Initial Reports From Early Adopters of Restorative Justice for Reported Cases of Campus Sexual Misconduct: A Qualitative Study

McMahon, Sheila M.; Williamsen, Kaaren M.; Mitchell, Heike B.; Kleven, Anna

doi:10.1177/10778012221108419

Cited by 6 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Even in progressive states like California, “the ‟carceral creep”—the troubling alignment of organizations with law enforcement procedures—of IHE sexual assault policy undermines the feminist change called for by anti‐violence activists. A primary motivation for seeking out alternative resolution processes like restorative justice is dissatisfaction with Title IX process (McMahon et al., 2023), particularly from those in marginalized communities with long histories of police violence. But even restorative justice processes may not address at the policy or practice level the experiences of those who have had harmful experiences on campus but for a variety of reasons do not label those experiences as sexual assault or themselves as survivors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy whiplash: How California Title IX coordinators navigated local, state, and federal policy changes during the Trump administration

Eriksen,

Valdivia,

Chib

2024

Anal Soc Iss & Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Federal Title IX policy requires institutions of higher education (IHEs) to prevent and respond to sexual misconduct. Based on 23 in‐depth interviews, this study explores California Title IX coordinator experiences at a critical policy juncture—the recension of the Obama‐era guidance and the implementation of the Trump administration Title IX rules and regulations—to understand how they responded to, implemented, or resisted federal mandates. Most California Title IX officers reported that the recension of Obama guidelines had limited impact on their daily operations because they lived in a state with more progressive social policy. Participants singled out California case law, state statues, the California Education Code and university system mandates as protective legislation to ensure survivors’ rights. By contrast, the new Title IX regulations that became law in August 2020 were perceived as more consequential. The tight implementation time frame, combined with the complicated and unfunded policy directives, imposed heavy burdens on their administrative offices. Title IX officers foresaw implementation consequences to campus safety, survivors’ willingness to report, and to the credibility of the Title IX office. Taken together, their experiences lend support to progressive state legislative action, restorative justice approaches and for a survivor bill of rights as important counterpoints to federal Title IX policy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%