\n
Far more common than regulations are \u201cdear colleague letters,\u201d which, although not legally binding, are more time efficient than regulations, as they can be written or withdrawn at any time without the hassle of elaborate legal procedures.<\/p>\n
For instance, the Obama administration delivered a dear colleague letter to universities to recommend the use of the preponderance of evidence standard to determine the outcome of sexual misconduct cases, Baum said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think a lot of people in the colleges didn\u2019t want to use that standard, but because the Office of Civil Rights was saying, \u2018This is the standard we\u2019re going to judge you on,\u2019 they adopt it,\u201d Baum said. \u201cSo, it\u2019s a funny kind of thing because it doesn\u2019t really have legal status, but it allows institutions to predict what\u2019s going to happen \u2014 \u2018If we don\u2019t follow it, we\u2019re gonna have trouble.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
The \u201ctrouble\u201d Baum referred to signifies a myriad of potential repercussions, including the withdrawal of federal financial aid from the university, possibility of being sued by an individual or being the subject of a federal investigation, he said.<\/p>\n
Another form of recommendation offered by the Office of Civil Rights is an administrative decision, which Baum said is a letter addressed to a specific institution with various policies the university is advised to follow. Former University President Michael V. Drake received an administrative decision from the Office of Civil Rights under the Obama administration after the 2014 investigation into sexual harassment and misconduct allegations regarding the culture of the Ohio State Marching Band.<\/p>\n
Opening statement<\/b><\/h1>\n
T<\/span>he opening statement is the first time either party speaks. Similar to court proceedings, it begins with the victim or survivor before turning to the accused.<\/p>\nIt is a time for parties to introduce themselves to the presiding body \u2014 which, under new Title IX regulations, is a single resolutions officer. At Ohio State before August 2020, however, the perpetrator could choose between an administrative hearing with a hearing officer or a university conduct board hearing, where a panel of four faculty members presided over the hearing.<\/p>\n
The opening statement is not a time to present evidence, and the hearing body will not ask questions about the contents of the statement.<\/p>\n
Yong, whose hearing was June 18, 2020, via Zoom due to the pandemic, said she cried as she read her opening statement.<\/p>\n
\u201cI talked about the impact it had on me and the fact that it had happened, at that point, 200, 300 days prior to when I was speaking to them, that it still was having a really long and deep impact on me,\u201d Yong said.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#E02B20″ _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
\n
\n
Listen to Ashley Yong read her opening statement. The excerpt has been edited to remove identifying information about the perpetrator as well as graphic details of her assault.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_audio audio=”https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/files\/2020\/02\/Ashley_testimony.mp3″ _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_audio][et_pb_divider color=”#E02B20″ _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ width=”65%” module_alignment=”center” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Syreeta Palackdharry, a fourth-year in women\u2019s, gender and sexuality studies who was sexually assaulted in front of her home in June 2018, said she decided to remain silent during her hearing, instead opting to present her opening statement via large note cards that she held up for the room to see.<\/p>\n
In her opening statement Palackdharry provided to The Lantern verbatim, she introduced herself and provided a general overview of the impact of her assault, including stepping down as president of her student organization and quitting her role as a diving coach at McCorkle Aquatic Pavilion.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis investigation has been hell for me \u2014 so much so that at one point I planned every detail of my funeral. I don\u2019t want to be here; I don\u2019t want to keep participating in this process, nor do I want to be involved in any lawsuit that may follow. And for those reasons, I\u2019ve decided to remain silent today. I\u2019ve given my story over and over again. My words haven\u2019t been enough, but maybe my silence will be,\u201d Palackdharry displayed via note cards during her hearing.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/files\/2021\/03\/CJH_4392-copy-original.jpeg” alt=”Syreeta Palackdharry holds a recreated note card” title_text=”CJH_4392-copy-original” _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Syreeta Palackdharry holds a recreated note card she made for her opening statement.<\/p>\n
Christian Harsa | Asst. Photo Editor<\/h6>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ width=”65%” module_alignment=”center” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Like the victim or survivor, the perpetrator also presents an opening statement. For Palackdharry, that meant enduring listening to her perpetrator \u201cessentially read [them] his resume\u201d while priding himself on the tight-knit friendships and familial relationships he held with women in his life in attempts to prove his innocence, Palackdharry said.<\/p>\n
Cross-examination<\/b><\/h1>\n
<\/p>\n
A<\/span>fter each party presents its opening statement, parties will interview and conduct cross-examinations of any witnesses to the case, the victim or survivor, and the perpetrator.<\/p>\nIt is the opportunity for either party to build their case and prove whether there is a preponderance of evidence that a violation of the university\u2019s sexual misconduct policies occurred. Evidence is presented, witnesses are questioned, and most notably, the opposing party\u2019s recollection of events can be challenged through cross-examination.<\/p>\n
In accordance with the latest Title IX regulations from the Department of Education, Ohio State\u2019s current sexual misconduct policy prohibits parties from directly questioning each other during cross-examination \u2014 all questions must be filtered through advisers or the hearing officer.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/files\/2021\/03\/CJH_3907-original.jpeg” title_text=”CJH_3907-original” _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Cross-examinations of witnesses, the victims, and the perpetrators happened at this conference room table.<\/p>\n
Christian Harsa | Asst. Photo Editor<\/h6>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ width=”65%” module_alignment=”center” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Peirano said the university cannot limit who either party selects as its adviser, but for students who do not have advisers during the investigation process, the university must provide one for the hearing. But that wasn\u2019t always the case.<\/p>\n
In fact, from late 2018 until DeVos\u2019 Title IX regulations went into effect Aug. 14, 2020, the university\u2019s policy required the exact opposite.<\/p>\n
\u201cA party\u2019s advisor or other support person is a silent and non-participating presence to observe and provide support for the party,\u201d Ohio State\u2019s interim sexual misconduct policy from November 2019 states.<\/p>\n
This meant Yong and Palackdharry had to endure direct questioning by their assaulters.<\/p>\n
Even though parties must be given the opportunity to question each other, they do not have to participate. For Palackdharry, that meant telling the board she would not answer any of her rapist\u2019s questions. She said she had offered enough to the case \u2014\u00a0she supplied all of the evidence in the 100-page packet, aside from her rapist\u2019s page of interview notes.<\/p>\n
Palackdharry said her perpetrator and his lawyer complained that her not answering questions was unfair, triggering a two-hour break while the hearing officer tried striking a compromise. During the break, one of the board members fell asleep and another complained about end-of-semester grading they needed to get done, she said.<\/p>\n
Ultimately, Palackdharry\u2019s rapist was allowed to read the questions he would have asked her.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI am so glad I did not answer these questions,\u201d Palackdharry said.<\/p>\n
A lot of those questions, she said, were \u201cnitpicky.\u201d Several others asked about her previous experiences with sexual abuse. She said it took him 20 minutes to read them all, and after he did, he refused to participate in the rest of the hearing \u2014 including the board\u2019s questioning of him.<\/p>\n
\u201cHe got through not just an eight-hour hearing, but a 10-month investigation without answering a single question about what happened that night,\u201d Palackdharry said.<\/p>\n
For the women whose assaulters could question them only through a third party, the questions weren\u2019t any less difficult.<\/p>\n
Prior to the end of 2018, parties\u2019 cross-examination was slightly less direct; Radochonski said her rapist would ask his question aloud, then the hearing officer would either rephrase or repeat the question verbatim for her to answer.<\/p>\n
Under current policy, before a party answers any questions received during an interview or cross-examination, Peirano said the resolutions officer presiding over the case must determine whether the question is relevant. If the officer finds a question to be irrelevant, the officer must explain their decision to exclude the question.<\/p>\n
What is deemed relevant, however, is unclear.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/files\/2021\/03\/CJH_4402-original.jpeg” title_text=”CJH_4402-original” _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Syreeta Palackdharry holds a recreated note card she made for her opening statement.<\/p>\n
Christian Harsa | Asst. Photo Editor<\/h6>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ width=”65%” module_alignment=”center” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
\n
\n
Many of the women who spoke to The Lantern said their perpetrators were permitted to ask questions they never dreamed would pertain to their sexual misconduct case, including Radochonski, who said her perpetrator and his lawyer peppered her with \u201cinvasive\u201d questions.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat I didn\u2019t expect was for questions about my sexual history, questions about medications that I\u2019m taking, my GPA, my past performance in school, my current sex life, if I had been assaulted in the past or as a child, if I had a traumatic childhood,\u201d Radochonski said. \u201cI didn\u2019t expect all those questions to be deemed as relevant by the hearing officer.\u201d<\/p>\n
The hearing officer also allowed her perpetrator and his lawyer to ask if Radochonski was diagnosed with multiple personality disorder and whether her depression \u201cskewed [her] perception of reality,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cBecause the hearing officer had deemed these as relevant, I thought that, \u2018Well, if I didn\u2019t answer these, I don\u2019t want to act like I\u2019m hiding something,\u2019\u201d Radochonski said.<\/p>\n
Although Radochonski felt pressured to answer every question, she said her perpetrator only answered about half of the questions asked of him.<\/p>\n
Peirano said the cross-examination policy change coincided with a September 2018 decision in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals \u2014 Ohio\u2019s circuit \u2014 called Doe v. Baum. Concerning a University of Michigan student who argued his due process rights were violated during a Title IX investigation against him, the case established a precedent in the 6th Circuit that public universities must offer cross-examination in cases that must be resolved based on two conflicting testimonies of events.<\/p>\n
But the decision does not require the parties themselves be given that opportunity. In fact, the decision syllabus states, \u201cthe university must give the accused student or his agent an opportunity to cross-examine the accuser and adverse witnesses.\u201d<\/p>\n
Peirano said the choice to have an adviser or third party ask questions was \u201calways an option.\u201d<\/p>\n
But when Yong asked in a pre-hearing conference if she could have an adviser ask questions for her, she said the hearing officer told her outright that was not possible.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/files\/2021\/03\/Screen-Shot-2021-11-24-at-9.58.14-AM.png” title_text=”Screen Shot 2021-11-24 at 9.58.14 AM” _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ width=”65%” module_alignment=”center” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
And even though Palackdharry didn\u2019t ask questions during her university conduct board hearing, she said she wasn\u2019t given that option either. It was only presented to her rapist, several hours into the hearing, after he grew frustrated she would not answer his questions, she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Peirano could ultimately not provide an explanation for why the women The Lantern spoke with were told direct cross-examination was the only choice.<\/p>\n
When determining which individuals to serve as a university-appointed adviser, Peirano said the Office of Institutional Equity selects from a pool of volunteers from across the university. Applicants are interviewed to determine whether they can abide by Title IX\u2019s expectations and understand their role as the adviser, she said.<\/p>\n
\u201cAre they able to serve both complainants and respondents? Can they assist in what we\u2019re asking them to do? Because their role really is to ask questions on the behalf of the party, and so we wanted to make sure that it was folks who understood that was their role,\u201d Peirano said.<\/p>\n
Once a slate of advisers is selected, Peirano said they will be trained in order to best understand their own responsibilities and the general policies and operations of a Title IX hearing.<\/p>\n
Peirano said the Office of Institutional Equity recently hired a director of resolutions and two resolutions officers \u2014 two positions that hadn\u2019t existed before \u2014 as it moved away from a four-person university conduct board to a single resolutions officer. Before, a resolutions officer could also act as an investigative officer or serve in another Title IX role, whereas now, their main responsibility is to preside over hearings, Peirano said.<\/p>\n
With the new resolutions officer system, Peirano said the officers are subject to national trainings and preparation from the Office of Institutional Equity to best adhere to Title IX\u2019s policies, practices and expectations.<\/p>\n
When a resolutions officer makes a determination on a question\u2019s relevance to the case, Peirano said there are many things to consider, as a question deemed relevant in one case may be irrelevant in another.<\/p>\n
\u201cSometimes there does have to be discussion about, you know, \u2018How is this relevant? Are you using it to help make a specific point? Are you trying to show a pattern?\u2019 And so it can vary,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
To help facilitate the determination of relevancy, Peirano said resolutions officers use an \u201cAsk, Pause, Move Forward\u201d model. Once a question is asked by either party, the resolutions officer will pause and analyze the question\u2019s relevancy.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf there\u2019s no concerns, you can move forward,\u201d Peirano said.<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/files\/2021\/03\/IMG_1727-original.png” title_text=”IMG_1727-original” _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Prior to new Title IX regulations from the U.S. Department of Education adopted by Ohio State on Aug. 14, 2020, victims and survivors were questioned directly by their perpetrators. Current policies require a third party to conduct cross-examinations.<\/p>\n
Marcy Paredes | For The Lantern<\/h6>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ width=”65%” module_alignment=”center” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
To gather more evidence and testimonies during the hearing, witnesses from either party are also questioned and cross-examined.<\/p>\n
For Palackdharry, that meant her mom, a close friend and a detective from the Bexley Police Department who initially handled her case were all questioned by her perpetrator.<\/p>\n
Palackdharry said the detective\u2019s responses to her rapist\u2019s questions prompted her at that moment to lose \u201call faith in police.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201c[The detective] might as well have just straight up said that he didn\u2019t believe me,\u201d Palackdharry said. \u201cHe pointed out that it was very convenient that I ran an anti-sexual violence student org and commented on the fact that I waited a little over a day to go get my rape kit done.\u201d<\/p>\n
Palackdharry said a seed of doubt seemed to have been planted in the detective\u2019s mind when he came to speak with her in the emergency room, where she went to undergo a forensic exam after the assault.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In response to one of her perpetrator\u2019s questions, the detective said he could not understand how Palackdharry, so soon after being assaulted, was laughing momentarily at the hospital.<\/p>\n
She said she was attempting to make a joke to lighten the mood.<\/p>\n
Tammy Moore, a clinical social worker and co-owner of the Ohio Institute for Trauma and Wellness, said laughing after trauma is a common response. People laugh for several reasons, she said, whether it be to relieve stress or extreme fear or to express disbelief at one\u2019s own survival.<\/p>\n
Survivors, like many of the women who spoke to The Lantern, often face a laundry list of questions in attempts to understand why they acted the way they did \u2014 questions victims and survivors can\u2019t always easily answer, Moore said.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe truth is, you find me 1,000 survivors, and I\u2019ll find you 1,000 different responses, especially under the pressure of a forensic exam, especially after having something traumatic happen,\u201d Moore said.<\/p>\n
When Palackdharry\u2019s mother was called in as a witness, Palackdharry\u2019s rapist asked her about the type of birth control Palackdharry used.<\/p>\n
\u201cI can\u2019t believe that [the hearing officer] allowed that,\u201d Palackdharry said.<\/p>\n
Her perpetrator also asked her mom about Palackdharry\u2019s previous experiences with sexual assault \u2014 a question that Palackdharry said Kellie Brennan, former Title IX coordinator, told her would not be permitted during the hearing as it had no relevance.<\/p>\n
The hearing officer assigned to Palackdharry\u2019s case deemed the question relevant.<\/p>\n
After her perpetrator asked her close friend and her mom about her mental health diagnoses and whether she has a history of lying to them, Palackdharry decided to break her silence. She asked her hearing officer how she determined the questions to be relevant, which forced the officer to reevaluate her perpetrator\u2019s questions.<\/p>\n
\u201cShe eventually did shut it down,\u201d Palackdharry said. \u201cBut I\u2019m floored that it took getting to that point for her to shut it down.\u201d<\/p>\n
When a person undergoes a traumatic event, Moore said the brain\u2019s prefrontal cortex \u2014 the \u201cthinking brain\u201d \u2014 is under-activated, making it nearly impossible for a person to freely choose what their next course of action will be. She said the brain \u201cautomatically responds\u201d to the danger in what it evaluates as the safest way.<\/p>\n
\u201cWe like to blame victims or say, \u2018You didn\u2019t seem afraid\u2019 or \u2018You didn\u2019t do anything?\u2019 or \u2018Why didn\u2019t you tell anyone?\u2019 or \u2018Were you exhibiting this behavior before?\u2019\u201d Moore said.<\/p>\n
After an assault, Moore said many victims and survivors are incapable of remembering key details of the event \u2014 whether it was midnight or 2 a.m., or if the perpetrator was 5-foot-8 or 6-foot-2 \u2014 as the body\u2019s \u201cfear response\u201d takes over and inhibits one\u2019s ability to recall details based on the five senses.<\/p>\n
Palackdharry, for example, said her perpetrator attempted to use the fact that her timeframe of the assault was about 40 minutes off as evidence that she was lying.<\/p>\n
Moore said the lengthy list of questions a victim or survivor is asked not only results from an inability to understand the psychology behind trauma responses, it\u2019s also rooted in the devaluation and \u201csystemic oppression\u201d of women in society.<\/p>\n
Radochonski said she felt her perpetrator\u2019s testimony was taken more seriously than hers because she openly admitted to being intoxicated during the assault. She said she believed the hearing officer allowed many of the questions she wouldn\u2019t think would be asked \u2014 about her sexual history, her mental health, her relationships after the assault \u2014 because of a fundamental misunderstanding of how victims and survivors act.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf you want to paint the victim of sexual assault, I think a lot of people generally have what they should look like,\u201d Radochonski said. \u201cSo like, very timid, scared to have sex, never want to go out, just those very stereotypical attributes you would give to someone who has gone through a sexual assault, when in reality, that just isn\u2019t the case for all victims of sexual assault.\u201d<\/p>\n
Although Yong said she tried to muster the courage to start writing the questions she would ask her perpetrator weeks before the hearing, she couldn\u2019t bring herself to do it until the night before.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cIt was such a daunting process. And it was exhausting,\u201d Yong said. \u201cEven the thought of having to read over everything and to prepare answers as if I was a lawyer was exhausting.\u201d<\/p>\n
Prior to drafting her list of questions to ask her perpetrator, Yong said she consulted an attorney on the phone who helped prepare her for what she might expect during the hearing.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Ultimately, the attorney advised Yong that the hearing officer would look for consistency in her story, credibility, specific violations to university sexual misconduct policies and \u201csigns that a reasonable person\u201d watching the misconduct would know she didn\u2019t consent.<\/p>\n
The attorney also suggested Yong pull information from the hearing packet while questioning her perpetrator, as the packet includes notes from the interviews of the perpetrator, as well as the survivor and witnesses, conducted by a Title IX investigator during the investigation phase of the case.\u00a0<\/p>\n
For instance, Yong said her perpetrator reportedly told the investigator that he asked her on numerous occasions to kiss him, despite Yong telling him no.<\/p>\n
Using the information from her perpetrator\u2019s previous interviews, Yong, during the hearing, asked him: \u201cIs it true that [in] your interview that you asked to kiss me as many times as you could, despite me telling you no?\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
The attorney Yong consulted also advised her to ask questions that could demonstrate how her perpetrator violated Ohio State\u2019s sexual misconduct policies, including the university\u2019s definitions of sexual violence, in order to strengthen her case before the hearing officer, Yong wrote in a compilation of hearing notes she provided to The Lantern.<\/p>\n
\u201cGo back to the policy as much as you can when preparing your statements and questions so you don\u2019t get sidetracked by things in his statement that are upsetting but don\u2019t help your case,\u201d the attorney told Yong.<\/p>\n
Radochonski also referenced specific comments her perpetrator made during his interview with the Title IX investigator. She provided The Lantern with the questions she asked during the hearing.<\/p>\n
In a question directed at her perpetrator, Radochonski noted: \u201cOn page 123 of the investigation file, you say, and I quote, \u2018Lisa\u2019s eyes showed that she wanted more.\u2019 Can you explain what this means and what this looks like?\u201d<\/p>\n
Radochonski said her perpetrator clarified, claiming he witnessed her eyes rapidly moving back and forth, her eyelashes \u201cfluttering.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cSo, I was blinking?\u201d Radochonski responded.<\/p>\n
\u201cHow does this display consent-seeking language, as consent-seeking language is a verbal yes from a partner that is not under the influence of alcohol, drugs, or coercion?\u201d<\/p>\n
Closing statement<\/strong><\/h1>\n <\/p>\n
The final section of the hearing, similar to a courtroom trial, invites both parties to summarize their cases and make final remarks. For many victims and survivors, such as Radochonski, it is a chance to lay bare the physical and emotional impact their assault had on them.<\/p>\n
Radochonski started working on her impact statement four months before the hearing, when she decided to report the assault to the university. By the time she presented it to her rapist and the hearing officer, it was 18 pages long.<\/p>\n
Her closing statement ended with a plea to the university \u2014 urging the hearing officer, \u201cfor the sake of the safety of women\u201d at Ohio State, to be \u201cconscientious and thorough\u201d in the decision making regarding the outcome of her hearing.\u00a0<\/p>\n
\u201cI do not have anything to lose because I have already lost everything. You took everything away from me,\u201d Radochonski wrote to her perpetrator. \u201cI was at the bottom, and I was ready to die. All I have left is the truth.\u201d<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#E02B20″ _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/files\/2021\/03\/CJH_3876-original.jpeg” title_text=”CJH_3876-original” _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Conference Room A on the fifth floor of Lincoln Tower is where the hearings took place.<\/p>\n
Christian Harsa | Asst. Photo Editor<\/h6>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ width=”65%” module_alignment=”center” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
y the time Radochonski left the hearing room on the fifth floor of Lincoln Tower, it was 1 a.m. She had a final exam the next day, and she was tired.<\/p>\n
She had spent 13 hours answering questions about her sex life, mental health and her sexual assault. She had spent several months submitting evidence: text messages with her friends before and after her assault, a phone-generated map of where she walked that night, a receipt for the emergency contraception she purchased, her hospitalization records, diagnoses and emails with her therapist.<\/p>\n
\u201cI would like to think that they have an unbiased, fair process, but I don\u2019t think that they do,\u201d Radochonski said. \u201cI mean, again, I know no one was there that night. And I know on that night, it was just a \u2018he said, she said\u2019 situation, which, OK, I understand that. But also, why would I be hospitalized for suicidal ideation, why would I be self-harming, why would I be so stressed if this didn\u2019t happen the way I said it did?\u201d<\/p>\n
In student conduct cases, the respondent \u2014 the perpetrator \u2014 isn\u2019t found \u201cguilty\u201d or \u201cnot guilty.\u201d Rather, they are found \u201cresponsible\u201d or \u201cnot responsible\u201d for the charges against them.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Radochonski\u2019s rapist was charged with endangering behavior, defined by Ohio State\u2019s Code of Student Conduct as \u201ctaking or threatening action that endangers the safety, physical or mental health, or life of any person, or creates a reasonable fear of such action.\u201d He was also charged with sexual harassment and nonconsensual sexual intercourse \u2014 the old sexual misconduct policy\u2019s term for rape.<\/p>\n
The hearing officer found Radochonski\u2019s perpetrator responsible for one of three charges he faced: endangering behavior. He was found not responsible for neither sexual harassment nor nonconsensual sexual intercourse.\u00a0<\/p>\n
With the two-hour break, Palackdharry\u2019s hearing lasted eight hours. Aside from giving her silent open statement in the hearing room, Palackdharry spent those hours watching her perpetrator\u2019s face on a screen from another room, having chosen to Zoom into the hearing.<\/p>\n
A few weeks later, Palackdharry got a phone call from the hearing officer asking her to come into her office. The board\u2019s decision was ready.<\/p>\n
\u201cDo you want me to tell you what it says, or do you want to read it yourself?\u201d the hearing officer asked Palackdharry.<\/p>\n
Palackdharry told her to read it for her. She was scared, she said.<\/p>\n
The hearing officer told Palackdharry her rapist was found not responsible for nonconsensual sexual intercourse, nonconsensual sexual contact and endangering behavior.<\/p>\n
When Yong logged out of the Zoom at the end of her hearing, she was also tired. During the three or four hours the hearing took, Yong said she was hypervigilant to every aspect of her perpetrator: his voice, his facial expressions, how he reacted to things she said. She hadn\u2019t seen his face in nearly 10 months.<\/p>\n
Although the cards seemed stacked against her \u2014 he had a lawyer, she had to ask him questions and endure his questions addressed to her \u2014 Yong said she came out of it less scared than she entered.<\/p>\n
\u201cEven though it was an emotional process, it was liberating to be able to tell my story in this formal way to people that had to sit there and listen, to be able to even say to him, honestly,\u201d Yong said. \u201cI had to hold space for the tension of that being both really intimidating and scary, but also extremely empowering.\u201d<\/p>\n
About two months after her hearing, Yong received the outcome letter for her case.<\/p>\n
Her perpetrator was found not responsible for neither nonconsensual sexual contact nor nonconsensual sexual intercouse.<\/p>\n
To this day, Yong said she is still angry and upset about the outcome of her hearing, but she \u201ccame to peace\u201d with the decision after realizing she was up against a system that is not \u201csurvivor-friendly.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat I had to come to terms with and really grapple with is that I\u2019m operating within a system that works against survivors,\u201d Yong said. \u201cAnd even if my hearing officer personally felt like she believed me, she is also operating with it within a system that works against survivors.\u201d<\/p>\n
In an ideal world, Yong said she wished she could have had more autonomy during the hearing \u2014 like the ability to decide whether she or an adviser would conduct the cross-examination.<\/p>\n
While reading the outcome letter, Yong said her eyes skimmed to the part including her perpetrator\u2019s charges, or in this case, lack thereof. She said she couldn\u2019t bring herself to read the entire letter.<\/p>\n
\u201cSomeday I probably will,\u201d she said. \u201cBut probably after years of aggressive therapy.\u201d<\/p>\n
[\/et_pb_text][et_pb_divider color=”#E02B20″ divider_weight=”2px” _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_divider][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.10.5″ _module_preset=”default” text_font=”Georgia||||||||” text_text_color=”#000000″ text_font_size=”16px” link_font=”||||on|||#E09900|” link_text_color=”#000000″ global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
\n
\n
Words by<\/em>\u00a0Maeve Walsh<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0and<\/em>\u00a0Sarah Szilagy<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\nWeb Design by<\/em>\u00a0Jack Long<\/b><\/span><\/p>\nGraphics by<\/em>\u00a0Ivan Kostovski<\/b><\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n
\n
Former Editor-in-Chief Kaylee Harter contributed reporting.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n[\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Maeve Walsh Former John R. Oller Special Projects Editor Sarah Szilagy Campus EditorThe rooms Ohio State uses for student conduct and Title IX sexual misconduct hearings are small. Tucked away on the fifth floor of Lincoln Tower, each room is adorned only with chairs, a conference table and a wall-mounted monitor. That monitor is sometimes […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4077,"featured_media":2979,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"project_category":[],"project_tag":[156,164,159,155,154,163,39,64,161,158,157,160,153,152,162],"coauthors":[197,251],"class_list":["post-2942","project","type-project","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","project_tag-assault","project_tag-columbus","project_tag-harassment","project_tag-ix","project_tag-nine","project_tag-ohio","project_tag-ohio-state","project_tag-rape","project_tag-series","project_tag-sex","project_tag-sexual","project_tag-stalk","project_tag-title","project_tag-title-ix","project_tag-university"],"acf":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project\/2942","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/project"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4077"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2942"}],"version-history":[{"count":30,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project\/2942\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5711,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project\/2942\/revisions\/5711"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2979"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2942"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"project_category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project_category?post=2942"},{"taxonomy":"project_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/project_tag?post=2942"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thelantern.com\/projects\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=2942"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}