By Lev D. Zilbermints
“Local Talk” sent questions to Emily Archibald for her to answer. Responses to the interview below was provided by a member of Protecting Pirates. While the latter requested anonymity to avoid consequences from Seton Hall University, Ms. Emily Archibald publicly shared her story with the media. For this reason, her identity can be revealed.
1) Why is the faculty not being cooperative? Could it be because of the slow nature of the Faculty Senate? Or is it something else?
We cannot give a concrete answer about the intentions of administrators. Doing so would be speculative, and we don’t want to perpetuate a false narrative. While we cannot claim to know what administrators are thinking right now, we feel that it is important to note that discouraging rape survivors from going forward with investigations leads to under-reporting crimes in the Annual Safety Report published on Seton Hall’s website. This is a tool which is used to communicate the amount of on-campus crimes to people who seek out the report, such as prospective students.
If you under-report sex crimes on campus, it makes the institution look very safe. Whether administrators are acting the way they are to affect the Annual Safety Report, wholly or partially, we can’t say. However, we do know that their actions have implications on the security report, and reporting fewer instances of crime on campus makes the university look more appealing.
(2) What kind of gaps exist in Title IX at SHU?
Under Title IX, administrators are not permitted to influence the decision of a sexual assault survivor to go forward with an investigation, either criminal or through campus procedures. We have knowledge that students have been dissuaded from being involved in investigations multiple times. Further, the institution is supposed to advertise as many resources to survivors as possible. These resources include medical (such as STI testing), psychological (counselling), housing reassignments in the event that a student is housed near their assailant, and more.
Administrators claim that these resources are advertised, but we have reports of survivors needing to ask for them instead of the information being made readily available. It seems like resources are made available on SHU’s website, but student survivors of rape need to be verbally communicated this information – it can’t be hidden in a web page that they’re responsible for finding themselves, during the most traumatic period of their lives.
Several survivors we spoke with weren’t even aware of accommodations they should have been made aware of by administrators upon reporting their assaults. They tend to be referred only to Counselling and Psychological Services, which is a service on campus – but many students report bad experiences with CAPS, and are not referred to other providers.
(3) Why did not SHU look up security videos for the day the rape happened?
When Emily reported, she was discouraged from going forward with an investigation. Because there was no investigation opened after her report, with or without her involvement, we believe the situation was not looked into further by administrators. We cannot say concretely whether security footage was pulled.
However, it appears that administration did not make an effort to investigate the rape independently when it was initially reported. Also, there is no security camera at the front desk of dormitories. The hallways (as far as we know) also do not have cameras, so footage may be scarce.
(4) What happened to the initial report that Emily filed? Have you done OPRA (Open Public Records Act) on the Seton Hall Security Services?
We’re not sure where the initial report is, but we know that SHU is legally obliged to have it on file. Due to privacy issues, the report would not be considered a public record. Emily asked about her report though, during a meeting with faculty members recounting her rape, and she wasn’t given a straight answer about where it was. She was simply told that she should repeat her story in the presence of the Title IX Coordinator.
Because of this, it appears that the coordinator does not maintain access to Emily’s report. Further, all that is technically necessary for an investigation to open is for a report to be filed. We have doubts that Emily’s report was properly filed for this reason.
(5) What is the response from alumni?
The alumni members of our coalition are appalled at the situation. We know some alumni who have pulled donations from the university. This makes sense – where is that money going, exactly? Why not more resources for survivors? The young alumni we’ve been able to reach have echoed our message. But we’d like to connect with more influential alumni about this issue.
(6) By “complainant’s involvement” does the faculty mean that Emily did not report the rape? Or are they passing the buck?
When administrators refer to the involvement of a complainant in a case, they are referring to the survivor of an assault being personally involved in either a criminal investigation or campus investigation. It is beneficial for complainants to be a part of a case, but it is not required.
Emily reported her rape, but she was essentially told that going forward with an investigation would be a bad idea. Her rapist was subsequently given a leadership position on campus. It appears as if he had a positive relationship with administrators at this point, and they were trying to protect him.
(7) I am no lawyer, but this looks like multiple violations of state and federal law. Not just Title IX, but other stuff too. Can you give me some comparisons from other schools where Title IX enforcement is stronger? Then I would know what SHU is missing.
We know that there are other institutions out there that don’t appear to gatekeep resources for survivors, such as STI testing and outside psychological help (as in resources not located on campus). These things are more readily communicated to survivors as options, as well as class and housing accommodations. Also, there are No Contact Orders at other universities that are implemented in cases of sexual assault. These orders recognize that the person requesting them feels physically unsafe around the other party involved, and places responsibility on the second party to avoid the first.
Currently, NCOs at Seton Hall do not prioritize the safety of the complainant, although these orders may be implemented on the basis of harassment, stalking, assault, or rape. We also know that other institutions factor allegations of assault and violence into student employee background assessments, meaning that students suspected of violent acts will have the allegations against them included in consideration for employment on campus.
At Seton Hall, we know that it is possible for predators found responsible for harassment, stalking, assault, or rape to keep their on-campus jobs if they were found responsible for these acts through a campus trial.
(8) What kind of questions were asked of Dean Winston Roberts on March 31, 2022? What did he say?
Because this meeting was held between a campus club and administration, we don’t want this information to be published. This would threaten the ability of the club to continue operating. SHU Survivors and Protecting Pirates are different entities, one being a student club and the other being a coalition outside of the university. Administrators have not met with Protecting Pirates.
(9) How did prospective students respond to the information given out?
They were disgusted, and their parents even more so. We had the opportunity to reach out to hundreds of people at the Open House event. They were asking us a lot of questions, and they appeared to be very interested in what we had to say.
(10) Have you contacted state legislators and federal lawmakers? They could make things happen.
We are in the process of formulating next steps. Those steps include seeing how we can influence local legislation.
