Thread by @R_Denhollander

I am disappointed and grieved to say that this is not what survivors and advocates actually called for and not what LU needs. I hope that this is the result of a lack of understanding on the part of LU and that it will be rectified quickly.

*thread*

m.washingtontimes.com/news/2021/nov/…

While a Title IX review is not a bad step, most of the allegations and concerns do not relate to technical Title IX policy violations (some do, but not most).

The actual concerns and allegations primarily center around allegations of:

1. A culture that silences survivors and minimizes abuse.

2. Poor responses by faculty and leadership.

3. Resistance to reform by leadership.

4. Lack of good communication on abuse related issues.

5.Lack of awareness and priorization of these issues by leadership.

6. A culture that punishes whistle-blowers or those who buck existing authority.

7. Lack of achievable channels for students to form student groups, rally, or otherwise make their voices heard, further complicating abuse advocacy and reform.

8. A Board which utterly failed to stop and then hold accountable the former president and his wife for sexually inappropriate (and at least in the case of his wife, clearly predatory) behavior, including WITH LU students.

Multiple faculty raised concerns...

About Instagram photos and behavior of the President related to students, to no avail.

The question is how all these things could happen w/o Board and leadership knowledge, especially since at least on be Board member attended questionable parties and events with the former pres

What has been requested clearly and in explicit detail was a process that is frequently used in these situations : A culture, structure and policy audit, with historical accounting. Leadership was explicitly asked NOT to confine the review to Title IX.

Here's what that means:

A culture audit assesses the culture of the institution in areas related to dynamics that foster an abusive culture, including power and authority dynamics. This should include significant community engagement pieces with students to identify the best means for this assessment.

A policy audit that examines Title IX and HR policies with FULL access to all information, but ALSO examines any policies that relate to abuse dynamics (consent and record keeping in any medical clinic, coaching policies, etc).

A structural audit that examines the corporate dynamics for areas of weakness that contribute to failing to see, or mishandling, warning signs or reports of abuse. This should include evaluating communication silos, Board power imbalances, communication structures and channels...

Checks and balances within leadership, etc.

Historical accounting should look to answer questions about what has happened on ALL these fronts, related to mishandling abuse, enabling inappropriate behavior in leadership (especially the former president) or resisting reform.

All of this should culminate in a public report, without limiting what information may be published, with recommendations for reform and ideally a period of external reviews.

This is a common model, easily pursuable. This is what was urged.

Students explicitly urged against a review that was confined to Title IX policy.

And for what was commissioned, no clarity has been given on whether the firm will have full access to all information and authority to report comprehensively and publicly on all information.