Why This Debate Now? (07:09)
Moderator Donvan introduces Rosenkranz who briefly explains why it is time for a debate on sexual assault and defines associated legal terms.
Meet the Panel (05:24)
Donvan introduces the debaters. Each gives a brief overview of his/her credentials and stance on the topic.
Debate "Housekeeping" (01:37)
Donvan explains the format of this debate and asks the audience to provide a preliminary vote.
Opening Statement For: Jed Rubenfeld (07:26)
A professor at Yale Law School and writer on constitutional and criminal law, Rubenfeld addresses the lack of expertise, neutrality, and transparency in college rape trials. He asserts that colleges should focus on education and prevention, leaving primary responsibility with police and courts.
Opening Statement Against: Michelle Anderson (07:21)
Dean at CUNY School of Law and a leading scholar on rape law, Anderson discusses bias against victims of sexual assault from the criminal justice system. She argues this resolution strips jurisdiction from campuses to decide sexual assault cases and impedes the ability to create a safe learning environment for all.
Opening Statement For: Jeannie Suk (07:42)
A professor at Harvard Law and a rape counselor, Suk focuses on a lack of fairness in the process of investigating and disciplining acts of sexual assault on campuses. She argues that schools are signaling that women are not capable or equal.
Opening Statement Against: Stephen Schulhofer (07:41)
A professor at the New York University School of Law and author of "Unwanted Sex," considered to be one of the most important books on rape law, Schulhofer contends that the resolution would make a criminal complaint the victim's only option. He argues that the resolution would lead to an inability for college campuses to pursue lesser sexual assault complaints.
Opening Statement Recap (01:20)
Donvan summarizes arguments made by both sides in this debate on courts, not campuses, deciding sexual assault cases.
Victim Advantages (03:46)
Anderson claims that victims could experience a prompt process and a variety of remedies that are not available in court. Suk responds that victims can experience these without a campus investigation. Schulhofer questions the abilities of colleges to make decisions if an investigation is not conducted.
Should Sexual Assault be Treated Differently? (04:02)
Anderson questions why sexual assault is treated differently than other acts of misconduct. Rubenfeld categorizes rape with other serious criminal acts and affirms the uniqueness of those actually adjudicated by campuses.
Defining Sexual Assault (03:51)
Rubenfield discusses the expansion of the term sexual assault throughout the preceding, he defines it as simply rape. Schulhofer responds that groping is considered sexual assault and a criminal act.
Effects of Incentive Structures (04:31)
Suk asserts the inability for colleges to make a neutral decision about guilt or innocence in sexual assault cases. Anderson argues that the Department of Education mandates campus involvement and equitable adjudication of these cases.
QA: Groping Case (04:20)
Schulhofer shows concern over the lack of options for a victim who is groped or experiences a lesser assault other than rape. Suk responds.
QA: Harassment in the Workplace (02:57)
Suk talks about various ways to address a hostile environment outside of an investigation or adjudication. Schulhofer contends that regardless of preventative measures, disciplinary actions must be taken when a sexual assault occurs.
QA: Criminal Law vs. Title IX (02:50)
Schulhofer discusses where responsibility falls for protecting students' civil rights or victims of sexual assault.
QA: Deterring Sexual Assault (02:58)
Rubenfeld explains why sexual assault cases managed by courts would better deter future sexual assaults. He argues that Title IX takes away colleges' ability to mediate lesser assault cases. Anderson responds.
QA: Finding Safety on Campus (03:24)
Suk exlains how victims could find safety without campus tribunals. Schulhofer contends that victims who do not seek criminal prosecution lack avenues of support and systems of safety given the resolution.
QA: Impartial Adjudication (01:06)
Rubenfeld describes pressure felt by schools under investigation for not enforcing and finding sexual assaults to be happening sufficiently.
Which System Results in the Greatest Amount of Justice? (03:08)
Each side has 30 second slots to respond to the question in a volley-style debate
Closing Statement For: Jed Rubenfeld (02:24)
Rubenfeld cites the Duke lacrosse case to highlight the inability of colleges to manage sexual assault cases. He further argues that courts should be the place where rape cases are tried.
Closing Statement Against: Stephen Schulhofer (02:24)
Schulhofer argues that it would be a mistake to turn to the criminal justice system as the all-purpose solution for every social problem.
Closing Statement For: Jeannie Suk (02:23)
Suk worries about the trampling of fair process and the disproportionate impact on students of color should campuses hold tribunals for sexual assault cases.
Closing Statement Against: Michelle Anderson (02:01)
Anderson asks the audience to put themselves in the shoes of a campus administrator dealing with a groping incident. She asserts the need to give victims more options than just reporting to the police.
Time to Vote (05:46)
While the audience votes on the debate, Donovan gives thanks to the panel members, audience members, and financial donors and gives information on an upcoming debates.
Results of Audience Vote (01:18)
Pre-debate - For: 56% - Against: 12% - Don't Know: 32%
Post-debate - For: 56% - Against: 31% - Don't Know: 14%
Credits: Courts, Not Campuses, Should Decide Sexual Assault Cases: A Debate (00:49)
Credits: Courts, Not Campuses, Should Decide Sexual Assault Cases: A Debate
For additional digital leasing and purchase options contact a media consultant at 800-257-5126 (press option 3) or firstname.lastname@example.org.