Plaintiff in Title IX Marquette Lawsuit Complained to Office for Civil Rights

We have blogged about former Marquette student Jane Doe (a pseudonym) who is suing Marquette for the treatment she received following her alleged rape (and also for Marquette’s failure to properly punish the accused rapist before the alleged rape).

We declined to draw any firm conclusions about the case, since many of the people involved refused to talk about it. We did note the implausibility of a concerted conspiracy against her in the College of Nursing, where she claims she was badly mistreated and eventually forced to leave Marquette.

In addition to filing a lawsuit, Doe filed a complaint with the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which that office received on July 7.

Here is the statement that Doe provided the OCR.

On a form asking what she wanted from Marquette, Doe responded:

I request censure for MU and acknowledgement that corrective action has occurred preventing other students from enduring this treatment. Because I was forced to withdraw from MU, I would like help in entering other schools. I should also receive reimbursement for tuition and related expenses (including legal expenses).

The narrative she supplied OCR mostly recounts the same claims she made in the Complaint in the Title IX lawsuit, with an exception or two. A key claim in the Complaint is that Marquette’s Department of Public Safety discouraged her reporting the alleged rape to Milwaukee police. A fuller account of her claims is given in the narrative.

I told my parents, who went with me to report the assault to MU department of public safety (MU DPS). The MU DPS told me and my parents to think long and hard about reporting to Milwaukee Police because if they don’t charge him, he would find out and possibly act out against me; Did I really want him to know that I have reported him; I should think long and hard about this before calling the police. At this time, the DPS officers were aware of [redacted] and status with Marquette.

Even though MU discouraged us from [redacted] my parents and I did not think that was the right to to do. We reported to Milwaukee Police Department.

If this account is accurate, officers at Public Safety blundered badly. Note, however, that had they encouraged her to report the rape, the outcome would have been the same. She would have faced the investigation of her case by the Milwaukee Police, the long-delayed trial of her accused rapist, rape charges against her filed by her accused rapist (in apparently reprisal) and so on. So it will be difficult, in her lawsuit, to prove that any damages followed from this alleged blunder by DPS officers.

Office for Civil Rights Responds

The Office for Civil Rights judged her complaint under two rubrics: (1) Discrimination, and (2) Retaliation.

The complain based on discrimination was dismissed, based on the fact that she was late filing the complaint. The letter from Dawn Matthias (OCR team leader) said:

You informed OCR that you did not file your complaint within 180 days because you were afraid the University would retaliate against you. However, this is not an acceptable basis for a waiver of the 180-day filing requirement.

Because your allegation of discrimination is not timely and OCR finds no basis for granting a waiver, OCR is dismissing this allegation effective the date of this letter.

Retaliation

The Office for Civil Rights likewise dismissed the claim of retaliation, saying:

Although you contend that the Associate Dean who denied your grade appeals was aware of your report of sexual assault, you did not provide information suggesting that the Associate Dean’s stated reasons for denying the grade appeals were false or illegitimate. In light of the protracted amount of time between the protected activity and adverse action, and the lack of any indications of possible retaliation, OCR finds that you have not stated a prima facie case of retaliation and is dismissing this allegation.

Conclusion

It might seem that all this is damning for Jane Doe’s lawsuit against Marquette. But it’s not quite so simple. There is no evidence the Office for Civil Rights actually investigated the case. The passage quoted above implies that Doe’s complaint about retaliation was dismissed based merely on the fact that she herself presented no convincing evidence. Several documents from the OCR file were withheld from this blogger (based on privacy concerns) and Lauren Skerrett of the Office for Civil Rights declined to say whether any of them contained more evidence or investigative reports. But the meticulously written letter from Dawn Matthias indicates no additional evidence or investigation, and the redactions in that letter are too minor to conceal such.

But the bottom line has to be that Doe’s case is rather weak. The notion that her alleged rapist should have been suspended or expelled before he raped her only makes sense if his treatment was egregiously lenient, and we don’t know that it was. Further, even guys who are terrible jerks and deserve some punishment aren’t typically likely rapists.

The actions of DPS officers, if they really did discourage reporting a rape, were grossly unprofessional. But it’s hard to see how that changed anything in her subsequent experiences. And evidence of intentional mistreatment by multiple people in the Nursing College is missing.

Title IX Lawsuit Against Marquette

It’s been in the media, but not covered in any depth: the fact that a former student is suing Marquette for the treatment she received after reporting to University officials that she had been raped by a Marquette student.

We have obtained the Complaint, filed with the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Wisconsin by “Jane Doe.” This is, of course, a pseudonym, since both the legal system and the norms of journalism protect the identity of rape victims, so far as is possible.

And we have identified the alleged rapist as “the accused,” since he was acquitted of rape charges in a Milwaukee court.

We have reproduced most of the Complaint below, stripping out legalese, paragraph numbers, and some redundant material.

If everything here is true, Marquette has been guilty of rather severe misconduct. But is everything (or even most of it) true? We have inserted our comments where we have information or a perspective to add. But much of the material in the Complaint is, at the moment, mere assertion that will need to be backed up (or refuted) by sworn testimony.

The Complaint

Defendant MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY recklessly allowed a male student who had already threatened and harmed another female student to return to campus. When the male student then raped JANE DOE, MARQUETTE knew it had done wrong. Rather than help and support DOE, MARQUETTE tried to sweep its mistake under the rug, discouraging DOE from reporting the rape to law enforcement and seeking to discredit DOE as a student.

DOE began attending MARQUETTE as a freshman in or about August 2013. DOE was enrolled in MARQUETTE’s College of Nursing. Once students are admitted to the College of Nursing, they are guaranteed all required classes and clinical hours, enabling students not only to graduate with a college degree but also, upon graduation, to assimilate into the nursing profession.

DOE had a normal, uneventful first year at MARQUETTE. She made friends, earned good grades (with approximately a B average), and enjoyed the nursing program.

During her first year at MARQUETTE, DOE met another MARQUETTE student [the accused]. Although [the accused] repeatedly expressed a sexual interest in DOE, and they once attended a dance together, they were not in a romantic relationship.

In or about August 2014, after summer vacation, DOE returned to MARQUETTE for her sophomore year. Throughout August, [the accused] sent DOE text messages that were at times rude, crude, demeaning, and hostile. DOE repeatedly told [the accused] that she had a boyfriend and asked [the accused] to communicate with her civilly or leave her alone.

On or about August 21, 2014, [the accused] threatened DOE by text message, “If I wanted to I could’ve railed you any night of my choosing ever since I met you. And there’s no doubt in my mind I’m going to rail you sometime this semester. Nothing like you’ve ever experienced before. I would be doing you the favor.” DOE responded, “That’s not going to happen.”

The quoted message is a pale reflection of vulgar messages the accused sent to Doe. Another soon after said:

I know big dicks are a scary thing, but you will grow to like it.

Which was immediately followed by:

I swear to god if one of those freshman sluts bleeds on my new sheets I’m going to lose it.

But it’s downright false to claim that Doe demanded that the accused be more civil or stop texting her. In spite of the vulgarity of the messages, Doe continued a congenial exchange with him, as this list of texts shows.

For example, about a half hour after the “rail you” text quoted above, the accused texted:

What if I told you I liked you and wanted something more. Obviously I don’t give a shit about sex if I’m still talking to you after 6 months of knowing you. . . . You could not let have sex [sic] with you and be your friend. I really enjoy talking to you.

To which Jane Doe replied:

That’s what I’m going for. I’m just looking for friends right now.

The accused then bragged about how he was “doing really good right now with the ladies,” and then shortly thereafter texted:

Just met a girl named Mary walking down the sidewalk and her friend Grace it’s their first night here and they got back from some square dancing thing.

Doe then replied:

Well have fun kid. Remember, safe sex is great sex.

So rather than being sorely offended by what seems to us as patiently offensive language, Doe continued with a congenial exchange.

A few days later, in the early morning hours of August 24, 2014, DOE met with [the accused] when she was intoxicated, and he raped her.

This is stated as fact, although a jury acquitted the alleged rapist.

The Rape Case

It seems that the testimony of Jane Doe had several problems. In the first place, she claimed to have simply happened upon the accused on the street the night of the rape. But in fact, she had exchanged several text messages with him and they planned to meet, as a list of their texts shows.

Here is the first page of the texts, and here is the second.

Beginning at 9:53 p.m. on the evening of the alleged rape (August 23-24) a series of texts between Doe and the accused detailed their respective movements. At 2:32 a.m. the accused texted:

Come to Ivy or meet me down in the lobby at [truncated]

To which Doe responded:

Why do you want to meet me?

The accused replied:

To see you’re beautiful face and say hi

To which Doe responded:

OK (:

Another nine messages followed and concluded with the accused being at Schroeder Hall. According to Doe, the accused then invited her to come see his apartment, which was right across the street.

Doe, speaking to police, misrepresented what happened, implying that the two had simply happened upon each other when both were out roaming around.

Milwaukee Police Officer Cindy Carlson interviewed her. Carlson describes her testimony.

A. . . . the victim stated that she was outside of her dorm on Marquette’s campus looking for some friends when she was approached by a known acquaintance of hers [the accused]. She said they hugged each other, then talked, and they began walking to his apartment because he wanted to show her his new apartment.

Examined by the accused’s lawyer, Carlson was asked:

Q. Officer, you indicated that when you interviewed [Jane Doe], she indicated that she was outside of Schroeder Hall on August 24th in the evening when she saw [the accused]?

A. It was the early morning hours, yes.

Q. Okay. And did she tell you that [the accused] and her had planned to meet up outside of Schroeder Hall?

A. She did not say that those were her plans, no.

Q. Okay. She told you she was waiting for other friends. Not [the accused]. Correct?

A. She was looking for her other friends, yes.

Why would Jane Doe give a false account about this? Perhaps she knew that the truth might look like a hook-up for sexual purposes, even if it was not. Still, it doubtless harmed her credibility in the eyes of the jury.

Back to the Complaint:

The next day, DOE sent [the accused] multiple text messages, telling him that they needed to speak. He told DOE, “text me what you want to say.” DOE wrote, “Its about Saturday night. What you did was absolutely horrible....” [the accused] then agreed to speak with DOE, who told him that she was going to report the sexual assault. [The accused] admitted he had raped DOE but told her that if she went to the police, no one would believe her.

In fact, the texts sent the next day to not show any urgency on the part of Doe to meet her supposed rapist, as the exchange of texts shows.

Further, on the day after the supposed rape, Doe told friend Ann Lally that she “did not know” whether she had had sex the night before. An odd statement, which might make sense if Doe was drunk to the point of unconsciousness. But she does not claim to have been unconscious during the rape, and video surveillance footage from her return to her dorm (Schroeder Hall) does not show any perceptible impairment in her actions.

Probably worse, in the eyes of the jury, was the fact that Doe admitted, at the rape trial of the accused, to extremely aggressive sexual behavior toward him during the spring of 2014. Specifically, she admitted making out with him, to taking off his clothes and hers, and getting on top of him, grinding her pubic area against his.

The accused claims his penis briefly penetrated Doe’s vagina. Indeed, he brought sexual assault charges against Doe, but only after she had accused him of rape, in what was apparent retaliation.

(How a misguided tactic of the prosecutor allowed this into evidence notwithstanding the rape shield law is an interesting story.)

Verdict

After a much-delayed trial, the jury acquitted the accused on July 14, 2016. Anomalies in Doe’s account, and (doubtless) her earlier sexual aggressiveness toward the accused, appear to have produced a “reasonable doubt” in their minds. A less strict standard of proof – for example the “preponderance of the evidence” standard used in many campus tribunals – might lead to a different result. Especially, it is hard to see a motive for a false rape claim here. But then, not all such claims have a perceptible motive.

Back to the Complaint:

At the Time of DOE’s Assault, MARQUETTE Was Already Under Scrutiny for Title IX Non-Compliance

In 2011 – a few years before DOE was assaulted – MARQUETTE officials acknowledged that they made mistakes in handling student reports of sexual assaults, including by failing to report incidents to Milwaukee police as required by state law. In order to remedy those failures, MARQUETTE said it was improving how the university reported incidents of sexual assault to the Milwaukee police. These changes came only after a former student said that MARQUETTE dismissed her allegations that a student-athlete had sexually assaulted her.

At that time, MARQUETTE officials told the press: “There were a lot of things I think we found that we were not proud of, as you can imagine. We have initiated a lot of conversations since then on campus as well as with local law enforcement . . . to really help us learn from that. It will not happen again.”

This is quite accurate. Misconduct was exposed by articles in the Chicago Tribune that show, in two separate incidents, Marquette failed to inform police of sexual assaults that the university knew about and meted out absurdly lenient punishments to athletes who committed assaults.

Moreover, in and around 2015, around the same time as incidents described in this Complaint, MARQUETTE was under investigation by the U.S. Department of Education for possibly mishandling an incident involving sexual harassment.

After the sexual assault, DOE was scared and upset. She called her parents, who immediately came to the MARQUETTE campus. Together, DOE and her parents went to MARQUETTE’s Department of Public Safety to report the attack.

Despite the fact that [the accused] had committed a serious violent crime – and despite MARQUETTE’s prior mishandling of situations like this one – MARQUETTE’s Department of Public Safety discouraged DOE and her parents from reporting the crime to the Milwaukee Police Department. Moreover, despite the fact that DOE specifically asked what her options were, no one informed DOE or her parents about Title IX or her option to pursue a complaint under MARQUETTE’s complaint procedures.

We have been unable to reach any of the parties to the exchange between Marquette Public Safety and Doe and her parents. A call to Doe’s parents was not returned, and neither was a call to Marquette Police Chief Paul Mascari. We did reach Megan DeVries, apparently one of the officers present, and her only response was “I have nothing to say about that.”

In response to the earlier scandal, reported by the Chicago Tribune, Mascari said “I can tell you that, having talked to the officers afterward, it was never the intention of anyone in this department to discourage … victims from contacting the Milwaukee Police Department.”

It would be striking, in light of the previous scandal, if Public Safety officers in fact did discourage a report to police.

Notwithstanding MARQUETTE’s repeated efforts to dissuade DOE from contacting police, DOE insisted that she wished to report the rape to the Milwaukee Police Department. At DOE’s request, the police responded and took DOE’s statement.

The police secured an arrest warrant for [the accused]. DOE feared encountering [the accused], who lived across from DOE’s dormitory. Even though MARQUETTE knew the danger that [the accused] posed to DOE and other students, MARQUETTE refused to allow the police to arrest [the accused] on campus. During the days that it took for the police to track [the accused] down off campus, DOE was frightened and stayed in a hotel with her parents until police notified her that [the accused] was in custody.

On or about August 29, 2014, [the accused] was arrested and charged with third-degree sexual assault.

We don’t know what to make of the “refused to allow the police to arrest [the accused] on campus” comment. Perhaps Marquette resisted having him arrested when he was in class. But he lived at Ivy on 14th, right on Wells Street, and would not have been hard to find.

Restraining the Accused

On September 3rd, the accused appeared before Court Commissioner Barillas and was granted bail, and also was put on GPS monitoring, and forbidden to be within 1,000 feet of Schroeder Hall. A complication arose when it was discovered that his apartment was only about 600 feet from Schroeder Hall, and many of the buildings in which he would have classes were less than 1,000 feet from that building.

Later on the 3rd, this was brought to the attention of Barillas, who modified the order to give the defendant 48 hours to collect his belongings and leave campus. At this time, Barillas was informed that the defendant had withdrawn from Marquette.

The defendant then returned to his parents home in Illinois, and remained under surveillance by Justice Point, although the GPS monitoring was eventually removed.

On or about September 3, 2014, while [the accused] was still in custody, DOE and her parents met with MARQUETTE’s Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and asked what the school was going to do. The Assistant Vice President, who failed to inform DOE about Title IX or DOE’s ability to lodge a complaint with the school, was non-committal concerning what action MARQUETTE would take concerning the rape. The Assistant Vice President said only that people at MARQUETTE would discuss the issues.

A source at Marquette tells us that the Marquette official in question was probably Marya Leatherwood, of the Student Affairs office.

Reached at her home in Georgia, Leatherwood could not confirm that she was the official (citing confidentiality rules), but she did make it clear that, at this point, “lodging a complaint with the school” was a moot issue. The rape complaint lodged with Department of Public Safety on August 27th would have automatically been reported to Student Affairs (which was then handling Title IX complaints under the Student Conduct process).

Of course, Student Affairs might not move on such a complaint if the criminal justice system was pursuing it aggressively. Why institute a process that might lead to the student’s expulsion when cops and prosecutors are trying to put him in prison? And why make any promises about what Marquette is “going to do” when the issue is in the hands of the justice system? Marquette would not be precluded from pursuing a disciplinary process if charges were dropped, or if the accused was acquitted. But by the time the accused was finally acquitted (nearly two years later) he was long gone from Marquette.

DOE’s parents also specifically asked the Assistant Vice President whether [the accused] had any disciplinary history. In response, the Assistant Vice President said that [the accused] was a MARQUETTE student. DOE’s parents followed up, asking if [the accused] had any issues. The Assistant Vice President just repeated that [the accused] was a MARQUETTE student.

Of course, rules about confidentiality would have prevented any Marquette official from revealing this information. While the Marquette official may have come across as frustratingly evasive, the evasiveness was prudent (don’t promise something that might not happen) and in some cases was required (don’t reveal confidential information).

DOE’s parents met with the Assistant Vice President again on or about September 5, 2014, and notified the Assistant Vice President that the Milwaukee County District Attorney was bringing formal charges against [the accused]. DOE’s parents provided a copy of the charges and asked what MARQUETTE was going to do. Again, the Assistant Vice President provided no information about Title IX and gave no assurances that the school would take any action.

On or about September 5, 2014, [the accused] withdrew from MARQUETTE. When DOE’s parents followed up with the Assistant Vice President, the Assistant Vice President stated that because [the accused] withdrew, the school would take no action.

To DOE’s knowledge, MARQUETTE never commenced a Title IX investigation or took other action concerning [the accused] with respect to the sexual assault.

Marquette’s Actions

In fact, Marquette was taking action on the case. On September 4th, Erin Lazzar, Associate Dean of Students, wrote to the accused student noting that the charges against him had been reported to her office by Public Safety, and that he was not enrolled in classes for the fall semester. Thus, a “Student Conduct Hold” had been placed on his record. Further, “Should you wish to return to Marquette as a student, a student conduct hearing will need to be scheduled first.”

Finally, he was told that “Effectively immediately, you are prohibited from being on the Marquette University campus at any time for any reason.”

So while Doe’s parents were faced with what they considered stonewalling, Marquette was indeed acting against their daughter’s alleged rapist.

With respect to DOE, MARQUETTE assigned a counselor who, upon information and belief, was serving in an interim capacity and had no training working with sexual-assault victims. DOE received calls from the counselor at random times, asking questions like, “Hi, how are you feeling about being raped?” The calls were insensitive and very upsetting to DOE.

DOE also discussed the sexual assault with her Academic Advisor, who instructed DOE to notify her teachers about what had happened. DOE told each of her teachers at MARQUETTE that she had been sexually assaulted by another student at the beginning of the school year.

DOE Learns about [the accused’s] Past

Another MARQUETTE undergraduate student approached DOE in or about January 2015. The student informed DOE that in or around early 2014 – when DOE was a freshman at MARQUETTE – [the accused] had stalked and intimidated the student. [the accused] sent the student angry, harassing, and degrading text messages; posted hostile slurs about her on social media; and aggressively approached and followed her on campus. The student was extremely frightened by [the accused], fearing for her safety and repeatedly seeking recourse with MARQUETTE’s Department of Public Safety.

Also, just as [the accused] had done with DOE – trying to turn the tables and accusing DOE of raping him – [the accused] had used the same tactic the previous year, when under investigation for stalking the student. That is, [the accused] had attempted to shift blame to the student, telling MARQUETTE that the student had previously stalked him.

Because of [the accused’s] misconduct toward the student, MARQUETTE suspended [the accused] from the school, in or about spring 2014. There was also a no-contact order in place at MARQUETTE, prohibiting [the accused] from having contact with the student.

Inexplicably, though, [the accused’s] suspension did not stand. MARQUETTE’s Vice President for Student Affairs overruled that decision, and [the accused] was permitted to return to MARQUETTE in fall 2014 on the conditions that he, among other things: (1) write a reflection letter to the student, and (2) receive counseling.

Of course, without knowing the full details of the case, and also the precedents (how had similar previous cases been handled?) is it impossible to know whether this sanction was unduly lenient.

Back to the Complaint:

According to the student, [the accused] never provided her with a reflection letter.

Moreover, on information and belief, [the accused] never provided MARQUETTE with evidence that he received counseling or wrote the required reflection letter to the student before returning to MARQUETTE’s campus.

MARQUETTE Retaliates Against DOE

Once DOE learned this information about [the accused], DOE and her parents confronted MARQUETTE, trying to understand why [the accused] had been permitted back on campus. It also became clear to DOE that the information about the other MARQUETTE student was very important to the criminal case against [the accused] and should be turned over to the prosecution. Although MARQUETTE knew all of this information before and could have shared it with the District Attorney’s Office, MARQUETTE did so only at DOE’s urging, and only after the student alerted DOE.

DOE tried to remain focused on succeeding in MARQUETTE’s nursing program. Rather than recognizing the trauma that DOE had experienced and helping her overcome the new obstacles facing her, however, MARQUETTE embarked on a campaign to discredit DOE and ultimately to run her out of the school. Throughout 2015 and 2016, in particular – after [the accused] filed a complaint with MARQUETTE about DOE – MARQUETTE appeared to have two motivations: (1) to deter future sexual-assault victims from pursuing charges, as DOE had done, and (2) to intimidate DOE, in an effort to cause her to leave MARQUETTE, protect MARQUETTE against legal action, and discredit DOE as a complainant.

Note that this supposed “campaign” would have had to involve multiple administrators in both the Student Affairs office and (as we shall see below) the College of Nursing, as well as several instructors in the College of Nursing. But any campaign against Doe would seem to involve much greater risks than merely letting her alone to finish her education.

This retaliation took multiple forms. First, despite knowing that DOE was a witness in the ongoing criminal proceedings against [the accused], requiring frequent interviews and meetings with police and prosecutors, which were stressful and difficult for DOE, MARQUETTE failed to support DOE’s participation in those proceedings and failed to provide reasonable academic accommodations.

When [the accused] accused DOE of assaulting him, in late 2014, the Milwaukee County District Attorney’s Office informed DOE that she would be interviewed, either by MARQUETTE’s Department of Public Safety (because [the accused] had made the complaint directly to MARQUETTE) or by the Milwaukee Police Department. A representative for DOE contacted MARQUETTE’s Associate General Counsel and informed him about [the accused’s] accusation and the circumstances.

Throughout this time, DOE did not know who would be reaching out to her or when the request would occur. This hung over DOE’s head.

In or about January 2015, the Milwaukee police called DOE to come in to the police department that day to be interviewed about [the accused’s] complaint. DOE was scheduled to take a critical test in her Pathophysiology 1 class just a couple of hours after the call from police. The test was important. DOE had completed Pathophysiology 1 the previous semester, but DOE’s instructor had given DOE the option to take this particular test in January, after the semester’s end.

Nervous, but not wanting to rock the boat, DOE took the test. She got a C/D (meaning: under 78%), which – in the MARQUETTE nursing school’s grading scheme – constituted a failing grade.

The Pathophysiology 1 class was a prerequisite for the other classes DOE was taking during the spring semester. DOE’s Academic Advisor told DOE that because of her C/D grade, she would not be permitted to proceed with her spring classes and needed to leave MARQUETTE immediately. The Advisor said that DOE could no longer attend the classes she had already started and that she could not remain in the dorms.

DOE’s mother contacted the Advisor, explained that DOE had been contacted by police right before the test to be interviewed about [the accused’s] accusation against DOE, and asked that DOE be given an opportunity to retake the test. The Advisor said no. The Advisor said that DOE would be required to take a full withdrawal on medical leave, or MARQUETTE would not refund the tuition that DOE had already paid for the semester.

DOE’s mother engaged the Advisor in discussions about alternatives. DOE’s parents were willing to do anything to keep DOE in school, as much on schedule and with as much normalcy as possible. The Advisor shot down every suggestion. Despite the fact that MARQUETTE routinely allowed other nursing students who did not pass a prerequisite class to remain at school and take electives or other classes, MARQUETTE repeatedly told DOE’s parents that they would not accommodate DOE.

Only after DOE’s mother specifically called out MARQUETTE for trying to get rid of DOE the month before [the accused’s] criminal trial did MARQUETTE relent in part, allowing DOE to stay in the dorms and take just one class for spring of her sophomore year. MARQUETTE also – after initially refusing, repeatedly, to do so – refunded a portion of tuition for the classes that DOE was not being permitted to take. Although this arrangement allowed DOE to remain enrolled at MARQUETTE and maintain the regularity of living on campus, it still constituted a significant setback for DOE, who wanted to be and should have been a full-time student taking a full course load.

A representative of the Milwaukee County Office of the District Attorney reached out to MARQUETTE on DOE’s behalf, describing in detail the many demands on DOE as part of the investigation. The letter stated in part, “It is very common for victims of sexual assault to struggle with concentration, sleep disturbances, anxiety, and hypervigilance in the wake of this type of incident. Not only does [DOE] bear the weight of those types of challenges, she is experiencing additional pressures related to the Criminal Justice System.” The District Attorney’s Office urged MARQUETTE to support DOE and her efforts to continue her education.

Despite this advocacy by DOE’s parents and law enforcement, MARQUETTE continued to refuse to provide reasonable academic accommodations to DOE. For instance, in spring semester 2016, DOE was enrolled in Nursing 2002. Twenty percent of her course grade was based on an online quiz that students were permitted to take throughout the semester. Students were permitted to retake the quiz as many times as needed to earn 100% on the quiz. DOE timely took what she believed was the correct quiz and earned 100%. DOE noticed, though, that the teacher had not posted her quiz grade in the online gradebook. This was not out of the ordinary, because the teacher was routinely slow in posting grades. Toward the end of the semester, when the quiz grade still had not been posted, DOE met with the teacher to inquire.

During the meeting, the teacher informed DOE that DOE had taken the wrong online quiz. The teacher refused to allow DOE to take the correct quiz, stating that it was too late. DOE told the teacher, who knew about DOE’s sexual assault, that she was willing to do any extra assignments necessary to make up for the quiz, but the teacher refused. Instead, the teacher asked what DOE was doing this summer to help herself. DOE told the teacher about her internship. The teacher said words to the effect of, “No, what are you doing about therapy?” DOE explained that she continued to attend therapy. The teacher then stated, in substance, that she did not think DOE was mentally stable enough to be at MARQUETTE because of the sexual assault, and that she was worried about DOE’s current and future performance in the clinical program.

Any suggestion that DOE was struggling in the clinical program was false. DOE was succeeding in clinicals, and her clinical teacher had even praised DOE as a standout student. But more to the point – even though DOE had already experienced clear retaliation as a result of reporting and pursuing the sexual-assault charge against [the accused] – the comment made DOE more aware that teachers in the nursing school were holding the sexual assault, and DOE’s pursuit of accountability for her attacker, against her.

DOE followed up with the Dean of the nursing school to address her Nursing 2002 grade and the teacher’s refusal to allow her to take the online quiz. The Dean agreed to provide DOE the opportunity to take the quiz, stating that there was no hurry, DOE’s grade would be marked as incomplete, and that DOE had until October to take the quiz and complete the course.

Despite the Dean’s giving her until October, DOE did the quiz right away in May and earned 100%. Because it was an online quiz, DOE’s grade was immediately posted to her teacher. With the inclusion of the online quiz, DOE was set to earn an A in the class.

But just hours after she completed the quiz – and within weeks of [the accused’s] scheduled trial (which had been postponed) – MARQUETTE notified DOE that she was being placed on academic probation. With the Nursing 2002 course marked incomplete – and, therefore, without the benefit of the A that would ultimately be posted as DOE’s grade – DOE’s grade point average was 2.62. Under MARQUETTE’s usual policy, academic probation was imposed for students with a grade point average below 2.5.

This did not make sense, both because DOE’s grade point average exceeded 2.5 and also because the Dean had specifically told DOE that she would be able to have her quiz counted as part of her Nursing 2002 grade. When DOE pointed out this out, the only explanation DOE was given was words to the effect of, “We sometimes do that.”

While suffering under the stress of the imminent [the accused] trial, DOE filed a formal appeal, protesting her academic probation. MARQUETTE demanded access to DOE’s medical records, including records concerning mental-health treatment. This was an unreasonable and invasive request, part of MARQUETTE’s continuing effort to damage and intimidate DOE. Ultimately, DOE’s treating physician provided a letter stating, in substance, that DOE should be in school and certainly was stable enough to be at MARQUETTE.

Only after DOE pushed back on MARQUETTE’s unfair and unreasonable treatment did MARQUETTE agree, in or about June 2016, to lift the academic probation and allow DOE to return for the fall semester.

Over the summer, DOE was determined to return to MARQUETTE and put the past behind her. When she returned for the fall semester, though, she encountered resistance from MARQUETTE. In or about October 2016, MARQUETTE administrators informed DOE that she could not attend clinicals – required courses for the nursing program – because DOE’s mandatory drug test had not been properly uploaded. DOE was informed about this snafu at around 4:30 pm on a Wednesday, when the clinicals were scheduled for Thursday and Friday. Although DOE offered to provide the results from a drug test administered by her doctor, MARQUETTE refused to accept the test. As a result, DOE missed the Thursday and Friday clinicals, taking her otherwise-A grade down to a C.

By contrast, at least one other student who was missing a critical requirement – proof of a current flu shot – was assisted by the nursing department and did not have to miss clinicals. DOE was not given such accommodation.

In or about December 2016, DOE was notified that she was slated to receive a C/D (by .038%) in her maternity class. Although DOE knew she did not have an A going in to the final exam, she had not known that she was in jeopardy of finishing without a passing grade. DOE believed that she had completed assignments correctly and performed well in the class. After seeing the C/D final grade, DOE tried to discuss the grade with her professor, but the professor refused, stating only that DOE’s group paper – on the topic of sexual assault – did not meet standards. It did meet standards, however.

Around this time, one of DOE’s clinical instructors in the nursing program informed DOE that the instructor was resigning from MARQUETTE because of the way the school treated students.

Harassed by the Nursing College?

There is no reason to doubt that Doe was psychologically distressed, and it’s possible that a Nursing instructor or two might be a jerk. But the idea of a coordinated campaign begins to look like tin foil hat theorizing.

We don’t know the details of each of these situations, and the present and two immediate past Deans of the College of Nursing failed to respond to our multiple requests for comment.

But a knowledgeable source close to the College of Nursing told us “I have a hard time believing that the college of nursing would mistreat a student after reporting a rape. Just the opposite. The College of Nursing administration and the faculty have a track record of supporting students in difficult situations.”

Harm to DOE

Ultimately, DOE could no longer endure MARQUETTE’s conduct toward her. In 2017, DOE left MARQUETTE and transferred to a community college where she could get back on her feet and prepare to transition to a different nursing program. DOE has been earning straight As since leaving MARQUETTE.

MARQUETTE’s actions caused DOE significant harm. First, DOE has suffered trauma and emotional distress as a result of being raped by [the accused] and a result of the way MARQUETTE treated her. Since the attack, DOE has needed regular therapy and psychiatric treatment. Her physicians prescribed and DOE now takes medication for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder-related anxiety and depression, as well as sleep medication to block recurring nightmares about the rape. Had MARQUETTE followed through with its expulsion of [the accused] and exercised due care for its students, [the accused] would not have been permitted to return to campus, would not have been there to rape DOE, and DOE would not now be suffering these harms. MARQUETTE’s treatment of DOE in the aftermath of the attack further exacerbated these problems.

Second, although DOE earned some school credits while at MARQUETTE, she now has to start over, almost entirely. Credits in nursing classes from MARQUETTE will not transfer to a new nursing program; DOE has to repeat those classes. DOE must now pay tuition for three more years of nursing school – despite having already paid well over $75,000 in connection with DOE’s schooling at MARQUETTE. These three additional years of nursing school are expected to cost at least $90,000, and as much as $150,000.

Third, but for the events described in this Complaint, DOE would have graduated with her class in spring 2017. She then would have entered the workforce as a nurse, earning approximately $65,000 per year. Now, DOE’s work as a nurse will be delayed for three years while she repeats the nursing program and earns her degree.

In addition to the direct harm to DOE, MARQUETTE’s actions have harmed others. DOE is aware of at least one other MARQUETTE student who was sexually assaulted by another MARQUETTE student. The student victim told DOE that she decided not to report the rape because she saw how MARQUETTE retaliated against DOE for making a report and standing by the charge.

Conclusion

So what does one make of all this? As we have shown, some of the claims in the Complaint are pretty implausible. But not all of them are, and until and unless we get depositions and other sworn testimony from several of the principals, some of these issues will be hard to judge.

The Plaintiff is demanding a jury trial. Will it come to that, or will Marquette simply pay some money in a settlement to make the problem go away? Lawyers from Michael Best & Friedrich are representing Marquette, and they don’t come cheap.

Marquette Warrior on Cream City Catholic

Marquette’s Questionable “Catholic Identity:” More in the Media

From the Cardinal Newman Society: an article on recent events at Marquette and particularly a meeting of “Concerned Catholics” that we reported on here.

Some excerpts:

Last year, Marquette announced that it would conduct a “climate study” to determine the positivity and inclusivity of the University’s atmosphere. The study’s final report cited several concerns about ongoing hostility towards Catholic values: “Many respondents cited their Catholic or conservative values being marginalized, saying ‘Conservative Catholic views on the expression of human sexuality are not respected — not even room for dialogue’ and that ‘There is an ongoing sense of disrespect, anger, and assumptions related to the Catholic identity of our university.’”

And further:

“How can a theology professor not talk about the Church’s teaching on human sexuality?” a participant asked during the forum, according to the meeting minutes. “But, under Title IX, any student who claims to take offense at what is heard in the classroom can anonymously report the professor and cause him or her a world of problems. This is hugely intimidating.”

The Cardinal Newman Society spoke to Dr. John McAdams, professor of political science at Marquette, on the issues raised by Concerned Catholics at MU. He noted that such a system of investigation “has a chilling effect” on Catholics at Marquette.

“If anything you say in class could have you dragged before someone from Human Resources or a department chair or dean with a demand that you explain what you said,” fewer faculty and staff will feel comfortable expressing even Catholic values and beliefs, McAdams warned.

And again:

Mary Jarvis of the Louis Joliet Society, a group of concerned alumni, parents and Marquette associates seeking Catholic renewal at the University, noted that this initial forum “is very encouraging, and we pray that this group’s expressed concerns do not fall on deaf ears.”

“The revelations about Title IX’s chilling effect on teachers and students are jaw-dropping; something those of faith and of no faith, liberal and conservative can all agree is poisonous to a university that identifies itself as Catholic,” Jarvis continued. “The Marquette administration should consider the group’s recommendations seriously.”

Given how strongly Marquette is committed to pandering to the politically correct lobby on campus, it’s questionable they will pay much attention to Concerned Catholics. But some counter pressure against the forces of political correctness can’t hurt.

Concerned Catholics of Marquette Faculty and Staff Speak

We recently published a commentary on a meeting that a group of “concerned Catholics” with members of the Marquette administration. Several serious complaints were expressed about freedom of expression at Marquette, and especially the freedom to express Catholic viewpoints.

It was an insightful commentary, but we are now posting the minutes of the meeting, which give the full tenor of the meeting.

We are redacting a fair amount of material that might serve the identify the individuals involved. Many of the participants would not want to be identified — itself a sad commentary on the state of free expression at Marquette.

---

Concerned Catholics at Marquette University
Inaugural Meeting 12-2-15
Minutes

• 20 or so in attendance. Many faculty ([...]), the rest were staff ([...]). No students, though invitation was extended to Students for Life, Bellarmine Society and Adoration Guardians.
• Cheryl Maranto and Alix Riley facilitating
  • “Dr. Lovell wants this survey to have impact. He doesn’t want to “put it on a shelf.”
• One of the attendees asked why the adjective “Conservative” was applied to the group in the invitation to the forum.
  • [...] explained how this was the language that appeared in the Climate Survey Final Report, particularly in excerpts from pages 86 and 135.
  • The group agreed that the term “conservative” was marginalizing and that simply “Catholic” or “Concerned Catholics” would be a more accurate and effective descriptor.
• Instead of breaking up into small groups, the forum opted to work together as a single group.
• It was noted that we had all just received another reminder re: mandatory Title IX training. An attending [...] professor said the Title IX mandate is “very dangerous”.
  • He cited an instance where a fellow MU theo professor was accused of harassment for presenting basic Catholic teaching on sexuality.
  • The LGBTQ agenda is fundamentally against the Catholic faith, yet we are not allowed to challenge for fear of retribution.
  • Those who hold traditional Catholic values are not free to speak up.
• Another professor of [...] noted that there is actual persecution going on in that faculty who stand up for Catholic teaching are marginalized and have measures taken against them – denial of promotion etc.
• A professor from the [...] noted that the anthropology of the survey itself was not in line with Catholic teaching (offering numerous gender options).
  • Also – only 31% participated.
• A fundraiser from [...] noted that many alumni tell [...] of their disappointment and disenchantment with Marquette because of its departure from its Catholic identity.
  • An Alumni “Climate” Survey was discussed. Not feasible at this point, but a good idea for the future.
• Another [...] professor said that the persecution experienced by those who stand up for Catholic doctrine and values is not organized, but it is clear that you are putting yourself at risk (“As we all saw in our own department.”)
  • How can a theology professor not talk about the Church’s teaching on human sexuality? But, under Title IX, any student who claims to take offense at what is heard in the classroom can anonymously report the professor and cause him or her a world of problems. “This is hugely intimidating.”
  • Few, if any, feel free to discuss Catholic teaching on marriage.
  • Another [...] professor said he does – and so far with no negative consequence – but he said he has not yet tried for a promotion.
• A professor said he had heard that faculty and administrators at other colleges and universities were protesting Title IX on the basis that it restricts academic freedom.
  • “Where is the backbone of Marquette administration in protesting Title IX mandates which necessarily restrict the free exchange of ideas, particularly in theology and philosophy – the very core of Catholic, Jesuit education?”
  • It is impossible for a professor who has taken the Mandatum to not represent Catholic teaching. But in so doing, he or she will inevitably violate Title IX policies as they now exist sooner or later.
• A [...] representative noted that CheckMarq now has five or six gender categories. How is this representative of Catholic teaching (at a Catholic university)?
• A [...] representative asked, “Are we Catholic or are we not? And if we are, what does that mean?”
  • Little “c” catholic means universal. Big “C” Catholic means the Church and Her teachings.
  • Being at Marquette (as faculty, staff, student) means respecting the university’s tradition and the faith it was founded upon.
• Another [...] representative added that, as it currently conducts itself, Marquette is almost indistinguishable from secular schools.
• A [...] professor quoted his dean saying “Catholic means whatever you want it to mean.”
• Another [...] professor said that what we’re witnessing is the confluence of a number of university decisions/policies/concessions that – over time -- have had the cumulative effect of diminishing or negating Marquette’s Catholic identity and intellectual quality.
  • “Suddenly you wake up one day and you can’t do what you’re supposed to do” (i.e. educate students in the Catholic tradition).
  • Administration needs to understand that there are unintended consequences resulting from their decisions/policies/concessions to secular demands.
  • “We always do what everyone else is doing.” Why? Why not be Catholic?
• Another [...] professor said “If Marquette were really Catholic, we would be diverse” (i.e. a distinguished and alternative voice in the increasingly homogeneous ideological ethos of higher education).
• A [...] professor noted that complaints from students or others about being exposed to basic legitimate Catholic teachings ought to be dismissed on the face of it. Someone may not like it and no one is being forced to believe in it, but the teaching is what it is.
• A [...] professor asked the UA representatives if they are questioned as to why someone should pay more money for a Catholic education that isn’t in anyway identifiably Catholic.
  • [...] said – yes – more and more that conversation is occurring.
• Another [...] noted that in Marquette’s strategic plan, and in a recent high level discussion about it, there was barely any mention of “Catholic.” Where it is mentioned it is shallow and gratuitous.
• Another [...] said that we also need to protect students – there are few if any clear and authentically Catholic experiences available to them.
  • Campus Ministry is a grave disappointment
• A [...] professor noted that he discovered a group of serious Catholic students who were meeting in secret. When he encouraged them to make themselves known and grow their membership, they stopped communicating with him.
  • Catholic students are scared.
  • A [...] reported of a student who told him of a professor who has made slurs against the Church e.g. mocking the idea of Mary’s virginity etc. in class.
• Many agreed that Campus Ministry contributes to the diminishment of Catholic identity
  • A [...] professor related an incident wherein he and his colleagues were informed that Campus Ministry had declared, “The real problem with making progress at Marquette is the Theology Department” and that, consequently, focus groups would be conducted to assess the perception of the Theo department across campus. The dept. staff were told (by the Dept. Chair) that they would be informed of the outcome of the study. They never were.
• Another [...] professor acknowledged that the Theology Department fell into intense disfavor after the Jodi O’Brien incident as a number of theology profs were critical of her being hired and supported her offer being rescinded. “Other departments hate the Theology Department because of this.”
• [...] professor: “I’m concerned about not being allowed to be a scholar. I can’t say the truth. I am not allowed to say what Catholics believe, even if I was an atheist, I could not communicate what Catholic doctrine” as a result of anti-Catholic/Title IX environment at MU.
  • “Basically now we have the students teaching us.” Students call the shots as to what can and cannot be discussed in class.
  • If we were to take Title IX literally, we would say that the Theo Department suffers from a majority of individuals who self-identify as male and thus lacks diversity. “We need to address this rampant self-definition as male problem.”
  • University needs to decide – is diversity a serious issue or is it a matter of self-definition? If a number of male faculty decide to self-identify as female, is the problem of a majority male staff solved? This is the absurdity we are entering into and encouraging.
• [...] has opposite issue. [example of anti-male discrimination redacted]
  • There are very few males on CON faculty.
  • “Catholic” was removed from the dean search criteria
  • “Catholic” was very nearly removed from CON mission statement (per faculty who wanted it removed.)
• A [...] representative noted that “Catholic” is largely missing from our advertising and marketing branding.
  • “Social Justice” has replaced “Catholic” Social Justice is a vague term that is often applied to definitively anti-Catholic practices e.g. “Reproductive Rights”
• [...] continued – there is no plan for how we are going to be a Catholic Jesuit institution for the future.
  • Do we want to be a Catholic university or not?
• [...] professor said he had cause to address embryonic stem cell research in a lecture.
  • He explicitly told students it was wrong, unnecessary and that they shouldn’t participate in it in their future work.
  • He quickly received an email from Academic Affairs asking, “What did you say???” Evidently there was a strong complaint, maybe more.
  • Prof addressed directly in class saying “This is what the Catholic teaching is and what I advocate. If you don’t like it, go take a different course.”
  • His point was that faculty need to be bold and not afraid to teach Catholic doctrine and in accordance with Catholic doctrine.
• A [...] professor recounted a moment from Dr. Pat Carey’s “Is MU Still Catholic” talk a few years ago.
  • An undergraduate student stood up and said, “I’m afraid to affirm my Catholicism.”
• Students are laboring under a heavier burden than faculty.
  • Students don’t speak up in class. They are policing each other and censoring themselves.
  • There is a climate of repression, not of learning.
  • No one is insisting that anyone believe this or that, but we all must be able to speak freely.
• A staff member from [...] said that real diversity should include respect for Catholic views.
• A [...] representative wondered if we should consider proposing MU remove “Catholic” from its name
  • Misrepresenting the faith to an uncatechized world does untold damage to souls, hearts and minds. Better not to claim to be Catholic than to overtly misrepresent it.
• [...] prof insisted that senior leadership recognizes that Catholic identity is essential to Marquette’s survival.
  • Another agreed and said that he strongly believes President Lovell is trying to make Marquette Catholic again.
  • We (this group) need to support him in this. All agreed.
  • The student group IGNITE was mentioned – trying to restore Catholicism among students. We need to support them and other such student groups as well.
• A [...] professor who has served on the Faculty Hearing Committee and is also an MU Parent said he is very concerned about the state of our core curriculum.
  • “You have to be very careful with theology and philosophy, what’s happening in some of these classes (regarding Catholic identity) is a crime.”
  • Core classes need special scrutiny.
  • He has tried to steer his kids to best teachers etc.
  • Mention was made of Notre Dame’s Fr. Miscamble’s attempt to formalize such a selection process at ND (http://www.ndcatholic.com/) and that he was shut down in the attempt.
• A [...] prof added that Title IX brings all this into focus – “It is ideologically fascist.”
  • A [...] prof added that Title IX represents the imposition of a value system, a creed upon Marquette (all universities).
  • Students and faculty are self-silencing.
• Concept of hiring for mission has completely disappeared.
  • If MU tried this now, they might find an expanded talent pool
  • Some departments adamantly refuse to hire for mission. This needs to be addressed by administration.
  • Hiring for mission can just be words. Just say “social justice” and you’re in.
  • Admitting to devout Catholicism has and can backfire on candidates.
• [...] prof asked [...] reps – Do you seek funds for Catholic aspects of the university?
  • [...] rep said we do: monstrance for adoration, March for Life … but there aren’t many opportunities
  • Office of Mission and Ministry/ Campus Ministry are in some disarray, hard to identify funding priorities
• [...] prof mentioned that a proposal is in the works for a Catholic Studies program
  • Similar to St. Thomas and others, but more inter-disciplinary/comprehensive.
  • This could be a fundraising priority and an item in the MU strategic plan
• Another professor emphasized that it’s very important we not accept the notion of a dichotomy between Catholicism and diversity.
  • Catholicism truly embraces all.
  • MU’s challenge is in balancing its commitment to Catholic identity and embracing all
  • Another theo professor added, “The Catholic Church is the most inclusive organization in the world.”
• A professor asked if there wasn’t a class action lawsuit or some legal action being taken by colleges and universities against restrictions of Title IX – which is harmful to secular institutions as well.
  • Can MU administration take some kind of stand at all?
  • Can MU Legal look into how faculty, students and staff can be protected from Title IX consequences merely for articulating Catholic doctrine?

PROPOSED ACTION ITEMS:

• Commitment to academic freedom for Catholic scholars – protection & articulation - for staff and students too. 11 voted this most important, 1 important, 1 less important
• Hiring for mission – proactive from the top thru to departments. Need clarity 8 voted this important, 1 less important
• Need to include Catholic in our branding and strategic plan. 2 voted this most important, 5 less important
• Have General Counsel determine options to challenge Title IX mandates. 1 voted most important, 1 important, 3 less important
• Board of Trustees needs to show commitment to Catholic identity. 1 voted this important, 2 less important
• Start Catholic Studies program (interdisciplinary). 1 voted this important, 2 less important
• Administration should actively protect Catholic faculty, staff and students. When there’s a complaint, don’t presume guilt. 1 voted this most important, 2 important
• Encourage student Catholic organizations. 1 voted this important 1 less important
• Avoid dichotomizing Catholic and diversity.
• Serious promotion and implementation of Ex Corde Ecclesiae
• Increase physical manifestations/visibility of Catholic faith around campus – Crucifixes (not just crosses), statues of Mary, better promotion of liturgical events, Rosaries, Adoration etc.
• Avoid scrutiny/risk of persecution for articulating traditional Catholic teachings – in classrooms and elsewhere.
• Affirm that people can say that they accept and even like that Marquette is a Catholic institution.
• What happened to focus group re: Theology Department by campus ministry?
• Need physical manifestations of Catholic faith – Crucifix (not just cross)/Statue of Mary.
• Affirm Catholic identity.
• Campus Ministry needs a “Catholic tract” programming for Catholic students, in addition to other faiths.
• Encourage Catholic Student Organizations in and outside of Campus Ministry

Marquette Faculty: Title IX a Threat to Academic Freedom

From the National Catholic Register:

WASHINGTON — The federal government’s broadening interpretations of Title IX, the 1972 anti-sexual-discrimination statute that applies to educational institutions, has raised concerns that the freedom of Catholic colleges and universities to teach and govern themselves according to the Church’s teachings on sexuality is at risk.

At least five Catholic educational institutions are among a wave of Christian colleges and universities that have applied for Title IX exemptions, in the wake of the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights’ expansion of Title IX’s interpretation to include “discrimination based on gender identity or failure to conform to stereotypical notions of masculinity or femininity.” These Catholic colleges and universities have argued that the new rule interferes with their ability to govern themselves in full accord with Catholic teaching.

There are also academic freedom concerns related to Catholic identity: At Marquette University, professors have complained that the aggressive implementation of Title IX’s expansive interpretations, combined with vague definitions of what constitutes a “hostile environment,” are suppressing their academic freedom to teach Catholic theology in the classroom and promote Marquette’s Catholic identity on campus. According to the meeting minutes of Concerned Catholics at Marquette University that were provided to the Register, a number of faculty expressed concern that the new Title IX mandates being implemented at the Catholic institution “necessarily restrict the free exchange of ideas, particularly in theology and philosophy — the very core of Catholic, Jesuit education.”

The concerns were not limited to professors alone. One professor said some students shared they did not feel comfortable sharing Church teaching in that environment.

“This is the opposite of university education,” one professor at Marquette University, who declined to be identified for this article, told the Register. The professor said the university’s Title IX compliance on issues of gender and sexuality is dampening classroom discussion of Church teaching in these areas and throwing another wrench in ongoing efforts to strengthen the university’s Catholic identity and mission.

A number of colleagues, the professor added, related that the recent Title IX training and campus environment made it “very intimidating” to speak about Catholic doctrine on sexuality in their classrooms, because that might be perceived by a student as a “hostile environment” and thus worthy of a Title IX complaint. At least one theology faculty member teaching about Genesis in his classroom received a complaint, after a student who had two fathers objected to the classroom presentation of the Church’s teaching of marriage. [emphasis added - ed.] “Don’t people come to universities so they can grow up? If they’re going into safe houses, how can they grow up if they can’t even deal with someone who disagrees?” the professor said.

The Register reached out to Marquette for an explanation of its Title IX policies and enforcement practices. A Marquette representative pointed to the university’s Title IX policies posted on its website, but declined to comment further.

The fact that the professor quoted in this piece refused to be identified is significant. Given the climate of intolerance on the Marquette campus, it would be foolish to invite the enmity of the politically correct crowd.

An Issue at Secular Schools

If this seems like a parochial “Catholic” issue, it’s not. The article goes on:

But academic voices on secular campuses, including feminist professors, have expressed concern that Title IX is being used to silence unpopular opinions instead of dealing with serious complaints of sexual assault or harassment. One famous case involves Laura Kipnis, a Northwestern University professor and feminist, who was accused of creating a hostile environment against reporting sexual assault over an article she wrote in The Chronicle of Higher Education called “Sexual Paranoia Strikes Academe” in which she criticized campus sexual conduct codes that “infantilized students while vastly increasing the power of university administrators over all our lives.”

Kipnis was eventually cleared in 2015, but by that time her case became a cause celebre of Title IX excesses and due process failures. At Harvard University, 28 faculty of the law school wrote a public letter in October 2014, saying that Harvard was going far beyond what Title IX actually required, trampling over the due-process rights of the accused and adopting overbroad definitions of sexual harassment that threatened academic freedom and faculty governance.

Janet Halley, the Royall Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, told the Register that the improper application of Title IX does pose a threat to academic freedom on campuses and that “these problems are emerging all over the country.”

“There is plenty of evidence that Title IX is being expanded in application, way beyond its proper legal scope,” she said. Halley explained this has happened in several steps. First, the OCR issued “non-binding advice documents” that do not have the status of legal regulation, but “massively expand the Supreme Court’s definition of sexual harassment.”

“This creates a lot of confusion about what sexual harassment actually is,” she said. Second, she said the OCR has threatened loss of funds if colleges do not integrate “those expansive and confusing definitions into their campus policies and apply them in cases.” As a result, college and university administers are “scared out of their minds,” Halley added, and in an effort to protect their institutions’ funding “are over-complying, even with those expansive definitions.”

“Finally, the people doing adjudications, handling those cases on the ground, are not stopping cases that are manifestly ungrounded,” she said. “I am hearing about too many people who are being put through the process, on the basis of complaints that should simply lead to a conversation with the complaining students that these facts, even if true, do not violate our policy, and sometimes the process is truncated with massive due-process violations.”

We were the victim of one such case, when a prissy little feminist in our introductory American Government class was unhappy that we told the class that feminists grossly exaggerate the prevalence of campus date rape. She charged us with sexual harassment.

Marquette eventually decided we had a right to say that, but only after we were required to explain what we had said to Barry McCormick, Chair of Political Science. Of course, the process is the punishment.

Harvard Law

Another Harvard Law Professor, Jeannie Suk, discussed the consequences when several Harvard Law professors publicly objected to a CNN documentary titled “The Hunting Ground,” which levied false rape charges against a Harvard Law student. The school thoroughly investigated the charges and found them to be bogus. The result:

. . . last week the filmmakers did more than understandably disagree with criticism of the film, which has been short-listed for the Academy Award for best documentary. They wrote, in a statement to the Harvard Crimson, that “the very public bias these professors have shown in favor of an assailant contributes to a hostile climate at Harvard Law.” The words “hostile climate” contain a serious claim. At Harvard, sexual harassment is “unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature,” including verbal conduct that is “sufficiently persistent, pervasive, or severe” so as to create a “hostile environment.” If, as the filmmakers suggest, the professors’ statement about the film has created a hostile environment at the school, then, under Title IX, the professors should be investigated and potentially disciplined.

To my knowledge, no complaint of sexual harassment has been filed with Harvard’s Title IX office—though I’ve been told by a high-level administrator that several people have inquired about the possibility—and I don’t know if the school would proceed with an investigation. . . . A handful of students have said that they feel unsafe at Harvard because of the professors’ statement about the film. If a Title IX complaint were filed and an investigation launched, the professors wouldn’t be permitted to speak about it, as that could be considered “retaliation” against those who filed the complaint, which would violate the campus sexual-harassment policy.

In short, leftist students have used Title IX to try to shut down speech they don’t like. Not merely do legitimate statements made in class result in “investigations,” but public statements that students don’t even have to read result in charges.

Even though the charges are usually found to be baseless, the chilling effect is huge. Who wants to be dragged before a department chair, dean or human resources official and required to explain oneself?

No Protection for Conservative Students

Of course, civil rights law protects males as well as females, whites as well as blacks, and conservative Christians as well as gays and lesbians.

But somehow, we never hear of complaints by whites who are insulted and bullied by talk of “white privilege,” complaints from men who face anti-male sexism from feminist professors, or conservative Catholics and other Christians who have their beliefs insulted by secular professors.

Partly, this is because the politically incorrect groups know perfectly well that the campus grievance bureaucracy is set up to protect the tender sensibilities of “victim groups.” But partly it is that they are not culturally inclined to weaponize their sense of “offense.” But we think they should. Only when the campus left faces the consequences of the system they have set up and exploited will there be effective pressure to back off, and protect speech.

Guest Commentary: Concerned Catholics at Marquette Climate Study Forum

By John Hardon

Last September I was surprised but gratified to see that the Marquette Climate Survey Final Report included concerns expressed by “conservative” or traditional Catholic faculty, staff and students about the state and direction of Marquette’s Catholic identity.

Then, in November, Drs. Lovell, Myers and Welburn sent an email to all Marquette faculty, staff and students inviting us to organize forums among our like-minded colleagues. Each forum would work with the university’s Climate Study Working Group (CSWG) to define three action items they recommend Marquette administration pursue in order to improve the climate on campus. I saw a few articles in the Marquette Tribune about some of these groups (here and here) and thought we could form one for traditional Catholics. I emailed some colleagues who I knew shared my concerns, they shared it with others they knew and soon we had a large group of faculty and staff very eager to participate. We reached out to student groups as well like Students for Life, The St. Robert Bellarmine Society and the Adoration Guardians but received no response.

Dr. Welburn was very supportive of the effort, and with his help we secured a meeting date of December 2. We had about 20 faculty and staff attend the meeting which, I’m told, was one of the largest among these special-constituency climate study forums.

Our discussion was open and frank. The most urgent issue concerned academic freedom and how the articulation of Catholic teaching, inside and outside of the classroom, particularly on issues of sexuality, is increasingly met with disapproval and even hostility. Most alarming is the fact that enhanced federal Title IX guidelines put the weight of federal law behind this disapproval. As one faculty member expressed,

“I have been intimidated by an explicit campus climate and Title IX training that seems to forbid me, on pain of discipline up to and including termination, from so much as presenting the teaching of the Catholic Church and the historic Orthodox Catholic tradition.”

Student intimidation was another area we discussed. Faculty revealed that when subject matter perceived as controversial is addressed in class, students are increasingly self-censoring in order to avoid accusations of harassment and discrimination by other students, the administration and now – because of Title IX – potentially the government. Stories were shared of traditional Catholic student groups that feel the need to meet and pray in secret and students being subjected to teachers who openly mock Catholic teaching (i.e. the virginity of the Blessed Mother) in the classroom. A teacher recalled how a presentation given a few years ago by retired theology professor Dr. Pat Carey called “Is Marquette Still Catholic?” was punctuated by the comment of a student in the question and answer portion of the talk when she said, “I’m afraid to affirm my Catholicism.” Also discussed was the lack of authentically Catholic formation opportunities for students amidst a plethora of formal and informal formation opportunities in secular, non-Catholic and anti-Catholic ideologies on and off campus.

Lastly, we discussed the lack of outward signs of Catholic identity on campus and in Marquette’s marketing. It was noted that ambiguous terms like “social justice” and “Ignatian spirituality” are increasingly used in place of “Catholic” to describe Marquette’s brand of education. A participant from the college of nursing revealed that “Catholic” was stripped from that college’s dean search criteria. Many agreed the idea of “hiring for mission” seems to have been rendered meaningless and is of no real consequence. University Advancement representatives told us that more and more donors and potential donors are challenging fundraisers as to what distinguishes Marquette from secular, less expensive, colleges and universities.

After our discussion we formulated our thoughts into three action items which we submitted to the CSWG.

1. Academic freedom
   Marquette senior leadership should specifically, formally and publicly state that its commitment to the protection of academic freedom includes the articulation and promotion of Catholic doctrine (as understood by the Magisterium of the Catholic Church) by faculty, students and staff, and that such speech or action will not be subject to penalties or retribution under Title IX or any other speech and/or harassment policies of the university, formal or informal.
2. Catholic Identity
   Marquette should increase awareness of, and engagement in our Catholic tradition and identity through objective, tangible actions including:
   • Meaningful and prominent inclusion of the term “Catholic” in our branding (i.e. print materials, television and radio commercials, etc.) and strategic plan.
   • Expansion of the strategic plan to include demonstrable affirmation of and commitment to strengthening the university’s Catholic identity
   • Proactive implementation of a quantifiable process (see The Application For Ex Corde Ecclesiae for the United States, Part Two, Article 4) for “hiring for mission” that is applied to all levels of the university – from the Board of Directors to staff members.
   • A demonstrable and serious commitment to authentic Catholic identity by the Board of Trustees and university leadership
   • The implementation of a comprehensive, interdisciplinary Catholic Studies program (proposal in progress).
   • Implementation of a Catholic climate survey among faculty, students, staff, alumni and, in particular, parents.
   • An increase in physical manifestations and visibility of Catholic identity around campus:
     • Crucifixes (not just crosses) in classrooms
     • Statue of the Blessed Mother in a prominent location on campus
     • Nativity crèche in more places than just in front of Joan of Arc (i.e., inside or outside AMU)
     • Advent wreath candle lighting observance
     • Lenten observance of Stations of the Cross conducted across campus
     • Offering a weekly rosary service in Joan of Arc
     • Posting liturgical season banners in AMU public areas
     • Featuring excerpts from previous Sunday’s Gospel on closed-circuit monitors across campus
     • Better promotion of existing (and new) liturgical offerings: Rosaries, Adoration etc.
3. Student formation
   As a Catholic and Jesuit university, Marquette must at least offer to students clear and distinctly Catholic alternatives to the abundance of secular formation opportunities that are available on and off campus. Specifically we should:
   • Actively encourage and promote student groups that engage in specifically Catholic activities.
     • Students for Life
     • Bellarmine Society
     • Ignite
     • Others?
   • Make clearly available and accessible to students courses, retreats, devotions, and activities that are distinctly and authentically Catholic.

     Programs could include Theology of the Body courses or lectures; courses on Catholic Marriage, Family and Human Sexuality; starting a chapter of the Fellowship of Catholic University Students; supporting a Milwaukee chapter of Courage and Encourage (Catholic counseling for students with same sex attractions) etc.

Believing there may be others in the campus community – particularly students – who would be heartened to know such a forum took place, I contacted the Marquette Tribune and asked if they would like to write a piece about our forum as they have about others. After two attempts with no response, however, it appears they have no interest.

We sincerely hope and pray that Marquette administration will recognize the seriousness of the issues this forum has raised and take measures to address them. There are many who are ready and able to assist them in any way we can.

Marquette’s Bizarre Training on “Harassment”

Like everybody else at Marquette, we have been required to take an online Title IX training session, addressing sexual violence and sexual (and other) harassment.

We’ll leave the sexual violence issue for another post, and for the moment outline what Marquette has to say about harassment.

On the face of it, the rules aren’t too bad. For unlawful harassment to occur, the following conditions must be met. The action must be:

•Related to a protected category.
•Unwelcome.
•Offensive to a reasonable person in the recipient’s position.
•Severe or pervasive.

That would seem to set the bar reasonably high for a finding of “harassment.”

Unfortunately, the content of the online training module makes hash of any and all the reasonable limitations the announced standards imply.

The Politically Incorrect Office

Consider, for example, a picture of an office, included in the module, in which one has to pick out all the potentially offensive or harassing objects. It’s loaded with them.

(You can click on the image to view a larger version.)

First, one that makes sense: an “adult” magazine is said to be out of bounds because it can contribute to a “hostile working environment.” Fair enough. But it goes downhill from there.

A sign saying “men working” is said to be unacceptable because a Kentucky human rights agency ruled it to be discriminatory, implying the exclusion of women. Might a feminist object to this: of course. Might a reasonable woman? No.

The Kentucky agency should knock off for a day and enjoy a little of the state’s excellent Bourbon.

Also out of bounds is a supposedly risqué photo. What does this outrageous, unacceptable picture show?

A couple at the beach in bathing suits. But the legend notes that “harassment complaints have been filed against workers who display photographs of their spouses in swimsuits.” Somehow, the folks who put this together think that attire that would be acceptable on any beach in the country, and indeed at the pool at Marquette’s Recreation Center, is offensive in an office.

Likewise, a computer screen saver showing a man bare from the waste up (but fully clothed from the waist down) may (it is claimed) create a hostile environment.

And while we are on scanty clothing, we are told that “some courts have required worksites to remove sculptures or painting that contain nudity.” Apparently, some other courts haven’t.

It adds, “what might be appropriate for a museum or an art class may not be acceptable for an office.”

Why not?

We can imagine something truly gross that some deranged professor might choose to display, but if a professor of Greek Culture has a model of “Venus de Milo” or a professor of Renaissance Art a model of Michelangelo’s “David,” no reasonable person would complain.

The sculpture pictured seems bland enough.

And how could a student making an occasional visit to a professor’s office and seeing his wife in a swimsuit or a classic piece of sculpture face “severe” or “pervasive” harassment?

Of course, if a conservative Christian student complained about the public display of nude art on a university campus, she would be derided as a narrow-minded prude. But a different standard apparently applies to feminists.

And it’s not the case that feminists are put off by naked genitals. When Marquette’s Gender and Sexuality Resource Center sponsored a program called Femsex, one of the exercises required participants to draw in the Cunt Coloring Book. Yes, that’s exactly what it sounds like.

Other Protected Groups

Of course, the groups who are “protected” (at least in theory) extend beyond women. A sign saying “Over the Hill” is said to “contribute to a hostile work environment on the basis of age.” We are pretty confident that only old guys would ever display such a sign. Can one harass oneself?

And a token nod (more like a head fake) is given to veterans. An anti-war poster is declared unfit because “extreme anti-war postings could contribute to an environment of harassment based on military or veteran status.”

While we like the idea that the doctrine of “harassment” equally covers both politically correct groups and politically incorrect groups, the poster in question is clearly in the area of protected free speech.

Further, on any college campus, military people have doubtless learned to “suck it up” and put up with leftists. So seeking redress is going to be absurdly rare. If they were the sort who whined about every hardship, they would have never joined the military.

Suppose it Isn’t Actually Unwelcome

People working through the module are quizzed: “Jokes welcomed by the recipient are never harassment. True or false?” The answer: “false.”

It is explained: “jokes related to protected categories can still be harassment, even if they don’t offend the recipient.” So you can be harassed without thinking you are being harassed.

Protection for Groups that Aren’t Protected

Finally, behavior that might be tacky, or even gross, is said to be harassing, in spite of not being addressed by Federal law nor directed at any protected category.

For example, we are told that ringtones that involve weapon sounds are “inappropriate.” But people who don’t like loud noises are not a “protected category.” Neither are liberal weenies who don’t like guns. Private employers may have rules about this, but the Federal government does not (yet).

Punishment for Politically Incorrect Speech

One little sequence in the course involves two women coworkers (Becky and Maria) who discuss their opposition to gay marriage. Another coworker (Hans) overhears them and is offended at their opinions. He reports them to Human Resources.

The conclusion of this little tableau is that Hans did not have to participate in the discussion to be offended by it, and the two female coworkers could be guilty of harassment.

Of course, political liberals are not a protected category, and all Hans was subjected to was hearing opinions that “offended” him. But like so many liberals, he believed that opinions he disliked should be shut up.

Thus Marquette University, in this “training,” has endorsed that view. Notwithstanding that the Catholic Church disapproves of gay marriage, merely endorsing Church teaching in a university setting can be harassment.

Would the two women have been able to complain if Hans had been spouting off about how he favored gay marriage?

Fat chance. Even if the rules claim to protect people in an evenhanded way, everyone knows they don’t.

How Far Do We Take This?

Thus employees of Marquette are clearly warned that expression can be harassment even if it’s:

•Unrelated to a protected category.
•Not Unwelcome.
•Offensive only to an unreasonable person in the recipient’s position.
•Not Severe or pervasive.
•Discussion of a political issue

Since just about anything that somebody might happen to dislike seems to be included under the rubric “harassment,” isn’t the logical endpoint that any objection from anybody is sufficient to shut up any speech or expression?

Thus one is not surprised to find, in the course, the following statement:

Liability Avoidance Tip
It is best not to discuss any of the protected categories at work

So you better not discuss the relations between the sexes (a protected category), anything about race relations (protected category), anything about the status of veterans, anything about getting old (age is a protected category), anything about religion (yet another one) and so on.

In short: stifle.

Conclusion

This, it seems, is the logical endpoint of the bureaucratic mentality. And the bureaucratic mentality dominates the administrative ranks of Marquette University. Like bureaucrats everywhere, they supinely accommodate the demands of special interest groups (feminists, gays and lesbians) and of overbearing government regulators (especially the Obama Justice and Education departments).

They will mouth silly things if they are being said elsewhere in academia. Whatever “initiatives” are fashionable elsewhere, they will mimic.

The current “training” module, for example, is a generic one from an operation called Workplace Answers, which specializes in providing cookie-cutter programs (each one just like the previous one) to places like Marquette. Complete with tacky stock photos.

Bureaucrats don’t much care for free expression, since that creates problems (although they will protect it if failing to creates bigger problems).

What is the Practical Import?

It is not clear how this will play out at Marquette. Perhaps the university is just going through the motions, and reasonable sorts of free expression will prevail.

For example, when some feminist in one of our classes claimed we had sexually harassed her by telling the class that feminists grossly exaggerate the incidence of date rape, the University dismissed the complaint. The fact that we were obviously willing to raise hell at any other outcome might have been the deciding factor.

But when a graduate student in Philosophy posted an innocuous political comment by libertarian humorist Dave Barry on his door, somebody complained to department chair James South. South decided the comment was “patently offensive” and tore it down. The University backed South.

So enclaves of authoritarian intolerance exist at Marquette, and doctrines of “harassment” are a tool they will happily use.

A genuinely Catholic university would be tough on real harassment (and without being bullied by the Federal Government), but would tell the perpetually offended and aggrieved “people are going to disagree with you; live with it.” And it would honestly say so.

But that’s not the Marquette we have.