Stanford University has dismissed an attorney it retained to represent students in sexual-assault cases after she publicly criticized the university’s adjudication process in a New York Times story.
Crystal Riggins of San Jose-based firm Hoge Fenton was one of six approved attorneys Stanford brought on to support students, both accusers and accused, in Title IX cases under a new pilot adjudication process launched last February. Under the process, a panel of three panelists must unanimously agree to find a student responsible of sexual assault.
A Dec. 29 New York Times story examining this process through the lens of one alleged-rape case quoted Riggins, who described the process as “complex” and difficult, particularly for sexual-assault victims, whom she represents.
“It is very difficult to get a 3-0 decision from a panel, and these young women are terrified and traumatized and just want it to be done,” she told the New York Times.
On Jan. 31, Riggins received a letter from Lauren Schoenthaler, former senior counsel and now senior associate vice provost for institutional equity and access for the university, notifying her that effective the next day, she was no longer a “Stanford-sponsored Title IX attorney” because of the comments she had made in the New York Times story, the newspaper reported this week. Schoenthaler called her comments “disappointing,” the New York Times story states.
“Given your stated lack of confidence, it does not make sense for the university to continue to refer our students to you,” wrote Schoenthaler, who helped develop Stanford’s Title IX process.
Riggins told the Weekly Friday that she stands by her comments in the New York Times article, which she acknowledged were “critical,” but did not amount to a lack of confidence in Stanford nor its Title IX process.
“For complaining students (accusers), knowing that they have to get everyone to believe them, essentially — that comes into play in how you’re evaluating a case and how you’re advising clients,” she said. “That’s my job.”
Stanford spokeswoman Lisa Lapin said Riggins was let go as an approved attorney out of “fairness” for students, not as retaliation for her public criticisms.
“This is not retaliation and it’s not a free-speech issue,” she added. “It’s an issue of fairness for our students.”
Schoenthaler’s letter also included a link for Riggins to provide feedback on the Title IX process to an advisory committee on sexual assault policies, which she said she did. In a memo sent to the group this week, she expressed concern that the list of available attorneys will now “disadvantage complaining students” and strongly recommended Stanford “immediately add attorneys with experience representing complaining students to the list,” according to the New York Times.
Riggins said she has only ever represented student-victims at Stanford. Lapin said that the university allows this group of attorneys to decide whether they want to represent accusers, accused or both.
Stanford’s pilot adjudication process provides students on both sides with up to nine hours of free counsel from a list of local attorneys. Lapin said the university is working to train additional lawyers and plans to soon add four new attorneys to that list.
Stanford law professor Michele Dauber, an outspoken critic of Stanford’s handling of sexual violence, called Riggins’ removal “disturbing” and worried it could have a chilling effect on lawyers who represent sexual-assault survivors.
“A lawyer is required to maintain independence of judgment regardless of who is paying the bill,” she said. “The concern is that lawyers will feel pressure to tone down their advocacy in order to avoid upsetting the university especially if they have other cases that are ongoing in the system.”
When asked for her response to this criticism, Lapin said that this “is not a concern.”
Riggins said she will continue to represent Stanford students in two pending cases. She also represents students in Title IX cases at other local universities, she said.
The Palo Alto Weekly has created a Storify page to capture ongoing coverage of sexual-assault issues at Stanford University. To view it, go to storify.com/paloaltoweekly.
I am really worried about the safety of my daughter on this campus. It seems as if Stanford really does put its reputation above student safety. If they are firing this lawyer for those really mild comments in the NYT, it makes you wonder what Stanford is hiding and covering up. This is not normal. Thanks to Crystal Riggins for giving so much of your time to Stanford students and it is disgusting that they treated you this way. #NoGoodDeed
I am shocked by Stanford’s actions on this. They have a serious problem there, and it can’t help but hurt their students and their community. Please, Stanford, admit you have a problem and get help.
It continues to baffle me why Stanford (and other universities) are even still in the business of adjudicating sex assault complaints.
These are serious matters and should be dealt with by civil authorities. This is for the protection of both plaintiffs and defendants.
Perhaps matters will change when the Department of Education rescinds its ill-advised 2011 “Dear Colleague” to colleges.
Thank you for the wonderful reporting.
Parents should be worried and it is time the truth gets exposed.
What is troubling is that our elected district representatives, Governor Brown, Superintendent Torlakson, Lt Governor Newsom, and former Attorney General Harris have known about the abusive, illegal and criminal conduct since 2012. I personally informed Superintendent Mc Gee and Superintendent Gundry, and even requested the help of Stanford Professor Linda Darling Hammond among others.
I can only hope that the new administration will conduct a thorough and transparent investigation.
I am a parent and member of this community for over 30 years. I first disclosed my own experience and the experience of 3 other students at San Jose State University and the lack of compliance by SJSU/CSU administration in collaboration with the public school district of Alum Rock, and health care services at Valley Medical Center and St. Francis Heights.
As soon I discovered that the same is happening in K-12 and other healthcare facilities, many government jobs, and government funded programs I disclosed this to all responsible parties, but I continue to be ignored.
I cannot find legal representation on a contingency basis; therefore reported the abusive, illegal, and criminal conduct to these state and US agencies:
American Association of Occupational Therapy (AOTA) (Exhibit J, R)
Ethics Committee (2012, 2014, 2016)
The Accreditation Committee (2012, 2016)
California Justice Department #PIU464922 (2012, 2014) Exhibit E, X)
Attorney General Kamala Harris (2012, 2013, 2014, 2015)
Deputy Attorney General Deborah Bain (2013)
California Department of Public Health # CA 00333172 (2012-2015) (Exhibit T)
California Fair Housing and Employment (2012) (Exhibit T)
California Labor department – retaliation
# 30556-SACRI: Vertongen v SJSU -07 Dept. (2013) (Exhibit W).
California Board of Occupational Therapy # UL2011-349 (2012-2015) (Exhibit V)
California Department of Consumer Affairs # OT 2013-220 (2013-2015)
(Exhibit V)
California State Auditor Howle #12012-1020 (2012, 2015) Exhibit N)
California Fair Political Practices Commission (2016) Addendum
Federal Bureau of Investigations (2012, 2015, 2016) (Exhibit U)
Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) (2012), Exhibit M),
Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office (2013-2014) (Exhibit Y)
Bureau of Investigations (2013)
Deputy District Attorney John Chase (2013, 2014)
District Attorney Rosen (2013-2014)
District Counsel (2015)
San Mateo County District Attorney ’s Office (2013-2014) (Exhibit X)
District Attorney Wagstaffe
Special Investigator Andrea Higgins (2013-2014)
Inspector John Warren (2013-2014)
Special Prosecutor Helen Karr SF DA (2013)
Daly City Police (2013)
San Jose University Campus Police # 1301140 (2013 -2016) (Exhibit Y)
Santa Clara State Bar Association #8084 (exhibit Z)
Santa Clara Superior Court #112CV236939 (exhibit Z)
US secretary Arne Duncan ( 2012, 2015) Exhibit S)
deferred to SF Civil Rights # 09-13-2014 and #09-15-2348 (Exhibit S)
US Department of Education – Civil Rights – APPEAL (2015) ( Exhibit S)
US Inspector General Tighe (2012, 2015) (Exhibit S)
US Inspector General Thorson (2015) (Exhibit S)
US Acting Assisting Attorney General Molly Moran (2015) ( Exhibit S)
US Inspector General Levinson (2015) (Exhibit S)
US Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius (2012) (Exhibit T)
deferred to Civil Rights # 13-000140 (2012) (Exhibit T)
US Department of Health and Human Services – state and federal OIG operations and other state and federal agencies investigating Medicare fraud/abuse and improper conduct by government employees (2012-2016) (Exhibit T)
US attorney Brian Stretch (2016)
US District Judge Mueller (2016)
US Attorney J. Samuels TW;DF DJ:144-11-0 (2015/2016)
Unfortunately not one investigation has taken place and so the malevolent conduct continues…..
Governor Brown, Attorney General Harris, Lt Governor Newsom, Superintendent Torlakson, Congresswoman Eshoo and Congressman Honda have known about the allegations since 2012. I requested their help because CSU failed to comply with our laws, violated their own rules, their own policies, and even their executive orders 927, 928, 929, 1045, 1058, and 1063. As more evidence showed that other students/teachers/healthcare providers were being harassed, intimidated, discriminated and retaliated against when disclosing abusive and illegal conduct, and when more hate crimes and suicides were reported requested the additional help of Senator Hill, Assembly Member Gordon, Congresswoman Lofgren, the Oversight Committee, then included our Board of Supervisors, Senator Feinstein, Senator Boxer, Senator Beall, Congresswoman Speier….
Kathleen Carrol and Daryl White are among us, responsible constituents who have reported the abusive and illegal conduct that are a threat to public safety. Many of us are being silenced by high litigation costs, lack of media reporting, and further retaliation.
Kathleen Carroll won her lawsuit against CTC last August. Parents should watch these you-tubes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLz13AlBQhk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ux7F71oUo0
https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2016/08/02/18789754.php
John Adkisson and Dorothy Korber warned the Senate Rules Committee that the Governor might give immunity to public entities and public employees and obviously that has been the case:
http://sooo.senate.ca.gov/sites/sooo.senate.ca.gov/files/fair%20employment%20and%20housing%20final.pdf (99 pages).
The Office of Civil Rights and the Department of Equal employment and Housing immediately dismiss our allegations and when we appeal our case, they either have changed the rules and/or tell us to fight this in court; however, nobody can afford the high litigation costs against our deep pocket public entities.
why did Senator De Leon close the Oversight Committee?
California not only has a broken education system, a broken healthcare system, a broken justice system, a backlog at the Fair Political Practices Committee and a backlog at the Judicial Review Board, but California has a huge debt (www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html )and California failed to repay its federal loans (http://www.keglerbrown.com/publications/employers-in-eight-states-hit-with-futa-tax-increases/
Hmmmm . . . I believe, although I could be wrong, that the case referred to in the NYT was one in which the accused rapist was allowed to continue at Stanford even though several rape accusations were lodged against him. I find that totally reprehensible. He should have been suspended and told to leave campus until the charges were either substantiated or dismissed. Stanford should have a “no rape” policy in place. And to fire a lawyer who expressed reservations about the slant of the lawyers on Stanford’s “approved” list.
Stanford should immediately provide documentation that the lawyers on that list have experience with such cases and rape victims and are completely impartial. Until then, in my book the University is suspect. Is it or is it not biased in its handling of sexual assault cases? If it is biased or appears to be, the handling of such cases should be taken out of its hands and taken over by local law enforcement.
Fewer and fewer parents of young women are allowing them to even APPLY to Stanford any longer, for the very reasons above!
This is nuts, Stanford. If she were representing accused students as well as accusers, it would make sense. If she’s only representing accusers, it really looks like retaliation.
Grandma, accused students have rights, and we know there are some sick people who make false accusations. Banning a person from campus based on an unsupported allegation gives the messed up people of this world an awful lot of power. Do we do that for other crimes?
I’m no great friend of Stanford, but this article ill-characterized Riggins’ comments to the NYTimes in a way that treats the university most unfairly. In addition to the anodyne descriptions of the process as “complex” and difficult for “traumatized” accusers, Riggins’ NYTimes comments implicitly accused Stanford of failing in its responsibilities:
“It is frustrating because universities should be getting this right, and they are not,” Riggins said to the Times, “and the idea that they can keep pushing this under the rug doesn’t make the campus any safer, as we keep seeing as these incidents come to light.” That’s a harsh accusation of Stanford for unfairly rigging the process while also hinting at some vague cover up. How can Riggins argue her comments don’t imply a lack of confidence in the process?
Of course, there’s a crude logic to participating in a contest, while simultaneously insisting it’s rigged against you. It worked beautifully for Donald Trump.
I can only wish more voters had reacted with the discernment and resolve Stanford showed in removing Riggins, who was after all retained to represent possible assault victims. She can’t be expected to do that if she believes the process is rigged against her and the university sitting in judgment just wishes the entire subject would just go away.
No way to go– this is not the first thread that you have made the comment about parents not allowing their daughters to apply to Stanford. I would ask you how you know this. Are you with the Stanford admission department? Have you conducted a country wide survey of women applying for college? Just curious how you are able to make such a statement.
I should think anyone who has a near college-age daughter and speaks to other parents with near college-age daughters would be discussing which colleges have the most violent attacks on young women–as well as which colleges do not prosecute offenders appropriately.
Not to mention that the last two years this subject has appeared in the WSJ, Washington Post, NYT, etc.
Stanford and PAUSD high schools have been held up as examples of how NOT to handle crises that arise!
Following is Stanford’s response posted at their site:
http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/13/qa-lauren-schoenthaler-clarifies-recent-questions-title-ix-process/
Did Stanford not renew one of these attorneys because she criticized the process publicly?
No. She was not invited to continue as one of the referral attorneys in the pilot process, because of her fatalistic attitude that she could not get good results for her clients in the process, which is not fair to our students. Additionally, there were other concerns about her work that have been expressed privately to the attorney, and are unrelated to her comments to the New York Times. The decision not to invite the attorney to participate in the second year of the pilot was taken after consultation, including with personnel outside of my organization whose regular responsibilities involve supporting complainants and survivors. To the extent that email excerpts provided to the New York Times suggest that the decision involved anything other than complainants’ best interests, that is a function of my less-than-artful drafting of the email.
I apologize to the Stanford community for leaving the impression that we are not open to criticism of our process. We can only make improvements through critical review and robust discussion. In fact, the group of referring attorneys was asked to and are continuing to provide feedback on how to improve the process.
We have two college-age daughters and one near college-age. I subscribe to the Times, Post, and WSJ so I have read the articles to which another commenter alludes above (including the scurrilous ones about UVa based on the Rolling Stone article). Which colleges have the most attacks on women and the nature of the various colleges’ responses to allegations of assault are not even on the radar as factors for our daughters in their choice of a college or university. Indeed, the latter aspect (how colleges respond to allegations) is of greater concern with respect to our sons’ respective choices. Guilty until proven innocent is un-American and leads to poor results, as well.
It is amazing how quickly people react to condemn Stanford even though they don’t even have all the facts!
I have relatives who have researched the facts on Stanford, Duke, U of Michigan, Berkeley and more.
They don’t want their daughters OR their sons to go to Stanford OR Berkeley!
My brother has absolutely FORBIDEN his daughter to apply to either Stanford or Berkeley for law school due to the unsafe circumstances.
He has also forbidden his son to apply to either of those schools as an undergraduate, simply due to the culture of those schools– coupled with the fact that the boy wants to join a fraternity.
My husband’s sister has forbidden her son to go to Duke, U of Virginia, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, or Stanford for the simple fact of their toxic cultures and misogyny that she doesn’t want him to pick up!
My cousin who teaches at Tokyo University, has forbidden his daughters to go to any college in Japan, including the one he teaches at. The only school in California he will allow them to apply to is Pepperdine, a Catholic university! He has given them the choices of U of Michigan, Tufts, Johns Hopkins, Boston U, Northwestern, Yale, or Princeton. He has researched this for the last two years, so Stanford is near the top of schools he is steering clear of– along with most schools in the Midwest or South. Texas is off-limits as well.
I have a grown son, who went to Boulder, CO– we did not approve of most schools in CA. If I had a daughter, I doubt that Zoe would allow Stanford or any other school in CA for her, either!
Hate to mention this but there may be some less than objective decisions on these matters if the student is the child of a former student/ parent that has donated to the university. Or the parent is a well known person who cannot afford any negative publicity and then donates to the university. There may be many layers here in the decision making. The previous situation of rape was a national event which they may not want to duplicate at this time. Always – “Follow the Money”.
@Donata,
I was at CU-Boulder during the 2000s when there was a major sexual assault case involving members of the football team. It went on for years, and the case was not resolved by the time I left. It was sad in that the female accuser’s father died before the case was resolved, if it was ever resolved adequately (I did not follow up with the story after leaving the school). I thought I would add this, not to taint CU, but to underscore that CU (or any school) might not be as safe as we would like to believe.
That said, I do think CU has tried to become more responsive and accountable in recent years, possibly as a result of the well-publicized sexual assault case there in the previous decade. Colorado has seemed to want to develop a more accurate survey of students in order to get a clearer picture of sexual assault and related issues. From what I remember reading, the university was able to devise an approach that enabled many students–perhaps more than at most universities–to respond. I think the university also refused federal funding in order to distribute a self-designed survey that would yield more information than the one(s) federally issued or outlined. Colorado’s sexual-assault study team seemed to recognize that they might be alarmed by what they would find out, but they didn’t let that stop them from reaching for answers and even some ugly truths. It would be great if more universities took the same approach.
Local newspaper story about Colorado’s student survey:
http://www.dailycamera.com/cu-news/ci_29496997/university-colorado-sexual-misconduct-survey