In early 2016, BYU came under intense public scrutiny for its handling of student sexual assault cases. The Title IX office, which should have been protecting victims of sexual assault, coordinated with the Honor Code office who then further penalized victims. In April, BYU promised to study its policies and procedures, and the school launched a website to publically solicit suggestions for improving its practices. However, after four months, the school has not announced its progress or introduced any initiatives to address the problem. On August 9 2016, BYU announced that the Office of Civil Rights had launched an inquiry into the school’s compliance with the Title IX requirements set by the US Department of Education. As Steve Evans of BCC noted in a Star Tribune Op-Ed today, this apparent lack of movement on the part of the school is highly troubling, and begs the question about whether BYU is taking the issue of protecting it students from assault seriously. Is the organization even capable of the significant self-criticism needed to fix the problem?

I believe BYU should take steps to accomplish two goals. The first and most important goal is to better support victims of assault and to protect the student body from assault perpetrators. This requires breaking the unhealthy link between the honor code office, Title IX and law enforcement.

The second goal is for the University to re-established trust with its student body, alumni, law enforcement, and the Church at large. Evidence mounts that the administrative processes and culture of the Y demonstrate a long and systemic tendency to mishandle sexual assault in far, far too many cases. Its unclear to me whether the BYU administration perceives this second goal as a legitimate concern, since the school continues to eschew the language and actions of accountability beyond claiming it is studying the matter in some internal and inscrutable way. I submit to that the school administration that their actions thus far are simply insufficient to address the fractured trust with its community, especially given the severity and depth of the institutional problems being brought to light by investigative journalism, and most importantly, by the brave victims willing to tell their stories. The first 4 of my suggested measures are frankly quite obvious for anyone who seriously intends to address these issues at an organizational and should have been done before “study” was needed. The last two suggestions for driving change outside of formal BYU administration changes that I believe would have a significant impact in addressing the problem of sexual assault in the BYU community.

1) Remove the head of the Title IX office as well as any staffer involved with processing sexual assault reporting, and replace them with credible, unimpeachable candidate from outside the Church school system.

1a) Remove the head of the Honor Code Office and any staff who participated in inappropriately accepting or using protected material. Replace the head with a strong candidate.

The fact this hasn’t happened already is astonishing. The public statements of the current director alone should have been cause for serious consideration of her removal. She now appears to be in charge of the investigation into her own office’s misconduct. The mounting revelations of repeated coordination with the honor code office make this simply obligatory. Just as the Title IX director has overseen lapses in judgment or bureaucratic control, the administrators of the honor code office who willingly accepted confidential information from local law enforcement and the Title IX office should not be protected from these lapses in safeguarding victim confidentiality.

To my knowledge, no one in the Title IX Office or the Honor Code Office have been held personally accountable for the severe violations of trust in any of the documented cases. If such actions have been taken, BYU owes it to its constituents who fund these offices and to the parents who place their trust in them to keep their kids safe to do their jobs and follow legal, professional procedures. What trust can any alumni, current student, or prospective student/parent have that the individuals who have shown such poor judgment will not repeat the same mistakes, especially since their positions do not suit themselves to public audit or observation? Given the historic opacity with which the entire BYU administration operates, the only way to demonstrate some sort of accountability is to remove the current individuals from their positions. This is simply a consequence of running institutions that operate with high levels of opacity.

2) Buy a separate database and software system for tracking Title IX claims.

The link between the Honor Code database and Title IX computer system, while potentially “convenient” or “cost efficient” for administrators, has been acknowledged as creating uncertainty for how systematically sexual assault reporting and Honor Code investigations are linked. Off-the-shelf Title IX reporting software systems are readily available. The BYU Title IX Office should buy one and implement it without delay.

3) Move either the Title IX or Honor Code office out of the Wilkinson building to create physical and social space between the administrators and staff of these two groups.

Currently, these offices are located only 1 floor apart in the same structure, increasing the likelihood of formal or informal information sharing. Creating physical separations has both important symbolic and practical impact in creating the information barrier that should sit between these two organizations.

Also, imagine a victim of sexual assault who might walk into the Title IX office to report an assault after her perpetrator threatened to report her to the Honor Code Office. The office established to protect her would be one short elevator ride away from the office that would expel her. This should and can be easily avoided by moving the offices far apart.

4) Contract with a credible outside party to conduct the formal review of the Title IX and Honor Code offices, and task them with creating a publically accessible report.

At this point, the BYU administration simply does not have the credibility to conduct an internal review, as the very administrators who would be undertaking the review appear to be those who had direct authority over the offending offices. Currently, the only announced members of the advisory council are BYU current or former faculty/staff. Besides, an outside perspective would be valuable to school administrators, as it has become clear that deep-seated cultural issues are an important part of the story. The nature of culture often makes it hard – if not impossible – for insiders to examine their own systems honestly without the help of external observers.

5) Contract a credible outside vendor to create and deliver training on sexual assault which be required for every BYU bishop and stake president.

I would suggest that such training should be made regularly available and annually required for ecclesiastical leaders over any student ward in the church. So much unnecessary pain and misery have been caused by poorly trained volunteer ecclesiastical leaders who are trying to do their best. It makes complete sense to increase training on matters germane to those with stewardship over our student populations, a demographic which is going through the difficult process of exploring and setting boundaries in their dating and romantic relationships.



6) Host a regular conference on the study of the dynamics of sexual assault in religious communities.

It is good to remember that this important issue gained much-needed attention through dialogue that happened at a small rape awareness event hosted at the Y. While it has forced our community to face hard issues, the provenance is deeply symbolic of what the best of college education and academia can be. So why stop there? BYU should embrace this opportunity to make its scholastic community the center of a broader discussion. Invite academics and practitioners together not only from the LDS community but also other religious communities and secular scholars to continue the dialogue. We know that sexual assault and abuse within religious communities are often driven by, and empowered in, unique ways that deserve serious, sustained study (here is a very informative podcast on these dynamics by a prosecutor who specializes in trying abuse cases within religious communities). As we have seen in our own community, the sunlight of rigorous study and serious professional practice is desperately needed.

What Do You Think?

Do any of those steps seem unreasonable? If BYU were to follow such a course, even if it may be uncomfortable or hard, do you think it would significantly help the university do better at addressing sexual assault? Would it help make significant progress in restoring a shaken trust in the institution? What would you add to the list?

(Edit: Sarah Westerberg is not leading the Advisory Council. Jan Sharman, Student Life Vice President is. Janet is the administrator that oversees both the Title IX and the Honor Code office. Ms. Westerberg’s association with the investigation is unclear. However, the general point remains – that the council is headed by an administrator under whose purview the systematic failings have occurred.)