I Teach Gender-Based Policing at Cornell. Here’s How My Campus Police Should Have Responded to Jane Doe.

Jurisprudence So many questions. Matt Rourke/AP Sign up for Executive Dysfunction, a weekly newsletter that highlights one under-the-radar story about how Trump is changing the law—or how the law is pushing back—and keeps you posted on the latest from Slate’s Jurisprudence team. Much of the country has been shocked this past week as details of the case of the “Cornell Seven” have come to public light. I am an associate professor of government at Cornell University, where my research through the Gender and Security Sector Lab examines how police and justice institutions can become more gender-responsive and trauma-informed. The “Cornell Seven” case brings questions I usually study around the world painfully close to home. Much of the public discussion has understandably focused on Cornell’s disciplinary proceedings following the horrific events described by Jane Doe, as well as on why the district attorney’s office is only now reopening the case—and what it means if international media attention is required to prompt renewed scrutiny. My research leads me to ask another question: When Jane Doe first reported what happened to her, was the response consistent with the basic principles of trauma-informed and gender-responsive policing? There has already been confusion over institutional responsibility. Cornell has stated that the Cornell University Police Department, rather than the Ithaca Police Department, had jurisdiction to investigate the case. But the larger question extends beyond which agency had jurisdiction. Every law-enforcement and justice institution serving the Cornell and Ithaca communities should ask whether its personnel are adequately trained in gender-responsive and trauma-informed approaches. Gender-responsive policing recognizes that people of different genders can experience crime, victimization, and interactions with law enforcement differently. Trauma-informed policing recognizes that trauma can affect behavior, memory, emotion, and a survivor’s ability to recount an experience—and that investigative practices themselves can either reduce or compound that trauma and any subsequent investigative challenges. There are at least five principles, reflected in guidance on trauma-informed and gender-responsive policing in the United States and internationally, against which the response to Jane Doe’s report should be examined. First: One statement from a survivor should never be treated as the final or definitive account of a traumatic event. Nor should a survivor’s demeanor—including appearing detached, emotionless, or uncertain—automatically be interpreted as evidence of deception. Trauma can affect how memories are encoded and recalled. Shock and dissociation can make memories fragmented, and people may remember additional details over time. Investigators therefore need to make clear that survivors can provide additional information or revise their accounts as memories emerge. Was Jane Doe approached again? Was she explicitly told that she could add to or amend her statement if she remembered more about what happened? Second: Investigations should not place the burden of establishing what happened primarily on the survivor. Investigators should pursue witnesses, physical and digital evidence, and the accounts and actions of alleged perpetrators rather than repeatedly requiring a survivor to recount a traumatic event unnecessarily. This minimizes the risk of traumatization while putting the investigative focus where it belongs, which is on establishing the conduct of those accused. That principle raises important questions in this case. Beyond Cornell’s Title IX process, did law enforcement seek to interview the alleged perpetrators and other members of the fraternity? Did investigators identify and follow up with individuals who appeared in or had access to relevant Snapchat communications? Were other potential witnesses identified and interviewed? Third: Survivors should be kept informed about what is happening with their case. Communication is not simply a courtesy. It is a core component of procedural justice, which is a core principle in policing. It states that people are more likely to experience institutions as legitimate when they believe they have been heard, treated with dignity, and given meaningful information about the process. Was Jane Doe regularly informed about the status of the investigation, what steps had been taken, and what would happen next? Fourth: Survivors should be connected to a range of services from the beginning and throughout the investigative process. Those may include mental health and medical care, safety planning, housing or shelter, academic accommodations, and other forms of support. Providing a referral once is not enough. Needs change, particularly as a case develops and a survivor continues to process what happened. Cornell has obligations to provide support to its students. But law enforcement and justice institutions interacting with survivors also have a responsibility to ensure that they know what services are available and how to access them. What services were offered to Jane Doe, by whom, and at what stages of the process? Finally: Survivors should have meaningful choices about who interacts with them during an investigation. When possible, survivors should be able to request an officer or investigator of a particular gender. A female survivor will not necessarily prefer a female officer, and gender alone does not make someone a competent interviewer, although evidence suggests that it does help. What matters is that institutions maintain a diverse group of personnel trained in trauma-informed interviewing, gender responsiveness, and bias mitigation—and give survivors some agency in a process in which they have already experienced a profound loss of control. Was Jane Doe given such a choice? These questions are important not just in this case, but to ensure that any report of sexual and gender-based violence is handled appropriately. Sexual violence remains a serious problem at universities across the country. Yet campus safety is too often discussed separately from the broader movement to make policing and justice institutions trauma-informed and gender-responsive. It should not be. University police departments are police departments, despite critiques of this model. When they respond to sexual violence, the same principles that should govern survivor-centered policing anywhere else should govern their response on campus. My global research has also taught me that institutional change of this nature often follows sustained advocacy and, unfortunately, comes after highly public cases reveal failure. Jane Doe should never have had to bear the burden of producing reforms. But her willingness to come forward now creates an obligation for institutions to look beyond the particulars of this one case. Cornell and the law-enforcement and justice institutions that serve this community, as well as all universities across the country, should conduct a systematic review of whether their law enforcement agencies are gender- and trauma-responsive. College Education Jurisprudence Sexual Assault Law Enforcement