Brief History of the Alternative Review Process

January 2008

The Office of Judicial Affairs extends the statute of limitations from six months to two years for all cases that would fall under the Alternative Review Process (ARP), which has not yet been implemented.

April 2010

The Office of Judicial Affairs approves the ARP as a two-year pilot program.

April 6, 2011

The Office of Civil Rights publishes the “Dear Colleague” letter requiring that universities change their procedures for cases involving sexual assault by lowering the burden of proof from beyond a reasonable doubt to a ‘preponderance of evidence’ (more likely than not). Additionally, the letter demands both parties have equal rights of appeal and the responding student’s right to face their accuser be removed.

April 12, 2011

Hennessey employs his authority as the President of the University to override the existing judicial affairs charter and ASSU Constitution, revising the ARP in accordance with the federal interpretation.

July 19, 2011

An article in the New York Post from a member of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) mocks Stanford’s definition of sexual assault and the ARP, bringing national scrutiny.

October 25, 2011

The Board of Judicial Affairs votes to extend ARP to winter quarter of 2012.

May 1, 2012

Elliot Wolf, the former president of the Duke student body, speaks at the meeting of the ASSU Undergraduate Senate, warning the representatives of the dangers of removing procedural protections from the judicial charter, particularly for procedures involving sexual assault.

May 1, 2012

After several long debates, the 13th Undergraduate Senate holds a series of straw-poll votes on different provisions of the ARP but fails to approve or deny the new ARP charter, leaving its legal status in limbo and passing the decision to approve or reject the ARP to the 14th Undergraduate Senate.

May 2, 2012

FIRE writes the Graduate Student Council, urging them to reject the ARP’s preponderance of evidence standard of proof.

May 8, 2012

The Board of Judicial Affairs votes unanimously to reinstate an assumed innocence clause into the ARP.

Summer 2012

A small working group consisting mainly of ASSU elected officials and representatives from the Office of Community Standards meets to discuss the format of student feedback sessions.

October 23 and 24, 2012

Office of Community Standards and ASSU Executive are scheduled to host two town halls designed to teach students about the ARP and gather their feedback.

  • Mona Thompson

    I’d like to point out that, while this timeline mentions a couple of times when people voiced their opinions in opposition of the ARP, a number of students have also voiced their support for the process. Specifically, I was one of at least 4 students at the May 1st, 2012 ASSU Undergraduate Senate meeting who went to the meeting specifically to discuss our support for the ARP. Yes, Elliot Wolf was there and did speak about his experiences, but there were also a lot of very different opinions in the room.