VAWA Renewal Could Spell Change
To some, the “preponderance of the evidence” standard is “crucial to the fair and equal treatment of women.” To others, it is a “fatally flawed” path to “injustice” that erodes the rights of students.
In recent months, an expired piece of legislation has placed a few words of legal jargon, tucked away in the disciplinary codes of colleges and universities all over the country, at the forefront of a polarizing national debate. The argument centers around a charged question: how much evidence should an institution of higher education require to find an accused student guilty of sexual misconduct?
The preponderance of the evidence standard might not mean much to the average American, but to many of the activists watching Congress debate the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, it is a pivot point for the future of America’s universities. Those four words have been caught in the middle of a months-long battle to renew the legislation, which contains new provisions that explicitly regulate the sexual assault investigations conducted by institutions of higher education.
An early draft of VAWA contained language which would have mandated colleges and universities to adopt the standard, which would make it easier to discipline students accused of sexual misconduct. But last week, the U.S. Senate approved a version of VAWA that dropped the clause entirely. The Senate’s bill must still be reconciled with a rival version in the House of Representatives before it can be signed into law by President Barack Obama.
For schools like Harvard, which do not use the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Senate’s bill offers a momentary reprieve from external pressure to adopt a lower burden of proof. But even though it does not legally require Harvard to alter its standard of evidence, the bill still leaves the door open for federally mandated changes in the way the Administrative Board handles cases of sexual assault.
Drafted in 1994 by then-senator Joe Biden, VAWA allocated federal funds to help streamline the investigation and prosecution of violent crimes against both men and women.
The act was reauthorized in 2000 and 2005 with bipartisan support, but hit a snag when it was considered for renewal in 2012. House Republicans objected to new provisions that extended parts of the legislation to Indian reservations and undocumented immigrants. Ultimately, differences between the versions of the bill drafted by the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Republican House prevented the legislation from being renewed before 2013.
At the same time, a separate debate raged over new portions of the bill that concerned sexual assault on college campuses. An early draft of VAWA incorporated much of the language of the Campus SaVE Act, a bill that Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey introduced in 2011 to reduce sexual violence on college campuses. Among other changes, the bill would have mandated that colleges and universities adopt the preponderance of the evidence metric when investigating sexual assault cases.
The standard, which is also the legal burden of proof used in U.S. civil courts, would require that a university’s disciplinary body be at least 51 percent convinced of a student’s guilt before meting out a punishment for a sexual offence. Compared to the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal courts that deal with sexual assault, a preponderance of the evidence rule requires less certainty.
Currently, Harvard has no standardized burden of proof for disciplinary proceedings across its various schools. The Law School uses the more stringent “clear and convincing evidence” standard—typically considered to require about 80 percent certainty of guilt—and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences mandates that the members of the Administrative Board be “sufficiently persuaded” of an accused student’s guilt before assigning a punishment.
While the Law School’s standard has been criticized for making it difficult for victims to attain justice, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ standard has come under fire for being too vague.