All faculty members are mandatory reporters, as of June 6, 2014.  This means that if a student confides an incident of sexual assault to any university employee, even in confidence, the employee is required to report to the Title IX Officer or risk termination.  Irrespective of situations where the student explicitly requests anonymity, via university procedure 13.02 Discrimination, Harassment and Sexual Misconduct Policy, faculty and staff are obligated to relate identifying information upon demand.     

Emerging as a result of the federal law known as Title IX, which prohibits sex discrimination in all federally funded educational programs, policy 13.02 is not without its issues.  

In addition to students, a number of faculty and staff have also taken concern.  

Faculty and staff plainly stating they are beholden to report any sexual assault, whether or not the survivor agrees, is sure to mute voices.  While being forthright about their obligation to mandatory report incidents during conversation is expected, interestingly, the Office of Compliance and Equity Management suggests omitting the detail of mandatory reporting in faculty syllabi, as it could chill a story.  How and when is a professor supposed to gauge when this information is to be conveyed?  If a student divulges, requests confidentiality and is reported anyway, isn’t trust jeopardized?  Wouldn’t this also act as silencing future stories?   

As quoted from Section III. Reporting Responsibilities:  All University employees who are aware of or witness discrimination, harassment, sexual misconduct, or retaliation are required to promptly report to the Title IX Officer or a Title IX Deputy Coordinator. […]  All initial contacts will be treated with the maximum possible privacy: specific information on any complaint received by any party will be reported to the Title IX Officer, but, subject to the University’s obligation to investigate and redress violations, every reasonable effort will be made to maintain the privacy of those initiating a report of a complaint. In all cases, the University will give consideration to the complainant with respect to how the complaint is pursued but reserves the right, when necessary to protect the community, to investigate and pursue a resolution when an alleged victim chooses not to initiate or participate in a formal complaint.

Are we suffering from an identity crisis?  The last time I checked, “student” wasn’t synonymous with “invalid.” Who are we really protecting?  It certainly isn’t our survivors.  Doesn’t it seem wildly counterproductive to facilitate healing through coercion?  

So, you are a survivor and are not ready to widely disclose information?  Have no fear; the university will make your decision for you. It’s called, “reserving the right.”  Who actually has agency over survivors’ experiences, if not themselves?  

Regardless of intent, the question remains: who does mandatory reporting best serve — UNI or the survivors of sexual assault?       

Another cause for concern is the lack of information about UNI’s ONLY confidential resource on campus, Joan Thompson.  It’s no wonder students, faculty and staff members alike aren’t aware of the Victim Services Advocate.  She isn’t even listed in the policy. 

Do a Ctrl + F search for ‘confidential.’  It returns 12 results, one of which specifies that the reporting party may speak with ‘victim service advocates.’  No mention once of who that even is.  The first time I found something so remote as a hyperlink connecting her information back to the policy was in Section VIII.E. under the link, ‘Violence Intervention Services.’  

As a side note, Section VIII.E. is composed of two links and is the very last section in the 7,774-word policy.  Problematic much?  I think so.  

Well-intentioned, but poorly executed; this is the sound of one hand clapping, UNI.  It’s time to reconsider 13.02.