Stanford University has dropped a lawyer representing students in sexual assault cases after she complained that the University’s internal process for handling such cases is too rigid and shouldn’t need a unanimous decision to “convict” someone of sexual assault.
Crystal Riggins was one of the six lawyers Stanford had employed to provide legal counseling to students involved in the complaints, under the provisions of Title IX, a federal law designed to protect women on campus. Riggins exclusively represented the accusers.
According to the New York Times, a Stanford administrator, Lauren Schoenthaler, emailed the lawyer on January 31, informal her she was being dismissed following her comments to the New York Times that the University’s process to convict people of sexual assault is too strict and difficult. In the article, Riggins slammed Stanford’s requirement that a three-member panel must reach a unanimous decision to find an accused student guilty.
“It is very difficult to get a 3-0 decision from a panel, and these young women are terrified and traumatized and just want it to be done,” she told the paper in December.
The administrator said the comments showed “a lack of faith in Stanford’s Title IX Process” and were “disappointing.” She added: “Given your stated lack of confidence, it does not make sense for the University to continue to refer our students to you.”
A statement by Stanford, however, refuted the allegations made by Riggins, claiming that “there has been no case where a split vote has prevented a finding of liability -– that is, where a panel has divided 2-1 in favor of finding responsibility –- which is the concern expressed by critics of the process.”
The Title IX provisions regarding how universities must handle sexual assault cases have been under fire for often lacking due process rights for the accused; and for how accusers only get amateur legal help rather than professional support as found in actual courts.
The university “judicial” panels, made up of faculty members, are also criticized for applying a lower standard of evidence than criminal courts, leading to botched prosecutions.
