices. This leaves a major gap in the literature, which this Article attempts to fill. It provides a systematic description, based on original research, of the procedural protections that the fifty flagship state universities provide when a student is accused of sexual assault. Emphasizing the importance of process should not be confused with minimizing the seriousness of rape, which is “one of the most severe of all traumas, causing multiple, long-term negative outcomes, such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, substance abuse, suicidality, repeated sexual victimization, and chronic 59. Doe v. Brandeis Univ., No. 15-11557-FDS, 2016 WL 1274533, at *4 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2016). 60. Id. at *6. 61. Id. at *34–35 (“While protection of victims of sexual assault from unnecessary harassment is a laudable goal, the elimination of such a basic protection for the rights of the accused raises profound concerns. . . . Here, there were essentially no third-party witnesses to any of the events in question, and there does not appear to have been any contemporary corroborating evidence. The entire investigation thus turned on the credibility of the accuser and the accused. Under the circumstances, the lack of an opportunity for cross-examination may have had a very substantial effect on the fairness of the proceeding.”). 62. Id. at *34. 63. Curtis J. Berger & Vivian Berger, Academic Discipline: A Guide to Fair Process for the University Student, 99 COLUM. L. REV. 289, 301 (1999). 64. See generally HEATHER M. KARJANE, BONNIE S. FISHER & FRANCIS T. CULLEN, CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT: HOW AMERICA’S INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION RESPOND (2002), https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196676.pdf. 65. Id. at vi.