Student Affairs Interview Paper

Running Head: INVESTIGATING TITLE IX

Investigating Title IX: An Interview With Rebecca Largent

Amy Peterson

Northern Arizona University

Peterson 1

INVESTIGATING TITLE IX

I know unequivocally that I want to work with students of concern within the field of

Student Affairs. However, there are various ways to work with this specific student population--

yet I remain uncertain which path is right for me. After considering the different roles I could

probe into, I decided to talk to Northern Arizona University’s (NAU) Title IX Investigator,

Rebecca Largent, about her position and ability to work with students of concern. As her title

suggests, Rebecca explained to me that her main role is to investigate. Specifically, she looks

into situations of gender/sexual violence that are reported by students. These situations can

include sexual misconduct, dating domestic violence, stalking, voyeurism, and more. When a

student reports to the university that they have been a victim in one of these events, they have the

option to file a complaint under the Student Code of Conduct and thus initiate an investigation.

Here at NAU, we use a dual investigation model: 2 trained staff members conduct the

investigations. At the moment Rebecca is the only Title IX investigator and is consequently

assisted by other professional members within the Office of Student Life. However the Office of

Student Life is currently on the search to hire another investigator to assist Rebecca full time.

I have a personal interest in learning more about Title IX and Rebecca’s position not only

because it involves working with students of concern, but also due to the fact that I have seen

violence expressed against the women I am closest to in my life. Rebecca was additionally

inspiring to me as I saw many parallels in her personality to my own. When asked what drives

her, she responded with “a passion for working with students and crises” (R. Largent, personal

interview, September 9, 2016). This was groundbreaking because it was the first time since

entering Student Affairs that a professional said they were motivated by the same causes as

myself. It’s never been easy to explain that I truly want to respond to crises. Most are off-put by

the idea, some chuckle, and a few fail to fully recognize what I am saying is a passion. Even in

Peterson 2


this regard Rebecca has been relatable. “Isn’t that hard, how can you listen to that? I can never

do your job,” are quotes that Rebecca quickly quips out when asked how people react to her job.

For Rebecca, many are either fascinated or astonished with her position. “Did you kick anybody

out?” is a common first question she faces. Additionally, those in law enforcement sometimes

question why her position exists because she’s not an officer. Rebecca told me, “The explanation

I try to avoid but seems to get accepted most often is explaining I am required by the federal

government to investigate. However, that’s not why I do my job.” I have always felt strange for

saying students of concern has been a functional area I am passionate about because it is an

intense and stressful demographic to work with. Yet hearing Rebecca casually explain how

others commonly misunderstand her motivations outside her field was extremely validating. She

summarized our experiences in one simple sentence: “Until they work with students outside of

student service, they won’t get it.”

However, I recognize I may struggle with maintaining the required neutrality that is

essential from investigators after talking to Rebecca about what her job looks like during a case.

For example, Rebecca meets with both the complainant (the victim) and the respondent (the

accused) and other witnesses to gather information to piece together what occurred. Rebecca

emphasized to me that her entire role is to remain neutral and focused on fact finding. One part

of her job includes meeting with complainants and providing info about support systems on

campus such as: the on-campus advocate, the Student Legal Counsel Office, info on how to

move residence halls, assistance in rearranging classes or sending out memos, confirming

withdrawals, etc. All of this information about providing support seemed like standard protocol I

was familiar with as a former Resident Assistant. However, what I failed to recognize was how

the same exact services can apply to respondents. Rebecca emphasized that complainants are not

Peterson 3


the only students who need aid through the process—those who are accused may need support as

well. Though it seems blatantly obvious now, I learned in that moment to continue looking at

both parties involved as students in need and not to narrow my focus on complainants.

As an empathetic person with ties to men performing violence against women, I am

aware that I have a bias in cases where women are accusing others harming them—especially

males. As I mulled my bias over, I began to question if my empathy would be a hindrance should

I pursue a Title IX career. Yet just as my snowballing self-doubt started to gain traction, Rebecca

conveniently told me that empathy is a requirement in her position. In fact she believes that there

are three key things to being successful as an investigator: a high sense of compassion, empathy,

and a desire to work with students. She added on that one would probably require some sense of

investigation and analytical skills, but the previously listed traits take precedence. She told me

that these qualities are necessary, as you have to ask difficult questions that may never get fully

answered. But if you ask enough questions, you gain enough information to create a picture. She

told me that one needs to brace themself when diving into sexual experiences with college

students because tough questions such as “where did someone penetrate you? With what part of

their body?” will need to be asked. Yet conducting with enough compassion that you remain

sensitive to their situation is where the fine line exists.

Another aspect to Rebecca’s job that I foresee being difficult is the fact a Title IX

investigation is not a criminal investigation. Since I have seen violence against women and am

aware that most cases go unreported, I am a passionate advocator for reporting to law

enforcement. Though I know some cases will be dismissed, I believe that consistent reporting

can eventually escalate into preventative or legal action. In my version of an ideal world,

perpetrators of violence will always be turned into the police and victims always gain their

Peterson 4


justice through the system. However, if I were to be a Title IX investigator I need to accept that

complainants do not always want to press legal charges, and also accept that the two

investigations conducted between the university and the police are wholly separate and

independent of one another’s findings. Rebecca explained the nuances of the process and

clarified that we don’t share information gained from our investigations with law enforcement.

Yet we can see and request the information that they found because their information is public

information. Many times the information is shared with the university such as police reports, but

it is simply included in our investigation and a court’s decision should not sway our decision

(and vice versa). For example, if someone was found guilty, an institution does not automatically

find them responsible as well. Instead we focus on examining what information was used in the

criminal process that aided in the court’s decision and possibly include their findings in the

campus investigation.

One stark and relevant example of this that comes to my mind is the People v. Turner

case. The general public is aware that there was serious injustice in Turner being sentenced only

six months confinement for the sexual assault of an unconscious woman. However, many

overlook the fact his university, Stanford, reacted to the highest degree an institution can towards

a student and banned/expelled him from campus. Yet Judge Persky did not reinforce the harsh

penalties given by Stanford. Is there a reason why Stanford acted to the highest degree when

Judge Persky failed to? Though theories and criticism towards Persk’s decision could fill novels,

explaining Stanford’s response is a bit simpler. As a university, our burden of proof is different

than the criminal justice system. The criminal justice system relies on “without a reasonable

doubt,” whereas our is “more likely than not.” This may mean that a university finds someone

responsible and consequently affects their student status, but respondents may be found not

Peterson 5


guilty in a court of law. Yet once a student is found to be responsible in a Title IX investigation,

the precedence is clear: suspension or expulsion is nearly always guaranteed.

By the end of my interview I had a range of emotions. I was excited to have learned

about the position and finding a relatable figure in Rebecca. I carried heavy self-doubt for if I

could be unbiased with a respondent that requires support. I remain supremely anxious at the

idea that one day I could be involved with an investigation that leads to the verdict of “no

findings for responsibility” when I am emotionally invested to believe the opposite. Do I want to

pursue a Title IX career? As I ask myself this question I am reminded of Rebecca’s humble

answer to what was most satisfying part of her job—keeping the campus safe. Rebecca believes

in the process and says, “if there is enough evidence to remove someone from campus, I feel

comfortable believing NAU campus is a little safer for that.” Rebecca’s job is not to be an officer

in a court of law or help one person more over another. Instead she focuses on being able to put

students at ease by saying “here’s what we can do. What do you want us to do? And no matter

your decision, we will have resources for you.” Rebecca says she “gets enough” from this.

Though it may be difficult for me, I am not writing off the possibility that I might too.

Peterson 6


References

Largnt, R. (2016, September 9). Student Affairs Personal Interview [In Person Interview].

Interview Protocol

1. What do your responsibilities include? What kinds of problems do you deal with?2. What does a typical day look like? Or what is the largest percent of your time dedicated

to?3. Why did this type of work interest you, and how did you get started?4. How did you get your job? What jobs and experiences have led you to your present

position?5. What particular skills or talents are most essential to be effective in your job?

a. How did you learn these skills?6. Does your work relate to any experiences or studies you had in college?7. What part of this job do you personally find most satisfying? Most challenging or

frustrating?8. What do you like and not like about working in this field?9. What motivates you to do this work? 10. What things did you do before you entered this occupation?11. What are some tools/technology/resources that you learned to use within your job? For

example, I know we use Advocate. 12. What areas within your field are advancing or need improvement here at NAU?13. What does career advancement look like for this position? For example, if your job

progresses as you like, what would be the next step in your career?a. What is the average length of time for an employee to stay in the job you hold?b. Why do people leave your field of work?

14. Who would you say has been the most help in your career? How did they help you?15. What professional journals and organizations should I be aware of?

a. Are there experts or important people who work in your field I should be aware of?

16. Is there anything else you think I need to know?

Peterson 7

Documents

Student Affairs Interview Paper