Title IX complaint filed: The survivor’s journey through UT’s sexual assault system

A federal Title IX complaint was filed against the University of Toledo by a former student who was sexually assaulted by another student.

The former student and survivor, who wishes to remain anonymous, began the process Apr. 8, 2014, by reporting the incident.

She spoke with a small group of UT’s staff — Dean of Students Tamika Mitchell, Student Conduct Officer Mary Martinez and the survivor’s advocate who is also a UT counselor — to explain what happened, and to decide which route she wanted to take.

The survivor decided to go through UT’s judiciary system, which she said began with them sending an email to the perpetrator. The email informed him what he was accused of and that after talking with him, they would decide if there was enough evidence to go through with the hearing.

The hearing, which was May 13, 2014, was described by the survivor as being a bit like a conference call. She said the perpetrator was in another room and had to call in. Both the survivor and the perpetrator were interviewed by the Student Conduct Hearing Board.

“He was found responsible for violating the student code of conduct policy and for violation of sexual assault, or sexual misconduct, on the premises of nonconsensual sex,” the survivor said.

Separately from the SCHB hearing, the survivor said she and the perpetrator were also interviewed by Kevin West, senior director of faculty relations and inclusion officer as well as UT’s Title IX investigator, and Melissa Auberle, labor relations compliance specialist.

The survivor recalls the interviews with West and Auberle to be “very biased.”

“They would ask leading questions, and then they would try to ask the same question but in a different way to see if I would not answer it the same way,” she said. “They did not take into consideration the symptoms of Rape Trauma Syndrome I was experiencing.”

West and Auberle found the perpetrator responsible, just like the SCHB, and agreed with their punishment for him. His sanction consisted of 10 hours of sexual assault education, a $25 fine, and one year of disciplinary probation.

The survivor said she appealed this to Kaye Patten Wallace, and that “they upped his sanctions to suspension for one year along with his previous sanction.”

The perpetrator’s sanctions were reduced back to what they were originally when he appealed the increase in his punishment.

The survivor was not allowed to re-appeal.

“I don’t understand how you can make the statement that my rape was not severe enough to suspend my rapist,” she said.

Following the interviews with West and Auberle and the hearing with the SCHB, West wrote a 19-page report about the incident.

His report, while finding the perpetrator responsible, also found the perpetrator more credible than the survivor because his story did not change at all and hers did.

The perpetrator was interviewed once, and the survivor was interviewed three times.

West’s report also said the survivor was able to remember too clearly the chronological order of what happened the night she was attack because she was drunk.

According to a recent article published online by the Blade, “In the last page of the 19-page report, Mr. West wrote that the rape was a ‘nonconsensual sexual encounter which is not serious enough to warrant the extreme punishment [the victim] has requested.’ (Expulsion.) Because the suspect had a ‘relatively clean criminal record [he] is not a danger to the University community,’ the report states.”

In addition to the hearing and interviews with West and Auberle, the survivor said she attempted to create a case with the UT Police Department.

UTPD told her because the rape happened off-campus, she would have to report to the Toledo Police Department instead.

She filed with TPD to try to file a civil protection order against him; TPD did not contact her until six weeks after she opened her case with them.

The survivor said “because the University of Toledo didn’t support me academically, I had to transfer to the University of Cincinnati in order to graduate in order to move and actually accept the position I was offered overseas,” and when she told TPD she was not in the area, they told her to come in and talk to them when she was in Toledo.

Because she was focused on trying to graduate, the survivor said she could not make it back, and instead called TPD to ask if she could talk to them over the phone to start her case.

She said she was told not to call them unless she was in Toledo.

TPD eventually contacted her advocate, advising the survivor to close the case because she would be moving abroad and would have to be subpoena-ed back, and it wouldn’t be for a set period of time.

The survivor said she would be flying back and forth over and over between the two countries, which she said would not be healthy for her, so she closed the case.

Her case within UT’s judiciary board is also closed now.

“The university is just as guilty as my rapist. Moreover, they are just as guilty of promoting the rape epidemic and rape culture we’re living in,” the survivor said. “Until the University of Toledo believes rape is more severe than plagiarism, they will continue to fail victims. Rapists will continue to be a part of the campus and the university will be a welcoming host.”

She felt the whole process with UT and how her case was handled was “ridiculous,” so she submitted a Title IX complaint.

It is up to the federal department of education to decide whether or not to launch an investigation.

If they decide to go through with the investigation, the survivor said both she and UT will be contacted, and it will be made public.