Definitions

Related Definitions

1. Force or Coercion

   • Force: The use of physical violence and/or imposing on someone physically to gain sexual access. Force also includes threats, intimidation, and coercion to overcome resistance.
   • Coercion: An unreasonable amount of pressure, or an intimidating behavior. The use of emotional manipulation to persuade someone to do something they do not want to do or are reluctant to do, such as engaging in sexual activity or performing certain sexual acts, may constitute coercion. Coercing a person into having sex or performing sexual acts may vitiate consent, even when that consent otherwise may have been expressed by the subject in words or actions. Coercion may occur even where the parties are otherwise in an ongoing relationship, such as a romantic or dating relationship.

     Coercion is more than an effort to persuade, entice, or attract another person to engage in sexual activity. When a person makes clear that they do not want to participate in a particular form of sexual activity, that they want to stop, or that they do not want to go beyond a certain type of sexual activity, continued pressure can be coercive if it would reasonably place an individual in fear of immediate or future harm.

     In evaluating whether coercion was used, the frequency, duration, and intensity of the other person’s verbal or physical conduct or threats are all relevant, as is the degree of confinement or isolation to which the person was subjected. Coercion may be evidenced by an interaction that can reasonably be interpreted as indicating that a party will be harmed or restrained if they do not engage in sexual conduct.

2. Incapacitation

   When alcohol is involved, incapacitation is a state beyond drunkenness or being “buzzed” or intoxicated. When drug use is involved, incapacitation is a state beyond being under the influence or impaired by use of the drug. In general terms, the difference between intoxication or impairment, on the one hand, and incapacitation on the other, is that a person incapacitated by drug or alcohol use is incapable of appreciating that sexual activity is occurring or about to occur, or incapable of providing knowing, active, voluntary, present, and ongoing consent. Alcohol and other drugs impact each individual differently; some indicators of a lack of capacity to give consent due to consumption of drugs or alcohol may include:

   • Lack of full control over physical movements (for example, significant difficulty walking or standing without assistance, or stumbling about);
   • Lack of awareness of circumstances or surroundings (for example, lack of engagement with others in the environment, lack of an indication of awareness of where one is, how one got there, who one is with, or how or why one became engaged in ongoing interactions);
   • Lack of consciousness, or periodic episodes suggesting the person is “in and out” of consciousness; and/or
   • Inability to effectively communicate (for example, inability to communicate coherently, inability to follow or meaningfully participate in a discussion, significant slurring of speech, inability to complete thoughts or sentences, difficulty finding words).

   A person who is incapacitated but who may appear to be giving consent may not have the capacity to do so. When determining whether a person has the capacity to provide consent, the College will consider whether a sober, reasonable person in the respondent’s position knew or should have known that the other party was incapacitated, and as a result could not consent to the sexual activity. It is especially important, therefore, that anyone engaging in sexual activity is aware of both any other person’s level of intoxication and capacity to give consent. When a question is reasonably raised as to whether a potential partner is incapacitated by alcohol or drug use, one should assume that consent is not able to be given. Being intoxicated or impaired by drugs or alcohol also does not excuse one from the responsibility to obtain consent, or from ensuring that a potential partner is capable of consenting. Being intoxicated or impaired by drugs or alcohol is never an excuse to commit sexual violence, or to engage in nonconsensual sexual activity.

   Because the impact of alcohol and other drugs varies from person to person, the amount of alcohol and/or drugs a person consumes will not ordinarily be sufficient, without other evidence, to prove that they were incapacitated under this provision.

   Another effect of alcohol consumption can be memory impairment, or forgetting entire or partial events (sometimes referred to as “blackout” or “brown-out”). A person may experience this symptom while appearing to be functioning “normally,” including communicating through actions or words that seem to express an interest in engaging in sexual activity. Whether sexual activity with a person who is “blacked-out” constitutes a violation of this policy depends on the presence or absence of the observable factors that would indicate to a reasonable, sober person that a person is also incapacitated, as described above. Total or partial loss of memory, without more, is insufficient to demonstrate incapacitation.

3. Preponderance of the Evidence

   Preponderance of the evidence is the evidentiary standard used at Sarah Lawrence College to determine whether or not a Respondent, including any student, staff member, or faculty member, is responsible for violating the Policy on Sexual Violence. This standard requires that the preponderance of the evidence—the totality of the credible evidence, considered impartially—must establish that it is more likely than not that the Policy was violated.

4. Retaliation

   The College does not tolerate retaliation or discrimination against those who bring forward a report or make a Formal Complaint against any person and/or their family and friends, as well as any person who cooperates in the investigation of a report or a Formal Complaint, or who participates in the conduct process (either as a party or as a witness) for an alleged violation of the Policy on Sexual Violence.

   Anyone who believes they have been retaliated against as a result of their involvement with an investigation and/or conduct process for an alleged violation of the Policy should report the alleged retaliation to the director of human resources (for faculty and staff) or the dean of studies and student life (for students) immediately. The appropriate conduct action will be taken, which may be independent from any investigation into a report of sexual misconduct and/or the Formal Complaint Process, and sanctions for retaliation will range up to and including suspension or expulsion from the College in the case of a student who has retaliated, and up to and including termination of employment in the case of an employee who has retaliated. The Title IX coordinator may be consulted about allegations of retaliation, and retaliation allegations may be resolved within an investigation into the underlying report of sexual misconduct and/or the Formal Complaint Process, at the discretion of the Title IX coordinator in consultation with the director of human resources (for faculty and staff) or the dean of studies and student life (for students). For further information on the College’s general policy prohibiting retaliation, please refer to p. 62 of the Student Handbook.

Definitions of Roles Under This Policy

1. Adviser

   Students may select a single adviser of their choice. The adviser may be a parent, friend, faculty/ staff member, or a lawyer. The adviser must maintain confidentiality throughout the duration of their time serving as an adviser, and even after conclusion of the process. This includes a prohibition of public disclosure of information learned during the proceedings under this Policy. An individual is not obligated to serve as an adviser and may decline to do so if, for example, they perceive a conflict of interest in being one party’s adviser, conclude they may not effectively assist the party, or perceive the presence of any other compelling reason.

   At the student’s request, an adviser may be present at any meeting conducted as part of the process under this Policy. The role of the adviser is limited to the following:

   • Within any meeting or communication regarding the Formal Complaint (except questioning in the hearing, addressed separately below), the adviser may not speak on behalf of the student. The adviser may counsel the student and may seek reasonable breaks during meetings or discussions to allow such counseling to occur.
   • During the investigation, the adviser also may not speak on behalf of the student. The sole role of the adviser during the investigation is to provide private support and advice to the student outside of the interview. The adviser also may seek reasonable breaks during meetings or discussions to allow such counseling to occur.
   • During the hearing, the role of the adviser is to relay their party’s desired questions (subject to the Adjudicator determining the question is appropriate and relevant) to be asked of the other party or witnesses. Advisers are not permitted to raise objections to questions posed by the other party’s adviser or the Adjudicator, argue in support of their advisee’s position, or otherwise “represent” the advisee in the hearing. The parties and their adviser may consult in private during the hearing, but any break in the hearing for purposes of such consultation may not occur while a question is pending.

   If a student is unable or unwilling to procure an adviser of their choice, the College will appoint an adviser to the student, free of charge. While the student may determine the participation of the adviser during the investigation, the adviser must be present during the hearing in order to ask questions of the other party and witnesses, as stated above. Parties are prohibited from directly questioning any other party, or any witness, at any hearings conducted as part of the Formal Complaint Process.

2. Complainant

   The Complainant is an individual who has signed or endorsed a Formal Complaint alleging a violation of this Policy, and/or other applicable College policies, and has requested an investigation and hearing as part of a Formal Complaint Process.

   In the event the person who has experienced the alleged misconduct chooses not to file a Formal Complaint and the College files a Formal Complaint, the College will be deemed the Complainant and the person who experienced the alleged misconduct will be deemed a witness.

3. Hearing Coordinator

   The Title IX coordinator or the coordinator’s designee serves as the Hearing Coordinator. The Hearing Coordinator is responsible for overseeing the hearing procedure for all alleged violations of this Policy, including administrative and logistical assistance to the Hearing Adjudicator, disseminating the Adjudicator’s decisions, and maintaining the case records. The Hearing Coordinator ensures that the Complainant’s and the Respondent’s rights under these procedures are honored and that hearing procedures are followed.

   The Hearing Coordinator or the coordinator’s designee may be present for the hearing, but will not take part in the deliberations and outcome of the Hearing Adjudicator. However, the Hearing Adjudicator may call upon the Hearing Coordinator during their deliberations to answer questions about the conduct process, precedent, or other pertinent matters.

4. Hearing Adjudicator

   The Hearing Adjudicator hears and assesses Formal Complaints of alleged violations of the Policy, makes determinations of responsibility in such cases, and, if applicable, determines sanctions. The Hearing Adjudicator is a single individual specifically trained to adjudicate hearings within the Formal Complaint Process. In addition to training on the adjudication process, the training includes information on how to evaluate evidence impartially, engage trauma-informed sensitivity during hearings, and analyze facts and credibility.

   The potential Adjudicator may be excused in the event of a conflict of interest, lack of availability, or other valid reason, as determined by the Title IX coordinator, and in the Title IX coordinator’s sole discretion.

5. Investigator

   The College will designate Investigator(s), who may investigate reports and Formal Complaints made under the Policy. The Investigator(s) are responsible for overseeing and completing the investigation procedure and shall draft the Final Investigatory Report, which includes the Formal Complaint, relevant statements, summaries of interviews of the Complainant, the Respondent, and any relevant witnesses, relevant physical and documentary evidence, and, if appropriate, a credibility analysis.

6. Reporting Individual/Complainant

   The Reporting Individual is a person who reports an alleged violation of the Policy, but has not filed a Formal Complaint. The Reporting Individual may be the person who has been subjected to an alleged violation of the Policy or may be a third party (such as a witness or Mandated Reporter).

7. Respondent

   The Respondent is a person who has been alleged to have violated, and/or has been charged with an alleged violation of, the Policy in a Formal Complaint and/or other related conduct violations under other applicable College policies.

8. Witnesses

   Witnesses are identified as any person(s) with direct and/or relevant knowledge of the alleged Policy violation being reported, other than a Complainant or a Respondent. Witnesses may be individuals affiliated with the College community and individuals outside of the community