Few attend focus group on sexual violence

The Sexual Violence Advisory Committee (SVAC) hosted a sparsely attended open focus group session on April 9 led by Title IX Coordinator and Assistant Vice Provost Allison Boyle and SVAC undergraduate representative sophomore Nicholas Ulm.

Only three students attended the session. Boyle addressed the low attendance.

“I recognize that getting people to come to a room can be challenging. There are many reasons that people might not want to come to a meeting like this,” Boyle said. “But my hope is that by offering avenues for feedback that might help in policy.”

Boyle opened the floor to questions after briefly explaining SVAC’s position on the current campus dialogue surrounding sexual assault and violence. She said that a new sexual violence policy went into effect on campus in October. Since then, the SVAC board has received feedback from students on how the policy changes have affected them.

Boyle emphasized that one of the biggest themes she’s seen in the feedback is that students want more transparency. In response, SVAC is working on creating a single policy-focused document that is more accessible to students. The document will encompass the basics of the University’s policies for responding to reports of sexual violence.

“[Policy] is very legalistic, but with that said, we want to make sure that it’s easily understood by everyone in the community,” Boyle said.

School of Medicine student Jenny Wen asked questions addressing how Homewood’s campus policy will extend to other University campuses. Boyle responded by saying that SVAC will face challenges in implementing policy regardless of the location of sexual violence and said that parity — which she defined as equity and similarity in the handling of comparable cases — is important to her and the rest of SVAC.

“One thing I’ve heard from students is an urging for parity. Depending on what school you’re in, there can be several layers of appeal and review,” Boyle said.

Ulm expanded on the discussion of parity by explaining that many different cases can come to the board’s attention, such as issues between students or between students and teachers. He said that it is the board’s responsibility to review cases in a comparable fashion.

“There is lashback that could happen if there are differences between [handling the cases],” Ulm said.

The focus group also addressed the possible creation of a panel to oversee cases of sexual violence. Boyle, Ulm and Wen focused on the possible inclusion of students in the panel, and whether students would feel comfortable having peers review their cases.

Boyle said that some students have come to her and explained having students on the panel would make them uncomfortable, whereas others would feel better knowing their peers had a say in policy implementation. Regardless of the makeup of the panel, Boyle emphasized that each panel member would be well-trained.

“Regardless of what the makeup of the panel is, wherever we land on this issue, there will be training for whoever presides on the panels,” Boyle said.

Boyle clarified SVAC’s responsibilities when it comes to handling sexual assault and violence cases. The Sexual Violence Advisory Committee does not conduct hearings and is not involved in investigating any allegations of sexual misconduct. Rather, the board is a policy advisory body.

This process varies between university campuses. The panel also raised questions about how hearings of sexual violence cases will influence the University’s final decision and about how transparent the administration needs to be regarding sensitive cases.

“Anyone that’s been following this issue for the last year is acutely aware that transparency is a theme that’s important to students,” Boyle said.

Wen specifically asked about what changes were made to sexual violence policy in October. According to Boyle, changes that were enacted include the definition of sexual assault, which was expanded to include stalking and relationship violence, appeals covered under the policy, expansion on the definition of consent and medical support and a change in the expected timeline for fact gathering after a report has been filed: A case should now be resolved 60 days after reporting. The office previously tried to resolve cases within 90 days.

Boyle was asked about the purpose of the focus group following the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) investigative visit to Hopkins.

“I want to be perfectly clear — I cannot speak to what OCR wanted to accomplish with its former focus groups,” Boyle said. “We are under investigation, and part of OCR’s focus is to conduct those focus groups with various people. What I and the Sexual Violence Advisory Committee want, as we’re working to compile our recommendations for the provost, we want additional recommendations from the community.”

Ulm corroborated Boyle’s point.

“We’re trying to encourage students to give recommendations on the policy that they wouldn’t normally know about. Students are saying the policy is vague. This is a chance for them to give input and say, ‘This is what we want to change,’” Ulm said.

Boyle explained that SVAC will continue to hold similar discussions in the future and continue to work with the Hopkins community in implementing change to how the University responds to sexual violence and assault.

Correction: The original version of this article stated that Allison Boyle was the Associate Vice Provost. This has been corrected to reflect that she is the Assistant Vice Provost. Additionally, the piece originally stated that SVAC has certain investigatory responsibilities with respect to sexual misconduct allegations. The article has been corrected to state that SVAC has no investigatory responsibilities and is instead a policy advisory board.