Sensitive Content Warning: This article contains partial details and mentions of sexual harassment and assault. If you are a victim of sexual violence, please know you can consult confidential or non-confidential University-based resources or Sexual Assault Resource Connectors.
The Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) assesses and investigates all reports of sexual and sex-based misconduct at the University. Originally, OIE operated under the 2024 Title IX changes of the Education Amendments of 1972; however, after the Trump administration vacated the 2024 version, the University reverted to following the 2020 Title IX regulations, guidelines with stricter procedural requirements.
According to the current Title IX guidelines, OIE first evaluates each report to determine jurisdiction and the applicable policy framework. If the alleged misconduct does not meet the updated Title IX harassment standards, the University must dismiss the complaint and notify both parties.
If a report proceeds to an investigation, OIE officials begin by gathering facts related to the allegations. Internal or external investigators interview the complainant, the respondent and the witnesses. The burden of proof and evidence collection lies with the University, not with either party. Both the complainant and respondent have the right to submit evidence, present witnesses and suggest questions to be posed to the other party. Throughout the process, OIE can provide institutional support to complainants, such as no-contact orders, security escorts, changes in housing or work arrangements and connections to confidential resources.
After the fact-gathering stage and evidence review, investigators prepare a report summarizing all relevant evidence. Both parties are allowed to review and comment on the report before finalization. The University then holds a live hearing before a trained determination panel, which applies the “preponderance of the evidence” standard when reaching a decision. The evidence standard is not publicized in the guidelines.
Following the hearing, the panel will issue a written determination, including the findings supporting the determination, the conclusions regarding the case and the responsibilities required to be taken to both parties.
“The determination panel will impose sanctions that are fair and appropriate, consistent with the University’s handling of similar cases, adequate to protect the safety of the campus community, and reflective of the seriousness of the misconduct at issue,” the policy states.
Sanctions for a respondent found responsible for sexual misconduct may include probation, loss of privileges, restricted access to University facilities, no-contact orders, suspension or termination. Both parties retain the right to appeal the decision.
Amid growing student concerns about the fairness and transparency of this process, The News-Letter interviewed three individuals who have gone through OIE’s Title IX reporting and investigation process.
Addison’s story
Choosing to tell her story under the pseudonym “Addison,” a former School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) student detailed her experience with OIE’s process when reporting a professor, under the alias “Harry,” for sex-based harassment in an interview with The News-Letter.
Addison had sent a student advocacy letter in support of continuing International Development courses at SAIS amidst industry downsizing. Once she took a class with Harry, Addison stated that Harry expressed “constant” explicit thoughts about women being romantically attracted to him, often for unrelated actions. For example, based on Addison’s encounter, Harry viewed female students who went to his office hours as romantically interested in him.
Addison stated that during an online academic meeting, Harry’s wife repeatedly came in and out of the room, lingering near the camera and making Addison feel uncomfortable. Addison interpreted this as a sign that Harry’s conduct had caused his spouse to suspect him of having romantic feelings towards women, leading his spouse to interfere with meetings with female students. She described this encounter and her subsequent feelings in an interview with The News-Letter.
“[I said to Harry that] I don't want to hear about what you might actually be thinking, because it's very uncomfortable. [...] [Harry] said that he doesn't find it uncomfortable…he went on to talk about how he thought my letter meant that I'm attracted to him. [...] And the next day, I emailed him, saying the entire experience yesterday was extremely uncomfortable,” Addison recounted.
In the interview, Addison mentioned how the misconduct made her feel disappointed in SAIS’s educational quality.
“I feel betrayed and disappointed ...as a student, his class is a criticism of the aid industry, so the entire class is about how transparency and accountability are crucial. [...] but now that this happened and he failed to provide me accountability for himself, I just feel like I can't believe in what he taught me in the course,” Addison stated.
Following a case processing with OIE, the office found no policy violation; however, they offered to establish a mutual no-contact directive (NCD), prohibiting communication from either side. Addison requested an apology and a unilateral NCD instead of a mutual one due to a power imbalance and lack of coverage in space sharing. For example, in situations where Addison must attend a conference where Harry is present, she would be the one to leave the space because of her lower status. OIE refused these requests.
“They kind of framed it... as an offer of support; they can initiate an NCD that applies to both me and the professor, but it's about communication only and not space sharing. [...] I was also saying that I wanted an apology, but they said that they do not support apologies of any kind, and they will not, under any circumstances, issue an NCD if the affected person wants an apology,” Addison said.
According to Addison, OIE did not clarify the reasoning behind their decision that Harry did not violate any policy. Following this encounter, Addison recalled how OIE stated that a unilateral NCD was illegal, unnecessary and a “burden” to Harry because Addison had already graduated from SAIS by the time the case resolved. Addison believed that this didn't make sense because an indefinitely applied, unilateral NCD couldn't burden the professor anyway. Following graduation, Addison avoided a professional conference where Harry attended due to feelings of discomfort around Harry.
Addison told The News-Letter that she has sent emails to OIE about the legality of her request, as per guidance from independent legal counsel. OIE has not responded to any of her emails for months.
Throughout the process, Addison also reached out to Harry’s co-professor in the class, a professor under the pseudonym “Mike,“ about the misconduct. According to Addison, Mike avoided her emails and violated the Responsible Employee Mandate by failing to communicate the knowledge she provided.
“[Mike] has not responded to any of my emails. And before this happened, I was actually messaging [him] about my job hunting, and he was responding. So it's because of this that he stopped responding,” Addison said.
The University did not find Mike responsible for any policy violations. Following the interview, Addison wrote to The News-Letter about how she wishes the professors would teach separately to remove the dynamic between them that resulted in the lack of accountability for Mike.
“In my view, the school has full justification to implement such a measure. [...] I have communicated this to the school multiple times, but they have stonewalled me,“ Addison said. “It’s mind-boggling to me that the school has done absolutely nothing with either instructors so far. It really does feel like 1) there is no point in reporting if nothing happens as a result of it, and 2) there is no point in having the Responsible Employee Mandate if there is no consequence for violating that mandate.”
In reflection of the process, Addison shared how she felt that OIE centered itself around protecting the school’s image rather than listening to student experiences, arguing that it offered her little support.
“I feel that the school is focused on branding itself and optics, not on the substance of the students' experience. When this happened, they did not provide any support, and they have had storable inquiries to them for over two months now [from me],” Addison stated. “I think what happened is definitely gender-based misconduct, and by basically letting those people teach us, as if nothing had happened, they kind of implicitly supported gender bias.”
Following correspondence with OIE, in an email to The News-Letter, Addison described how SAIS Vice Dean Chiedo Nwankwor CC’d SAIS Career Services in response to Addison’s complaint article about Harry’s class. As such, Addison’s real name was revealed to SAIS Career Services, which connects students to industry professionals.
“[Nwankwor] should not have revealed this information to Career Services when they are completely irrelevant to and had no role in this situation. That unit is directly involved in providing job search support. Revealing this can bias their perception of me and can affect my employment prospects. [...] Also, in that same email, she took care to hide [Harry’s] identity by not naming him, but took no such care in revealing my name,” Addison wrote.
SAIS administration has not responded to Addison’s inquiries on why Nwankwor CC’d SAIS Career Services.
Celeste’s story
On June 25, 2021, Celeste Marcus, executive editor of Liberties: A Journal of Culture and Politics, accused Yascha Mounk, a professor of political science at SAIS, of raping her. While Marcus was never a Hopkins student, OIE reached out to her to facilitate an investigation of Mounk. In an interview with The News-Letter, Marcus shared her experiences with OIE and its investigation process.
According to Marcus, on the night of her assault on June 5, 2021, she was on the roof of her building celebrating Mounk’s birthday. She had ended their sexual relationship, which she felt was coercive. That night, despite telling him she did not want to have sex, he raped her while she was sleeping.
In November, under pressure from OIE and the public, Marcus contacted the office to start the investigation. She stated that the investigation occurred from November 2021 to June 2022. Marcus said she did not want to initially share her case with OIE.
“They contacted me twice, asking me to [report]. I felt pressure from them. I would never have gone to them if they hadn't. [...] I [felt coerced] into a position in which actors that I did not choose got to judge whether or not I had been raped,” Marcus stated.
Upon Marcus’ request, the Council on Foreign Relations conducted an investigation using the same evidence given to OIE, which included text messages from Marcus detailing the sexual assault and his confirming answers to those messages. Following the Council’s investigation, it severed all ties with Mounk. However, the Council’s investigation results were never publicized.
“Once there was nothing even written down, they called me and told me as a courtesy, and this was because the woman who was conducting the investigation told me that she would do that as a courtesy for full transparency, so that I got to know. But she said, ‘I'm under no obligation to do this for you,’” Marcus stated.
OIE informed Marcus that it could not do anything because of a lack of evidence, which was originally sufficient for the Council. Specifically, due to the lack of witnesses to the sexual assault, OIE could not act on the case.
“What Hopkins told me was, because I didn't have anybody witness the rape, it was my word against his, and there was no way to establish that I was telling the truth. That is an absurd standard for rape. And if that isn't the standard that they are applying to any cases involving students, that's extremely concerning,” Marcus stated.
No document on OIE’s website confirms the exact burdens of proof to determine sexual assault violations.
Marcus also raised concerns over OIE’s investigation of her case, noting that OIE officials did not contact some of her given contacts.
“I gave both the council and Hopkins the same witnesses to speak to; two of them were friends of mine, who I had told right afterwards, and one of them was my boss, who was the first person I told in the office, and my publisher. [...] Hopkins never contacted him. They only spoke to two of the witnesses whose names I gave them, and I assume that that's because they decided that it didn't matter whether I had any corroborating evidence for things that happened afterwards,” Marcus said.
Marcus added that rapes rarely occur in the presence of another individual and argued that OIE presented an impossible standard to meet.
“What they said was, we're not NOT proving him guilty. We're just concluding that there's not sufficient evidence to decide that he's there,” Marcus stated. “That's not safe for anyone. No one should feel comfortable living in an environment like that. [...] [The University] owes it to its community to [...] take all accusations seriously. You can't be treating alleged victims as if they are a problem to be solved, which is certainly how it feels. [...] It certainly does seem like their heart is [toward protecting the University].”
Due to the sexual assault and the case’s handling, Marcus stated that she had to use therapy for long periods of time, with costs running in the thousands, which her company paid for. In January 2024, Marcus wrote to the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic, who had stopped publishing and working with him without formally investigating the matter.
Kelly’s story
A student, choosing to go under the pseudonym “Kelly,” shared her negative experience with the OIE process in an email to The News-Letter. Kelly brought a case against a student for sexual assault and recalled the minimal support she obtained from OIE throughout the investigative process.
“Though I believe they offered me some support via email, I recall it feeling cold, inaccessible, [as if] they were doing what they had to do to cover their own asses instead of actually caring about my feelings and recovery,” Kelly wrote. “The emails were super impersonal and not about helping the victim. The super-long process and recurring interviews were painful. [...] I was expected to talk to them frequently despite a 21-credit class load at the time.”
According to Kelly, OIE never told her that she could obtain a lawyer during the process. During the case, the respondent spread rumors about Kelly raping another friend and obtained a lawyer; Kelly affirmed to The News-Letter that OIE offered no support in light of these case developments.
“When my assaulter accused me of raping (his word, not mine) my friend, this was written plain as day in an email without warning. The entire lengthy process, frequent interviews, and lack of perpetrator punishment were nearly more scarring than the assault itself,” Kelly recalled.
One year after the investigation began, the respondent was found guilty. OIE assigned a delayed suspension penalty: He would not be suspended unless found violating another rule, and a 60-minute module on sexual assault.
“A year of my time spent advocating for myself, and OIE allowed him to get off with a mere 60-minute video? He did not have to resign from ANY of [his positions] post-verdict,” Kelly added. “Though I got some closure with his guilty finding, the OIE process provided little to no support in addition to [the case] being extremely retraumatizing.”
Following this case, Kelly expressed her frustration and disappointment with OIE, refusing to use it as a resource even in later situations. She emphasized the effects of seeing the respondent on campus.
“I will never go to OIE for anything again. After my boss and her husband got into a domestic dispute in front of me, OIE reached out and asked me to file a complaint with them. I vehemently refused,” Kelly said. “My assaulter is still on campus. Running into him has ruined several days over the course of the past year. I have needed several psychiatrists and therapy appointments to even begin healing.”
Kelly confirmed that OIE did not provide any therapeutic resources following the case’s decision.
SARU’s perspective
Following interviews with former complainants in the OIE process, The News-Letter consulted the Sexual Assault Resource Unit (SARU) as a whole to consult their thoughts on OIE’s investigative process, including metrics like support, case times and poor decision-making.
In an interview with The News-Letter, SARU Student Directors first addressed Title IX changes, which, in their opinion, made it difficult to help complainants bring in cases against respondents due to, for example, excess jargon that increases the burden of proof and makes the investigative process more difficult for complainants.
“For instance, it says schools must address sexual harassment if it's so severe AND pervasive, instead of severe OR pervasive, and so you have to meet those standards [of severity and pervasity] in order to even act on it as a Title IX case,” a SARU Student Director stated. “The rule that live cross-examinations are still allowed... can be really traumatizing for someone who has already been through the investigative process.”
Another example SARU provided was the concept of punitive measures, which can be subject to interpretation.
“[New Title IX regulations state that there] can't be any punitive measures against the person that the complainant is filing the case against. Then we ask, what is considered punitive? Is a no-contact order considered punitive if they're in the same class and they both need the class to graduate? And so there isn't really an exact answer or standard,” a SARU Student Director added.
SARU also highlighted how OIE’s cases should take 60 to 90 days, but the average in 2023 was 200 days. This amount included the day the report was filed to the day the case was closed, so it does not include the investigation.
When asked about specific policies, such as the Responsible Employee Mandate, SARU criticized OIE’s lack of transparency about the process and potential consequences of violating the mandate.
“By contract, [“responsible employees” are mandated to report]. There are a lot of cases where employees don't do that. And the thing is, we don't know how they're punished at all, if they are. We don't know what they're obligated to do and how they're supposed to do it,” a SARU Student Director replied.
OIE does not specify any consequences for violating the Responsible Employee Mandate in its Sexual Misconduct Policy. According to the University, in an email to The News-Letter, if employees are involved directly or indirectly in an OIE case, officials will examine the proper course of action on a case-by-case basis.
“OIE assesses each case individually and may recommend adjustments to teaching or research responsibilities to ensure safety and minimize disruption,” a University spokesperson wrote.
On the note of transparency, SARU also said that students are unaware of the evidence standards for sexual assault cases, resulting in unknown case proceedings. SARU highlighted that, in their experience, small differences in testimony can throw out cases.
“If you're being assaulted and you're recording your assault, but you clearly don't have the consent of your perpetrator, what's gonna happen with that evidence? No one knows if that's going to be acceptable or not,” a SARU Student Director said. “I've also heard of a case where little differences in testimonies can completely throw a case out. For instance, if you say, he pulled away from me, but your friend at the scene says he pushed her, they can throw the case out because those two things don't add up.“
When told about The News-Letter’s anonymous accounts of a lack of support during the OIE process, SARU acknowledged hearing similar sentiments from students, stating that many requests for services by students are not fulfilled.
When asked for a confirmation on OIE’s ability to provide resources, especially mental health resources, the University stated that it regularly delivers them in an email to The News-Letter.
“OIE connects parties to both confidential and non-confidential resources, which can include Mental Health Services, JHU Sexual Assault Hotline, Student Outreach and Support, JHU Public Safety, Johns Hopkins Employee Assistance Program, and many more. During an investigation, OIE offers interim measures, such as schedule adjustments and workspace changes, where necessary. OIE also offers referrals to on- and off-campus resources. These are designed to ensure safety and reduce stress during investigations,” a University spokesperson wrote.
SARU expressed concerns with OIE staff, highlighting that most staff, who are lawyers, serve to protect the University’s reputation rather than ensuring the well-being of victims.
“I remember someone saying [OIE staff are] basically the university's HR [department], so it's more about damage control than centering the people who are coming forward with their stories,” a SARU spokesperson commented.
In an email to The News-Letter, the University affirmed that OIE maintains independence from the University due to the office’s adherence to federal and institutional policies, sometimes even consulting independent legal counsel for certain cases. The University outlined the hiring process for OIE officials in their email.
“Staff are chosen based on their expertise in civil rights compliance, investigative procedures, and commitment to fostering a safe, inclusive university environment. All OIE investigators are attorneys licensed to practice in one or more states. [...] Finalists undergo interviews and pre-employment screenings, including background checks and reference verifications. Given the nature of OIE’s work, OIE investigators and management positions also require heightened screening to ensure compliance with institutional equity standards,” a University spokesperson wrote.
The proper training for OIE investigators and panel members is outlined in the Sexual Misconduct Policy document, which includes training on how to conduct an investigation, how to facilitate informal resolutions and how to identify bias. These trainings and their content are not outlined for public view.
In an email to The News-Letter, SARU affirmed that OIE serves as the institutional reporting resource for students, but other options exist for emotional resources.
“SARU sees OIE as a reporting system and institutional (but not emotional) resource for students. We recommend that students seeking confidential/private or community resources come to [Sexual Assault Resource Connectors (SARC)] drop-in hours, or contact a member of the Gender Based Violence Prevention, Education, and Response team for confidential support,” they wrote.
