U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

28–426 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018

S. HRG. 113–894 

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT: 

THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND TERRORISM 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DECEMBER 9, 2014 

Serial No. J–113–76 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

KRISTINE LUCIUS, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND TERRORISM

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island, Chairman 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina, 

Ranking Member 

TED CRUZ, Texas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

AYO GRIFFIN, Democratic Chief Counsel 

DAVID GLACCUM, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 9, 2014, 10:04 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa ............................ 3 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Schumer, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ................... 4 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ...... 1 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 33 

Fleischer, Angela, Assistant Director, Student Support and Intervention for 

Confidential Advising, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, Oregon .......... 10 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York ............... 6 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

McCaskill, Hon. Claire, a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri .................... 4 

Langhammer, Peg, Executive Director, Day One, Providence, Rhode Island .... 16 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 58 

Zoner, Kathy R., Chief of Police, Cornell University Police, Ithaca, New York . 13 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Angela Fleischer by Senator Franken ........................... 63 

Questions submitted to Angela Fleischer by Senator Grassley ........................... 66 

Questions submitted to Peg Langhammer by Senator Franken .......................... 64 

Questions submitted to Peg Langhammer by Senator Grassley ......................... 67 

Questions submitted to Chief Kathy R. Zoner by Senator Franken ................... 65 

Questions submitted to Chief Kathy R. Zoner by Senator Grassley ................... 68 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Angela Fleischer to questions submitted by Senator Franken ..... 69 

Responses of Angela Fleischer to questions submitted by Senator Grassley ..... 71 

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses 

from Peg Langhammer.] 

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses 

from Chief Kathy R. Zoner.] 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Beloof, Douglas Evan, ‘‘The Third Model of Criminal Process: The Victim 

Participation Model,’’ Utah Law Review, September 13, 1999, article ............ 74 

Cantalupo, Nancy Chi, Esq., Researcher and Author, Georgetown University 

Law Center, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................... 118 
Page

IV 

Fleischer, Angela, Assistant Director, Student Support and Intervention for 

Confidential Advising, Southern Oregon University, Ashland, Oregon, 

supplemental statement ...................................................................................... 136 

Know Your IX, December 16, 2014, letter and attachment ................................. 137 

Lonsway, Kimberly A., and Joanne Archambault, ‘‘The ‘Justice Gap’ for Sexual Assault Cases: Future Directions for Research and Reform,’’ SAGE 

Journals, March 20, 2012 research article ........................................................ 144 

Renda, Emily, Project Coordinator for Sexual Misconduct, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, letter ................................................................ 168 
(1) 

CAMPUS SEXUAL ASSAULT: 

THE ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 

OF LAW ENFORCEMENT 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 9, 2014 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND TERRORISM, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in 

Room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon 

Whitehouse, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Whitehouse, Schumer, Klobuchar, Franken, 

Blumenthal, and Grassley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. The hearing will please come to order. 

Let me welcome Senator Schumer and Senator Grassley and Senator McCaskill. We will be joined shortly by Senator Gillibrand as 

well to make some brief remarks and Senator Graham is expected 

to join us. He is the Ranking Member on this Committee. 

Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand have worked tirelessly to shed 

light on the scourge of sexual violence both on our college campuses 

and in our military. Senator McCaskill and Senator Heller are the 

lead cosponsors and worked very, very hard to develop along with 

Senators Gillibrand, Grassley and others, legislation that makes 

comprehensive changes in the area of campus sexual assault. 

We hope this hearing will help inform their work. I would like 

to acknowledge, as well, the commitment of Chairman Leahy, who 

last year shepherded the Violence Against Women Act through this 

Committee and into law. As you know, VAWA requires colleges to 

be more transparent about sexual assaults and other offenses committed on campus. 

In my home State, Attorney General Peter Kilmartin and Rhode 

Island’s universities are working with me on developing best practices and advising me in these legislative efforts. I want to express 

my appreciation to our very robust higher education community in 

Rhode Island and to our Attorney General. 

Finally, I would like to thank all of our witnesses today for joining us. I know that you work day in and day out to help survivors 

who are seeking closure and justice. I look forward to hearing more 

about your efforts. 
2 

Campus sexual assault is not a new phenomenon. The last few 

years have shed light on just how pervasive it has become, with 

some estimates suggesting that as many as one in five women may 

experience sexual violence in college. Reports of sex offenses on college campuses rose 50 percent from 2009 to 2012 according to Federal data. The vast majority of offenses, up to 90 percent, are believed to go unreported. 

This issue has risen from whispered hallway conversations to an 

impassioned national debate. It has rightly become a priority for 

university board rooms, for police departments, and even for the 

White House with its dedicated task force and its ‘‘It’s On Us’’ campaign. 

Innovations in the private sector include products to prevent surreptitious drugging and video games and smartphone apps designed to protect women and encourage bystanders to step in and 

prevent situations from developing into crimes. Senators McCaskill 

and Gillibrand’s Campus Accountability and Safety Act proposes an 

array of reforms in institutions of higher learning. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is narrower, the role of law enforcement in response to sexual assaults on campus. As a former 

United States Attorney and as the Attorney General for my State, 

I am concerned that law enforcement is being marginalized when 

it comes to the crime of campus sexual assault. I am concerned 

that the specter of flawed law enforcement overshadows the harm 

of marginalized law enforcement. 

Anything can be done badly, but law enforcement done right 

makes sure forensic and electronic evidence is properly collected 

and preserved. It empowers the victim and informs her of her continuing power through the stages of investigation and prosecution. 

It brings professionalism and tools like subpoenas and grand jury 

in the place of amateur university investigations. 

It eludes the built-in conflict of interest of a university that 

wants the sexual assault problem minimized or hushed and it 

sends an important societal signal when after a rape the crime 

scene has police tape up and evidence vans and officers taking 

statements, a signal that what happened was serious. At its best, 

law enforcement response is victim-centered and well coordinated 

with medical, mental health and advocacy professionals. 

When a rape victim is steered away from law enforcement based 

on uninformed choices about proceeding or because the relationship 

between the university and law enforcement is so weak that contacting law enforcement is a step into a dark unknown and the victim later loses the chance for justice, she has been victimized all 

over again. The student has the right to know that delays in opening an investigation and in collecting evidence could mean the disappearance of evidence altogether and could open up devastating 

questioning by a future defense attorney. 

Until we are willing to put more information and control right 

away in the hands of victims, they simply will not trust the system 

enough to report sexual assaults in the first place. We know this, 

sadly, from experience. Until we find a way to introduce victims to 

police officers before they have to make the fateful decision to file 

criminal charges, uninformed fear and uncertainty will remain a 

crippling barrier. 
3 

And when there is no law enforcement response at all, that silence is deafening and sends the message that what happened to 

the victim did not matter. Unfortunately this message fits to neatly 

with the pressure school administrators may feel to downplay campus sexual violence. 

Add in the new evidence that most college sexual assaults are 

committed by men who are serial offenders and thus a threat to 

public safety, that should make it an even higher priority for us as 

lawmakers, law enforcers and school administrators to create systems that will increase reporting, root out those who would commit 

such acts and see that they are brought to justice. Marginalizing 

the men and women who are trained professionals in the task of 

investigation is a move in the wrong direction. If we do not increase and improve the role of the criminal justice system in these 

cases, victims will pay the price. 

I say, ‘‘and improve,’’ because equally important to early law enforcement involvement in these crimes is the quality of the law enforcement response. As I said, anything can be done badly but 

there are best practices out there and I look forward to hearing 

from today’s witnesses about some of those best practices and 

about how we as Federal legislators might be able to advance the 

goals of public safety and dignity and justice for survivors. 

As we begin this hearing, let me thank my Ranking Member for 

his courtesy during the time when I have been Chairman. I look 

forward to continuing the bipartisan spirit when Chairman 

Graham takes over in the next Congress. 

Senator Grassley, do you have any opening remarks you would 

care to make? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA 

Senator GRASSLEY. As you know, I am not a Member of the Subcommittee. I guess I am an ex officio Member. I have an interest 

in this issue as I am a cosponsor of the bill. I do not understand 

the sensitivities that universities have about the rape on campus. 

I think a crime of rape off campus or a crime of rape on campus 

ought to be treated the same way and the sooner it is treated the 

same way, the sooner that the message is going to get out that you 

cannot get away with something on a campus that you could not 

get away with someplace else. 

I hope that there is a real effort in the next Congress to work 

on this bill very seriously and move it along. And I appreciate the 

remarks of the Chairman. They would be things that I would associate myself with at this point, but I think that it is high time to 

make sure that a crime is a crime where ever it is committed and 

treated the same way and when it is treated universally the same 

way, we will have less rape on campuses. Thank you. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Grassley. I think it 

is significant that the incoming Chairman of the Committee made 

that point and made that statement. So I thank you sir. 

I will turn now to Senator Schumer. 
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK SCHUMER, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator SCHUMER. I will be brief. I want to thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, for holding this hearing and my colleagues for being 

here. I want to thank two of my dearest friends in the Senate for 

leading the charge here, Senators McCaskill and Gillibrand. I want 

to wish Senator Gillibrand a happy birthday. Today is her birthday. 

But on a more serious note, I want to thank both of them and 

all of the others for bringing this whole issue to light. This has 

been a sort of dirty little secret for a long time on college campuses, 

that women were abused and then afraid to come forward. And 

now because of the efforts of the two Senators that we are going 

to hear testify and so many others, that is not happening anymore. 

All you have to do is talk to people, relatives, children of friends, 

women who were on college campuses and ask them how serious 

is this? Most of them say it is far more serious than you know. And 

so to get to the bottom of this and do something about it is something that we can do in a bipartisan way. 

We can show that government works and works well when we 

put our minds together and come up with careful, rational but 

strong solutions and I look forward to hearing the testimony and 

working with the sponsors of this legislation to make that happen. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Schumer. Senator 

Franken, anything? 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you. I am just looking forward to hearing from my colleagues and then from the witnesses. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Terrific. Well let us begin with Senator 

McCaskill who is the lead cosponsor of this legislation along with 

Senator Heller. We appreciate very much your efforts and your 

commitment in this area and are eager to hear from you. 

Senator McCaskill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator MCCASKILL. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse and thank 

you for holding this hearing. First, I want to echo the birthday 

wishes to my friend and colleague, Kirsten Gillibrand, and I want 

to thank her for her passion and her focus on this issue. When we 

are united, we are—I think an objective evaluation would say that 

we are a force to be reckoned with and we are united on this effort 

along with Senator Heller and Senator Grassley. 

I want to particularly compliment Senator Grassley and his topnotch staff who have worked with us tirelessly to put together 

what is truly a bipartisan bill. There has been a lot of give-andtake that is already gone into the development of this legislation 

and I know all of us look forward to introducing it and moving forward for its passage next year. 

In that vein, it is important that we hear from this Committee 

as to your input as to how we can make this bill even better. And 

I know this hearing will be helpful in that regard. 

I want to say that this is complemented, first, because we are 

dealing with two systems. We are dealing with a Title IX system 
5 

and we are dealing with a criminal justice system. The two systems 

have different goals. The Title IX system, while it is there for the 

redress of victims, it is there primarily to force college campuses 

to provide a safe and crime-free and discrimination-free campus. 

That is the purpose behind Title IX. 

The criminal justice system, its purpose is in fact to hold perpetrators accountable and put them in prison. When you combine 

those two systems, it is confusing and complicated. So what we do 

has to strengthen Title IX and hopefully provide more victims with 

the reassurance that they need, the survivors the reassurance they 

need, that they can, in fact, avail themselves of the justice that is 

there in the criminal justice system. 

Right now because the criminal justice system has been very 

bad, in fact, much worse than the military and much worse than 

college campuses in terms of addressing victims and supporting victims and pursuing prosecutions, there is almost a default position 

that victims have taken through advocacy groups that they might 

be better off just doing the Title IX process. So what we really have 

to do in this complicated thicket of a juxtaposition of two systems 

is make sure that victims, like we have tried to do in the military 

together, when they report, they get support and good information 

about the options that are available to them. We have taken reporting in the military from 1 in 12 to 1 in 4, which is much higher 

than anywhere else, simply by providing special victims counsel to 

every victim in the military. 

Now we cannot, obviously, afford the Federal Government to do 

that for every victim of every alleged rape or sexual assault in the 

country, but what we can do is make sure the information those 

victims are getting in the military is now available to young men 

and women who are assaulted on college campuses so they know 

what their choices are at the moment of the reporting, they understand what the consequences are. As the Chairman so eloquently 

said in his opening statement, if they decline to go to the hospital, 

or if they decline to talk to law enforcement, that they are, in fact, 

taking on a chance that justice will never truly be obtained in 

terms of holding their perpetrator accountable. 

So it is in that framework that we have tried to work out a bill 

that will strengthen the support services for victims, provide them 

more information and as I said to college campuses all over my 

State when I did my tour, it does the college campuses no good to 

have a great system in place if the students do not know about it. 

A victim who is assaulted on a Friday night needs to know on that 

Friday night where she can call and where she can go for confidential support and good information which then we hope gives her 

the encouragement to make the choice to move forward in the 

criminal justice system. 

I must comment before I leave it to this Committee’s work to find 

even better ways we can do this that I am saddened and angry 

about the bad journalism in the Rolling Stone concerning an alleged gang rape at the University of Virginia. I am saddened and 

angry because it is a setback for survivors in this country. This is 

not a crime where you have rampant false reporting or embellishment. This is a crime that is the most under-reported crime in 

America and will remain so. Our problem is not victims coming for-
6 

ward and embellishing. Our problem is victims are too frightened 

to come forward. 

So this bad piece of journalism, I think, has set us back and I 

want to make sure that we overcome it and do not allow it to slow 

us in our determination to make sure that victims have the support 

they need at the moment they need it. Thank you Mr. Chairman 

for giving me a chance to say a few words this morning. I will look 

forward to working with you and other Members of the Subcommittee and most importantly with Senator Gillibrand and our 

cosponsors on the bill to make it better and stronger and get it 

passed next year so that we can begin to have a list of reforms on 

college campuses that we have been able to accomplish in the military. Thank you. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator McCaskill. For the 

record, let me say I do not think you and Senator Gillibrand have 

to be working together to be forces to be reckoned with. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. You may be excused. I know you have 

a busy schedule. 

Let me turn now to Senator Gillibrand. Welcome, and also, 

happy birthday. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Senator McCaskill, for your 

leadership and your passion and your vision on such an important 

issue. I really appreciate this Committee hosting this hearing. It is 

very important that we examine the role and responsibility of law 

enforcement in combating this scourge of sexual violence on our 

college campuses. 

The facts that according to one study nearly one in five women 

in college will be victims of sexual assault or attempted assault 

during their undergraduate careers should shake the conscience of 

all of us and it demands action. Too many young women’s lives are 

being changed forever for us to accept the status quo. 

Earlier this Congress, Senator McCaskill and I along with a bipartisan coalition of ten senators ranging the political ideological 

spectrum introduced the Campus Accountability and Safety Act, a 

bill that would finally hold colleges and universities accountable for 

facing this problem head on aggressively with the goal of making 

safety on campus a reality for American students and not just the 

empty promise that it is today. The bill was the result of exhaustive efforts listening to survivors and examining the shortcomings 

in the current college and university system. 

I want to thank both Chairman Whitehouse and Ranking Member Graham for their leadership and their support of that bill. 

Clearly, we in Congress must look at how law enforcement must 

improve to be part of the solution. 

First, in our comprehensive bill we require every college and university in the country to have a memorandum of understanding 

with local law enforcement. It is shocking that this requirement 

does not yet exist. 

These types of crimes where physical evidence is crucial, time is 

precious and we cannot tolerate the hours, or days, or weeks of 
7 

delay where jurisdictional arguments are being made. It is an area 

where Congress can act by passing important legislation that will 

serve to flip the current incentives for college and universities that 

would rather sweep these cases under the rug. 

Second, our ultimate goal should be that 100 percent of survivors 

of campus assault feel comfortable and confident reporting to law 

enforcement so that alleged assailants are legally held accountable 

through due process. This is a long-term goal that we have to strive 

for. 

But time and again, I have heard from far too many survivors 

of campus sexual assault that they have felt re-victimized by the 

process of trying to seek justice for the crime committed against 

them. This is an inescapable fact that we have to fix. 

The police should be the first responders when a crime this serious occurs, but in the vast majority of police departments—have responded to reports with victim blaming and belittlement and as a 

result, survivors have lost trust in law enforcement. Today I would 

like to provide the Committee with some accounts of survivor experiences when they tried to report their rapes to police to shine a 

light on the shortcomings that must be addressed. 

But first, as Senator McCaskill did, I want to address the University of Virginia story in Rolling Stone that some may hold up 

as a reason not to believe survivors when they come forward. 

Clearly, we do not know the facts of what happened or what did 

not happen in this case, but these facts have not changed, UVA has 

admitted that they have allowed students to have confessed to sexually assaulting another student to remain on campus. That is and 

remains shocking. 

More importantly, it has never been about this one school and it 

is painfully clear that colleges across the country have a real problem and how they are handling or not handling cases of sexual assault on their campuses. I hope this story will not ultimately outshine the story of thousands of brave women and men telling their 

stories and holding the colleges and universities across the country 

accountable. And I hope it will not discourage other students from 

coming forward because it is the students themselves all across the 

country who are demanding reform and their voices are vital to the 

debate. 

I refuse to let this one story become an excuse for Congress not 

to fix a broken system because I have met with the students and 

seen them bravely tell their painful stories, personal stories, so 

that other young women and men on campus will not have their 

own story to tell tomorrow. 

Young women in New York at Columbia like Emma Sulkowicz 

who was raped by a fellow student at Columbia University in 2012, 

reported her rape to the police in 2014. She described to a police 

detective how her assailant had pinned her arms down behind your 

head, pushed her legs up against her chest, penetrated her anally, 

choked her and hit her across the face despite her shouting and 

telling him no. 

The detective responded by telling Emma that the encounter was 

consensual because she had previous consensual sex with the individual. The officer repeatedly stated that the perpetrator just got 
8 

a little weird that night; right? And told her that a defense attorney would rip her story apart. 

Anna was raped—another woman—Anna was raped at age 18, 

just 2 weeks into her freshman year at Hobart and William Smith 

College. When she filed formal criminal charges, the police sent the 

prosecutor a report filled with errors which included, in particular, 

failing to identify major discrepancies in statements given by three 

alleged perpetrators. 

An examination by a sexual assault nurse indicated that Anna 

had experienced blunt force trauma and tests found sperm or 

semen in her vagina and rectum and on her underwear, but the police never acquired DNA samples from the alleged perpetrators. 

The district attorney never interviewed Anna and he declined to 

bring charges just 1 day after the case was referred to him. 

Even in cases where survivors have felt supported by their interactions with police, they have been devastated by slipshod investigations, drawn out court proceedings and the refusal of prosecutors to take their cases. Four out of every five rapes that are reported to the police are never prosecuted. It is simply unacceptable. 

We must provide survivors of campus sexual assault with options 

for reporting to police that are beneficial to both law enforcement 

and survivors. This will encourage more survivors to come forward 

to pursue justice and ultimately leave more cooperative witnesses 

and better information to send to district attorneys to prosecute. 

The Ashland Police Department in Ashland, Oregon, has developed a model for investigating reports of sexual assault that strives 

to achieve these goals called the ‘‘You Have Options Program Reporting.’’ The department found that by using trauma-informed investigative techniques and allowing victims to provide as much or 

little information about the assault as they choose in a timeframe 

that they feel comfortable, the department can actually increase reporting and collect better evidence. 

In fact, when I sat down with the woman who developed the program, she said she was able to convince her police department to 

do this because it was the tools that were necessary to catch recidivists, to catch multiple rapes by the same perpetrator. So if they 

can convict these types of serial rapists, they were willing to try 

a different system. They found this system worked and that it was 

extremely effective. 

By using the You Have Options Reporting Program, the Ashland 

Police Department saw an increase in reporting of sexual assault 

by 106 percent between 2010 in 2013. There is a critical role for 

law enforcement to play in combating sexual assault on campuses. 

By increasing an environment that encourages reporting sexual assaults, police departments can bring these cases out of the shadows 

and hold more of the offenders accountable. 

I look forward to today’s testimony and to identify areas where 

we can improve our criminal justice system and the way it responds to campus sexual assault. I look forward to continuing to 

push the reform of the way campuses handle campus sexual assault by passing our bill. 

Obviously, it is time to end the scourge of rape and sexual assault on American colleges and provide survivors the resources 

they need to recover and to hold these perpetrators accountable. 
9 

Thank you, again, Senator Whitehouse for chairing today’s hearing. I look forward to working with all of my colleagues on this 

Committee to help improve the situation. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Gillibrand appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand, for your 

leadership on this issue. We are delighted also that your constituent, Chief Kathy Zoner, from Cornell, will be one of our witnesses, and you mentioned Ashland, Oregon—Angela Fleischer is 

one of our witnesses from Southern Oregon University. 

So let us go ahead and bring up the next panel. While the next 

panel is coming up, let me have a logistics moment. We have a vote 

that is beginning at 10:30 and so what I think I will probably do 

at some point during the testimony is have a brief hiatus so that 

anybody who is here can go and vote. It is actually two votes. So 

we will try to time it so that people have the chance to vote on 

both. So we wait until the end of the first vote and then come back 

and restart the hearing. So do not be surprised if we have to go 

through that little Congressional fire drill during the course of the 

hearing. 

Let me ask that the witnesses please stand to be sworn. Do you 

affirm that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the 

truth? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. I do. 

Chief ZONER. I do. 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. I do. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Please be seated. All right. We are really delighted to have this panel here. I think what I will do is I will 

make all three introductions and then we will go from witness to 

witness. 

We will begin with Angela Fleischer who is the assistant director 

of student support and intervention for confidential advising at 

Southern Oregon University and an administrator of Campus 

Choice. She is trained in Title IX investigations and in the forensic 

experiential trauma interviewing technique. 

She holds a master’s degree in social work. Prior to her work at 

the university, she worked as a community-based advocate and 

program developer in the field of sexual assault and domestic violence. Ms. Fleischer was involved in the creation of the You Have 

Options Program at the Ashland Police Department which has 

quickly become a model of best practice around the country. 

We are delighted that you are here, Ms. Fleischer. Thank you so 

much for what you have accomplished. 

Her testimony will be followed by that of Chief Kathy Zoner who 

is a 23-year veteran of the Cornell University Police. In 2009, she 

was sworn in the chief of police and was the first woman to serve 

in that capacity at Cornell. 

She oversees 50 armed sworn peace officers with law enforcement powers under New York State laws, serving a community of 

approximately 21,500 students and 9,700 faculty and staff. Chief 

Zoner served on the board of directors for Ithaca Rape Crisis Center for crime victim and sexual assault survivors for over 10 years, 

spending much of that time as president of their board. She also 
10 

serves on Cornell’s Council on Sexual Violence Prevention Council 

on Mental Health and Welfare and the President’s Council on Alcohol and Other Drugs and the Council on Hazing Prevention. 

Chief Zoner convenes the Public Safety Advisory Committee and 

chairs the Diversity Council for Human Resources and Safety Services. A graduate of Ohio State University and the FBI National 

Academy, Chief Zoner is continuing her education at Cornell. We 

are honored to have her. 

Finally, Peg Langhammer joins us from my home State of Rhode 

Island. Peg has been executive director of Day One, formerly the 

Sexual Assault and Trauma Resource Center of Rhode Island for 

more than 25 years. 

A founding member of the Attorney General’s Task force on the 

Sexual and Violent Physical Abuse of Children, she was instrumental in the establishment of the Rhode Island Children’s Advocacy Center. Ms. Langhammer is a founder and served as chairwoman of the Rhode Island Sex Offender Management Task force 

and acted as chairperson of the Rhode Island Department of Children, Youth and Families Advisory Committee on Gender-Specific 

Programming. 

She is also a former member of the Rhode Island Board of Review of Sexually Violent Predatory Behavior and a member of the 

Rhode Island Criminal Justice Oversight Committee. We are 

thrilled to have her here in Washington and welcome her to the 

Committee. 

Let us begin with the testimony of Ms. Fleischer. 

STATEMENT OF ANGELA FLEISCHER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

STUDENT SUPPORT AND INTERVENTION FOR CONFIDENTIAL ADVISING, SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY, 

ASHLAND, OREGON 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Senator Whitehouse and distinguished Committee Members, thank you for inviting us here today. 

Ashland Police Department’s You Have Options Program and 

Southern Oregon University’s Campus Choice were created as a response to one of the truths we know about, sexual assault. It is a 

vastly under-reported crime. The barriers that keep survivors from 

coming forward are many, but are often surmountable if we are 

able to focus our efforts on offering choice and providing trauma informed care. 

And when we increase at least initial reporting, the resulting 

benefits to individual victims and to our community are profound. 

By utilizing specially trained individuals in the response to reports 

of sexual assault, survivors are given access to accurate complete 

information and options and communities become safer as we learn 

to identify the offenders within, most of whom will continue to commit sexual offenses if left unidentified. 

The need for programs like these is urgent and undeniable. Some 

version of the following scenario plays out thousands of times each 

year on campuses across the country. 

An assault happens. There is no clearly identified place for the 

victim to go for information and she or he is encouraged by campus 

administrators to just move on or to accept help by engaging in the 

campus administrative process. The victim is never provided a 
11 

clear explanation of the law enforcement response possibilities or 

if police response is considered, the investigation is often hindered 

by campus actions already taken. 

If the administrative process moves forward and the accused is 

found responsible, they may be expelled often to move on to another school where, because academic records are protected, they 

are free to offend again. The survivor may drop out of school or 

continue to struggle through classes feeling unsupported by the administration and as though his or her case is unresolved. 

Throughout it all, what is missing is the one thing that could 

best mitigate the impact of this crime on the survivor and on the 

campus community, an informed person who can provide options, 

ensure that the process proceeds at the speed that benefits the survivor and who can accompany the victim through the administrative and criminal justice processes, a professional that is trained in 

trauma-informed interviewing, the criminal justice system and the 

Title IX process. 

It is important for us to acknowledge that part of improving the 

campus response to sexual assault is improving law enforcement 

response so that it can be a viable victim-centered option. Close coordination between campus and law enforcement responders is 

vital. 

Traditional policing has left much to be desired in regards to its 

treatment of victims, investigative techniques and its collaboration 

with university and college administration. Because of this, victims 

can be discouraged from coming forward to report crimes. Rapists 

are allowed to continue committing assaults and the safety of campuses remains tenuous. 

By creating a system that links the efforts of both campus administration and law enforcement and that rethinks the way law 

enforcement approaches these cases, You Have Options and Campus Choice have each more than doubled the reporting rates within 

their jurisdiction. Emphasizing a victim-centered and offender-focused response, the You Have Options Program seeks to collect information about offenders in their community by encouraging victims to come forward and report in whatever manner they are most 

comfortable, including anonymously in person or through a 

website. 

Victims choose the level of reporting they want and dictate the 

timeframe and scope of their investigation and are assured of their 

right to suspend the investigation at any time. Providing these options to the victims yields valuable information about offenders in 

the community that police would not otherwise have regardless of 

the ultimate legal outcome. 

Campus choice provides students with the opportunity to seek information and options through confidential advising. Through a 

confidential advisor who is exempt from the Title IX reporting process, students can receive information and help without triggering 

a mandatory investigation. It is imperative that the college administrator serving as the confidential advisor have a deep understanding of both the criminal justice system and the Title IX process. 

Municipal police can also interact with a confidential advisor 

without triggering a mandatory campus investigation. In partner-
12 

ship, law enforcement and campus stakeholders meet monthly to 

review campus sexual assault cases and a confidential advisor attends the county’s monthly review of sexual assault responses in 

the community. 

Before serving as a confidential advisor at Oregon Southern University, I worked in the community alongside law enforcement. I 

was part of the development of the You Have Options Program and 

brought to the school my knowledge, understanding and experience 

of responding to sexual assault in a system that prioritized offering 

choices to victims. 

I am trained in trauma-informed interviewing as a Title IX investigator and as a mental health clinician. When the police department and the university are working together on a case, I am 

able to accompany a victim through the entire criminal justice 

process. I have seen firsthand the improvements to victim care our 

programs bring. 

Before You Have Options and Campus Choice, there was very little coordination between law enforcement and our university, but 

now at SOU, 76 percent of the cases coming through confidential 

advising that involve a crime have interaction with law enforcement. There are a number of reasons for this increase. 

In our model, both institutions respect the process of the other. 

A victim may enter either system and expect to get reliable information about both the criminal justice and administrative processes and neither law enforcement nor the University will report 

to the other without the permission of the victim. 

However, either entity might contact the other to relay information or ask hypothetical questions that could benefit the understanding and choices of a victim. Most importantly, both Campus 

Choice and You Have Options require that anyone interviewing victims is trained in trauma-informed interviewing techniques. Trauma-informed interviewing, the forensic experiential trauma interview or FETI process, was developed to recognize and respond to 

how trauma affects a victim’s ability to access memories of their assault and how it affects their emotions and behavioral presentations. 

This technique created by Russell Strand greatly increases the 

accuracy of the information provided and profoundly improves the 

positive experience of the victim during any interview and investigation. The success we have seen it bring to our cases leads us 

to highlight its use as the most important first step any campus 

or law enforcement agency can take. For those seeking to improve 

their campus response, this is where I urge you to start. 

I truly believe that law enforcement and colleges together can 

create safer campuses and communities by starting with a few concrete steps, becoming fully educated about each other’s processes, 

providing forensic experiential trauma interview training for all 

interviewers, adopting a victim-centered method of reporting found 

in the You Have Options and Campus Choice Programs, emphasizing the identification of serial perpetration and committing fully 

to an ongoing purposeful collaboration that focuses on the needs of 

the victim. I believe this because in Ashland, Oregon, and Southern 

Oregon University, I have seen the change begin. It is possible. 

Thank you. 
13 

[The prepared statement of Angela Fleischer appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

I have just heard that the vote is about to conclude, so let me 

suspend the hearing briefly while Senator Franken and I go and 

vote, wait for the new vote to start, vote again and then come back. 

That probably should be five or 10 minutes. I thank our witnesses 

and guests for their patience. 

[Whereupon, at 10:41 a.m., the Subcommittee was recessed.] 

[Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the Subcommittee reconvened.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Let me call the hearing back into order 

and apologize for my version of 10 minutes. Welcome to time in the 

United States Senate. 

Chief Zoner, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF KATHY R. ZONER, CHIEF OF POLICE, 

CORNELL UNIVERSITY POLICE, ITHACA, NEW YORK 

Chief ZONER. Thank you very much, Chairman Whitehouse and 

Senator Graham, Members of the Committee. Thank you for calling 

this hearing, inviting me to share my perspective on the roles and 

responsibilities of law enforcement in addressing sexual assault on 

college campuses. I have submitted a longer, more detailed but still 

concise statement for the record and will try to summarize my remarks here, focusing on our best practices that we have engaged 

in and perhaps make some recommendations. 

As I begin, I want to stress that Cornell University recognizes 

sexual violence is a serious campus and public health issue that affects every member of our community. We commend the Subcommittee for taking a closer look at the interplay between law enforcement and campus adjudication procedures. I particularly want 

to thank my Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, for her tireless work on 

behalf of survivors and for her willingness to work with campuses 

in New York State. 

I, like everyone at Cornell, share your goals of preventing sexual 

assault on our campuses. Cornell has paid close attention to efforts 

by policymakers and I was honored to participate in Senator 

McCaskill’s roundtables earlier this year. We appreciate the difficulty of designing policies that address all of the complexities and 

nuances of preventing and responding to sexual violence. 

Administrative investigations are conducted by campus officials 

and adjudicated pursuant to the school’s code of conduct and internal policies. They are governed by a number of laws like Title IX, 

regulations and sub regulatory guidance. Law enforcement investigations are conducted by the law enforcement agency with jurisdiction where the assault took place. They look into allegations of 

criminal activity as defined by State law, not campus policy or Title 

IX. 

There are several key differences between a campus adjudication 

proceeding and a law enforcement investigation. Standard of proof 

is one of them. Because campus fact finders use a preponderance 

of the evidence standard, the lowest burden of proof in a civil proceeding, and law enforcement proceedings use beyond a reasonable 

doubt, the highest standard, survivors and those supporting them 

become angry and confused when a DA is unable to prosecute cases 
14 

criminally where a respondent has been found responsible on campus during their proceedings. The lower administrative standard of 

proof falls short often of the higher beyond a reasonable doubt 

standard. 

Evidence—campus fact finders are permitted to consider a broad 

range of evidence including evidence like hearsay or 

unauthenticated evidence that would not be admissible in a law enforcement proceeding were rules of evidence are much stricter. It 

takes more than 60 days to process some physical evidence such as 

DNA because of backlogs in crime labs and therefore administrative investigations almost always outpace criminal investigations. 

The fast administrative timeframe may also taint admissible evidence and accelerate discovery in a way that harms the complainant in a criminal proceeding. 

Then there is cross-examination. There is no opportunity for 

cross-examination of a campus investigation or judicial proceeding. 

Cross-examination, however, is one of the cornerstones of a criminal trial guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. Campuses must investigate all reports of sexual violence made through responsible 

employees under Title IX. Additionally, campus officials must inform students of their right to file a criminal complaint and have 

an obligation to guide students through the process if they desire. 

If the student chooses to file a criminal complaint, the campus 

is not permitted to delay its Title IX investigation which must be 

concluded within 60 days while the criminal case is proceeding. 

This is a source of much tension between the two systems and my 

administrative colleagues have found that largely due to these conflicts, parties are less willing to cooperate and be candid while a 

criminal investigation is pending. 

In the face of these difficult issues, you asked me to talk about 

some best practices. First, we suggest being a good neighbor with 

your other local law enforcement agencies. Our main campus lies 

within several governmental and jurisdictions. Our cooperative efforts with local law enforcement began long before crime is reported. Leaders and supervisors meet and talk on a regular basis, 

building relationships so that we can share information naturally 

and not only on an ad hoc or emergency basis. Establishing regular 

and open lines of communication increases our confidence and trust 

to share information on cases that cross jurisdictional lines. 

An MOU is not a panacea. A memorandum of understanding, or 

MOU, with local law enforcement is often cited as a best practice. 

I agree that it can be helpful, but entering into one is not always 

possible and municipalities with larger jurisdictions may find 

themselves with many different MOUs to contend with. There is no 

guarantee that a local law enforcement agency will cooperate with 

and MOU, nor are there consequences if they do not. 

Given the one-sided nature of a MOU and the amount of time 

and resources it takes to secure and maintain one, lawmakers 

should consider carefully a sweeping mandate to enter into one. 

There are better, less costly, more balanced ways to achieve the 

same goals. In any case, the penalty proposed in CASA, up to 1 

percent of the school’s operating budget, for failure to secure a 

MOU goes too far for something that is so out of the institutions 

control. 
15 

Although the legislation allows the Department of Education to 

waive the penalty if an institution demonstrates a good faith effort, 

it gives the department too much discretion in making that determination and DOE’s resources could also be more fruitfully engaged in encouraging more attainable methods of cooperation. 

We reiterate our colleagues emphasis on trauma-informed investigations. We know that only a small percentage of sexual assaults 

are reported to the police. Victims believe they will not be treated 

fairly or will be re-traumatized throughout the process. As more investigators, both law enforcement and campus judicial investigators, are trained in trauma informed investigative techniques, I believe the perceptions of the way we handle campus sexual assault 

cases will improve. The You Have Options Program pioneered in 

Ashland, Oregon is a good example of how this training works. 

Community engagement to share resources—most municipalities 

are stretched thin and not able to engage fully with their campus 

populations. Because resources are scarce for everyone, we should 

be doing more to share those that exist. For example, many databases and other investigative support tools are not available to 

campus law enforcement because we are not considered to be governmental agencies by the State or municipal authorities that control the resources. Easier access to these resources would be a tremendous help to appropriate campus law enforcement agencies and 

ease the burden on the governmental agencies. 

We know you are concerned about the amount of enforcement 

and oversight of Title IX and the Clery Act. Efforts to beef up enforcement, including increased fines for noncompliance, should be 

coupled with incentives for training, education, programming 

around prevention, law enforcement and administrative investigator positions and research. 

As I noted previously, resources to support training and traumainformed investigations will benefit campus adjudicators and law 

enforcement. I am concerned, however, that the system of fines proposed in CASA does not differentiate between willful, knowing and 

intentional conduct and inadvertent conduct, but rather gives the 

department great discretion to assess a significant penalty thereby 

affecting the amount of resources available to do a better job. 

The bill allows the department to keep the fines it collects creating an incentive for over enforcement. I strongly recommend that 

these provision be revised to put the penalties more in line with 

civil rights laws to differentiate between willful and inadvertent 

violations and to direct the fines to research and training. 

I also strongly encourage you to target education and prevention 

programs at the middle and high school levels to begin to address 

cultural issues around sex, alcohol, controlled substance usage and 

consent before students arrive at college. Attitudes and perceptions 

about sex, healthy relationships and gender roles solidify long before young people reach college age. The earlier we can begin education around respect and civility across gender lines at a more 

meaningful and impactful time, the better chance we have of making the sweeping cultural changes necessary to get at the root of 

this problem. 

In conclusion, Cornell University does not tolerate any form of 

sexual violence by or against members of its community. We share 
16 

the responsibility for creating a safer more caring campus culture 

in which bias, harassment and violence have no place. I appreciate 

the opportunity for input into your deliberations and would be 

pleased to answer any questions the Subcommittee has. 

[The prepared statement of Chief Kathy R. Zoner appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chief Zoner. 

And now we will turn to Ms. Langhammer. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF PEG LANGHAMMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

DAY ONE, PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. Thank you—good morning, Senator 

Whitehouse, Senator Franken. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

Day One has served as Rhode Island’s sexual assault coalition for 

over 40 years. We provide treatment, intervention, education, advocacy and prevention services to Rhode Islanders of all ages and we 

operate the State’s only children’s advocacy center which is accredited by the National Children’s Alliance. Our trained staff of 40 

employees and 60 plus volunteers worked closely with law enforcement, prosecution, area hospitals, schools and the community to 

address and prevent sexual assault and abuse with highly regarded 

trauma informed treatment and programs. 

Rhode Island’s high concentration of colleges and universities 

make the issue of campus sexual assault a major focus for Day 

One. We have worked with victims of college sexual assault 

throughout our long history. So we have been aware of the issue’s 

prevalence. We know these cases are rarely reported to law enforcement and that the ones that are hardly ever move on to successful prosecution. It is clear the current system is not working. 

There has never been a comprehensive system that works in the 

best interest of victims, either in our State or around the country. 

Day One is on the front lines and committed to changing that in 

Rhode Island. To start the process, we are organizing a specialized 

task force to address the adult sexual assault in Rhode Island that 

includes law enforcement, prosecution, Day One advocates, medical 

professionals and higher education representatives. 

This team will be responsible for the oversight of adult sexual assault cases from the initial report to investigation and prosecution, 

to trauma-informed clinical treatment and support for the victim. 

And we will ensure that the victim is in the driver seat. 

Campus-based adjudication processes do not work. Colleges alone 

are not competent to handle the investigation and prosecution of 

these cases, nor should they be. Any hearing process should be integrated with law enforcement, but it has to be a team approach. 

After the release of the White House Not Alone report last year, 

the issue of campus sexual assault became front and center in 

Rhode Island. Day One has been proactively meeting with nearly 

all of the colleges and universities throughout the State to develop 

a best practices approach to these cases and what we found is that 

everyone at the table from universities to law enforcement to advocates is committed to making major improvements in the system, 

but we need a coordinated victim centered approach to get there. 
17 

We know that research suggests that more than 90 percent of 

campus rapes are committed by a relatively small percentage of 

college men, possibly as few as 4 percent who are repeat offenders 

averaging about six victims each. Yet, these rapists overwhelmingly remain at large escaping any serious punishment. 

The current climate is such that universities and lawmakers are 

scrambling to find a global fix for the problem with misleading policies about alcohol, consent and what constitutes rape. What we 

need to be focusing on is bystander intervention so that the vast 

majority of students who are not committing rape can intervene 

when they see someone being taken advantage of. And we need a 

system that holds offenders accountable. 

We know we cannot just leave these cases to the criminal justice 

system in part because most victims are so reluctant to report. So 

the question is not should colleges be mandated to report these 

crimes to police. The question is how do we create a system where 

the victim’s choices are the priority and the process is designed to 

work in the best interest of the victim. We have to make the option 

of reporting a viable one for victims and we know that based on 

successful models in other States a positive experience during initial reporting creates an environment where victims feel supported 

and believed and decreases re-traumatization. 

One example worth noting, as we have all talked about today, is 

the You Have Options Program out of the Ashland, Oregon Police 

Department that recognizes the need for a victim-centered and offender-focused response to sexual violence by law enforcement professionals. And just a few highlights that really I think have impressed us in Rhode Island. A primary goal of the program is to 

increase sexual assault reporting by eliminating as many barriers 

to reporting as possible. We think that is key. 

Another key component of this program is the victim has the option to make an information report only, meaning the victim can 

choose to remain anonymous but still provide details of the case to 

law enforcement for documentation. When making an initial report, 

there is no requirement to meet in person with a law enforcement 

officer. A victim or other reporting party may report using an online form or victim may choose to have a sexual assault advocate 

report on their behalf. The victim maintains control over the time 

and location where the initial report is made to law enforcement 

and in addition to comprehensive advocacy provisions, a victim is 

not pressured to participate in a criminal investigation after making a report. 

What we are advocating for does not universally exist today. We 

have to create it. If we expect victims to report these crimes, we 

need a system that works for them, one in which they are believed, 

supported and can be confident in a just outcome. We owe it to our 

students to provide the best possible response to all sexual assaults. Without that, we are sending a message to not bother reporting this crime. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Peg Langhammer appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much, Ms. 

Langhammer. Let me thank Senators Klobuchar and Blumenthal 
18 

for joining us. Distinguished prosecutors, both, before they came 

here. 

Let me step out of order for a moment since I am going to close 

the hearing. I know Senator Franken is under the gun for another 

hearing and if I could yield immediately to him for questioning, I 

think that is probably the most—— 

Senator FRANKEN. Well, thank you. It seems like the You Have 

Options Program got unanimous raves from the panel here, which 

says something. I was wondering is there—knowing the McCaskillGillibrand legislation, is there anything in it that you can take 

from your program that sort of would legislatively say these are the 

best practices or you need to do some kind of program like that? 

Is there any particular aspect of the program that you think that 

possibly should be within the legislation itself? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Well, I think it would be great if the legislation 

could include some requirements of law enforcement as well. The 

bill does address colleges providing confidential advising and a resource that is informed and knowledgeable through the campus. 

That seems a bit complicated to add into a bill that is mostly directed at campuses, but of course you all know about that better 

than I do. So I think somehow including the ideas behind offering 

choice, offering collaboration, offering a commitment to working 

with a campus administration around reports would go a long way, 

always, of course, at the direction of the victim about whether that 

is what they want or not. 

Senator FRANKEN. What about this trauma-informed testimony? 

That seems to be—is there a way to describe that that is either 

general enough to include or—tell us about what that is and how 

it works. 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Okay. So that is an interviewing technique that 

was developed by Russell Strand, actually, to be used in the military. And it is based on some neurobiological science that is around 

how our brains form memory when we experience trauma. 

So it diverges from a typical rapid-fire questioning experience 

and really asks investigators to slow down, approach an interview 

while talking about all of the senses of memory—what did you 

hear, what did you feel, what did it smell like—and departs from 

the typical linear investigation—where were you, what time was it, 

who were you with, those types of things—and just starts from 

where you know, tell me what you can about a particular situation 

that happened. It also decreases the likelihood of misinformation 

being given at a time often victims feel pressured to answer a question, and so in order to do that, they maybe give an answer that 

is not entirely accurate or they just are trying to be pleasing to 

those that are asking the questions. So when you phrase things 

like ‘‘tell me what you can about,’’ that just allows a person to tell 

you what they can. 

Senator FRANKEN. This is for the whole panel. I had a bill that 

provides mental health—it allows schools to partner with mental 

health providers and community-based organizations to make sure 

that students have mental health treatment as they need it. And 

we got about $55 million in new funding for these kinds of programs. I have seen this work very well in schools in Minnesota. 
19 

But I often hear, when I hear about this subject, the shortage of 

mental health counselors on college campuses and I am interested 

in exploring the same model with college campuses. This is for anyone on the panel. What would you include in legislation to expand 

students’ access to mental health care and to make sure that college students get the mental health supports that they need? 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. I think that is great that you are putting that 

forward. I think it is important that students have access not only 

on-campus, but off-campus. That there may be times when it 

makes more sense for them to seek services from private providers 

in the community, maybe with not-for-profit community mental 

health centers or other kinds of organizations that provide services, 

but on campus as well. 

I do not know that all campuses have that level of professional 

to respond to what victims need in particular. So I think it is important to expand it and have it be available and the training 

available to those that would like to access it and become skilled 

in that area. 

Ms. FLEISCHER. One of the barriers that we see at our university 

is just a lack of time. I mean one is based on the school year and 

so students who are engaged in therapeutic services on campus are 

generally disengaged for the summer period, in particular. So that 

can be disruptive to a therapeutic process. 

And the other is just sort of the volume of students who are accessing the services and that tends to limit the number of sessions 

that people can have with a therapist. So ultimately, it comes back 

to a resource issue I think. And when you are doing trauma work, 

it is often long and involved and over a long period of time. 

Senator FRANKEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much Senator Whitehouse. 

Thanks for holding this hearing. Thank you to our witnesses. 

I was a prosecutor for 8 years and managed an office of 400 people in Hennepin County, Minnesota, and we worked extensively 

with the University of Minnesota and their police chief. And one 

of the things with the discussions of campus sexual assault, and 

also, actually, sexual assault in the military, that I have always 

put forward is that trust in the system is key. 

That all of our victim surveys—the gold standard, of course, is 

charging the case and getting a strong sentence, but you all know 

that does not always happen. Sometimes you cannot prove a case. 

Sometimes I have met with victims and their families and said we 

believe you, but we do not have the evidence right now, but we 

want you to know it is going to make a difference. This guy will 

probably do it again and we can do something then and perhaps 

your testimony will matter and those are hard discussions. 

But what we have found in the surveys of what makes the biggest difference is that they still feel that they can trust the system 

so they will come forward and that someone is listening and they 

are handling their case seriously. So I think sometimes when people look at this from the outside, they say it is all about charging 

in getting these—we all know that does not always happen. It is 

also about trust. So I wondered if you could address that a bit in 
20 

terms of that trust, maybe you, Chief Zoner and why that is an important piece of this? 

Chief ZONER. I do not know that I could actually say it better 

than you said it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, that is a great answer, Chief. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FRANKEN. Let the record reflect. 

Chief ZONER. It is very, very important. You can have the best 

investigation, you can have the best advocacy, you can have the 

most willing and energized and in pursuit of justice survivor to 

bring forward, but if you are stymied at any point in the criminal 

justice proceedings because of lack of evidence, because of lack of 

willing to prosecute because of concerns about win/loss records— 

very candidly put, then you can run into a greater difficulty in getting more people to come forward. So very much what you said, 

building that trust throughout the entire stage of the system is 

paramount. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Very good. One thing we did at the 

University of Minnesota, we would do something called Take Back 

the Night every single year and it raises awareness, and I wonder 

if, Ms. Fleischer, you could just address a simple idea that sometimes we think everyone knows about how to prevent this from 

happening and what happens, but a lot of times students are just 

out of high school and they show up at campus and they can make 

some bad decisions and the perpetrators can make some really bad 

decisions. Could you talk about how education matters? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Absolutely. Again, you said it well. What we find 

so much at the college level is, of course, what were talking about 

is consent. Mostly in our culture, we do not talk a lot about sex, 

in general, and how to pursue it and how to make sure that everybody wants it. So there is definitely a percentage of people who 

really just are uninformed about how to gain consent to have sex 

and I think it was Chief Zoner who talked about having education 

and prevention happening early, early on in schools where you are 

talking about consent from an early age and then certainly at a college level. 

When we do our educative outreach programs at our school to 

students, that is primarily what we are talking about, consent. Not 

so much focusing on sexual assault and rape, but students knowing 

what consent is, how to get consent and how to be sure that both 

parties or all parties involved are participating because they want 

to. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Okay. Very good. Thank you. Chief Zoner, 

in terms of educating—we talked about students—but police officers on the front line. I will tell you I like the idea of having more 

women chiefs. 

When I first started as prosecutor, I remember talking to our 

University of Minnesota police chief, who was a woman, and I said, 

well she is going to take me around to meet the other chiefs at the 

45-police chief meeting we would have every month where we 

would eat steaks at 11 o’clock in the morning. 

I said well how will I know who you are, I said to her. She said 

it will not be hard. I got there and she was the only woman and 

we have greatly increased the numbers. I think that would help, 
21 

personally. And it does not necessarily mean as chiefs, but higher 

up in the police departments. 

I also think there are best practices that you can recommend to 

all line officers and other chiefs. Could you talk about that and how 

to deal with victims of sexual assault? 

Chief ZONER. Yes. I think the type of person that gets drawn to 

law enforcement is the type of person who very quickly and rapidly 

wants to get all the facts together and see justice served. Sometimes the system goes against the grain and the drive of the individuals there, so training officers to slow down and allow the person to give the testimony in a way that makes the most sense and 

gets the best and most truthful information from someone, the 

most accurate recollection is a way that we can, again, reemphasize 

that a victim-centered approach will go much further in the prosecutorial proceedings. 

And I think that, again, you mentioned women in law enforcement. The sentiments of being a good listener as opposed to looking 

forward and trying to get to the goal as fast as you can has to be 

very carefully balanced and women do tend to carry on a more conversational manner of speaking. So whatever level they are in, I 

think our colleagues can all learn from each other, anyone who exhibits those traits of good listeners and getting accurate information and allowing someone to move forward should be reinforced. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. And the last thing I will add— 

my time is up here, just that I appreciated your comments, Ms. 

Langhammer about different sizes of colleges and universities and 

the issue, Ms. Fleischer, about time and how you do that because 

we are going to have to, as we look at this, not every college is 

going to be able to have full-time people do this when they are at 

a smaller place. So you have to look at it in terms of training within the counties and the departments as well. 

So thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you 

for holding this hearing which is immensely important. I have been 

involved in helping to write the bill that Senator McCaskill and 

Senator Gillibrand and I have done and working very closely with 

groups, advocates, survivors in Connecticut. In fact, holding more 

than a dozen roundtables to listen directly and to learn from everyone involved in this issue. 

The bill, in my view, really involves law enforcement through 

memoranda of understanding that would be required. It provides 

for better fact-finding and investigation on campus through confidential advisors as well as a uniform process of adjudication within the University. All too often, it is ad hoc and unfair to both 

sides. The lack of a process with integrity and accuracy is what discourages a lot of survivors from coming forward. 

So this bill will give them more choices, to go through the criminal process off-campus or a fair and uniform process with due process on campus. I think the experience at the University of Virginia 

should reaffirm our resolve not only to addressing this epidemic of 

campus sexual assault, but also providing reassurance to victims 

and survivors that there will be due process and accurate fact-finding with integrity and honesty and services—a real commitment to 
22 

services so that a woman is not left standing outside of a fraternity 

seeking help from her friends. She should have support within the 

system, confidential advisors, services that will elicit the truth from 

her, provide means of eliciting forensic evidence and preserving it, 

a system that avoids the kind of ad hoc sometimes chaotic process 

that is so demeaning and discouraging to victims and survivors. 

So I think that the University of Virginia experience—and we 

are unable at this point to draw clear conclusions as to what the 

facts were at this point—should intensify and increase our determination to make this process worthy of the courage of survivors 

who do come forward. Whatever happened to this victim or survivor, it should redouble our determination to improve this process. 

Let me ask, Ms. Langhammer, I strongly believe that we should 

require schools to provide comprehensive training to individuals 

who serve on a campus adjudication panel and that we ought to 

pick people who have the qualifications and experience and expertise to provide some measure of fairness and due process. Do you 

agree that we should not take away a survivor’s ability to receive 

on-campus remedies through this kind of adjudication process? 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. I think it is really important that victims 

have clear thorough options presented to them and that the options 

are developed in partnership with all of the appropriate players. 

That is that any campus officials should be working ahead of time 

before incidents happen. The partnership should be developed beyond just a MOU. I agree that is not enough. But the partnerships 

need to be in place so that it actually develops into a system where 

law enforcement does know about every assault that happens. 

However, the victim needs to be in that driver seat and the victim 

needs to be in charge of what happens with that information later. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. The victim should be in charge of the information, should be in charge of what happens with a prosecution 

if that is the choice or an on-campus adjudication, but you do not 

disagree that on-campus adjudication should be an option for a survivor? 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. I think it depends on—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Because that is the way I—I hope I misread your testimony, but I read it as essentially disapproving those 

on-campus adjudication processes as, to use your words, ‘‘that they 

don’t work.’’ 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. As they currently exist, they tend to replace 

any effective reporting or investigation or prosecution on the criminal side. So what happens is in most cases the most that might 

happen is an individual would be suspended or even expelled, but 

then free to go to another institution and given the statistics as we 

know that most of these individuals are serial offenders—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I think that is a very important 

point, that predators commit crime, after crime, after crime, a 

small minority of college men commit the overwhelming number of 

rapes and sexual assaults against women. But it seems to me that 

the issue you have just raised of recordkeeping and record transfers is separate and apart from the existence and integrity and 

fact-finding effectiveness of an on-campus adjudication process and 

I hope that you will support what is in the bill which is to preserve 
23 

and, in fact, enhance what we have now on many campuses. Many 

are taking the initiative on their own to do so. 

My time has expired. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. But I would be 

happy if the Chairman would allow us, or allow you to finish your 

answer, for you to do so. Thank you. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. I would gladly do that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. Thank you, Senator I do not disagree with 

you that there needs to be some kind of process as an option for 

victims on campus. There are a lot of things that need to be addressed on campus to support that victim’s effective continuation in 

campus life. However, I think right now a lot of those processes 

have been developed in a vacuum and have not been developed in 

true partnership with law enforcement in a way that clearly defines what should be happening on campus and what should not. 

I think there is too much emphasis on really what should not happen on campus and currently universities, administrators are 

forced to act as judge and jury. The defendant’s rights are violated. 

We all know. We have seen these horror shows on campus, after 

campus. So I think right now I do not know that we are at a place 

where we have developed effective on-campus adjudication processes because we have not worked effectively so far, maybe in some 

cases we have, but with law enforcement and I really encourage us. 

I know in Rhode Island will be looking at the Ashland model which 

is sort of the new kid on the block for all of us in a sense, but is 

so—I think addresses the concerns that you have as well as the 

concerns that we see at Day One in terms of victims basically not 

being given all of their options. 

In many cases, only the adjudication process options are given in 

a very thorough way to victims at the present time. So I think that 

is our reluctance to say yes we need a good adjudication process. 

I think they have to be hand-in-hand with all of the other options. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well I want to thank all of you for your 

testimony, your appearance here and your great work. If I am able 

to stay for more questions, I will ask them, but I just want to emphasize for folks in the trenches like yourselves were doing this 

work, the controversy about the University of Virginia probably 

seems like a distraction but it is no excuse for continuing to support this cause of improving the services and the process available 

to victims and survivors. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

So Senator McCaskill called it a complicated thicket where Title 

IX and law enforcement bump into each other and I think that is 

a pretty fair description and I would like to get into that complicated thicket just a little bit right now. Ms. Fleischer, you talked 

about the importance of assuring victims, survivors, of their right 

to suspend the law enforcement investigation as it goes forward. 

Now one might say, well, if you give the victim of the crime the 

right to suspend the investigation, that is going to result in less enforcement. I think you have seen that that is actually not true, but 

could you explain that for our Committee record, why giving the 

right to stop an investigation actually makes investigations more 

likely to go forward? 
24 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Absolutely. One of the things that we have seen 

a lot is that when survivors are entered into any process, that 

being a law-enforcement process or an administrative process at 

the college, there is a timeframe and there is a rush. And what 

happens for a lot of survivors is they just feel sort of catapulted by 

the process. It is completely out of their control and a lot of the 

time they do not even really truly understand what is going on. 

Most lay folks do not understand a criminal investigation or the 

parts and pieces of it. 

So what we have actually found is it has increased not only reporting, but it has increased those cases that go to the DA’s office 

because the survivors are given the time they need to fully engage 

in the process, to understand the process and also, to be real, to 

maintain the rest of their life. Because that is another thing that 

happens is, people’s lives get sort of hijacked by the criminal justice 

process and they are needing to find different shifts at work or if 

it is a student, it is impacting their studies, and all of those kinds 

of things. 

Another barrier for a lot of survivors is informing their parents 

about what has happened to them and the process they are engaged in. So by allowing them to suspend and pause, they can sort 

of take care of those bits and those pieces in a way that they feel 

comfortable to continue on in the criminal justice process. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. I would note from a prosecutor’s point 

of view that by formalizing that you are really not giving much 

away because in cases like this where consent is such an important 

part of the offense or lack of consent, the presence and willingness 

of the victim to proceed is crucial. I think in many respects all you 

are really doing is informing and confirming for victims of the 

crime a power that they have anyway but do not know because it 

is a big black box to them going in, which takes me to my second 

question. 

Somebody who has experienced a sexual assault and now has to 

encounter the Title IX process and the law enforcement process has 

two things going on. In fact, everybody in that process has two 

things going on. One is responding to the event itself, beginning to 

gather evidence, beginning to take statements, beginning to put together the case that will go forward one way or another. 

The second is to educate the person who was the subject of the 

offense about that process and those two things, I think we need 

to think about how we disaggregate them a little bit. And what you 

said in your testimony is that in your program, there is a confidential advisor who is exempt from the Title IX process. Does that 

mean that does not click off the Title IX timing clock when they 

are spoken to? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Yes. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Yes. And at the same time the police 

can engage with the victim of the crime without being obliged to 

necessarily open a criminal case and proceed with charges? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Yes. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. So it seems to me—I think of it as a 

vestibule before you get into the case part where you get the victim, the Title IX folks or somebody representing them, the confidential advisor and law enforcement together and that gives the 
25 

person who has been the subject of this crime the chance to understand what it is going to be, what her choices are, his choices are, 

all of that before the second process gets triggered. Is that a fair 

description of what you are trying to achieve and is that something 

we should be trying to achieve in this legislation to make sure that 

kind of vestibule moment exists? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Yes. I believe so and perhaps that is best illustrated by a case example. 

So we had a student present at our women’s resource center and 

she was referred to me. She came to my office and sort of outlined 

for me what had happened to her. Given my knowledge—which I 

said was imperative of the criminal justice system—I knew that 

what she was sharing with me was in our State a Measure 11 

crime, meaning that the crimes that had been perpetrated against 

her would carry a 25-year prison sentence. So we are talking about 

a serious crime. 

So I sort of let her know that she was disclosing a crime to me 

and at that time sort of said, and here are your options. This is 

what we can do on campus and this is what we can do with law 

enforcement. One of the things that I think is important to note as 

well is, she was also getting my endorsement of law enforcement, 

sort of, I was opening a door saying, you will have a good experience here and I can go with you for that. 

This particular woman said okay, let us do it right now, today. 

And I said okay, I will call and see if we can. I will see if there 

is a detective that can work with us today, and there was. So it 

was kind of kismet, in a way, because I had a free calendar and 

was able to go with her and she interviewed with law enforcement 

right then and I was there. 

And still in that process what I am able to do as a college administrator—because it was another student who had perpetrated the 

crime—is say are you safe in your current campus environment? 

Here is the Title IX process. Here is what it looks like, the Title 

IX process. And here is the time clock once we sort of involve these 

other campus people. 

And this woman was okay, but I want to mention that because 

of course that is important. We need to assess if somebody is safe 

and able to be a student, be able to live in their environment, all 

of those things. And she was and was invested in that process. So 

she participated in the law enforcement investigation with my support up until the point of when they were ready to interview and 

make an arrest of him. 

At that point, is when we engaged our Title IX process on campus because now nothing that the college is going to do is going to 

impede the criminal justice system and in a way it actually helps 

our case as a college that this engagement with law enforcement 

has happened. So both of those procedures happened successfully. 

That student had a plea bargain so he is a registered sex offender 

and was charged and convicted of those crimes and he was also expelled from the university. 

The last piece that I would say about that is there still are other 

parts. I accompanied her to grand jury. I went with her when the 

sentencing happened and was there to also explain some of the 

other bits and pieces of things, crime victim’s compensation and 
26 

where is he going to be on probation and how does she get in touch 

with those people and all of the pieces that continue after both 

matters are closed. 

And then finally just to say about her, she is still a student and 

she is still impacted. Just because those two processes have concluded, her life continues to be impacted by what happened to her. 

And so there I am still a resource for her on campus. 

And I just think that vestibule is a great word. Sometimes I 

think of a hub, you know, something like that. Having that person 

that has the knowledge of all of the systems and can really just lay 

out for a survivor what their options are in an accurate and informed way I think is really very important. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Let us do a second round. I yield to Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that is a very apt and articulate description of the way 

the process can work, ideally, if the survivor chooses to go to the 

criminal justice system, but not all survivors may have the decisiveness that this woman evidently did. So I wonder what you tell 

women—let us talk about women because they are the majority of 

victims or survivors—about the consequences, the timetable? Do 

you encourage them to go to the criminal justice system? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. Again, we are going with what they would like. 

I feel as though I can very comfortably recommend law enforcement to them and if what they are disclosing to me I know to be 

a crime in Oregon statute, I am informing them of that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Do you have an obligation to report that 

crime? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. I do not. One of the things that is really important about the You Have Options Program with law enforcement 

is that they are taking delayed reports so there is no timeframe 

within which somebody has to report and they then will not take 

a report. They will take them. 

On campus, we have worked with students in the Title IX process who have reported in a delayed way as well. And it is true that 

there is no longer any physical evidence when a delay has been 

made, but there are other kinds of evidences that can still be collected. So I would say sort of cautiously, yes, I recommend law enforcement. Mostly I am wanting to do what they would like. 

But again, in partnership with the You Have Options Program, 

most people—I had mentioned that 76 percent of our students who 

are reporting crimes have interaction with law enforcement. So 

most students, because they can give an information only report to 

law enforcement, are at least exploring that option and then our 

police department has the name and information of these offenders. 

What I will just say, finally, most survivors, if they are not willing to go forward for themselves, for their own process, if they 

learn that there is somebody else who was offended against by the 

same person, they are much more willing to do that. So again, just 

giving the information to law enforcement in the first place is highly valuable. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I think that is a very important point, 

that survivors can be persuaded at least to provide the information 

even if they do not pursue a prosecution in the event that the as-
27 

sailant does it again, then they may want to proceed to corroborate 

or to pursue a second case against the same person. I have heard 

that also on various campuses in Connecticut, that survivors may 

be more willing to come forward and may want forensic evidence 

to be preserved. By the way, you said that it would not be available 

if they did not pursue the criminal prosecution, but if they go to 

a hospital, there is likely to be forensic evidence and it can be preserved even if they do not pursue it at that point. 

I want to shift to an area that was raised at the close of the testimony offered by—the response to my question to Ms. Langhammer, 

the transfer process and student records—I am sure you followed, 

even though it was on another coast, the experience recently, 

again, tragically and unfortunately at the University of Virginia, 

the murder of Hannah Graham by an accused individual, Jesse 

Mathews, Jr., who has been apprehended and who evidently committed various offenses at other schools and his records were not 

transferred to schools when he was transferred. I think I am probably putting it over simplistically, but a essentially schools where 

he went were not informed of bad experiences involving him at 

prior schools which would have been useful to them. 

And your testimony states that if a student is found responsible 

and is expelled, that student could move to another school and offend again. We know that most rapes are committed, as we observed here just now, by a few repeat offenders. So, unfortunately, 

that is not only a possible outcome, it may well be a probable outcome. 

You mentioned that academic records are protected which prevents the school from which the student has transferred from sharing that information, and I assume you are talking about FERPA, 

which actually does allow schools to disclose records to other 

schools to which a student is transferring under some instances. So 

FERPA may have a chilling effect in practice, but the law has a 

specific exception for this purpose. Unfortunately, schools tend not 

to disclose the information unless they are asked, which is a barrier. 

So, I wonder if you could tell me, and maybe Chief Zoner may 

have some insight on this, whether Cornell or Southern Oregon 

University have a policy for asking schools from which a student 

is transferring about the reason for their dismissal, their leaving 

the school, if it is in their record? I know that is kind of a longwinded question, but I would broaden it to all three of the members of this panel. I hope you understand what the question is. 

Chief ZONER. I think I understand what the question is. To the 

best of my knowledge, yes, Cornell in its transfer procedures to 

look into students not only academic records but also behavioral 

records as well. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And ask for those records of the school 

from which a student is transferring? 

Chief ZONER. Correct. As far as I know. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Your school, Ms. Fleischer? 

Ms. FLEISCHER. I am not entirely clear on the process. To the 

best of my knowledge, we do as well. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Ms. Langhammer, do you know—— 
28 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. [Off microphone.] I know of instances that you 

are referring to where there was actually a college in Rhode Island, 

Providence College, where someone transferred to, I believe it was 

Oregon, and just the very situation you are describing. So, I think 

that definitely needs some attention in the legislation. I would really recommend that. I think that is a great point you are bringing 

up, Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. When you think about it it is so critically 

important because a school may be really happy to get rid of a rapist. They cannot deal with the proof, the student does not want to 

pursue it in the criminal justice process, but there is a rapist on 

campus, a serial predator and if he is gone, the school says well 

we have done our job. We got rid of him. And then he is on to another school. 

So really schools ought to be asking this question when someone 

comes to them, especially if there is some potential disciplinary 

problem involved in the original school, what was the reason? Did 

it involve sexual assault? Because they can protect a whole lot of 

students on their own campuses if they simply asked this question 

which is very much permissible under FERPA. It is not precluded 

for a school to ask that question and so I think it behooves schools 

around the country to be somewhat more inquisitive and responsible. 

The long-winded preface to my question indicates that it seems 

like a technical issue, but it has real consequences. Thank you Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Let me ask a few more questions. We 

are running a little short on time, so I invite Chief Zoner and Ms. 

Langhammer to supplement their answers for the record in writing 

afterwards. But I want to touch on a couple of things. 

The bill encourages—requires universities to develop a memorandum of understanding with local law enforcement. Chief Zoner, 

you suggested that a memorandum of understanding, for a memorandum of understanding’s sake, may not be the best way, that 

there are ‘‘better, less costly and more balanced alternatives.’’ In 

order to have the legislation not have wiggle room were colleges 

and universities can get away with doing nothing, how would you 

recommend that we expand the requirement or redefine the requirement, to make sure we are achieving what I think we all recognize we should achieve if a memorandum of understanding is not 

the exactly pertinent term? 

Chief ZONER. I want to clarify I think memorandums of understanding can be very helpful and very useful in many situations. 

One of the concerns that I have is, different campuses have different levels of security and or law enforcement available to them 

in their own construct and then may have a single agency or multiple agencies that are responsible, governmental agencies on the 

outside. 

So when you look at the memorandum of understanding as the 

only tool by which you are going to communicate, it takes a great 

amount of effort in a lot of cases to make sure that those are 

signed. And again, I am going to reiterate that governmental agencies have absolutely no obligation. You can sign anything you want 

and there is no repercussions for someone who does not engage in 
29 

the behavior that the memorandum is there. So the institutions 

can be left floundering with good intent to try to make things happen. 

In addition, the law enforcement agencies on campus are also responsible employees so they have to report and start that Title IX 

clock ticking. So it is a different relationship than what my colleague described over here. So we have a lot of different levels of 

security and law enforcement on campus. We have a lot of different 

interactions with different agencies on-campuses and off-campuses 

and encouraging people to reach agreements is definitely a best 

practice whether it is through a MOU or through other methodologies by hosting conferences that get local law enforcement together 

on a regular basis, opening up information and database sharing 

so we are all sharing the same information amongst each other so 

that we can talk intelligently amongst each other and share that 

information, providing records management systems, bridges and 

gaps so our information can be on some level even automatically 

shared so a system can be flagged across governmental and campus 

information for criminal activity would all be very good places to 

invest time and money. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. You mentioned that your law enforcement officers are ‘‘responsible officials,’’ a term of art under Title 

IX that triggers the Title IX clock to begin to run and you mentioned in your testimony that delay in Title IX investigations is not 

allowed even when law enforcement is on the case. Are there hallmarks of a case or of a law enforcement investigation that would 

justify some degree of flexibility in pursuing the Title IX path so 

that there is not interference with the law enforcement path, particularly the investigative part of the Title IX path? Obviously, the 

Title IX path with respect to the quality of life and the protection 

of the student and all of that sort of student life management piece 

cannot be stopped, but has it been a problem for you to have two 

investigations basically taking place with the same witnesses at 

the same time and bumping into each other? 

Chief ZONER. Yes, it has been problematic and thankfully we 

have a very good relationship with our on-campus judicial administrators in working with us as we are working with the district attorneys office as well. We do our best to navigate to support the 

victim throughout this and allow the victim to have the say in 

which direction it is going and what is emphasized. 

Certainly there are interest in the criminal proceedings to protect a potential future case because statute of limitations is much 

longer that would raise an eyebrow as administrative proceedings 

move forward. I do go into more detail in that written statement 

about what those concerns are. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Is it also possible for defense counsel 

representing an assailant to use the Title IX process to delay, degrade and inhibit the law enforcement investigation? 

Chief ZONER. Correct and actually I mentioned earlier, that is 

part of why we actually end up getting less cooperation in administrative proceedings because with a looming criminal case, people 

are reluctant to share information that may influence an outcome 

one way or the other. 
30 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Okay. Ms. Langhammer, you said something very interesting. You said so the question is not should colleges be mandated to report these crimes to the police, the question 

is how do we create a system where the victims choices are the priority and the process is designed to work in the best interests of 

the victim. What are the hallmarks of such a system? 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. Well I think first accurate information, from 

the beginning. And I think, again, looking at the Ashland model I 

think having everyone present at the beginning so that a victim 

knows—— 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Prior to a commitment to go on a 

path—— 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. Right, informed choice. Here I am, law enforcement officer, this is what will happen if you go forward. We 

will still work closely with the university who is also sitting right 

here. This is the process you can expect if you go through this on 

campus. You also have the option to just tell me some basic information. I do not even have to use your name. You know, that is 

law enforcement speaking. 

So I think all of those options and keeping—that is what I mean 

about the victim being in the driver seat. I believe that with that 

kind of scenario—and I understand why many more victims choose 

to go forward because they do feel they are in charge and they do 

feel they have choices and they also feel like—we keep hearing 

again, and again how victims feel this timeframe is being thrown 

at them. They feel out of control. 

As you stated, Senator, it is another kind of out-of-control lack 

of consent and re-victimization in a sense. So when we say a certain thing is not working, we think it is because it is not working 

in collaboration with all of the systems that need to be at the table 

and they need to work together. That is what a true MOU is. That 

is what a memorandum of understanding is. We believe they 

should be mandatory. 

We are developing them as we speak with all of the institutions 

in Rhode Island, Day One is. We are about to complete our first 

one and it has really been a give-and-take. We think this is important here at University X, we think this is important and we have 

been at the table with all of those folks, including their local law 

enforcement. 

So that is what I believe needs to happen in how we build an 

ideal system of response where the victim is a part of that team. 

It is not a dual approach. Okay, I am going to straddle this internal process and this law enforcement piece and here is a date I 

have to go to this and here is another date here and I have exams 

now. No—victims should be deciding how that entire process goes 

forward and should have her or his eyes open the entire time. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Final question, you spent many years in 

this area. You have been a great leader. You have, in particular 

spent many years dealing with the plague of domestic violence and 

domestic sexual assault. Are there lessons that we should take 

from the experience we have had? Is that a crime that has really 

kind of come out of the shadows and is now treated much more seriously and in which law enforcement is engaged with the advocacy 

community very effectively? Does that provide any models for this? 
31 

Ms. LANGHAMMER. You know, I think with both issues—and they 

often overlap, they really do. Many victims we see at Day One have 

also experienced severe domestic violence. I think the lessons are 

that—and like my colleague from Ashland addressed this—that we 

need to really listen to victims. We need to listen to what they are 

saying and we need to train our personnel law enforcement prosecution, anyone who is interacting with a victim in trauma-informed forensic interviewing so that they really learn to understand how that victim is impacted. 

In domestic violence we keep asking the question why does she 

stay? Why did she go back? And I think the more we learn to listen 

to what the victim experience is, the more as law-enforcement, the 

more as university administrators, we will craft our approach to 

really be in tune with what the victim needs. 

Chairman WHITEHOUSE. Very good words to end the hearing on. 

The record will stay open for an additional week. If anybody wishes 

to add anything to it, I very much appreciate not only the testimony of this panel of witnesses but the life’s work that has led up 

to this testimony and made it so meaningful for all of us. 

I appreciate my seven colleagues who have participated in this 

hearing. For a Subcommittee hearing, that is a lot of attention particularly in the waning days of this Congress. Everybody is virtually wildly busy doing things. And I particularly want to recognize our incoming Chairman, Senator Grassley, and thank him for 

the positive and enthusiastic remarks that he made at the outset 

of the hearing and for his work with Senator McCaskill and others 

as they have put this bill together. So with that, we will adjourn 

and thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

(33) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 

Æ