Professor: Universities underreporting sexual assault by as much as 44 percent

Monday, February 02, 2015

LAWRENCE — Universities across the country are likely underreporting on-campus sexual assault, new research by a University of Kansas researcher shows. While there is not one clear reason why the crimes might be underreported, data show that the numbers of sexual assaults were low, increased during periods of audit, only to return to the lower numbers after the audits were over. To address the problem, increased audits and fines may be necessary, said Corey Rayburn Yung, professor of law.

Yung analyzed crime-reporting data from 269 universities in the United States and found that sexual assault is likely an estimated 44 percent higher than reported numbers. More than 11,000 schools in the United States are required to submit campus crime information to the Department of Education by the Clery Act. He limited the study to schools with 10,000 or more students to get consistent, comparable statistical data. The article was published in the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law.

Since 2001, only 31 of the 269 institutions with 10,000 or more students were audited in regard to their crime numbers. Many schools, especially smaller institutions, often reported zero sexual assaults.

“It just seemed like the norm was to assume there is nothing wrong,” Yung said. “I looked at those 31 to see how their numbers changed before the audit, during the audit and after the audit. Based on their interactions with auditors there seems to be a systematic undercounting.”

The numbers showed that during the 31 investigations, reported sexual assaults rose nearly 44 percent. However, after the investigations the rates dropped back to a level statistically indistinguishable from the rates before the audit. Yung also examined the reported rates of aggravated assault, robbery and burglary. No statistical variations appeared for those crimes during the investigations. While they are different crimes, the numbers paint a troubling picture, he says.

“Each of those crimes has a very different dynamic,” Yung said. “I don’t mean to say they are a direct comparison. But the only one that shows this fluctuation during the audit is sexual assault.”

There are many potential reasons campuses could underreport sexual assaults, he said. While all schools need to attract new students, none want to portray themselves as a dangerous place with high crime numbers. Campus police, like municipal police departments, can often be under pressure to show they are reducing crime as well. Sexual assault, especially on a campus setting, often involves an acquaintance and questions of consent or incapacitation. Given that there are often two competing stories, sexual assault can often be more easily dismissed than other crimes due to “lack of evidence” or contradictory statements, Yung said.

Further complicating matters, campuses are required to adjudicate claims of sexual assault within 60 days; however evidence including DNA and drug and alcohol analysis are often not available within such a short timeframe. The public nature of the Clery Act crime statistics — data must be provided to both the Department of Education and students — could also be an incentive to undercount.

“I think it varies substantially from campus to campus why sexual assaults may be underreported, but the evidence shows that undercounting is taking place,” Yung said.

Two clear steps can be taken immediately to help address the problem of underreporting. First, Yung suggests that more audits take place. Currently, the Department of Education can launch an investigation either at random or if it is triggered by a specific on-campus event or notable problem. Since 2001, only 54 such audits have been conducted. Second, stronger fines should be levied against universities that are shown to have knowingly underreported crimes. Currently the cap for such fines is $35,000. Data shows that even institutions that were fined for underreporting returned to rates of reporting sexual assault before an audit. The Campus Accountability and Safety Act, currently before Congress, would increase maximum penalties from $35,000 to $150,000.

Whatever the reason for undercounting sexual assault, the biggest problem is that it can allow serial rapists to prey on more victims if they are not prosecuted for previous offenses. A 2010 study by Kimberly A. Lonsway of End Violence Against Women International showed that more than 90 percent of rapists are serial rapists, Yung said. Legislation, combined with more scrutiny and treating sexual assault as a public safety crisis could help combat the problem of underreporting as well as preventing future crimes and serving justice for victims.

“I think increased auditing and more severe punishments for those shown to be undercounting are certainly the first steps,” Yung said. “As it is, schools could undercount for decades. There’s almost no deterrent. It would be good to have an incentive for schools to count these crimes accurately.”

Kobach: Kansas justices score lower in quality comparison

"Secretary of State Kris Kobach argued Thursday the federal model of judicial selection placed higher caliber lawyers from Kansas on the U.S. District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals than the state’s existing approach for picking justices of the Kansas Supreme Court.

Kobach and Gov. Sam Brownback believe the Kansas Constitution ought to be amended to eliminate the nonpartisan merit selection system relied upon in Kansas to evaluate applicants for the state Supreme Court and to provide governors a choice among three finalists.

. . . 

Kansas Government Fighting Same-Sex Marriage

"A legal expert contends the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to rule on same-sex marriage will determine the fate of Kansas' ban on the unions.  But University of Kansas Constitutional Law Professor Richard Levy thinks the state could still fight implementation of a judgment allowing gay marriage.

Levy said, 'It’s possible that there could be various kinds of state laws passed that test exactly what the limits are, and in the process slow its recognition.'

Professor argues standards for cutting-edge science need to consider intellectual property

Monday, January 12, 2015

LAWRENCE — The development of a new “open language,” or standard means for communicating data and results between researchers, to guide collaboration in the cutting-edge science of synthetic biology shows valuable potential. But it must take intellectual property issues into account at the outset to avoid legal problems that can be destructive to the process of standards setting, a University of Kansas law professor argues.

Andrew Torrance, also a visiting scholar at the MIT Sloan School of Management, co-authored a commentary in the leading journal Nature Biotechnology, arguing that if intellectual property concerns are not included in the development of a Synthetic Biology Open Language, or “SBOL,” scientific progress could be thwarted and wasteful legal battles ensue. The commentary was written as a response to an SBOL proposal written by Galdzicki et al., previously published in Nature Biotechnology. Torrance co-authored the commentary with professors Jorge L. Contreras of the University of Utah and Arti K. Rai of Duke University. All three specialize in law, biology, intellectual property and technical standards setting.

The Synthetic Biology Open Language is a set of technical standards intended to serve as a common language to allow diverse research groups to collaborate in the field of synthetic biology without need for technical translation. The language would be part of standards “accelerating scientific progress in synthetic biology and for the eventual commercialization of resulting technologies,” Torrance and co-authors wrote. However, patent and other intellectual property issues highly relevant to the adoption of SBOL were not mentioned and should be considered.

“Standardization and the standards setting process has greatly benefited other fields of scientific endeavor, such as engineering and computer science, and is similarly important to synthetic biology,” Torrance said. “Just as standard worldwide language for air traffic control has enhanced both efficiency and safety, thus spurring air travel, standard language for information exchange should lead progress in synthetic biology to be faster and more meaningful. However, the biological research landscape is replete with patent rights, so standard setting must grapple about intellectual property at the outset.”

Torrance and colleagues recommend including patent holders and legal experts in ongoing negotiations to develop standards such as the Synthetic Biology Open Language. Failing to do so could result in patent holders filing lawsuits, either immediately or once the standard has been adopted, thereby slowing, frustrating or thwarting scientific progress. Such dangers could also drive up the cost of innovation. Failing to consider legal issues has “bedeviled standard developers over the past two decades in industries ranging from wireless networks telecommunications to computer networking to semiconductor memory,” the authors wrote.

Designing standards without considering legal implications would be like designing a top-of-the-line automobile without ensuring there will be a road system on which to drive it, Torrance said. Not only would the vehicle be unable to show off its power and speed, it would almost certainly hit damaging potholes before it got anywhere.

One of the guiding philosophies in the field of synthetic biology is to be open and to share progress with all who are interested. The authors salute and support the “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” ethos this reflects, but they urge those trying to set technical standards not to overlook intellectual property issues with the potential to derail progress in service of that ideal.

“In general, I think the synthetic biology community has shown impressive awareness of potential legal hazards,” Torrance said. “Our letter was a way of reminding the synthetic biology community that issues of law, especially patents, are of vital importance and impossible to ignore. We urge such issues to be considered as an integral part of the standards-setting process so that technical standards are free from legal impediments from their initial adoption. Synthetic biology promises to be one of the great beneficial technologies, generating powerful medicines, more efficient and cleaner industrial processes, and perhaps even self-repairing consumer goods. We want to help ensure that legal impediments to achieving such worthy goals are avoided.”

Professor to argue before Supreme Court on states' rights

Monday, January 12, 2015

LAWRENCE — A University of Kansas law professor will make his second appearance before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, arguing on behalf of Kansas and more than 20 other states in a case focused on natural gas, alleged price fixing and authority between state and federal governments.

Stephen McAllister, E.S. & Tom W. Hampton Distinguished Professor of Law, will argue on behalf of the plaintiffs in ONEOK Inc. v. Learjet Inc. at 9 a.m. CST today, Jan. 12, at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. He also argued before the court in October on behalf of Kansas in a case regarding water rights between the state and Nebraska. A ruling in that case is expected soon.

At issue in today's case is natural gas and setting prices for the commodity. The federal government controls the wholesale part of the market, while states can regulate commercial sales, McAllister said. The states are arguing their consumer protection laws prevent federal laws on the transportation and sale of natural gas from setting prices artificially high, or “price fixing.”

“It is an interesting collection of entities represented in the suit,” McAllister said. “There are hospitals, school districts and other private entities such as Learjet. They all have a common interest here and were required to pay way more than they should have for natural gas.”

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt asked McAllister, who is also solicitor general for Kansas, to write the amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs. McAllister, who regularly offers legal assistance to the state, will make his seventh total appearance before the Supreme Court. He will dispute the defendants’ and federal government’s position that state antitrust laws are pre-empted by the federal Natural Gas Act. The defendants argue the pre-emption extends to the retail market.

Kansas-based entities Learjet Inc. and Topeka Unified School District No. 501 are among the plaintiffs who claim the defendants illegally drove up the price of natural gas. Similar cases from across the country were consolidated into a multidistrict case in Nevada, and the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals allowed the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims.

McAllister said he was drawn to the case not only for the chance to serve the state and to appear before the highest court in the land but also for the chance to relate the experience to his students. He teaches classes and conducts research in federal and state constitutional law, civil rights actions and tort law.

“It’s a thrill for me both personally and professionally,” he said. “I think it speaks well for Kansas and the voice of Kansas when cases such as this show up at the Supreme Court. Plus, it always gives me something I can bring back to the students and my scholarship.”

KU professor gives input on French newspaper attack

"French police officials say they have identified three men as suspects in a deadly attack against newspaper offices that killed 12 people and shook the nation.
. . . 

It was the deadliest attack in France in half a century.

. . . 

University of Kansas Associate Dean for International and Comparative Law Raj Bhala said that this attack can affect American communities by people misunderstanding the attacks and backlashing.

Professor: Supreme Court case illustrates problems with judicial elections, campaign fundraising

Friday, January 09, 2015

LAWRENCE — A case set to appear before the Supreme Court addresses important issues about the funding of judicial election campaigns and raises broader questions about the impartiality of judges. A University of Kansas law professor has written an article examining judicial impartiality and arguing that its core — equal application of the law — may be threatened by judicial campaign fundraising.

Stephen Ware, professor of law, has an article forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review En Banc, on Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar, a case that will be argued in the Supreme Court on Jan. 20. The case arises out of Florida, one of many states in which voters choose among competing candidates in judicial elections much as they choose among competing candidates running for legislator or governor.

“However, states tend to regulate the conduct of judicial candidates more tightly, and these regulations are sometimes challenged in court,” Ware said.

In the case before the court, Lanell Williams-Yulee, a candidate for a Florida judgeship, violated a state law prohibiting judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Florida, like most states, but not Kansas, requires that judicial campaign-fund solicitation be conducted not by the candidate but instead by the candidate’s campaign committee. The Florida Bar sought to reprimand Yulee for her violation of the law, and the Florida Supreme Court convicted her. Yulee argues that the law violates her right to free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The case brings three important questions to the fore, Ware said. The narrow question is whether prohibiting a judicial candidate from personally soliciting campaign funds is constitutional. This question is intertwined with broader questions about how to fund judicial election campaigns and, at the broadest level, whether to have judicial elections at all.

Ware does not believe judges should be elected, in part because the funding of judicial election campaigns is so troubling.

“Many reasonable people worry that judicial campaign contributions can threaten a judge’s impartiality,” Ware said, by tempting a judge to apply the law differently to a case involving a contributor than to a similar case not involving a contributor. This would violate the core of judicial impartiality which the Supreme Court has explained “guarantees a party that the judge who hears his case will apply the law to him in the same way he applies it to any other party.”

The serious risk judicial campaign contributions pose to judicial impartiality is not, in Ware’s view, solved by requiring contributions to be solicited by campaign committees, rather than by judicial candidates themselves, because judges can usually learn who contributed to their campaign committees, and lawyers and litigating parties know that judges can easily discover who contributed to their campaign committees.

Ware examines three possible reforms to judicial campaign funding: having judges recuse themselves from cases involving campaign donors; making donations anonymous and publicly financing judicial elections. While Ware sees in some of these reforms potential to reduce risks to judicial impartiality, he does not believe any of them would go far enough without creating other problems.

“I’m skeptical that there is a good way to fund judicial elections,” Ware said, which is one of the reasons he believes judges should be appointed rather than elected.

However, he said he differs from many of his fellow attorneys who believe that they should have special powers in appointing judges, as they currently do in appointing the supreme courts of Kansas, Missouri and several other states.

By contrast, Ware prefers the Constitution’s method of selecting federal judges — in which the president nominates and the U.S. Senate confirms judges — and points out that in about a dozen states the governor’s judicial nominee is similarly confirmed by the state senate or other democratically elected body. Ware says democratic appointment of judges, rather than an appointment process that privileges lawyers over their fellow citizens, better fits the position of state-court judge, which involves the power to make law.

As the Supreme Court said, “Complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of ‘representative government’ might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to ‘make’ common law, but they have the immense power to shape the states' constitutions as well, which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.”

In other words, Ware said, the Supreme Court recognizes that democracy is appropriate in selecting judges, especially the state supreme court justices whose “immense power” to hold laws unconstitutional affects a range of widely contested issues like school funding, same-sex marriage and the death penalty. Ware says constitutional language on these topics is often vague or ambiguous, so reasonable people can disagree about how to interpret it and judges' interpretations seem to correlate with their policy preferences, all of which strengthens the case for democracy in selecting judges.

“While judges make law, they do so in different ways than legislators and governors, so I think state judges should be selected by the sort of indirect democracy that selects federal judges, as opposed to the direct democracy of judicial elections," he said.

Also, doing away with judicial elections would do away with the challenges of funding judicial election campaigns and thus help ensure an impartial judiciary, he said.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - faculty
Why KU
  • One-third of full-time faculty have written casebooks used at U.S. law schools
  • 2 KU law faculty were U.S. Supreme Court clerks
  • KU’s Project for Innocence: 33 conviction reversals since 2009
  • 7,300+ alumni live in all 50 states and 18 foreign countries
  • #18 “best value” law school in the nation — National Jurist Magazine
  • 12 interdisciplinary joint degrees
  • 27th nationwide for lowest debt at graduation. — U.S. News & World Report
  • 70 percent of upper-level law classes have 25 or fewer students
  • Nearly 800 employment interviews at law school, 2012-13
  • Top 25% for number of 2013 grads hired by the nation’s largest law firms
  • 20th: for number of law alumni promoted to partner at the 250 largest law firms