by Lori Cruz
Staff Writer
A student who claims to have been date raped on campus has challenged the University of La Verne’s judicial review policy.
The complainant, whose name has been withheld by the Campus Times for privacy reasons, is dissatisfied with the process the University implements when a student takes a claim to Dr. Loretta Rahmani, dean of student affairs.
“Mostly my concern is what happens to the next girl who is raped on this campus. I don’t think the process is fair,” said the complainant.
One major aspect of the student’s claim is she feels the school violated the rape shield law, designed to “limit the right of the defendant to question the alleged victim in court.” There is some question as to whether this law would apply to the judicial review process, since it is not technically a court of law.
The complainant said, “I feel like I was raped again. I had to sit there, and talk to him. He is allowed to ask me a question, and I had to sit here and be interrogated by him. And I was not allowed to ask him a question.”
Dr. Rahmani conceded that the accused was allowed to question her in the hearing but added, “we are not a court of law.” She said that the judicial system is an “evolving process,” and she will look into this particular law.
The “Disciplinary Process at the University of La Verne” handbook states that there is “an opportunity for the charged student to hear all the information presented against him or her and to question adverse witnesses personally, not through the council.”
“This is so the person brought before the board has the right to question the witnesses. And we haven’t had it so the witnesses or the victim could question that person. So, again, if that’s something new that we have to add or change, we’ll look at that. Again, we are not a court of law,” said Dr. Rahmani.
The complainant, who went to the La Verne Police Department (LVPD) after the incident, felt the police, too, violated the rape shield law.
“The woman at LVPD asked me all kinds of questions that you’re not supposed to ask because of the rape shield laws like, ‘What were you wearing?’ ‘Have you been with him before?’” the complainant said.
LVPD declined to take the case.
Regarding ULV’s judicial process and what she believes is a violation of the rape shield law, the student said, “I could not tell [the board] what has happened to my life since the incident. I’ve read that I am supposed to be given the right to say, ‘This is how this has affected me over the months,’ and it was months before it went to the board.”
The complainant said the incident occurred in February. The judicial board heard the case in March.
Another aspect that is disturbing to the complainant is the lack of support she felt.
The student said she had “an image” that she was being supported in the beginning of the proceedings, but by the time she was out of the process, she said, ”I thought ‘Why did I even do anything?’ I should have said nothing like most women do.”
Dr. Rahmani said her office does what it can to offer support to students in situations such as this.
The judicial review board is made up of five members: an Associated Student Federation (ASF) Forum representative, two faculty members, the director of public safety and an area coordinator.
“All universities have a judicial process and varying types of peer review boards,” said Dr. Rahmani.
Dr. Gerard Lavatori, associate professor of French, who is one of the faculty members on the board, views the judicial review board as having a good reason for being, but says it does have its faults.
“I like the process. I think it is a good process but it does have its limitations,” he said.
The judicial board handles the claims that are of a serious or grave nature or that involve a repeat violator. The other route that a student may venture is to take her case to the Student Life Conduct Committee (SLCC). The SLCC is a board that is made up of students only. Dr. Rahmani decides where to send each particular case, but if the student has a suggestion which committee she prefers, the Dean will adhere to that.
Everyone involved in the hearing is bound by the Family Educational Rights of Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA) which states that information about a student is held confidential, including the content of judicial hearings.
Another issue that concerned the complainant was the fact that regardless of FERPA, many members of the ULV community were told about the case, including President Stephen Morgan and members of the University Relations office.
“Depending upon each case, I have some people whom I do inform, and it is within FERPA. I don’t tell University Relations names, but I say there was an incident reported to the police. Any incident reported to the police is up for grabs; it’s public information. The president is informed. He is an ultimate need-to-know person, so that if there are any repercussions, if anyone calls him, he needs to know so he’s not caught off guard. Again, we don’t tell names, we say there has been an incident,” Dr. Rahmani said.
The complainant also remarked that she and her friends were investigated about whether they had discussed the incident.
“Afterwards, my friends were questioned about if I had talked to them about the process because the guy had thought I had talked to someone about it. I was investigated about whether I talked and I felt like, ‘Why am I on trial?’” she said.
Dr. Rahmani justified the investigation and said, “Anyone can share the process of the judicial hearing but not the content. The only person who can share, legally, is the person brought before the board. If John Doe went before the SLCC, he could afterwards go, ‘Here is what happened, this is what my sanctions were,’ and that is OK, but nobody else could do that.”
Another challenge brought by the complainant is how board members are screened prior to a hearing to ensure that an unbiased, objective decision can be made.
The complainant said there were members at the hearing who knew about her situation prior to the hearing.
“In a court of law, you don’t get jurors who already know about the case,” she said.
This contradicts the policy that the members know nothing about the case until one half hour before the students involved in the complaint arrive, which brings about another concern from the student.
“For a half hour they meet for a rape case. That’s just astonishing to think that in a half hour [they] can tell them everything there is to know about the rape laws and what they can and can’t ask. They can’t do it. It’s impossible,” she said. “Any time you’re questioning a rape victim and you’re on a judicial board, you should know the rape shield laws.”
Dr. Lavatori said that in the cases he heard “a half hour was enough time to read through the material.”
“Typically that half hour is enough time for the judicial board or the SLCC to review all written documentation and be debriefed verbally,” Dr. Rahmani said. “But it is not based on my debriefing alone because there is the person brought before the board, there are witnesses.
“If there is a victim, the victim is brought in,” Dr. Rahmani said. “But if a half hour is not long enough, they take as long as they need.”
“It’s not if he is guilty or not, it’s the process that was not fair,” the student said. There is no recourse or an appeal process if the victim or accuser is unhappy with the hearing or the outcome.
The handbook does not specify that only the student brought before the board can request an appeal. Dr. Rahmani said, “this is something we will clarify.”
“If the student who has been sanctioned would like to appeal, they have five working days to appeal to the next highest level. There is no appeal for the accuser,” said Dr. Rahmani.
