Impact of Title IX

This paper deals with rape adjudication in the American and Indian contexts, and analyses anomalies while unpacking consent, and understanding credibility of the victim.

The first three chapters deal with American adjudication, and the final chapters draws parallels and lessons from the Indian setting. In the first chapter, I lay the groundwork with a case study of Emma Sulkowicz's rape at Stanford University which I will continue to revisit throughout the first three chapters. I also establish that sexual assault is ubiquitous in American college campuses, and how a whole generation of young, American women are being denied access to justice. The second chapter lays, and weighs the different options available for recourse to a sexual assault victim in the American system, and why the criminal justice system may not be the best answer. The third chapter seeks to understand the genealogy of treatment of consent. It also establishes the legal system’s inordinate reliance on forensic evidence that only reveals physiological violence, and thus, erases psychological harm from the narrative. I question whether admissibility of Rape Trauma Syndrome is the answer to this marginalisation by the biomedical system. In the final chapter, I discuss how and why corroboration of the victim’s testimony in the Indian context holds minimal importance in a rape trial. I explain how honour and chastity come to be central tenets in, and are unique to the Indian context. I touch upon the Nirbhaya rape case, and why it catapulted into popular imagination, and discuss why the demands sought by protestors were of a legal nature.

I have drawn heavily from feminist jurisprudence, sociology of law, access to justice literature, feminist criminology, health anthropology, to an extent, post-colonialism, and social theory on gender, nationalism and Hindutva. This paper came about as an investigation into why law remains so resistant to feminist critique, and how legal knowledge, especially in post-colonial societies where it is the only legitimising discourse, disqualifies and marginalises other epistemologies.

The way in which the Office of Civil Rights currently interprets Title IX using the Dear Colleague Letter holds educational institutions to sexual assault standards that are unconstitutional, problematic, illogical and based on inconclusive scientific evidence. Those who hold power, whether at the governmental or educational level, have a duty to their constituents and fellow human beings to reevaluate their actions when interpreting Title IX and the Dear College Letter.

As researchers, my colleague and I noted that the American culture shifted its attention to the mistreatment of women; we also noted that the community college sector is often absent from the discourse. Furthermore, we recognized that the international student experience was absent from Title IX and sexual violence discussions regardless of the institutional type. After identifying this gap in the literature, we embarked on a qualitative phenomenological study to consider the following question: How do community colleges educate international students entering American culture about Title IX and sexual violence? Therefore, this case study reflects on the process and challenges in recruiting international community college students to the study and the methods for analyzing the data. Furthermore, the study is couched in a contentious history about sexual violence on college campuses. In turn, we considered how

Many experts mistakenly believe that proving culpability beyond a reasonable doubt is only necessary in criminal-court trials. However, the United States Supreme Court has ruled otherwise (as have many courts in many jurisdictions). There is no other determination made in our culture that has more grave social consequences on a person than an accusation of sexual misconduct. These severe consequences, impairment of liberty and property, as well as a lifelong stigma as a sex offender, compel high standards of due process, according to Supreme Court rulings, in making such a determination against accused persons. This article comments on the Department of Education's proposed rulemaking on campus adjudications of Title IX proceedings, especially those pertaining to sexual misconduct or sexual harassment.