Sexual assault on college campuses is something that, unfortunately, many students are familiar with. While the topic is uncomfortable for some, it is nevertheless an important conversation to have not only because 23 percent of women and 21 percent of trans and non-binary students will experience sexual assault on college campuses, but also because universities proclaim themselves as being one of the only resources for reporting such incidents.

To provide adequate support, Title IX policies and processes should be straightforward and survivor-centered. However, when survivors attempt to report a debilitating incident, they are faced with a long, traumatic and complicated process that discourages them to the point that it comes as no surprise that universities constantly underreport and undercount sexual assault on campus.

NYU’s Title IX office deals with issues related to “sexual or gender-based bullying, discrimination, harassment, and violence”. It protects students and allows them to report incidents that may compromise NYU’s Sexual Misconduct, Relationship Violence and Stalking Policy.. They provide resources for mental health and moral support as well as arm students with potential measures that they may take. If the Complainant (the student reporting the incident) decides to file a formal investigation against the Respondent (the student alleged to have done misconduct under the NYU Title IX policy), they would first have to file a Formal Complaint. This Formal Complaint is a detailed description of the incident and is sent to the Respondent for comments and/or revisions after the Complainant submits it. The Title IX Office will then decide whether or not the incident falls under the Title IX conduct policy and whether to go through with a formal investigation.

Alina Nowak, Class of 2022, claims that the process of sending the detailed description of the incident to the Respondent made her extremely uncomfortable. “I went through a very traumatic experience and I don’t want my assaulter or — as they [the Title IX Office] told me to call him, the Respondent to read through all of the things that he did to me. Just thinking about that, that he will read all about it, and read about my feelings, that makes me deeply uncomfortable and makes [me] have a panic attack…”

Still, the review of the Formal Complaint by the Respondent is not the only interaction that the Complainant and the Respondent will have with each other during the process. When the evidence has been collected by the Investigator, after some paperwork and long interviews, the Respondent and the Complainant are both present for the Hearing in which they are assigned an Advisor. The mere fact that the Respondent will be present during the meeting discouraged all three of the students interviewed in this article from pursuing the official process further. Although it is not required for both parties to be present at the Hearing, any statements made by an absent party during the Investigation will not be considered since they have not been cross-examined. To rephrase, if a Complainant chooses not to attend the Hearing because of understandable reasons such as mental strain and trauma from seeing the Respondent, any claims and statements that they have provided in the Investigation will not be considered.

Moreover, Zaria Smith, Class of 2022, claimed that in her meeting, the Title IX Office representative invalidated her experiences because the Formal Complaint also needs to be reviewed for whether it falls under Title IX. “At least that’s how they made me feel, as they continuously brought up ‘of course, if your experiences are even considered for Title IX.’ Throughout the whole call with them, they were super official and [it] makes sense, it’s a legal matter, but for me personally it seemed they did not wish to do the process. They continuously mentioned that it’s a super long process and they try to make it as quick as possible but still they can’t promise anything.”

Nowak recalled something similar. “If the Title IX Office decides that our description of the incident classifies under the ‘sexual assault’ category, the investigation consisting of multiple interviews will start. That was extremely triggering to me since [the representative] would not state what is classified under a “sexual assault,” but that the office will need to decide if the incident is serious enough for them to start the formal investigation. That really made me start doubting if I was actually sexually assaulted or if that is not enough for the admin to take any action.”

It is understandable that such a process is lengthy. Incidents that may violate official Student Conduct policies should be examined in full. However, the process is also extremely traumatic and difficult for the Complainants and seems to yield few consequences if the Respondent is found responsible. The process consists of multiple, long interviews that sometimes last more than three hours, where the Complainant has to list all details related to the incident. Then, an Investigator gathers all possible evidence, which usually takes about a month (but may take more depending on the circumstances) and then the hearings begin. After the hearings, if the Respondent is found responsible and is penalized by the withdrawal of campus privileges and/or other sanctions, they (the Respondent) can appeal this decision as well, dragging out the process even longer. In the official Title IX Misconduct policy, a specific time frame is not mentioned, but it usually takes between 2 to 12 months.

This will strike many students as absurdly long. Again, it is understandable that the process needs to be as rigorous as possible. However, the length of the process also means that many Complainants will be hesitant to proceed with such a lengthy, traumatic and difficult process, in which they would constantly need to be reminded of what they went through and how it affected them, as well as prove to strangers that this is, in fact, something that has happened to them. The length of the process also excludes many students that may have gone through an incident in their senior year or their last semester. Title IX policies, rules and sanctions only apply to students that are currently attending the university in question and thus, if the process takes six months or even longer, that would pose a big question for Complainants — why would one go through such a process in the first place if the process would not even yield any satisfactory results? The question becomes even more complicated if the Respondent is also in their senior year or last semester — why would one go through such a process when any potential sanctions against the Respondent would no longer be applicable by the end?

It is now time to examine the sanctions and revocation of privileges of the Respondent if they are found responsible for the incident. Many sanctions can be applied to the Respondent — warnings, censure, the revoking of study away privileges, dismissal from housing, suspension from NYU and so on. These might strike some as insufficient consequences, however, even if we accept that, for example, revocation of study away privileges is an appropriate response to sexual assault, that still doesn’t mean that the sanction could be sufficiently applicable to the Respondent — for instance, study away revocation doesn’t seem that big of a deal if you’re a senior who has already had two study aways.

What else, then, can the Title IX Office provide in terms of resources for further investigation of an incident? While the Title IX law in the U.S. refers to civil rights, and in particular, the right to pursue higher education without any difficulties stemming from gender-based bullying and harassment, it is undeniable that sexual assault is a criminal offense. In the three separate meetings that the students in this article have had with the Title IX Office, any help concerning reporting the incident to the authorities was not offered nor even mentioned. Academics have argued that infringements on the Title IX policies do not, and should not, mandatorily involve the police or other authorities. The reason for this is that some people, disproportionally from marginalized communities, would not be comfortable involving the authorities in their incidents. However, this does not mean that the Title IX Office should not offer some help or guidance on reporting to authorities or at least mention that as an option. Some people may respond that it might not be the responsibility of the university to offer help in these situations, but the university should bear some responsibility considering that the criminal offense may have occurred on university grounds and was committed by students who are currently attending and making use of university academic resources and facilities.

Of course, this official process is not the only way for students to report misconduct or for the university to adhere to Title IX protocol. Complainants also have the option to go down the less formal and significantly shorter route of Restricted/No-Contact requests which fall into two types: Institutional No-Contact Directive, where the Complainant and Respondent are forbidden to make contact with each other to prevent harassment, and Persona Non-Grata Directive, where one or both the students would be forbidden to enter a specific building or participate in a university program or activity. However, in order to go down the Persona Non-Grata Directive route, Nowak and Smith were both told that the Respondent must also accept the restrictions. If they do not accept them, then there is nothing the university can do to make the Complainants feel safer.

A third option is the Restorative Justice option, in which the Complainant and the Respondent would have a discussion facilitated by a member of the Title IX Office to reach an understanding of the incident and gain closure. Amanda Hennigar, Class of 2022, shared that the proposal of this option felt highly insensitive in her case. “[Restorative Justice] feels like a slap in my face. My assaulter could assault other [students] on campus. A conversation between me and him would do nothing about this, and it would also make me feel horrible.” Nowak mentioned how the representative from the Title IX office said that this option is still “under construction.”

The Title IX official procedure involving a Formal Complaint is a long and traumatic process that might yield little to no results, especially if either the Complainant or the Respondent is in their senior year of study. The other options seem to not be of any help in ensuring that the Respondent (if responsible for the incident) would not continue to endanger the safety of other students. With almost no help to students wanting to make a case with the authorities, nor knowledge on how to do this in countries with different laws than the U.S., survivors of sexual assault on NYU campuses are deeply disillusioned about the benefits that the Title IX office can provide them with.

Until policy changes happen to address these issues, it comes as no surprise that word-of-mouth or “black book” lists occur on university campuses to ensure that students have some sort of protection from dangers posed by certain members of the student body — even if it runs the risk of harmful gossip. Thus, as students, who also have friends who are survivors of sexual assault, we not only owe survivors our moral and emotional support, but also our input and voices on how to make university policies build a safer campus environment.