The Title IX Board adjudicated a complaint alleging a student had violated the DHSM and the Honor Principle by sexually assaulting another student. The Board found that the respondent did not violate the DHSM, but violated the Alcohol and Other Drugs Policy (AOD) by smoking marijuana on multiple occasions. The Board additionally found that the respondent violated the Honor Principle in a later encounter with the complainant at the complainant’s workplace by raising their voice, violating the complainant’s personal space, and ignoring multiple requests to leave the area. The Board recommended that the respondent meet with the Dean of Students to discuss and reflect on the encounter in question, and complete an assignment following up on this meeting, the nature, and scope of which is left up to the Dean. The Board recommended that the case information not be released to outside parties, and the respondent not be put on disciplinary probation. The President’s designee upheld the Board’s findings and recommendations. No appeal was filed, and so the designee’s decision went into effect.
The Title IX Board adjudicated a complaint alleging a student had violated the DHSM and the Honor Principle by sexually assaulting another student. The Board found the student not to have violated the DHSM or the Honor Principle. The Board recommended that an indefinite no-contact order remain in place between the complainant and respondent unless they both independently sought its removal, that the respondent be reinstated to their on-campus jobs, and stipulated that information pertaining to the case not be released to inquiring third-party institutions. The President’s designee upheld all of the Board’s findings and recommendations except the recommendation that the respondent be immediately reinstated to both of their jobs. The President’s designee did not uphold this recommendation, saying that decisions related to the positions in question were employment matters to be determined by the appropriate staff within Student Services. No appeal was filed, so the designee’s decision went into effect.
A complaint was submitted to the Title IX Board alleging that a student had violated the DHSM and the Honor Principle by initiating sexual contact and sexual intercourse without obtaining consent for those actions. The Board found the respondent to have violated the DHSM and the Honor Principle by committing sexual assault. The Board also found the respondent to have behaved less-than-honorably by disregarding the complainant’s cues to end their conversation when the two parties encountered each other after the instance of sexual assault. The Board recommended that the respondent be placed on academic exclusion—excluded from campus outside of academic classes and activities—with an initial two-week delay in implementation so they could find alternate housing. The Board also recommended that the respondent write an essay addressed to themselves as a first-year student reflecting on consent and on interactions with the complainant, to be submitted to the Dean of Students. Further, the Board recommended that the respondent be placed on disciplinary probation, and stipulated that information regarding the case not be released to inquiring third-party institutions. The President disagreed with the Board’s recommendations and modified them such that the respondent be required to work with the Dean of Students to coordinate and complete at least five hours of community service per week until the end of the academic year (excluding winter break); that the no-contact order between the complainant and respondent remain in place unless both parties independently request it be revoked; and that failure to complete sanctions would result in being disallowed to register for Spring 2016 classes. The President upheld the Board’s sanction that the respondent write a letter, that the respondent be placed on disciplinary probation, and that information regarding the case not be released to inquiring third parties. The President’s decision was not appealed by either party, so the sanctions went into effect ten working days after the original decision was issued.
The Title IX Board heard a complaint brought against three students, in which two of the respondents were alleged to have violated both the DHSM and the Honor Principle by instigating a campaign of bullying, harassment, and intimidation against the complainant through the creation and dissemination of a list of people alleged to have committed policy and Honor violations in which the complainant was named; the third respondent was alleged to have contributed to a hostile living and learning environment, both by spreading the aforementioned characterization of the complainant to members of the Reed community, and by filing an allegedly false report against the complainant. The Board found that none of the respondents in this case had violated the DHSM. The two students involved with the aforementioned list were found by the Board to have acted less-than-honorably by their failure to consider the potential impact its distribution may have had on members of the Reed community. The first of these students was further found to have acted less-than-honorably by their failure to consider the potential impact of such a list. The second was found to have violated the Honor Principle by continuing to distribute the list in spite of having considered such impact. In light of these findings, the Board recommended that the second student write a seven to ten page double-spaced essay, reflecting on the findings of the Board with respect to their actions, to be submitted to the Assistant Dean of Student Services, and that they complete eight hours of community service with any campus group at Reed. The Board recommended that information related to the case not be released to inquiring third-party institutions for either of the three respondents, and issued no other sanctions. The President’s designee upheld the Board’s findings and recommended sanctions. The designee’s decision was not appealed by any party to the case, so the sanctions went into effect ten working days after the original decision was issued.
The Board heard a complaint brought against a student alleged to have violated the Academic Conduct Policy by using a phone to review prohibited exam-related materials during an exam. The Board found that the student had violated the Academic Conduct Policy by using their phone to view exam-related materials during the course of a closed exam and then substantially altering their exam afterwards. Further the Board found that the student had violated the Honor Principle by being academically dishonest and by lying about their conduct to a professor and later to the Board. The Board found that the student had been less than honorable by creating an environment that could potentially disrupt other students during the exam. The Board recommended that the respondent be placed on disciplinary probation for the remainder of their time at Reed, be required to complete thirty hours of community service, write two essays of 1500 words each on the role of honor in academic conduct at Reed and the relationship between honor and personal accountability, meet with the Assistant Dean of Students for Academic Support to discuss future academic expectations, and meet with a member of the Honor Council to discuss their conception of the Honor Principle. The President upheld the Board’s findings and sanctions. The designee’s decision was not appealed by any party to the case, so the sanctions went into effect ten working days after the original decision was issued.