Changes in the 2016 to 2017 Rights and Responsibilities handbook include a new option for resolving some sexual harassment cases, as well as stronger language on sexual harassment punishments. Students received the handbook via email on Aug. 19.

Restorative Justice

Brand new to the Special Examiner’s process — the method by which the University investigates sexual harassment or assault cases — is a concept called “Restorative Justice,” inspired by a similar system at Skidmore College. Restorative Justice, or RJ, can only be used in cases that do not involve physical contact such as forced penetration or non-consensual physical contact. RJ is an alternative to the formal sanctioning panel that would usually discipline a student found guilty of sexual misconduct. If both the complainant and the respondent agree to it, then, under RJ, the two parties will meet together and talk about the case. If RJ is successful, the parties will determine for themselves at the meeting how to proceed and what sanctions to put in place. If no agreement can be reached, the case will proceed to a traditional sanctions board.

Additionally, the outcomes administrator — essentially the equivalent of a judge in a Special Examiner’s case — has to offer RJ as an option after the respondent has already been found guilty. The complainant must agree to using Restorative Justice before it is offered as an option to the respondent.

“It places a lot of emphasis on the community and the culture, and as you study more about Restorative Justice, it’s all about repairing harm and repairing those relationships. We really just felt like for our community, it really made so much sense,” Senior Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Sheryl Sousa ’90 said in an interview with the Justice.

In theory, an RJ session could result in a student responsible for sexual harassment not receiving any punishment, but Sousa says this is “highly unlikely,” since both the complainant and respondent have to agree to the final outcome. While the University is implementing RJ “in a very specific way” for the moment, if the process is successful, RJ may be broadened or used in other contexts. “I think the concepts of RJ are ones that are really valuable tools. … I think in informal ways, our staff is going to try to [explore] some of these elements as we can,” Sousa said.

RJ programs exist at over 60 colleges across the country, according to Skidmore’s Project on Restorative Justice. Restorative Justice programs are being used in prison systems, college campuses and community-level crime prevention, according to the Skidmore project.

David Karp, the Skidmore program’s director, wrote in an email to the Justice that Brandeis will be “one of the pioneers in Title IX application” of RJ, adding, “Success happens when the parties participate voluntarily and when the offender is willing to accept responsibility. Generally, when this occurs, we find very high satisfaction rates and positive student learning … It's also best when RJ is used for a variety of purposes from student misconduct to community building in residential and campus life.”

Language shifts

In last year’s handbook, “Education and Training” and “Disciplinary Warning” were listed as possible sanctions for students found responsible for sexual harassment, sexual exploitation or non-consensual physical contact. This year, however, the only possible sanctions are “University Restrictions, Disciplinary Probation, Suspension or Dismissal.” All students found guilty of sexual harassment or assault will receive an educational component to their sentence, unless they are expelled from the school.

Sousa explained, “In reality, what often happens is that educational training is a part of every sanction; it’s coupled with something else. So rather than having it listed as a stand-alone, there was some language added to the beginning that says ‘Educational training will be part of every sanction, along with something else.’” As for why “Disciplinary Warning” was cut, Sousa says that the term was a holdover from past handbooks and that “there isn’t a lot of difference between Disciplinary Warning and Probation, so it just was redundant.”

The changes dovetail student protests over light sentences for students found guilty of sexual assault and harassment. During summer 2014, Joseph Babeu ’15 posted a letter from the University on Facebook saying that a student whom he claimed had sexually assaulted him was found guilty under the Special Examiner’s process but would face only a disciplinary warning and educational curriculum. Both students involved claimed the University mishandled the case, provoking national media attention and student outcry.

Other changes

The handbook also includes a clear process for informal Title IX investigations, unlike last year’s handbook, which referred to informal investigations but didn’t explain the distinction between formal and informal cases. A Title IX investigation, this year’s handbook explains, is “informal” if the person bringing the case chooses not to start the Special Examiner’s process, which means that the student being investigated won’t be charged with any actual wrongdoing.

Because of that, even if someone is found to have committed sexual harassment or assault in an informal investigation, they won’t face any sanctions or punishments. However, “protective measures” can be put in place, like a No Contact Order, restriction of the respondent’s movements or relocation to another residence hall.

The University also includes a full definition of a “No Contact Order” for the first time in this year’s Rights and Responsibilities handbook.

According to the handbook, when someone files a sexual misconduct claim, the Dean of Students can immediately prohibit the respondent from making any intentional contact with the person filing the complaint. This means the respondent can’t talk to the complainant, contact them online or communicate through a third party.

“It is understood that the nature of the Brandeis University environment does not mean that the complaining party will not see the responding party on campus,” the handbook states. Instead, students are expected to follow “reasonable compliance.” Each No Contact Order includes written guidelines specific to each case for preventing contact. It’s always the respondent’s responsibility to remove themselves from contact with the person who filed the claim, including in chance encounters like passing each other on the street.

One of the larger additions is a new appendix outlining all of the requirements for registering an official party or event on campus. The outline is based off of new policies piloted last semester, including a ban on hard liquor handles. Director of the Department of Community Living Tim Touchette wrote in an email to the Justice that “large containers have an obvious and understandable correlation to mass consumption and binge drinking, so to minimize that risk, the limitation of large bottles of hard alcohol went into effect. You will remember there was a ban on all hard alcohol at the start of last year, and based on the findings of the community council that was assembled this modification was proposed and adopted.”

Other alterations include a formal definition of “bullying,” as well as a clarification that students caught smoking cigarettes or lighting incense indoors will face fines.