California Supreme Court rules on university disciplinary hearings

Content warning: This article contains references to sexual violence.

The Supreme Court of California ruled on July 31 that, in disciplinary action cases, private universities are not obligated to grant accused students the chance to directly or indirectly question the accuser and other relevant individuals. The new ruling applies to live hearings at which the accused student is present, whether physically or virtually.

The case that decided this involved the University and then-Vice President of Student Affairs Ainsley Carry after USC’s Title IX office conducted an investigation that resulted in former football kicker Matt Boermeester’s expulsion in 2017 for violating USC’s intimate partner violence policy. Boermeester then filed a petition on August 7, 2017 for an administrative mandate, contending that his right to a fair trial had been violated. The court of appeals concurred, stating the University’s disciplinary procedures were unjust as they denied the Boeermester a meaningful opportunity to cross-examine crucial witnesses in a face-to-face hearing. 

The Supreme Court of California overturned this decision, asserting that compelling private universities to conduct the type of hearing proposed by the court of appeals contradicted established fair procedure precedents. 

Katherine Lee, a sophomore majoring in film and television production, said the Supreme Court of California made the right decision because this type of cross-examination might cause more trauma to victims. 

“I don’t think the lawyer of the [accused] … should have the right to ask the victims questioned like that because it’s very traumatic to have to be asked if what you said was real,” Lee said. 

The University has seen a number of sexual assault reports following Boermeester’s expulsion, many of which took place at fraternities. The Department of Public Safety published a report in October 2021 about multiple cases of drugging and sexual assault at the Sigma Nu fraternity house and other fraternities from November 2018 to Fall 2021. Protests on Greek Row ensued in the aftermath of the reports, and the University imposed a number of restrictions on fraternities aimed to curtail sexual assault and misconduct. 

According to the Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network, the largest anti-sexual violence organization in the country, women in college ages 18-24 are three times more likely to be victims of sexual assault than non-students of the same age. Only 20% of all sexual assault cases are reported to law enforcement, according to Department of Justice data. A 2019 survey conducted by the Association of American Universities found one in three women undergraduate students at USC had been sexually assaulted on campus.

“The university is pleased with the decision and the California Supreme Court’s clarification of the law on this important issue,” wrote USC in a statement to the Daily Trojan. “The university will continue to put its students first by using a comprehensive disciplinary process that protects the rights and interests of all students.”

Jurell Arana, a sophomore majoring in international relations and the global economy, said there were more layers to the issue. He said that while he does believe the accused should have the right to cross-examine because sexual assault hearings are serious and should not result in severe consequences for the accused based on “hearsay,” he also feels that the Supreme Court ruled in the right direction.

“Rape and sexual assault is such a heavy and loaded topic that I feel as though to be brought face to face with your [assaulter] can inevitably affect the [victim’s] testimony,” Arana said. “It can bring about a lot of trauma and anxiety and not having to be present or having the option to not be can actually be very beneficial for all parties.”

Hearsay statements are not often admitted in cases including sexual assault because the prosecution would have to satisfy the five requirements of penal code 1370 to include them, which seldom happens. The statements must:

1. Narrate the infliction of physical harm or the threat of harm to the victim.
2. Establish that the victim is unavailable either because they are deceased or unable to testify because of a physical or mental disability.
3. Have been made at or near the time of the infliction of the harm.
4. Have been made under ‘circumstances of trustworthiness,’ which can include a 911 distress call.
5. Be recorded in writing to law enforcement (often on a 911 call transcript).

Mike Liu, a junior majoring in economics, said the issue was multifaceted, so he sees both sides of the argument.

“On one side, you want to preserve a straightforward and clear legal process,” Liu said. “Giving the accused the opportunity to cross-examine the accuser validates that legal process.”