Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University Faculty Senate Agenda Thursday, September 22, 2016
Tyler Haynes Commons – Room 305 3:00-4:30pm
1. Welcome and adoption of the agenda
2. Consent Agenda
a. LLM/MBA Program – University Academic Programs Committee
3. Committee reports (Tim Barney, Chair of Committee on Committees)
4. Informational Items
a. Financial Planning Overview (David Hale, Vice President for Business and Finance)
b. Notice of SACSCOC Reaffirmation Compliance Certification Process and SteeringCommittee (Susan Breeden, University Registrar)
c. Notice of QEP Committees and Process (Scott Johnson, Associate Provost)
5. Faculty Senate Facilitated Discussion
a. Continued Dialog on University’s Sexual Misconduct Policies and Procedures (MauraSmith, Title IX Coordinator and Director of Compliance; Mia Reinoso Genoni, Deanof Westhampton College; Shannon E. Sinclair, Vice President and General Counsel;Joe Boehman, Dean of Richmond College; David M. McCoy, Chief of Police; andSteve Bisese, Vice President for the Student Development)
b. Women, Gender & Sexuality Studies Faculty Comments and RecommendationsRegarding the University’s Sexual Misconduct Policies and Procedures (Mari LeeMifsud, Professor and WGSS Coordinator; Crystal Hoyt, Professor, former WGSSCoordinator and WGSS Advisory Board member; and Holly Blake, Associate Deanfor Outreach Education and Development, WILL Program Director, and WGSSAdvisory Board Member)
6. Old and New Business
7. Executive Session
PROFESSOR NOAH SACHS
UNIVERSITY OF RICHMOND SCHOOL OF LAW • 28 Westhampton Way • Richmond, Virginia • 23173 Phone 804.289.8555 • Fax 804.289.8683 • E-Mail [email protected]
TO: Chris Cotropia, President, Faculty Senate FROM: Noah Sachs, Chair, University Academic Program Committee RE: UAPC approval of joint MBA/LLM program DATE: September 15, 2016 I’m writing to report that on September 13, the UAPC met and voted to recommend approval of the attached proposal from the business school and the law school to establish a joint MBA/LLM program. With the committee’s approval, we now put this proposal forward to the full Faculty Senate as a motion to approve the new degree program.
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Richmond 28 Westhampton Way Richmond, VA 23173 (804) 289-8153 Fax: (804) 287-1296 www.richmond.edu; www.provost.richmond.edu
To: Wendy Perdue, Dean of the School of Law Nancy Bagranoff, Dean of Robins School of Business From: Jacquelyn S. Fetrow, Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs Dave Hale, Vice President of Business and Finance Re: Approval of the proposed LLM/MBA dual degree program
This memo provides our approval and support for the LLM/MBA Dual Degree Program that you have proposed. Appended to this memo as documentation are the program description and your memo requesting approval of the program. The program, as well as the commitments made in your memo, are approved.
This approval is subject to the Carnegie enrollment limitations, which have been discussed at length. These programs should not cause the law school or business school enrollments to increase beyond the agreed-to limits. If decisions are made to change the enrollment strategy going forward, especially if the decision is taken to move under 50 masters degrees, the MBA, LLM, and dual degree programs may be reconsidered. While we don’t see that in the near term, we have to be aware of how close we are to the Carnegie-constrained enrollment caps and how changes to the Carnegie requirements may cause modifications to the current strategy.
The dual degree program fits within the current staffing and resource structure of the individual MBA and LLM programs, meaning that no additional staffing or other resources are required. The Director of Law International Programs was discussed when the LLM program was approved and you are pursuing that hire, as the projections for the LLM program are expected to meet the level at which such support is needed. The money to support that position is already in the Law School’s budget.
1
LLM/MBA Dual Degree Program at UR (8/3/16) PROGRAM PURPOSE – Law and business are increasingly interdependent and focused globally. The LLM/MBA dual degree program at the University of Richmond is designed to give students skills and knowledge to deal effectively with global business and legal transactions. The program is specifically intended for lawyers educated outside the U.S. who want to enhance their knowledge of the U.S. legal system as well as their knowledge of business. ADMISSIONS – Applicants to the dual degree program must be accepted by both the Robins School and the Law School. Students will submit one application which will go initially to the Law School. The Law School will do a preliminary review for completeness and will forward to the MBA Program Director those applications which meet the Law School criteria for admissions. Admissions requirements are:
A first degree in law (JD, LLB or equivalent) GMAT or GRE TOEFL score of 100 or IELTS level 7, or justification for waiver Transcripts for all completed undergraduate and graduate work Personal statement Resume/CV Two letters of recommendation
TUITION and FINANCIAL AID – Tuition for each year will be the same as the yearly LLM tuition. For students enrolled in the dual degree program, their first year’s tuition will include courses taken in the summer. Some tuition discounts may be offered and will be agreed on by both the Robins School and Law School on a case by case basis. The revenue from this dual degree program will be divided equally between the Robins School and the Law School. PROGRAM EXPENSES – The incremental costs of offering this dual degree are expected to be minimal. Both the LLM and MBA programs are in existence and there are no additional courses or personnel associated with the dual degree. There will be small expenses associated with marketing, such as producing a brochure, and these costs will be paid for by the Law School. MARKETING – Marketing will consist of the development of a print brochure, which the Law School will develop and distribute. The Law School will also do email outreach to international scholarship organizations such as Fulbright, to other international contacts, and to potential applicants using lists of potential applicants available through the Law School Admissions Council. The website of both the Law School and the Robins School will contain program information. The marketing effort is not expected to be expanded much beyond these initiatives. There are only three similar programs in the U.S. – at American, Northeastern, and University of Miami – and a few outside the U.S. – at IE in Madrid, Fribourg in Switzerland (LLM/Executive
2
MBA), University of Vienna, Dresden International University, and Kazakhstan Institute of Management. The attached spread sheet list all of the similar programs worldwide that we have identified. ENROLLMENT – Our expectation for the program is that we will likely have no more than 5 students a year in the dual degree, but it is important to understand that the primary goal of this program is not to increase the overall size of either the LLM or MBA programs, but to provide an additional source of students for these programs. Thus, the target total size of the LLM program (including both dual degree and non-dual degree students) is 15 to 20 students and starting this program will not change that. Instead, having a dual degree will allow us to reach that target more quickly and to do so with better quality students. Likewise, starting this program will not change the target size for the MBA program, but will provide another potential source of students. CURRICULUM – The program is designed as a two year, full-time program that would extend over two academic years and the summer in-between. Students will take courses in both programs during both years, and will need to take a total of 30 credits in the MBA program and 24 credits in the LLM program. On the MBA side, the requirements are nearly identical to the requirements of the JD/MBA dual degree. The only difference is that because all LLM dual degree students have had an educational experience outside the U.S. before joining this program, they are not required to take MBA 570 (Global Environment for Business/International Residency).
On the LLM side, dual degree students will be expected to take the two LLM required courses -- U.S. Legal Research and Writing and The U.S. Legal System -- during their first fall semester, and ordinarily would be expected to take Business Associations unless waiver is appropriate based on their prior education or experience. The course schedule for the dual degree LLM/MBA program is as follows:
YEAR 1 Fall MBA Opening Residency (2) MBA 501 – Accounting (3) MBA 506 – Economics (3) LAWM 702—U.S. Legal Research and Writing (2) LAWM 701—The U.S. Legal System (2) Optional additional 1 -3 elective law credits Spring MBA 520 – Marketing (3) MBA 510 – Finance (3) MBA 540 – Operations Management (3) LAWE 602—Business Associations (4) (unless waived)
3
Summer MBA 504 – Statistics (2) MBA 530 – Organizational Behavior (2)
YEAR 2 Fall MBA 580 – Strategy (3) MBA 591 – Capstone I (1) Additional elective law credits – 6 to 10 credits Spring MBA 555 – Analytics (3) MBA 592 – Capstone II (1) MBA 593 – Capstone III (1) Additional elective law credits – 7 to 10 credits The following courses are waived for MBA/LLM students: MBA 508 – Business Ethics (2 credits) MBA 561 – Business Communications I (1 credit) MBA 562 – Business Communications II (1 credit) MBA 570 – International Residency (3 credits)
In addition, MBA/LLM students may count law courses in place of their four required MBA electives (8 credits).
Students may select courses from the full JD curriculum, but courses that are most likely to be of interest to LLM/MBA students include:
LAWE 612—Agency and Partnership (2 credits) LAWE 737 —Anti-Bribery Law in International Business (3 credits) LAWE 613—Antitrust Law (2 or 3 credits) LAWE 704—Bankruptcy and Creditors Rights (3 credits) LAWE 704—Business Planning (3 credits) LAWE 618—Commercial Paper and Payment Systems (3 credits) LAWE 699A—Comparative Business law (2 credits) LAWE 630—Comparative Employment Law (3 credits) LAWE 679—Contract Drafting (2 credits) LAWE 619—Core Commercial Law Concepts (2 credits) LAWE 666—Energy Law (3 credits) LAWE 699Z—Financial Institutions Law (2 credits) LAWE 646—Innovative Technologies in Law Practice (2 credits) LAWE 756—Intellectual Property Fundamentals (3 credits) LAWE 757—International Arbitration (2 credits)
4
LAWE 756—International Business Practice (4 credits) LAWE 642—International Business Transactions (3 credits) LAWE 729—International Environmental Law (2 credits) LAWE 696—Law Firm as a Business (2 credits) LAWE 705—Mergers and Acquisitions (2 or 3 credits) LAWE 672—Negotiation (2 credits) LAWE 675—Sales & Leases (3 credits) LAWE 658—Securities Regulation (3 credits) LAWE 677—Secured Transactions (3 credits)
Impact on existing Programs. Both the LLM and MBA degrees currently exist and both programs have capacity. The creation of this dual degree will require no new courses, faculty, or staff and have only very small costs for marketing. If the program is successful, it will attract students who might not otherwise come to Richmond.
TO: JACQUE FETROW
FROM: WENDY PERDUE & NANCY BAGRANOFF
SUBJECT: LLM/MBA DUAL DEGREE
DATE: AUGUST 15, 2016
The School of Law and the Robins School of Business are proposing a new dual LLM/MBA degree and we are writing to request your support of this proposal. The faculties of both the School of Law and the Robins School have approved the proposal. The LLM and MBA degrees are both existing degrees within the University of Richmond. There is currently a JD/MBA dual degree but not an LLM/MBA. The proposed new dual degree would be completed in two academic years of full-time study plus a summer and would be targeted to international students. A memo detailing the contours of the program is attached, but we wanted to highlight several points. There are no Carnegie impacts. Approval of this program will not alter the enrollment guidelines for either the School of Law or the Robins School. Both schools understand that the university still needs to remain under 4000 total FTE and that as a result each school has enrollment guidelines. The goal of the dual degree is to expand and diversify the applicant pool for the LLM and MBA programs and thereby make it easier to meet enrollment targets for each program. On the LLM side, the availability of this dual degree will help to distinguish our LLM program from the many other LLM programs the country. On the MBA side, the hope is that the dual degree will attract international students who would not otherwise be in our student applicant pool. The target total size of the LLM program (including both dual degree and non-dual degree students) is 15 to 20 students and starting this program will not change that. Instead, having a dual degree will allow us to reach that target more quickly and to do so with better quality students. Likewise, the target total size for the MBA program is 40 FTEs, and the dual degree will not alter this number. Finally, our expectation is that the number of dual degree matriculants will be small – likely no more than 5 students a year The dual degree involves no additional costs. Both the LLM and MBA programs already exist and students in the dual degree will take the same courses and use the same student services that are already offered as part of the LLM and MBA programs. Therefore, the creation of this dual degree will require the addition no new courses, no new faculty or staff, and no additional expenses beyond the nominal cost of a brochure and a web page. SACS. Patty Murphy (recent Director of Institutional Effectiveness) has determined that creation of this dual degree and would require only SACS notification, not SACS approval. Next Steps in Approval of the Dual Degree. This process for approval is as follows:
The Provost consults with Academic Cabinet and then decided whether to recommend
approval of the program. The Provost sends a letter of support, along with the attached program description to the
University Academic Program Committee (UAPC). UAPC would review and send a motion recommending the program to the University
Faculty Senate. If the Senate approves, the recommendation proposal would then be sent back to the
Provost for final approval. Upon final approval, SACS and the Academic & Enrollment Management Committee of
the Board would be notified. Our hope is that we can move expeditiously to secure the necessary approvals so that we could begin advertising the program in the fall in time to recruit students for the 2017-18 academic year. On final matter. Wendy has discussed with you the idea of the law school hiring a Director of International Programs to assist is recruiting of and student service for all of our international students. This position was included in the original LLM proposal and is also included in the law school budget. Wendy will be providing more information about the position in the near future, but wanted to make clear that this position is not tied to the dual degree and is important regardless of whether the dual degree goes forward. Please let us know if you have any questions or concerns.
University of RichmondFinancial Planning Overview
Faculty Senate Meeting Presentation
September 22, 2016
David Hale
Vice President for Business & Finance, Treasurer
Is the University Business Model Sustainable?
This question is of particular importance given the emerging University strategic plan and the broader economic context of a low return environment and widespread concern about the cost of college.
This presentation is intended to provide an overview of our approach to ensure the University is able to sustain our commitment to educational excellence and student accessibility while judiciously pursuing new strategic priorities.
2
UR Very Well Positioned to Successfully Pursue Mission
The University’s financial strength and strong demand from high achieving students allows the University to confidently develop a strategic plan that will further our commitment to “prepare students for lives of purpose, thoughtful inquiry, and responsible leadership in a diverse world.”
3
Strong Growth in Net Assets Over the Past Decade
Related Indices for Period:
Consumer Price Index (CPI): 3.50%
Higher Ed Price Index (HEPI): 4.63%
4
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
FY 2006 FY 2012 FY 2016
Net
Ass
ets
(in
th
ou
san
ds)
Permanently Restricted
Temporarily Restricted
Unrestricted
10 year Compounded Annual Growth Rate of 3.83%
Footnote: The significant increase in Temporary Restricted Assets between 2006 and 2012 was a result of new FASB reporting guidance for the presentation of unspent endowment income.
FY 17 Budgetary Sources (revenue for operations)
$288.3M Available Sources
Other Sources:
$27M
Net Tuition,
Room and Board:
$150M
Endow-ment
$111M
5
Allocation of Operating Revenues: A Ten Year Look
FY 2006 FY 2012 FY 2016
Net Tuition and Fees 43% 41% 38%
Auxiliary Enterprises 17% 16% 16%
Endowment Distribution 31% 35% 39%
Contributions and Grant Revenue 7% 6% 5%
Other Sources 2% 2% 2%
TOTAL Operating Revenues 100% 100% 100%
Compounded Annual Growth Rates
Net Tuition Revenue
Endowment Distribution
TOTAL Revenue
10 Year 3.69% 7.94% 5.33%
5 Year 3.76% 7.56% 5.21%
3 Year 3.02% 6.54% 3.79%
1 Year 1.02% 7.05% 2.17%
FY 17 Budgetary Uses (operating expenditures)
$288.3M Uses
Operating$91M
Compen-sation
$166M
Physical Assets
$31M
6
Compounded Annual Growth Rates - Expenses:
10 Year: 5.38%5 year: 5.01%3 year: 5.18%1 year: 3.15%
• Expense growth rate includes substantial employee salary benchmarking initiative, which became effective in FY 13.
• Expense growth rate also includes change in reporting policy in which all University expenditures were recognized on a gross rather than net (of revenue) basis.
Higher Education Business Model Under Scrutiny
Three issues currently dominate public policy discussion of US Higher Education Business Model*
I. Price
II. Affordability
III. Value
*Excerpt from “Breakpoint – The Changing Market Place for Higher Education”, Jon McGee, 2015
7
Challenges to National Liberal Arts Colleges Business Model
• Demographics shifting away from traditional student markets
• High “Sticker Price”
• More challenging investment markets for endowment portfolios
• yet,… political pressure to spend more from endowments to make college more affordable
• Labor and capital intensive model of residential higher education may come under pressure even for highly selective colleges and universities.
8
Expectations for the University of Richmond Business Model
UR, along with our highly selective/high “sticker price” peers face a strong likelihood that annual revenue growth experienced over the past 30+ years is not replicable going forward.
Significantly lower percentage Tuition/Room & Board increases since 2011-12 is reflective of generally lower price increases among our competitor schools.
Low interest rate environment suggests more constrained investment return opportunities for endowment.
9
A Steady, Long-term Response is Necessary
• Price sensitivity is high but so are expectations for services, amenities and a high quality academic experience.
• Abrupt shifts and/or austerity could risk our strong reputational position in the market.
• In fact, continued strengthening of our academic program over the long-run may be our best strategy to ensure the viability of our Business Model.
10
Financial Planning Work Underway
1. Undergraduate pricing strategy2. Development of a 5-year Law School Business Plan3. New Business Model for SPCS aligned with new SPCS Strategic Plan4. University Fundraising Program Assessment5. Further re-examination of Endowment Spending Policy6. Work with campus to ensure resource allocation decisions are aligned
with Schools’ and University priorities
Prioritize educational mission of the University when making resource allocation decisions
11
“Inflection Point”
We must slow unrestricted expenditure growth commensurate with our expectations of slower revenue growth.
12
Next Steps
• Work on these various fronts will continue throughout the course of the current academic year and in some instances, stretch into the FY 19 budget season.
• As strategic plan initiatives emerge, reallocation questions will follow as will the establishment of fundraising Campaign priorities.
• Resource allocation decisions will be worked-through with the Planning & Priorities Committee this year and in the coming years as part of the annual development of the University operating budget.
13
Compliance Certification Steering Committee (ad hoc committee) September 2016 Charge: To coordinate the completion of the SACSCOC Compliance Certification document. This work involves a thorough Committee review of SACSCOC Core Requirements, Institutional Responsibility for Commission Standards criteria, and Federal Requirements as identified in the SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation document. Additional responsibilities include: leading and engaging their unit in the review process of SACSCOC criteria pertaining to the Committee member’s respective area(s), identifying and collecting appropriate information and supporting material pertinent to each criteria, and drafting (and revising) narratives (in each person’s respective area) for the review by the consultant and approval of the Academic Cabinet. The bulk of the work will be completed in FY17, but some work may continue until approval of reaffirmation by the SACSCOC Board in December 2018.
Target Dates: September 2016: Training of chapter writers; assignment of chapters October-January, 2016: writers review, write and submit drafts of chapters December 2016: Update AEMC (Trustees) on progress towards Compliance Certification January 1-31, 2016: Initial drafts of all chapters (90) by January 15, 2016; consultant and steering
committee chairs provide feedback to writers February 1-28, 2017: All chapter writers to advance second drafts, collect and evaluate evidence. March 1 – 31, 2017: Consultant and committee chairs review second drafts and recommend changes
to writers; identify chapters ready to move into Taskstream; establish workflow for narrative upload and evidence linking.
Early April 2017: Academic Cabinet receives training of TaskStream April 1-30, 2017: Consultant and committee chairs continue review of second drafts and
recommend changes; writers continue writing and collecting evidence; begin to move chapters and evidence to TaskStream per established workflow; open chapters up for Deans and senior officer review.
December 2016: Update AEMC (Trustees) on progress towards Compliance Certification May 1-31, 2017: Continue reviews, revisions, moving completed chapters to TaskStream and
review by senior officers. June 1-30, 2017: Capture all AY 2016-17 data for final updates required; continue to review second
(or third) drafts; move completed chapters and evidence per established workflow; review by senior officers completed.
July 1-31, 2017: Complete chapter editing; lock narrative August 1 – 31, 2017: Continue linking evidence, engage in proofing and testing. August 2017: Academic Cabinet approves final Compliance Certification narrative August 2017: Trustees (Executive Committee/AEMC) approve Compliance Certification narrative,
as necessary September 11, 2017: Compliance Certification comprised of approximately 90 standards complete
and submitted to SACSCOC. (September-November 2017: Reviewed by SACSCOC Off-Site Committee) (November 2017: Receive report back from SACSCOC Off-Site Committee) December 2017-January 2018: Develop Focused Report responding to Off-Site Committee recommendations:
February 5, 2018: Focused Report due to SACSCOC Summer-Fall 2018: Compliance Certification and QEP reviewed by SACSCOC Board of Trustees December 2018: SACSCOC Board of Trustees Vote on Reaffirmation January 2019: Official Reaffirmation Letter Received
Reference material: SACSCOC Handbook on Reaffirmation
Cabinet lead: Jacquelyn Fetrow
Consultant: Marty Sharpe
Co-Leaders/Co-chairs: Laz Lima and Susan Breeden
(new Director of Institutional Effectiveness will join committee when appointed and partner with co-leaders to ensure the project completion.)
(Members selected based on Key Unit Responsibilities and recommendations of VPs and Deans) Registrar: Susan Breeden Finance: Laurie Melville Student Life: Joe Boehman Library: Kevin Butterfield Board of Trustees: Ann Lloyd Breeden Institutional Effectiveness/Assessment: Katrice Hawthorne Admissions/Financial Aid: Marilyn Hesser Curriculum: Libby Gruner Instructional Technology and Teaching: Mike Dixon Governance: Jan French Cross-School Faculty Credentialing: Laz Lima School-specific Representation (associate deans will provide school-specific information and writing including (where appropriate) student support services, continuing education/service programs, post-baccalaureate program rigor and requirements, graduate curriculum, faculty evaluation, faculty development, student achievement, and credit hour definition):
Law: Jim Gibson A&S: Ben Broening Robins School of Business: Jerry Stevens Jepson School of Leadership Studies: Don Forsyth SPCS: Ellen Walk
QEP Process and Committees (ad hoc)– University of Richmond, 2015-2018
Overview: The QEP process is divided into five phases:
1. Reflection (AY 15-16) 2. Selection (fall semester 2016) 3. Development (AY16-17, after selection; followed by SACSCOC VP review) 4. Community review and revision (summer and fall 2017; followed by submission to
SACSCOC in December 2017) 5. Implementation (2018-2020; final SACSCOC approval December 2018)
Reflection phase aligned with University’s Strategic Planning process:
2015-2016: information gathering, listening sessions o QEP and strategic plan input: Faculty/Staff Dialogs and Faculty Lunch Retreat
(March, April 2016 – over 150 faculty and staff participated, providing feedback on key institutional questions)
January 2016-May 2016: Strategic Planning Steering Committee oversees plan, develops themes (Academic Excellence, Intellectual Community, Thriving and Inclusive Community, Access and Affordability)
May 2016-Dec 2016: Working Groups composed of faculty and staff assigned to work on themes, develop goals and potential initiatives; these draft goals and initiatives will be provided as input to the QEP Selection Committee
Selection and Development to be led by QEP Steering Committee and its Working Groups, the QEP Selection Working Group and the QEP Development Working Group
Committee Structure: The following committee structure will be responsible for selection, development, writing and presenting of the QEP:
QEP Steering Committee – oversees entire process; reports to Academic Cabinet QEP Selection Working Group –oversees proposal, review and selection of the topic;
reports to Steering Committee QEP Development Working Group – oversees the development and writing of the
QEP, including responses to SACSCOC prompts; reports to QEP Steering Committee
QEP Presentation Working Group – oversees presentation of QEP to the onsite committee; reports to the QEP Steering Committee
Charges:
The QEP Steering Committee will be oversee the entire Quality Enhancement Plan (QEP) process and is ultimately responsible for the successful development and presentation of the QEP to SACSCOC that demonstrates promise of making a significant impact on the quality of student learning.
The QEP Selection Working Group will be overseen by the Steering Committee. This Selection Committee will work with the campus community to select the final QEP topic from the draft goals and initiatives developed by the Strategic Planning Working Groups. It will pursue this selection, including significant input from the campus community during Fall
2016 and propose it to the Steering Committee, with a targeted date of mid-November for this presentation.
The QEP Steering Committee and the QEP Selection Working Group will pursue approval for the chosen QEP from the Faculty Senate, Academic Cabinet, and the University President.
The QEP Steering Committee will then oversee creation of a QEP Development Working
Group, which will work through the spring semester to craft the first draft of the QEP. After review from the SACSCOC VP and community input (targeted for May 2017), the Development Working Group will revise the first draft into a final QEP. The Development
Committee will then develop the final QEP documents by November 1 2017.
A QEP Presentation Group will be appointed by the Steering Committee to present the QEP during the SACSCOC visit in March 2018.
Throughout the process, all members of the Steering Committee, the Development Working Group, and the Selection Working Group will be responsible for facilitating buy-in by ensuring that faculty and staff in their departments, programs, units and schools are informed of the process and able to provide input.
Target Dates for Deliverables:
Mid-November 2016: Viable selection topics (two maximum) proposed November-December 2016: Discussions with campus, Academic Cabinet, Cabinet December 2016: Share proposed QEP topics with AEMC/Trustees January 2, 2016: Deadline for final QEP topic selection February 2017: Share QEP topic selection with AEMC/Trustees; update on progress May 1, 2017: Complete draft of QEP and the SACSCOC-required prompts May-June 2017: SACSCOC Vice President visit to review QEP draft October 1, 2017: Complete final draft of QEP responding to VP comments November-December, 2017: Final draft approval by Academic Cabinet, Provost, President,
and AEMC/Trustees February 5, 2018: QEP due to SACSCOC March 19-22, 2018: SACSCOC On-site visit to review QEP Spring 2018 after visit: Receive report back from On-Site Committee May-July, 2018: Prepare response report based on on-site committee visit August 2018 (tentative): Response Report due to SACSCOC Summer-Fall 2018: Compliance Certification and QEP reviewed by SACSCOC Board of
Trustees December 2018: Vote on Reaffirmation January 2019: Official Reaffirmation Letter Received 2018-19 (tentative): Set-up and preparation for QEP Fall 2019 (tentative): Implementation of QEP
Communication: At each stage of the process, Steering Committee Members will ensure communication with Senate, Academic Cabinet, Cabinet, USAC, Student Development Leadership Team, Academic Affairs Leadership Team, Student Government and Board of Trustees. Steering Committee and Working Group members will be responsible for communicating with and receiving input from their constituencies regularly during the process.
Input to the Committee and Working Group:
Previous University of Richmond QEP and fifth year report and assessment; UR institutional retention study; draft documents from the Strategic Planning
Working Groups; SACSCOC Quality Enhancement Plan Guidelines
(http://www.sacscoc.org/pdf/Quality%20Enhancement%20Plan%20Guidelines.pdf); Chapter IV on QEP in SACSCOC Handbook for Institutions Seeking Reaffirmation;
examples of QEPs of other institutions (http://ifx.richmond.edu/accreditation/qep.html);
Draft goals and initiatives from the Strategic Planning Working Groups (draft-y drafts on Sept 21; final drafts on Oct 14)
Cabinet Leads/Co-Chairs of QEP Steering Committee: Jacque Fetrow and Steve Bisese
Co-Chairs of QEP Selection Working Group: Scott Johnson and [work with Senate]
Co-Chairs of QEP Development Working Group: TBD (Dependent on QEP choice)
Steering-Committee Membership:
Jacque Fetrow & Steve Bisese (co-chairs) Scott Johnson and [work with Senate] (co-chairs of QEP Selection Working Group) (Co-chairs of QEP Development Working Group, when identified) Three faculty members from slate submitted by Faculty Senate Two staff members from slate submitted by USAC SGA Academic Affairs Committee Chairs
Selection-Working Group Membership:
Note: this committee must work fairly quickly and nimbly, so it cannot be too large. Note: faculty and staff representatives will overlap with members of the Strategic Planning Working Groups, as there should be at least one person from each Strategic Planning Working Group in this group. Co-Chairs: Scott Johnson & [work with Senate]. Five faculty members chosen from slate put forward by Faculty Senate (ensure five-school representation) Two staff members chosen from slate put forward by USAC
Two student members chosen from slate put forward by Student Governments
Development-Working Group Membership:
Note: This will be a large group, both to ensure full presentation and to spread the work of writing and reviewing. Note: Membership to include at least one member from Strategic Planning Steering Committee and each Working Group to ensure adequate input from the strategic plan and feedback to the strategic plan. Co-Chairs: [work with Senate on this, depending on QEP topic]. Approximately ten faculty members chosen from a slate of faculty put forward by the Senate to ensure representation from all schools and relevant areas Staff representation from across any and all related areas from slate of staff members put forward by USAC (e.g., chaplaincy, admissions, athletics, Student Involvement, Common Ground, CCE, Institutional Effectiveness, living-learning, residential life) Multiple student members (from slates recommended by the Student Governments and Deans of Richmond and Westhampton Colleges)
Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies Program
Resources for Responding to Gender Based Violence on Campus
8 Point Plan to Address Sexual Assault on Campus In response to the crisis currently facing the University of Richmond, we as members of the community stand in solidarity through our shared commitment to the prevention of sexual assault and to the safety and well-‐being of all of our students. Our campus has a history of engagement with the discourse of ending sexual violence and creating safe environments on our campus. Yet recent events, which include the publication of Huffington Post articles written by CC Carreras and Whitney Ralston, and the subsequent suspension of the Kappa Alpha fraternity for circulating misogynist emails that promote a culture of rape, show us that the campus structures currently in place contradict our core values. In order to address this crisis, we propose an 8-‐point plan for our campus community to engage immediately to ensure that our future as a liberal arts institution committed to diversity, to equality, to justice, and to an ethics of care for all members of our community lives up to the values we espouse as an institution. As faculty, staff and alumni, we call for immediate action to be taken on the following points:
1. Identify and review of all policy and procedures related to “sexual misconduct”* at the University of Richmond. The University community at large must know and understand the current structures and processes in place regarding sexual misconduct. Currently, many people do not know or are confused about what the policies and procedures are. In particular, we offer the following questions related to the Hearing Process and the Conduct Officer: Where and in what kind of room are the hearings held? Where are people seated, especially the complainant and the respondent in relation to one another? Who comprises the hearing board? What level of training are hearing board members required to complete, and how in depth, extensive, and sustained is this training? Who oversees the hearing board? What level of training is the person overseeing the hearing process required to complete, and how in depth, extensive, and sustained is this training? Are students notified if the opposing party has obtained a lawyer, and if so when? If a party does not have money to afford a lawyer, is one provided if desired? What kinds of details are witnesses called to discuss? Are witnesses who know one another allowed to talk together about a case? *We use “sexual misconduct” because that is the university system’s term. We believe more accurate terms are “sexual assault” and “gender-‐based violence.”
The UR sexual misconduct policy currently states:
“After conducting an investigation, the Title IX Coordinator will decide whether the incident should be referred to the University officials responsible for student conduct, referred to as the “Conduct Officers” (or to other University officials if the respondent is not student). The Title IX Coordinator gathers facts but does not make decisions about whether a student should be charged with a violation of the Standards of Student Conduct.”
Following this, we ask: Who are the conduct officers and what is their training? Currently the conduct officer is from the college of the accused. For example, if the perpetrator is male, which is most often
the case in incidents of sexual assault, the conduct officer that decides whether or not the case goes forward is Richmond College. This is problematic.
2. Address real and perceived biases in the Title IX process.
This includes serious consideration of an independent Title IX office and staff that is removed from the coordinate colleges and with no ties to Athletics or Greek Life, the two organizations that are statistically more likely to be associated with sexual misconduct. Westhampton and Richmond college are best situated to serve as resources and advocates for students. The Title IX work of investigating cases and deciding if cases move forward, the conduct officer(s) involved when a case does move forward, and the people who comprise the hearing board, for example, should be trained staff and faculty with no connection to the colleges, Athletics, or Greek Life.
3. Identify and review of the training required for persons doing Title IX work. Any and all individuals involved in Title IX work must be extensively and continuously trained in gender violence, in sexual assault trauma, and in recognizing and combatting misogyny and sexism. Individuals hired to do this work must have extensive background and ongoing training in sexual violence, counseling, and advocacy.
4. Allocate resources for a Center for Prevention of Sexual Violence and Crisis Response Center as proposed by students in the spring of 2015, including resources for staff (plural) trained in #3 above. The Center must have the resources to incorporate start to finish advocacy and support for complainants throughout each stage of the process and beyond. The Center must have an equally extensive and robust focus on prevention. Link to a stellar student proposal
5. Conduct and publish the results of a thorough outside or independent review of Greek Life and Athletics. Without such an outside examination of the two organizations where sexual assault is most prevalent, prevention efforts will not be successful as the student culture will remain unchanged. For example, fraternities dominate and control the party scene on our campus and the social spaces where alcohol is involved and consumed. Due to the national structure to which fraternities and sororities report, sororities are not allowed to host parties where alcohol is served. This needs to be addressed. When a fraternity is banned, rather than learning from their mistakes, they tend to regroup unofficially and host parties off campus with even less oversight. Concurrently, we call for UR to reexamine its treatment of alcohol and of formal events on campus, such as pig roast, that hinge on the consumption of alcohol.
6. Allocate resources for infusion of scholarship on gender-‐based violence into our academic programs across schools. Consider a tenure-‐track or tenured faculty line or lines that focus specifically on gender violence. The violence that currently underscores student culture on campus must be combatted with the rigors of in-‐depth scholarly inquiry. This scholarly inquiry also needs to inform the compliance mechanisms. The University must create a system in which the conduct and honor system operates with regard to and knowledge of gender-‐based scholarship and activism around trauma and gender-‐based violence.
7. Create and implement a serious plan to educate all students, continuously, about sexual violence prevention, and healthy relationships. An online module and a session in orientation is not sufficient. Effective education and prevention efforts need to be addressed both within the curriculum and outside of the classroom. Students need sustained education that happens in different venues over the course of their time at the university. All student organizations that have alcohol at any events
should be required to have ongoing training. There needs also to be an equal focus on healthy, sex-‐positive relationships.
8. Assemble a committee of faculty and staff with robust knowledge of sexual violence and prevention, whose mission it will be to ensure that attention to these issues is both sustained and informed by best practices.
In taking these crucial and urgent steps toward the prevention of sexual violence on our campus, and toward amending the injustices currently embedded in the structures that govern our institutional life, the University of Richmond can locate itself squarely within the values it espouses. We are braced for the effort that this will require, and are prepared as a collective to begin work with our administration toward communal reparation. For more information, see Appendix I for our process and data gathered, Appendix II for definitions of our key terms, and Appendix III for a bibliography. Appendix I: WGSS Green Paper on Gender-‐Based Violence at UR Section I: Introduction As WGSS teachers, we are deeply and constantly aware of the ways in which gender-‐based violence affects our students’ pursuit of an education, the ways in which it interferes with their ability to learn, the ways in which it inhibits our efforts to fulfill our central academic mission. As WGSS scholars, we also understand how gender-‐based violence permeates and shapes the culture in which we all endeavor to teach and learn. We prepared this Green Paper as a collective action of feminist practice. We chose the language of “Green Paper” (rather than White Paper) because traditionally green is the color of hope and because popularly green signals the freedom to move forward. This Green Paper includes all ideas brought to our table, without rank ordering or critique, regarding problems with our current system/situation and immediate and long term solutions; it is a compendium upon which we drew in producing our 8 Point Plan and therefore we include it as Appendix I. Section II: Sources Canvassed WGSS gathered information from our community by networking with all levels of University of Richmond faculty, students, and alumni.
• We studied all communications, from breaking news, to media coverage, to University communications in response, and student and alumni social media.
• We watched live-‐streaming of University forums. • We attended University forums. • We joined student and alumni social media groups, in particular Spiders Against Sexual Assault, and UR
Alumni Facebook pages. • We met with students proposing a Prevention Center. • We met with students who are survivors, and/or who are traumatized by acute episodes before us. • We received communications from individuals turning to WGSS to give voice.
Section III: Community-‐Identified Problems with the Current System/Situations The following is a list of ideas the WGSS Board gathered during the past two weeks of our community’s acute attention to gender-‐based violence and rape culture. We do not put this list forward to advocate for any particular perspective, rather simply to list as thoroughly as possible the range and diversity of perspectives expressed and to engage a feminist practice of inclusion of voices. Even if one or more of the items below are based on
incomplete or inaccurate information, the fact that such misperceptions exist must be addressed with care and respect, for their existence calls attention to real problems with our current systems, our means and quality of communication, and officially proposed solutions.
• We are under federal investigation at the Office of Civil Rights.
• We have had three acute episodes related to gender-‐based violence and rape culture that have disrupted our collective lives together at the University thus far this semester, undermining our pursuit of our central academic mission: two sexual assault cases, and one rhetorically predatory party invitation from a Fraternity. Faculty work with students is undermined by these episodes of gender-‐based violence. Students are traumatized, mistrustful on a host of levels, and less able to focus on our central academic mission.
• We appear on a list of the most dangerous schools for women; this list uses data from 2011.
• Student experiences do not match the anti-‐sexual assault discourse we collectively espouse, as evidenced
by the fact that students, past and present, have come forward with their stories of sexual assault and rape and the failures of our institutional processes; our students say that the university has failed to provide them with safe, feminist spaces in which they can work through the details of their assaults and that we continue to foster a rape culture on our campus despite our professed politics.
• There is no requirement or guarantee in our current system that those individuals who oversee handling of
sexual assault reports and decide cases within Student Life Deans’ offices have been educated in and trained extensively and continuously in gender violence, in sexual assault trauma, or in combatting and recognizing misogyny and sexism in the treatment of complainants and victims. Any employee involved in this work should have extensive and ongoing training.
• Our current intra-‐University process dictates that, regardless of who conducts the investigation of a sexual
assault complaint, the person who decides whether to carry the case to a hearing is the dean of the college of the accused. The vast majority of those accused are men, so the decision is made by the Richmond College Dean’s office. As the Dean of Richmond College is already structurally an advocate for Richmond College men (as is the Westhampton Dean for women) this current process creates perceptions of and raises questions about conflict of interest.
• Because the vast majority of those accused of sexual assault are men, the vast majority of hearings are
conducted in Richmond College with the Richmond College Dean presiding. The physical setting, defined in UR culture as the “men’s” college and the “men’s” Dean’s office, affects students’ ability to believe in the impartiality of the hearing and appeals process.
• During the hearing the complainant may encounter the respondent’s witnesses in a waiting area, which
raises particularly troublesome issues with gender violence cases. Also, witnesses are left in the waiting area together before giving their testimony, which could compromise that testimony.
• The current process does not offer formal support in the form of an advocate for students to navigate the
complexities of the process. The website providing students with information about what sort of advocacy they can arrange for themselves is hard to find: http://studentdevelopment.richmond.edu/student-‐concerns/sexual-‐misconduct/index.html.
• Because the current Intra-‐University process for handling complaints privatizes the deliberative process, evidence gathering, reasoning, and outcomes, the university community at large lacks clear understanding of many important aspects of it. Below is a list of questions indicating some of the areas in which clarity is lacking.
o According to information the university has released, between 2013 and 2016, there were 222
reports of “sexual misconduct.” Only 18 resulted in sanctions. While we recognize that “sexual misconduct” is a very broad category, we have trouble believing that only 18 of 222 reports were substantial enough to warrant sanction. Why were so many dropped? Who decided to drop them?
o The stated standard used to trigger an investigation is “the threshold of serious.” In less subjective
terms, what is the threshold of evidence needed in order for an investigator to move a case forward to a conduct officer? What is the threshold of evidence needed in order for a conduct officer to move a case forward to a hearing? An appeal?
o What kind of and how much evidence is needed to meet the threshold for moving a case forward?
o How are witnesses called and treated? What are they told about their obligations to maintain
confidentiality before and after the hearing?
o What reasoning and precedents are used to make decisions about outcomes?
o What is the range of possible—and the range of typical—punitive outcomes? Do they serve justice?
o When are lawyers allowed into the process? When is notification given to one party that the other party will have a lawyer present? Are lawyers provided if those involved do not have money to afford a lawyer?
o What exactly are students’ rights? The policy available online is simply not clear about the nature of
the process and enforcement of outcomes, including how a no contact order works.
o Can, or how can, students effectively hold a university official to account if they believe they have received unfair treatment?
Section IV: Solutions Offered by Community: Below we offer a list of 30 suggestions for improvement made by members of the university community. We do not necessarily endorse each of these suggestions but simply present them all in order to make sure every voice is heard and considered.
• President Crutcher must lead us in sustained and on-‐going engagement about the crisis currently facing our campus by acknowledging the defects of the process for handling sexual assaults. We also need on-‐going updates on specific actions and motions toward reconciliation and justice.
• Appoint qualified external consultants to review the two acute cases before us of Cecilia Carerras and
Whitney Ralston, with recommendations for a response.
• Appoint qualified external consultants to review all processes, practices, and policies related to gender-‐based violence on campus. The university having committed to hiring external consultants, must further commit to transparency regarding the firm hired, its ties to the university, its level of expertise in gender violence policy, the processes it will use for its review, and its findings throughout and not just at the end.
• Support Center for Prevention of Sexual Violence and Crisis Response
Center.https://www.change.org/p/university-‐of-‐richmond-‐establish-‐a-‐sexual-‐assault-‐response-‐and-‐prevention-‐center-‐on-‐campus?recruiter=21798193&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_page&utm_term=des-‐lg-‐no_src-‐custom_msg&fb_ref=Default
• Become members of Faculty Against Rape (FAR).http://www.facultyagainstrape.net/
• Promote the work of our WILL* program more vigorously so that this work is incorporated fully into the
consciousness and culture of UR.
• Consult complainants and survivors. Simplify, clarify, and educate all those who may be involved on procedures based on consultation.
• Conduct regular assessment of campus culture to identify and address aspects that condone—overtly or
subtly—gender-‐based violence or that discourage reporting of misconduct. Make sure this assessment is conducted in full awareness that some victims may be male or transgender.
• Make evidence based interventions; make sure decisions are not based on cultural assumptions that need
to be examined. Feminist critique of cultural assumptions is crucial.
• Assess Interventions on an ongoing basis.
• Focus Administrative responses on restoring complainants’ ability to learn and sustain their well-‐being.
• Consider shifting conduct proceedings to be aimed against dishonorable conduct. With “sexual misconduct,” we aim to adjudicate intentions and consent. We mimic the criminal justice definitions. But we don’t worry about intentions or consent when we prosecute academic misconduct, such as plagiarism. There are certain things that you just don’t do as a scholar, so having a more robust code of honor might help us focus on dishonorable behavior rather than criminal intentions. It would also reduce our own sense that we are conducting quasi-‐criminal trials.
• Network with our RVA Safe Harbor http://safeharborshelter.com.
• Solicit and listen to students’ suggestions for change and support their activism to eliminate gender-‐based
violence.
• Consider the elimination of intra-‐university adjudication of gender violence cases, deferring all to criminal proceedings with Henrico or Richmond City police.
• Restructure the intra-‐university adjudication of gender violence cases based on external reviews.
• Develop for our current and new structures of adjudication in sexual misconduct cases a detailed flow chart and check-‐list to help students know their rights and understand each stage of the process and also help administrators. Our current flow chart is very confusing; see: http://studentdevelopment.richmond.edu/student-‐concerns/sexual-‐misconduct/flowchart.pdf.
• Consider appointing trained advocates, akin to a guardian ad litem, to support complainants in their
navigations of process.
• Consider having a third-‐party advisor or advocate present during all meetings throughout the process.
• Consider having University police serve in advisory role during the adjudication process at the discretion of the complainant.
• Consider launching a university-‐wide campaign with the aid of WGSS faculty to raise awareness and
change the culture on campus.
• Commission an external review key sites of perpetuation of gender-‐based violence and rape culture, such as Greek Life and Athletics, and focus on eliminating gender-‐ based violence and rape culture in these sites, or eliminating these sites altogether.
• Attend to social media, like Yik Yak, that can re-‐victimize and ostracize the complainant and often circulate violent communications along lines of gender, sexuality, and race.
• Emphasize and enhance the centrality of Women, Gender, and Sexuality Studies to UR’s academic mission, at large and especially in relation to gender violence; gender violence is not just an issue for Student Life.
• Dedicate faculty resources to infuse the study of gender violence into courses across schools. (See RhCS/WGSS proposed faculty line from DAC review 2015-‐2016.)
• Explore ways to create more progressive identities and functions for the Richmond College and
Westhampton College coordinate system.
• Eliminate the coordinate system and other aspects of campus culture that separate the sexes and promote binary gender identities.
• Mitigate academic ramifications for survivors, such as allowing any withdrawals incurred on account of
sexual assault to be removed, making students assaulted less “marked” permanently in their educational record.
• Make sure all students—undergraduate, graduate, professional, domestic and international, straight,
LGBT, gender-‐non-‐conforming, etc.—are heard and heeded by both administration, staff, and faculty and by each other in the process of examining the current system and making changes.
• Do an environmental scan of peer institutions/leaders in eliminating gender-‐based violence to see what
resources/programs they have created, and to see which we might adopt. The following list provides a start for such a project.
o One in Four (National organization)
o Green Dot Program (University of Kentucky, also used at UVA). o Harvard Study of Sexual Assault
http://sexualassaulttaskforce.harvard.edu/files/taskforce/files/final_report_of_the_task_force_on_the_prevention_of_sexual_assault_16_03_07.pdf
o Ohio Department of Higher Education Guidelines, and other peer and aspirant programs who serve as models:
! Use data to guide action. Specifically, campuses are asked to administer an annual campus climate survey to inform prevention and response strategies and to track trends over time.
! Empower staff, faculty, campus law enforcement and students to prevent and respond to sexual violence through evidence-‐based training. Using feedback from the campus climate survey and/or other data sources to help select the most appropriate program, campuses should implement a comprehensive training program for their institution. Programs focused on bystander intervention are particularly encouraged.
! Communicate a culture of shared respect and responsibility. Campuses should utilize a widespread awareness and communication campaign in synergy with trainings and other initiatives to help shift culture.
! Develop a comprehensive response protocol. Campuses are encouraged to engage a variety of stakeholders in developing and adopting a comprehensive protocol to address sexual violence on campus. This comprehensive protocol will be both survivor-‐centered and respect the rights of the accused.
! Adopt a survivor-‐centered response. By developing a response centered on survivors’ needs, such as providing confidential advisors, campuses can strengthen student trust in campus systems and processes.
Appendix II: Working Definitions for Gender-‐Based Violence and Related Concepts Gender-‐based violence refers to any harm perpetrated against a person’s will on the basis of gender. Examples include Sexual Assault, Rape, Intimate Partner/Relationship Violence, Stalking, and Sexual Harassment. Gender Violence is entangled in Power-‐Based Violence as a type of violence committed by an offender who uses the assertion of power, control, and/or intimidation in order to harm another. These acts may be committed by strangers, friends, acquaintances, intimates, or other persons. Power-‐based violence has traditionally been known as violence against women, but as we strive to understand these crimes we must acknowledge that the terminology "violence against women" diminishes male survivors' experiences as well as survivors who identify beyond the gender binary. While these crimes are overwhelmingly committed by men against women, the overriding similarities in these crimes are not the gender of the perpetrator or the victim, but the desire to assert power and control over another person. Often this assertion of power and control manifests itself in feminizing the victim regardless of the gender or sex of the victim. Because our culture devalues the feminine, this "violence against the feminine" is often about either demonstrating the weakness and helplessness of the victim and/or the strength and superiority of the perpetrator. In Transforming a Rape Culture, Buchwald, Flecher, and Roth define a rape culture as “a complex of beliefs that encourage male sexual aggression and supports violence against women [and girls], a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent, and a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women [and girls] and presents it as the norm” (Buchwald, Fletcher, and Roth 2005, XI). WGSS voices at UR expand this definition to be inclusive of gender and sexuality identities and embodiments beyond cisgender, heterosexual women.
WGSS specifies a focus on gender-‐based violence as one of its core learning goals of our developing curriculum. These goals are:
● To understand that gender inequality remains a major cause of gender-‐based violence. ● To understand how sexual violence is a social justice issue. ● To examine the construction and operation of power relations, social inequalities and resistances
to them in both national and transnational contexts. ● To introduce students to the roots of gender-‐based violence, the social and cultural context in
which it occurs, the mental and physical health impacts, and justice and frameworks. ● To explore approaches to eliminating gender-‐based violence. ● To help students develop the skills to think critically about the local and global impact of gender-‐
based violence, how it intersects with other forms of oppression, and to develop an understanding of these issues that will be useful intellectually, personally, and professionally.
● To understand what constitutes a rape culture, and how to transform it into a culture of respect and gender equity.
Appendix III: Working Bibliography on Gender-‐Based Violence
Armstrong, Elizabeth A., Laura Hamilton, and Brian Sweeney. 2006. “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape.” Social Problems. Vol. 53, no. 4: 483-‐499.
Bleecker, E. Timothy, and Sarah K. Murnen. 2005. “Fraternity Membership, the Display of Degrading Sexual Images of Women, and Rape Myth Acceptance.” Sex Roles. Vol. 53, nos. 7/8 (October): 487-‐493.
Bunch, Charlotte, 1990. “Women’s Rights as Human Rights: Toward a Re-‐Vision of Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 12(4):486-‐498.
Collins, Patricia Hill. 1997. “Pornography and Black Women’s Bodies.”In Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Laura O’Toole and Jessica R. Schiffman, New York: New York University Press: 395-‐399.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams, 1995. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color.” In Critical Race Theory, ed. Kimberlé Crenshaw. New York: The New Press: 357-‐383.
Cressida J. Heyes, 2016. “Dead to the World: Rape, Unconsciousness, and Social Media.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 41:2. Davies, Michelle 2002 Male Sexual Assault Victims: A Selective Review of the Literature and
Implications for Support Services. 7:203-‐214. Dines, Gail and Jean M. Humez, eds., 2011. Gender, Race and Class in Media: A Critical
Reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Fisher, Bonnie S., Leah E. Daigle, and Francis T. Cullen, eds., 2010. Unsafe in the Ivory Tower. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Funk, Rus, 2006. “Social Change Efforts to End Sexism and Violence.” In Reaching Men:Strategies for Preventing Sexist
Attitudes, Behaviors, and Violence. Indianapolis, IN: JIST Life. 181-‐216. Gray, Matt J., Christina M. Hassija, Sarah E. Steinmetx, 2017. Sexual Assault Prevention
on College Campuses. Routledge. https://www.routledge.com/Sexual-‐Assault-‐Prevention-‐on-‐College-‐Campuses/Gray-‐Hassija-‐teinmetz/p/book/9781138940802
Jensen, Robert, 1996. Knowing Pornography. Violence Against Women 2(1):82-‐102. Jensen, Robert with Debbie Okrina, 2004 Pornography and Sexual Violence. VAWnet:
National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women.
Katz, Jackson 2007 Ten Things Men Can Do to Prevent Gender Violence. In Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Pp. 465-‐466. Laura O’Toole, Jessica R. Schiffman, and Margie L. Kiter Edwards, eds. New York: New York University Press.
Kaufman, Michael 1997 The Construction of Masculinity and the Triad of Men’s Violence. In Gender Violence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Pp. 30-‐51. Laura L. O’Toole and Jessica R. Schiffman, eds. New York: New York University Press.
Kimmel, Michael, 2000. “Masculinity As Homophobia: Fear, Shame, and Silence in the Construction of Gender Identity.”In Readings for Diversity and Social Justice: An Anthology on Racism, Antisemitism, Sexism, Heterosexism, Ableism, and Classism. Pp. 213-‐219. Maurianne Adams, Warren J. Blumenfeld, Rosie Castaneda, Heather W. Hackman, Madeline L. Peters, and Ximena Zuniga, eds. New York: Routledge.
Kimmel, Michael, 2008. “Predatory Sex and Party Rape.” In Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New York: Harper Collins Publishers: 217-‐241.
Lisak, David and Paul M. Miller, 2002. “Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists.” Violence and Victims 17(1):73-‐84.
Martin, Elizabeth Yancey, and Robert A. Hummer. 1989. “Fraternities and Rape on Campus.” Gender and Society. Vol. 3, no. 4 (December): 457-‐473.
McIntosh, Peggy, 2010. “White Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of Coming to See Correspondence through Work in Women’s Studies.” In Privilege: A Reader, 2nd edition, eds. Michael S. Kimmel and Abby L. Ferber. Boulder, CO: Westview Press: 3-‐25.
Merry, Sally Engle, 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law Into Local Justice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Miller, Jody, 2008. “Violence Against Urban African American Girls: Challenges for Feminist Advocacy.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 24(2):148-‐162.
Murnen, Sarah K., and Marla H. Kohlman. 2007. “Athletic Participation, Fraternity Membership, and Sexual Aggression Among College Men: A Meta-‐analytic Review.” Sex Roles. Vol. 57: 145-‐157.
Nussbaum, M. (2005) Women's Bodies: Violence, Security, capabilities. Journal of Human Development, vol. 6 no. 2, pp. 167-‐183.
Piccigallo, Jacqueline R., Terry G. Lilley, and Susan L. Miller, 2012 “It’s Cool to Care about Sexual Violence”: Men’s Experiences with Sexual Assault Prevention. Men and Masculinities 15(5):507-‐525.
Renzetti, Claire M., Edleson, Jeffrey L., Bergen, Raquel Kennedy. 2010. Sourcebook on Violence Against Women. Sage Publications.
Scarce, Michael, 2000. “Male-‐on-‐Male Rape.” In Just Sex: Students Rewrite the Rules on Sex, Violence, Activism and Equality, eds. Jodi Gold and Susan Villari Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. Pp. 39-‐46.
Schwartz, Martin D. and Walter S. DeKeseredy, 2008 Interpersonal Violence Against Women: The Role of Men. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 24(2):178-‐ 185.
White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault, “Preventing Sexual Violence on College Campuses: Lessons from Research and Practice,” April 2014. https://www.notalone.gov/assets/evidence-‐based-‐strategies-‐for-‐the-‐prevention-‐of-‐sv-‐perpetration.pdf
Wooten, Sara and Roland Mitchell, The Crisis of Campus Sexual Violence: Critical Perspectives on Prevention and Response (Routledge, 2015).
