College Implements Anti-Stalking Policy

In a blog post on Sept. 25 Dean of the College Shirley Collado announced the establishment of the College’s anti-stalking policy as well as an enhanced sexual misconduct policy, which notably expands the definitions of consent and substantial impairment. College officials hope that the changes will encourage more victims to report sexual misconduct and harassment amidst concern that many incidents go unreported.

Over the summer, Human Relations Officer Sue Ritter worked with Associate Dean for Judicial Affairs and Student Life Karen Guttentag to draft the anti-stalking policy. Administrators explained that the policy was not created in response to any significant increase in the reported cases of stalking on campus, but rather as a preemptive initiative designed to give students further protection from behavior that has become increasingly prevalent nation-wide.

“Nationally, stalking and cyber-stalking — including bullying — has become an important issue,” said Collado. “We wanted to be at the cutting edge of what’s happening nationally, [and be] proactive. We wanted to have the type of policy that would support students when they would come to us with that type of concern.”

In selecting appropriate language and guidelines for the anti-stalking policy, the administrative team looked to examples provided by Vermont state law, and the policies of peer institutions such as Dartmouth College, Colby-Sawyer College and Tufts University.

According to the Middlebury College handbook, stalking is defined as follows: “Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which includes but is not limited to following, lying in wait, or harassment, and: serves no legitimate purpose; and would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or health or would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress.” (Italics added for emphasis).

Administrators were careful to include forms of non-verbal communication in their definition of stalking in recognition of the rapidly-changing technological landscape, such as “sending unwanted/unsolicited email or talk requests … installing spyware in the person’s computer … [or] using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to monitor the person.”

“When we conduct investigations, particularly in the harassment context, technology is inevitably a part of that,” said Ritter. “In most cases, there will be text messages, Facebook messages and emails … We’re striving to undertake the most thorough investigation possible while still mindful of privacy concerns.”

In addition to the new anti-stalking policy, the College’s sexual misconduct policy was also expanded over the summer in order to provide greater protection and transparency for students. Administrators hope the revised policy will encourage greater levels of reporting and will prove to be a more useful guideline for the members of the Sexual Misconduct Review Panel, the committee that bears the responsibility of adjudicating student cases.

Among other alterations, the policy has been modified to address alcohol and drug use in cases of sexual assault.

The new policy determines that consent is not given when: “From the standpoint of a reasonable person, the respondent knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person’s judgment was substantially impaired as a result of alcohol or drugs, or the person was incapable of providing knowing or voluntary consent due to a physical or mental condition.” (Italics added for emphasis).

Ritter explained that in applying an appropriate standard for adjudication, the administration uses the “reasonable person” standard, which is an objective standard typically used in civil trials.

“In deciding these cases, standards need to be objective,” she said. “You also want to make sure that when you are judging someone’s conduct, you judge that person’s conduct in context.”

Ritter further explained the “reasonable person” standard, by providing a hypothetical scenario. “Even if I am drunk, and I can’t really ascertain whether or not the person I am with is giving consent, my conduct is going to be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable, unimpaired person standing in my shoes at the time,” said Ritter. “Intoxication is not a defense in a sexual assault case.”

President of Feminist Action at Middlebury Ashley Guzman ’13 was supportive of alterations to the sexual misconduct policy, but wondered whether or not students would understand the changes.

“I understand [the handbook] needs to be clear, and structured, but this [language] isn’t accessible. I don’t think students know the full range of events that can qualify as assault, and I’m not sure this will help,” she said.

Guzman suggested that it might be helpful for students if hypothetical scenarios were included in the handbook, similar to the example provided by Ritter.

The policy changes build upon significant alterations to the sexual misconduct judicial procedure that were initially implemented in 2011, when changes were made to the policy that allowed a complainant to proceed with an investigation without having to testify in front of a judicial board. The changes are a response to one of the most commonly cited criticisms of the old system.

Under the new procedure, the complainant, respondent and all witnesses are asked to give their testimony to an independent investigator, and both the complainant and respondent are allowed to respond to all claims by both parties before the investigator ever submits their recommended finding to the panel.

“You sit down, in a quiet, private room with a trained investigator, and explain what happened,” said Ritter. “If, after the interview, you want to come back and provide more information, you can do that. The complainant and the respondent will also see all of the evidence in the case before the investigator makes a recommended finding, and both of them will have a chance to respond to the evidence in a considered and deliberate way.”

While it is estimated that nationally one in five women will experience sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault during her time at college, many cases go unreported. College administrators are hopeful that the changes will promote higher rates of reporting of cases of sexual assault and sexual misconduct.

According to the College’s most recent Crime Report Statistics — which includes reports from 2008 to 2011 — there has been an average of four reported cases of forcible sexual offenses per year.

“This is a serious situation,” said Ritter. “We know that sexual assault is underreported. We’re hoping that this policy together with the resources we have on campus will encourage people to report.”

The College has not seen an increase in the number of reported cases of sexual assault since the policy was implemented last fall, though administrators expect that such changes will take time.

“At the end of the day we just want people to trust the process,” Ritter said. “And we want them to understand that for both sides, our goal is to treat them in a fair, unbiased and respectful manner. It’s an ordeal to have to relive the incident all over again in the course of an investigation, and we are very sensitive to that.”

“We want people to take their time, be as comfortable as possible and trust us,” she added.