Live Blog: Making New Campus Sexual Assault Regulations, Day 4
What You Need to Know
Analysis: Today’s meeting of the negotiated rulemaking committee on the VAWA amendments to the Clery Act was a bit rocky – the negotiators covered some of the more detailed parts of the draft rule (prevention programs, training, disciplinary proceedings) and opinions in the room varied.
The main takeaways:
- Some negotiators worried that the language on prevention programs was too detailed and couldn’t be applied to all types of schools. After ironing out confusion about how the requirement would apply to all students and employees (it would need to be offered but attendance wouldn’t be mandatory) the group still left up in the air exactly where they wanted to see the language go. The Department of Education, for its part, indicated that their goal is to allow flexibility in delivery of the programs but to ensure the definitions and requirements everyone works off are consistent.
- The disciplinary proceedings conversation seemed to create a divide between institution representatives and students and survivors, but also revealed that many around the table work at schools who are good actors on this topic, which isn’t always the case. The main points discussed: disclosing the sanctions being applied to students by schools following disciplinary proceedings, the role of an advisor in proceedings, and the interaction between sharing results of proceedings and privacy laws.
- The negotiators also discussed how the rule should indicate that Title IX will interact with various on-campus activities such as: training, investigations, disciplinary proceedings, and accommodations, to name a few. The Department has been clear that nothing in this new law and the regulation will change Title IX, and they suggested language to reinforce that point. Some members of the group were not completely on board with that draft language.
I’ll leave you with the positive note the Department tried to end the day on: days 3 and 4 tend to be the hardest in a negotiated rulemaking since so many details are being worked out, but there’s reason to be optimistic the group can reach consensus. The negotiators were encouraged to talk over the next month and think of compromise ways to move forward. Likewise, those following along can reach out to negotiators if there are suggestions for ways to solve some of the problems vocalized.
We’ll be back on March 31 and April 1 for the final days of negotiation!
Read the live blog below.
Live Blog: Making New Campus Sexual Assault Regulations, Day 3
What You Need to Know
Analysis: Day 3 the of the negotiated rulemaking around the Violence Against Women Act amendments to the Clery Act (also known as Campus SaVE) proceeded a bit differently from the first two days – negotiators had a draft rule to work from, and consensus-building was clearly on their minds. If you’re just joining us and wondering what negotiated rulemaking is, you can learn more here: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/neg-reg-faq.html.
A few things came up:
- Getting the definition of stalking correct is tough. How it interacts with Clery Geography came up several times and finding a way to ensure stalking is captured accurately in statistics is still in flux. Generally no sides on this, though — everyone around the table wants to get it right.
- There was some hesitation about setting a definition of consent in this regulation, but that riff mostly stemmed from university counsel concerns. The Department of Education explained a desire to ensure statistics are consistent across schools.
- The statistic reporting tool (a chart) is complicated and there’s still confusion (and resistance) around expanding it. The new law asks that we learn about more crimes on campus, specifically domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking– but this is being called “double counting” by some negotiators.
- Finally, confusion lingers around reporting for Clery statistics purposes and confidentiality. The Department of Education made clear, however, that there’s a lot of room to improve the draft or provide additional info in a regulation preamble.
We will be back at 9 a.m. tomorrow for day four!
Read the live blog below.
Today, there is an increased push for the American education system to improve their STEM programs as well as to get students to show interest in the fields. It is important to bring attention to some of the African-American females that have, and are still, paving the road for future scientists, astronauts or any STEM degree holders.
These women are just some of the many examples of African-American contributions to science. (Descriptions pertain to the women in the order they appear on the photoset, from up down, left right)
Mercedes Richards PH.D is a professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Pennsylvania State University. Originally from Jamaica, Dr. Richards received her Doctoral degree at the University of Toronto. In 2010 Dr. Richards received the Fulbright Award to conduct research at the Astronomical Institute in Slovakia. research focus is on binary stars; twin stars formed at the same time.
Willie Hobbs Moore PH.D is the first African-American woman to earn a PH.D in physics in 1972. She received it at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Her thesis research involved important problems in vibrational analysis of macro molecules.
Beth Brown PH.D (1969-2008) was an Astrophysicist in the Sciences and Exploration Directorate at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Born in Roanoke, VA, she grew up watching Star Trek and Star Wars and was fascinated with space. In 1998, Dr. Brown becoming the first African-American woman to earn a doctorate in Astronomy from the University of Michigan.
Chanda Prescod-Weinstein PH.D is currently a NASA Postdoctoral Program Fellow at the Observational Lab in Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt Maryland. Originally from Los Angeles California Dr. Prescod-Weinstein specializes in theoretical cosmology.
Dara Norman PH.D is a professor at the University of Washington. Dr. Norman grew up in the south side of Chicago Illinois. She went to MIT as an Undergraduate and worked at NASA Goddard in Maryland. Dr. Norman currently specializes in gravitational lensing, large scale structure and quasars (quasi-stellar objects). This year she was honored with the University’s Timeless Award for her contributions and accomplishments to astronomy. In 2009 she was invited to the Star Party at the White House.
Jeanette J. Epps PH.D from Syracuse NY is a NASA astronaut. She received her PH.D in Aerospace Engineering from the University of Marylan in 2000. Dr. Epps was selected in 2009 to be one of the 14 members of the 20th NASA astronaut class. She recently graduated from Astronaut Candidate Training.
Shirley Ann Jackson PH.D is the second African-American woman to earn a PH.D in physics and the first from MIT. In 2009 Dr. Jackson was appointed to serve on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. She is currently the President of the Renssalaer Polytechnic Institute.
This list is awesome.
Also: if you know/are a black woman pursuing a master’s degree in STEM, then you should also know about our Selected Professions Fellowships.
Amazingly, no one at MSNBC has ever said anything to me about my hair. Not one word. But the audience has a lot to say. I can’t go on air without letters and comments and tweets and emails from viewers. Everything from “Where do you get your hair done?” and “I love your hair” to “Why would you show up looking like that on air?” It comes from white folks and black folks. It would be impossible to go through the amount of responses the first year on air caused about my hair.