College Justice and Title IX: Addressing Violence Against Women

The following blog post is the extended article that was submitted to the Wall Street Journal in response to the opinion piece Taranto: An Education in College Justice." The shortened version is available here as part of several letters to the editor published on December 12, 2013.

The woman that Joshua Strange met at Auburn University will likely never forget him either. The incident Taranto frames as an “intimate encounter” in his opinion article is a poor euphemism for what is described as a forcible sodomy commenced when the victim was asleep. The alleged assault occurred in the context of intimate partner violence that later included an allegation of physical abuse. While the author suggests Strange was “cleared” by the criminal justice system, the reality is that efforts to prosecute were not successful, which does not necessarily equate to actual innocence.

For over two decades, Congress has acknowledged the criminal justice system’s failure to adequately address violent crimes against women. This led to the passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in 1994. This last year Congress reauthorized VAWA and expanded it to include the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act (SaVE) Act, which establishes standards for how colleges and universities address sexual assault, dating violence, domestic violence, and stalking on campus. If anything, the story of Strange highlights the need for this law, given the context of intimate partner violence and sexual assault. Rather than a “war on men,” our government is earnestly seeking to address violence against women by creating mechanisms that ensure the safety of abused women.

In addition to VAWA, the federal civil rights statute Title IX also addresses violence against women on campus. Title IX has existed for over 40 years to protect against sex discrimination, which has been interpreted to include sexual harassment and sexual violence. Taranto indirectly addresses this law through the mention of “an April 2011 directive” or “Ms. Ali’s directive,” which is the 2011 Title IX Guidance or “Dear Colleague Letter.” The U.S. Department of Education issued this latest guidance to clarify how Title IX obligates schools to address sexual harassment and violence as supported by case law. Inspired by this guidance, advocates such as myself successfully lobbied for some of its provisions to be included in the Campus SaVE Act, making them federal law.

[Signing of the 2013 VAWA Reauthorization]

While Taranto wants readers to be shocked at the due process afforded to Strange in his proceeding, he is making an error the 2011 Title IX Guidance corrected: campus judicial process are separate from the criminal process. Unlike a criminal trial, Strange faced a school hearing for misconduct based on a violation of the student handbook. Such an accusation simply does not warrant the same level of due process as one facing a felony charge for a sex offense. Several courts have upheld minimal due process standards in campus proceedings, such as the venerable Judge Posner in Osteen v. Henley (1993), who specifically rejected the transformation of a campus proceeding into an adversarial justice system.

For Title IX based proceedings, such as those where sexual harassment or violence has been alleged, campus judicial hearings must be “equitable.” That means even-handed due process for both parties so they have the same notice, same opportunity to present witnesses, and same ability to speak. So, for example, when the woman stated she was locked in the room after the alleged sexual assault, Strange was also given an opportunity to present his side of the story that he locked himself out of the room. The campus officials could then come to their own conclusion regarding who was more credible – perhaps finding that Strange had control of that situation and limited the woman’s movements against her will. This would be a reasonable given that the women’s testimony was found credible in a civil court to award her a restraining order against Strange.

Rather that a travesty of justice, the Strange case highlights the growing commitment by colleges, such as Auburn University, to apply federal law that addresses violence against women. It is important to remember that while this campus proceeding resulted in Strange’s removal from Auburn, it does not prevent him from seeking an education elsewhere nor would the result have even become public had Taranto not published about the case. Rather this proceeding allowed the woman to continue seeking her education on campus free from the risk of ongoing violence or abuse, as is her and every student’s right under Title IX.


  1. Unlike Mr. Taranto, you have failed to seek the truth of the situation before you wrote about it. If you ever wish to see the actual transcript of the hearing from the restraining order, listen to the recording of the disciplinary hearing, or examine any of the other pieces of factual documentation in this case which clearly demonstrate that Josh's accuser lacks veracity, please feel free to contact Josh Strange or me (Allison Strange) at any time. We welcome the chance to speak with you and to provide you with documentation to show that not all young men who are accused are actually guilty of the accusation and not all "victims" tell the truth. To believe otherwise is delusional, at best. Finally, I would add that had you not gone public with your story, no one would have known about it, either. Is there a difference between you seeking to expose the truth in your situation and Josh seeking to expose the truth in his? I submit that there is no difference except that the truth of Josh's situation is inconvenient to you.

  2. Taranto provided sufficient information in his article to support this counter point perspective on the issue (because it's not just about your son). I also heard you and your son speak during public comment at the U.S. Department of Education VAWA rulemaking committee, where I served as the student negotiator. I stand by this article, as does the Wall Street Journal, which considered it well researched and reasoned to be published as a response to Taranto's opinion piece:

    I am sorry that is inconvenient to you.

  3. The offer stands, Ms. Dunn. Should you ever feel compelled to actually look at/listen to the truth of Josh's situation, which as you have weel-pointed out is not just about him but to the contrary, is very much about any young men/women who have been, are or may in the future be falsely accused, we will welcome the opportunity to meet with you and to provide you with all the information and documentation that you need to understand that there are most definitely two sides to every story and not every person who claims to be a victim is honest. Please contact us at any time. We will even come to meet you, if same should be convenient. We await your contact. Congratulations on your seat on the committee. Please do not think that we were not aware of your presence.

    1. Allison, your unwillingness to hold your son accountable is a big part of the problem. No one would even be speculating about your son being a rapist if you and him didn't make this your life's mission to convince yourselves that he didn't sodomize someone. Stop. He got expelled. He probably would have been accepted elsewhere if he hadn't adopted the profile of a rape apologist. You think he will be accepted anywhere now? Your son is a spoiled brat who clearly has never been held accountable for anything in his life. And that lies at your feet, my friend.

    2. What exactly was the school supposed to do Ms. Strange? Your SON PLEADED THE FIFTH. It was her word vs. your son's non-word. Please explain to me what they were supposed to do.