New UC Title IX live hearing process will hurt system it is meant to protect

The saying goes, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

But when it comes to Title IX, California has a different approach: If one piece is broken, destroy the entire thing.

Until January, students who were sexually assaulted on campus had two options: They could bring their case to criminal court, or go through their campus Title IX office, which allowed for a relatively private investigative process.

Now, that’s changed – the University of California Title IX office recently adapted its process to include a live hearing during investigations. This amendment came as the result of a California appellate court decision earlier this year that ruled live hearings were necessary when students were facing severe disciplinary measures, or when cases relied on the credibility of witnesses. In other words, most cases.

And make no mistake – the most vulnerable students will be left to deal with the fallout.

This amendment to University Title IX proceedings is by no means intended to support due process. Instead, it will only deter students from reporting, as they will now be forced to relive their trauma through a process of live hearings, which their alleged attackers will be a part of. And despite a slew of research supporting low rates of false reporting, this court mandate rolls back years of legislation designed to protect people who have experienced sexual harassment and assault – instead, giving more power to accused students.

So much for justice.

The UC has done what it can in terms of specific proceedings, but the policy remains. And despite attempts to improve it, the University still has to deal with the deeply flawed nature of the court’s decision.

Suzanna Taylor, the director of the systemwide Title IX office at the UC Office of the President, said the revisions were made directly in response to the court’s ruling.

“We did not have an intention of creating a live hearing process outside of the appeal that already existed, absent this court’s decision,” Taylor said. “The court told us we had to have a live hearing, and so we put a lot of thought into trying to create a process that would treat the students as well as they could possibly be treated throughout.”

But that quickly becomes difficult when the accusers are treated as if they’re the ones on trial.

Sophia McMurry, a fourth-year philosophy student, Campus Assault Resources & Education peer educator and platforms director for the Student Wellness Commission, said the process of reporting a traumatic experience to an authority figure is already a difficult experience.

“When you apply something like a hearing on top of that, that further disadvantages the already most disadvantaged groups on campus,” McMurry said.

Not only does this ruling deter survivors from speaking up, it steals their voices, handing power to the accused students.

If the accused is given a decision in their favor, the only way the accuser can appeal that decision is to invoke a live hearing – something they would be understandably hesitant to do. And if the accused is found guilty, they can immediately appeal that decision – forcing the accuser into a live hearing once again.

And this is only a small part of a larger pattern.

In fact, these changes came on the heels of a slew of lawsuits directed at universities including UCLA, largely from male students who felt they had been denied due process in their Title IX cases. This court case just happened to be the one that brought it all tumbling down.

Aishwarya Natarajan, a fourth-year molecular, cell and developmental biology student and CARE peer educator, said the implications of this ruling will be detrimental to students using the Title IX office as a resource.

“When you start to limit the avenues a survivor can go through, you’re also inadvertently making it much harder for survivors to seek the kind of help and resources they need,” Natarajan said.

Between reproductive health access and climate policies, California is a more progressive state than most. Maybe that is why it comes as a surprise that its courts are so quickly bullied into submission by young men with good attorneys and no concept of personal responsibility.

“I don’t think we need to get rid of an entire system that adequately and appropriately reflects the standard of evidence that should be given to a violation of the school code of conduct,” McMurry said.

She’s right – despite its issues, the UC Title IX office has worked to make itself a safe place for people who have experienced sexual harassment and assault. According to Taylor, reporting has increased in the past few years – something she attributes to a concerted effort on the part of the department.

But in the wake of this court decision, maintaining those numbers seems like an uphill battle.

It isn’t as if the UC hasn’t been expecting this – the U.S. Department of Education has long threatened a similar, if not more dire, adaptation of the Title IX proceedings within universities. And that could still happen.

The only thing unexpected was that a California court beat the White House to it.

Granted, people are falsely accused of sexual assault or harassment – though it is rare. And when it does happen, they too deserve justice. But live hearings aren’t the way to approach those cases – largely because they don’t reflect the intentions of the Title IX system.

It is the job of the criminal courts to implement cross examinations and a trial by jury – and to hand out a punishment that befits that system of justice. But Title IX is not a criminal court, and its standards of due process are not intended to match those of one. Likewise, neither are its consequences.

There are a lot of broken pieces within the UC, but Title IX proceedings weren’t among them.

Now, thanks to a court’s bad decision, they’re all but destroyed.