“Imagine” Not Paying Taxes

Todd Gee – Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

Ted Cruz announced his bid for the Presidency by evoking John Lennon’s “Imagine.”[1] Among a list of policy objectives, Cruz asked his would be constituents to imagine “abolishing the IRS.”[2] The sentiment behind this refrain is understandable: Americans do not like to pay taxes. A 2013 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 56% of Americans either hate or dislike paying their taxes, as opposed to 34% who like or love paying taxes.[3] Among the reasons for disliking taxes were that taxes are complicated, inconvenient and involved too much time and paperwork.[4] While Cruz may be an outlier, calls have been made by members of both parties to simplify the tax code. If done properly, amending the tax code could encourage greater social justice by ensuring that credits and deductions are delivered to those taxpayers who need it most.

One reason why the tax code is so complicated is the presence of myriad tax deductions and credits. Tax experts often refer to these deductions and credits as tax expenditures. Congress offers tax credits and deductions as a means to influence taxpayer behavior, or to favor certain industries without giving that aid in the form of an outright subsidy. Spending through the tax code diverts over $1 trillion per year from the Treasury, which is large enough to close the federal deficit in 2014..[5],[6] In addition to contributing to deficits, spending through the tax code disproportionately favors the rich. Itemized deductions specifically favor the rich because most taxpayers do not itemize their returns. For taxpayers who do itemize, wealthiest Americans benefit more significantly because their tax rates are higher.[7]  Put simply, a taxpayer in the 35% tax bracket has more to gain by reducing their income than someone in the 15% tax bracket. While not exclusively the cause of income inequality in the United States, the current construction of the tax code provides a disproportionate benefit to those who need the least help from the government.

However, it is possible to reduce the effect tax deductions have on horizontal and vertical equity by limiting their use. President Obama’s proposed budget for the current fiscal year recommended limiting the value of deductions in proportion to taxable income.[8] The President’s proposal would limit deductions to 2% of income for higher income taxpayers and would accomplish the goals of reducing loss of revenue and encouraging greater progressivity.[9] Other proposals to reduce the negative effects of tax expenditures are raising the floor for itemized deductions, converting deductions to credits, or eliminating itemized deductions altogether. All of these proposals would serve the dual purpose of increasing the government’s tax revenues and encouraging greater vertical and horizontal equity in the tax code. For example, converting deductions to credits will eliminate the disproportionate benefit that deductions give to taxpayers facing higher marginal rates. While these policies would eliminate hidden, structural government spending it is important to recall that elimination of some tax expenditures, such as the deduction for medical expenses, could increase some taxpayers’ liability beyond their ability to pay.[10] Therefore, any proposal to eliminate or limit tax expenditures should ensure that policies that are currently favored, such as alleviating the effect of catastrophic medical expenses, continue to be accounted for.

Proposals like abolishing the IRS are unlikely to be successful and fail to address major shortcomings in the tax system, which contribute to the income inequality problem in the United States. Simplifying the tax code, to eliminate or curtail the use of tax expenditures, is one means that can be employed to ensure that the money spent through tax expenditures is divided more equally among taxpayers.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/opinion/imagine-president-ted-cruz.html?_r=0

[2] Id.

[3] http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/11/a-third-of-americans-say-they-like-doing-their-income-taxes/.

[4] Id.

[5] https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax-tips/Tax-Deductions-and-Credits/The-10-Most-Overlooked-Tax-Deductions/INF12062.html

[6] http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-in-2014-narrows-to-lowest-level-in-six-years-1413385493

[7]http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/THP_15WaysFedBudget_Prop7_rev.pdf

[8] Congressional Research Service, 12. http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43079.pdf.

[9] Id.

[10] Congressional Research Service, 15 http://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43079.pdf

#LikeABoy Shows We Still Have a Ways to Go for Gender Equality

#LikeABoy Shows We Still Have a Ways to Go for Gender Equality

Darick Holden – Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

The most recent Super Bowl went about without too much controversy.  There was the so-called “Deflate-Gate” scandal which haunted the New England Patriots in the weeks leading up to the big game.  There were also questions regarding a last minute play selection that may or may not, depending on if you ask a Seattle or New England fan, have cost the Seattle Seahawks a second consecutive Super Bowl victory. Even the miniature brawl that occurred in the waning seconds of the game that led to multiple ejections wasn’t seen as too controversial, rather it was one of the commercials, which the Super Bowl has become known for, that seemed to cause the most derisive controversy about the game.

The commercial at issue was for the Always brand of feminine hygiene products and it constituted a director asking a group of young adult men and women what it meant to “run like a girl” or “throw like a girl”.  The adult groups proceeded to respond in a stereotypical way.  The director than asked several young girls the same things and they proceeded to run in a “normal” way, and one of the little girls explaining that running like a girl means “to run as fast as I can”.  The purpose of the commercial was to question how doing something “like a girl” became an insult and to empower young girls to embrace being a girl. This commercial seemed to have the most social buzz, reaching approximately 400,000 mentions on social media [1] even making #LikeAGirl a trending a topic on Twitter.

Not everyone appreciated the women empowering message, in particular several men were not fans. Shortly after #LikeAGirl became a trending topic, #LikeABoy started popping up and became a trending topic on Twitter as well. [2] These so-called “Meninists” complained on Twitter and other social media platforms, arguing that the commercial is sexist because there is not an equal “like a boy” ad airing.  Several men took to Twitter to proclaim that the commercial is “the most insulting commercial ever and there better be a #likeaboy commercial” and even a self-proclaimed “meninist” stated that “hopefully one day us men can have equality and treated the same”.[3]

These “meninists” fail to understand what the #LikeAGirl commercial was intended to do, even though it is laid out pretty obviously in the commercial.  The commercial states that upon reaching puberty a girl’s self-esteem plummets and one such way it manifests itself is through veiled insults that seem to pervade through our society.  The commercial seeks to empower women to take back the term “like a girl” and use it as a sense of strength.  These men who were up in arms over the one ad about girls that took place during a four hour event that celebrated masculinity failed to see the obvious message the commercial was stating.  They also fail to understand the difference that “like a boy” has never been used as an insult against men the same way that “like a girl” has been used against women.

While the #LikeABoy movement shows that we still have a significant portion of our population who don’t quite get gender equality, we have made tremendous strides in the area.  The commercial was the first commercial advertising a feminine hygiene product to air during the Super Bowl, among the beer and buxom babe ads.[4]  We as a society may not be where we should be with regards to gender equality, but we are still making significant strides.

[1] Perez, Sarah, P&G’s #LikeAGirl Ad Scored The Most Social Buzz During Super Bowl, Tech Crunch (Feb. 01, 2015), http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/01/pgs-likeagirl-ad-scored-the-most-social-buzz-during-super-bowl-2015/.

[2] O’Neil, Lorena, Super Bowl: #LikeABoy Trends as ‘Meninists’ React to #LikeAGirl Ad, The Hollywood Reporter (Feb. 01, 2015), http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/super-bowl-likeaboy-trends-as-769015.

[3] Id.

[4] Philips, Victoria, #LikeAGirl Ad Heading To The Super Bowl, Refinery29 (Jan 31, 2015), http://www.refinery29.com/2015/01/81603/always-campaign-first-feminine-product-ad-super-bowl.

Half of the American Population Remains Politically Unprotected, Again

Half of the American Population Remains Politically Unprotected, Again

By: Marina Kovacevic – Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

I am political and I would help roughly half of the American population, but I have been touched by every country in the world except the U.S., Sudan, Iran and Somalia. What am I? I am the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).[i] Yes, you read it right—the U.S. has something shameful in common with only these countries.

The CEDAW is associated with campaigns against gross human rights violations like human trafficking or systematic violence against women. But the Convention is also a versatile framework for measuring equality in many arenas, including the global economy and the workplace.[ii] The US signed the CEDAW on July 17, 1980 but has not ratified it, so it has not joined the other 187 countries who have.[iii] President Carter forwarded CEDAW to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent in 1980.[iv] It remains in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.[v] The Senate has held hearings on CEDAW five times in the past 25 years but failed each time to bring the treaty to a vote on the floor.[vi]

The US would be in grave violation of CEDAW with its failure to implement and enforce equality in the legal realm. Congress embarrassingly bailed on passing the Paycheck Fairness Act that would prohibit discrimination existent in the workplace based on sex.[vii] The Supreme Court keeps diminishing women’s worth by refusing to implement anything higher than an intermediate scrutiny standard in cases of sex discrimination. Abortion laws and regulations continue to discredit the theme of Roe v. Wade, such as propositions comparable to Texas Senator John Coryn’s anti-human trafficking bill that would ban a victim restitution fund from covering the cost of abortions.[viii]

Our first world country remains amidst a phenomenon of economic power superior to that of any other country in the world but such political tug of war continues to stifle the progress that half of the nation’s population could be making to equate itself with the male population.

The adoption of CEDAW would force the US to give the rights to women that politicians simply and blatantly do not want to give. The U.S. would be held to international standards of equality for women and this is something that the American conservative politicians will not bow down to. By accepting the convention, states commit themselves to undertake a series of measures to end discrimination against women in all forms, including to incorporate the principle of equality of men and women in their legal system, abolish all discriminatory laws, and adopt appropriate ones prohibiting discrimination against women.[ix] However, the U.S. may sign CEDAW with its own reservations, including any articles of the treaty that would delve too deeply into the family structure.

But have been the reasons our politicians give us for not adopting CEDAW? Would CEDAW harm or help our society? “Conservative organizations, such as the Home School Legal Defense Association and Concerned Women for America, vehemently oppose the ratification of all human rights treaties. They insist that human rights treaties violate American sovereignty.”[x] Because American politics allows for group lobbying, sometimes the group who is the loudest will win, influencing Congress members in making a decision. Conservatives further claim that CEDAW displays feminist views that are too radical for the American society to withstand.[xi]

Congress has been notorious for partisan views, accompanied by personal ideologies and interests, both of which are bound to influence decision making. However, the fact that government representatives allow this to be their reason for rejecting CEDAW or the rights from it is troublesome because congressional representatives are in office to represent their communities, not to further their personal agendas. Whose interests should prevail? Conservative interests based on internal views or factual interests of women who face discrimination?

Why do conservative views on family and tradition continue to outweigh the need for equality that is not present in today’s American society or law? The issue is not that CEDAW would interfere too personally into family structures. The issue is that CEDAW would provide a unique, international channel of protection of women where there would be some recourse for women who experience sex discrimination beyond Supreme Court analysis.

[i] United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/CEDAWIndex.aspx.

[ii] http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6699/on_the_world_stage_u.s._falls_flat_on_womens_equality

[iii] United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/CEDAW/Pages/CEDAWIndex.aspx.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id.

[vi] Id.

[vii] http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6699/on_the_world_stage_u.s._falls_flat_on_womens_equality

[viii] http://bitchmagazine.org/post/republicans-want-to-stop-human-trafficking-victims-from-getting-abortions

[ix] United Nations Inter – Agency Network on Women and Gender Equality- http://www.un.org/womenwatch/.

[x] Lisa Baldez, U.S. Drops The Ball on Women’s Rights, CNN Opinion (Mar. 8, 2013). http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/08/opinion/baldez-womens-equality-treaty/.

[xi] Id.

Armenian Genocide: 100 Years Later

Nicole Fries – Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

This coming weekend there will be an event called “100 Years Later: ASU Armenian Genocide Conference,” a two-day academic conference to be held at the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law on Saturday, March 21 and Sunday, March 22. Conference speakers and panelists include scholars, attorneys, and community leaders from across the state, the nation, and around the world. The conference includes perspectives on Armenian, Jewish, and Native American experiences of genocide, recognition, and cultural revival.

The inaugural keynote will be given by Professor Taner Akçam (Clark University) on Saturday evening at 5 PM, and will be followed by a Networking Event at Culinary Dropout. Sunday’s program will feature four afternoon panels, starting at 1 PM, including:  “The Armenian Genocide in a Comparative Perspective,” “The Legal Framework of the Armenian Genocide,” “Armenian Futures: Reconciliation & Remediation,” and “From the Ashes: Perspectives on Post-Genocide Culture.” Sunday afternoon’s legal panel will feature ASU Professors Bodansky, Rothenberg, and Clinton, as well as UofA Professor Najwa Nabti (speaking on violence against women during genocide), and renowned trial attorney Mark Geragos. The conference will conclude with a keynote by Professor Peter Balakian (Colgate University).

The conference is generously co-sponsored by the ASU Jewish Law Students Association, the ASU Law Center for Law & Global Affairs, the ASU School of Historical, Philosophical, & Religious Studies, the ASU Melikian Center, the ASU Center for Jewish Studies, the ASU Center for the Future of War, the ASU Center for Religion & Conflict, The American Red Cross, and others.

The year 2015 marks the passage of 100 years since the systematic extermination of more than one million Armenians by the Ottoman government. To this day, despite a general consensus by scholars and historians, Turkey fails to recognize the Armenian genocide. As the loss of Armenian culture and life still reverberates, the struggle for recognition and remembrance continues. The word genocide was coined by Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin in response to the Armenian Genocide, which prompted Lemkin to fight for international laws defining and forbidding it. Since then a variety of legal work has ensued, from broad action under International Humanitarian Law to more local action, yet the Armenian people continue to face ongoing threats to their safety and security including hateful rhetoric, displacement, and the destruction of artifacts of culture and memory. As we remember the Armenian genocide, we cannot forget that its legacy and its lessons remain acutely relevant today.

The history of the Armenian Genocide is full of highs and lows. During World War One, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks, it what has been called the first genocide of the 20th century.[1] However, many have refused to recognize it’s existence as a genocide, or even a mass killing, often arguing it was an internal conflict or Turkish national security measure. [2] More recently, Amal Clooney has represented Armenia in a case before the European Court of Human Rights against a Turkish official who called the genocide an “international lie” in a public speech while in Switzerland in 2005.[3]

However, Armenian history was dealt another blow when in 2014 ISIS destroyed the Memorial Church in Der Zor, Syria.[4] Seen as the Armenian memorial equivalent of Auschwitz as a Holocaust memorial, Armenians have gathered there every year to commemorate the genocide since it was built in 1989. The Memorial church housed the remains of victims and contained a museum focused on the events of the genocide.

Both for the purpose of commemoration, but also for the important value of educating the world on largely unreported events that took place in Armenia, Turkey, and Syria during World War One, this conference welcomes discussion and learning. Conference attendance is free. To register, and for more program and speaker information, please visit http://conferences.asucollegeoflaw.com/azarmgenocide/.

[1] http://time.com/3687958/amal-clooney-turkey-armenian-genocide/

[2]  DECLARATION BY TURKISH ACADEMICIANS ON THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN PROBLEM (23 Nisan 2001, 23 April 2001)

[3] Id.

[4] http://armenianweekly.com/2014/09/21/der-zor/

The Campus SaVE Act and the Prospect of a Safer Campus

The Campus SaVE Act and the Prospect of a Safer Campus

Miguel Lozano – Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law

Introduction

“It was bad enough that I felt defeated and powerless in other ways, and then to feel defeated and powerless by a school that I just paid $40,000 to go to, [a school] that’s supposed to protect, care, and value their students.”[i]

In this statement, Margaux refers to the treatment she received after falling victim to sexual assault at Indiana University.  After investigation by the university, the perpetrator was determined to be responsible for the act and received a one – term suspension, the summer term.[ii]  Margaux was rightfully distraught and eventually dropped out of Indiana University because of the outcome of the university disciplinary proceedings and the fact that the perpetrator would be present on campus when she returned.[iii]  Sentiments such as these are afflictions that have contaminated colleges and universities throughout the country for far too long and while there is universal acknowledgement that these afflictions exist, there is not nearly enough being done to remedy this problem that has burdened young college students at an increasingly alarming rate.  These afflictions are domestic violence, dating violence and sexual assault, all involving students on and off campus at public and private institutions alike, including Arizona State University (ASU).  The alarming rates of these criminal acts have come to the forefront of American Politics in recent years and the concern drawn from such increases was culminated with the passage of the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, known as the Campus SaVE act.[iv]  This act was incorporated into the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)[v] and provides significant amendments to the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act or Clery Act.[vi]  The Campus SaVE Act addresses some of these issues and creates a wider array of protections for college students whose unfortunate experiences or sexual preferences may not have been covered by the previous provisions of the Clery Act.[vii]  Due to the increase in gender-based violence on campuses, its negative impact on students, and the rampant underreporting of such incidents by individuals and institutions throughout the country, ASU should immediately create university policies that would implement the Campus SaVE Act as a minimum standard to protect its students, but should also expand the protections far beyond those mandated by the Act.

  1. Changes to VAWA through the Campus SaVE Act

The Campus SaVE Act brought about many welcomed additions to VAWA including the addition of protected classes as well as covered crimes.  VAWA now recognizes crimes committed based on a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity as being hate crimes that must be reported along with crimes against traditionally protected classes such as race and gender.[viii]  This was a needed change as hate crimes against the LGBTQ community have been on the rise.[ix]  In 2007 such crimes were at their highest levels in five years.[x]  Additionally, VAWA now requires reporting for crimes of domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking and includes federal definitions of these offenses removing the sometimes limited coverage of some of the varying state statutes.[xi]  While forcible and non-forcible sexual offenses have been a staple of these requirements for quite some time now, these new classifications will inform institutions, their employees, and incoming and current students as to the prevalence of these violent and harmful acts.

The Campus SaVE Act also provides significant guidance on Campus Statements of Policy which are available to every potential student of any university receiving federal funds or participating in federal financial aid.  The initial piece of this section requires that statements of policy shall be developed and distributed with the purpose of informing students about any prevention programs related to dating violence, domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.[xii]  There is also significant language designed to protect potential victims.[xiii]  The procedures should include rules for preservation of evidence as well as victim’s reporting rights. [xiv]   Institutions should have clear policies regarding the disciplinary procedures that occur when a victim reports an incident of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking as well as confidentiality procedures when such reporting occurs.[xv] The final addition to the Campus SaVE Act specifically addresses the very real and prolific issues of discrimination and witness tampering.  This subsection states that any coercion or discrimination by any person working on behalf of an institution is strictly prohibited.[xvi]

  1. Institutional Best Practices and Recommendations
  2. Dissemination of Information

ASU’s first priority should focus on ensuring that the information of the Campus Security Report is in the hands of each and every student on and off campus and that it presented in its entirety and also in a student friendly format.  This pamphlet should include non-emergency and counseling numbers for victim and bystander support as well as proactive safety planning information.  The University of California Santa Cruz expands on the dissemination requirement by putting together a weekly saturation campaign that is aimed at informing any person on campus about the policies related to sexual assault on campus.[xvii]   However, just handing these security reports out is not nearly enough to assure the university that this information is widely known and that it remains widely available.  The university should require that each and every student that lives on campus keep a report in their dorm room. To verify compliance, room checks can be executed.  Currently the university places this report with the admissions materials provided to each and every incoming student, but it is not guaranteed that students or parents even open this report.   The university should require incoming students to not only attend an information session solely with the purpose of awareness of campus security policies, but also to complete a mandatory quiz on the information provided in the report.

  1. Prevention

            ASU currently has several very promising and beneficial programs in place to prevent gender-based violence on campus; however, the university has the opportunity to take further steps to alter the environment of the university to ensure that these crimes do not occur.  ASU should require attendance because students often choose not to attend as they feel the class is unnecessary, that is, until a situation arises that creates a need for the information.  Another effective method the university has not yet fully adopted is the curriculum infusion model.  Several universities, including Georgetown and Illinois State University, have taken health and wellness issues and placed them at the forefront of some of the required curriculum by bringing in guest speakers, requiring related readings, and facilitating classroom discussions about these topics.[xviii]  ASU should examine classroom curriculum to determine ways to integrate awareness information into required courses.

ASU should also be looking to empower students as bystanders of these criminal acts.  This approach has had evidence of success in providing awareness and creating a community of support in the prevention of all types of violence on campus.[xix]  The bystander approach is aimed at training students how to react as a bystander of sexual violence in order to overcome the typical predictors of a bystander’s unwillingness to act.[xx]  This type of training for employees and students is meant to completely alter the environment of the campus as well as provide additional awareness measures to inform students about the types of crimes that occur on campus and how they can identify them.[xxi]

  1. Policies

            ASU’s first priority in the creation of a new policy structure should be to integrate the newly classified gender-based crimes into the university’s Campus Security Report.  Since there are already specific programs and support systems specifically created for these newly classified crimes and the individuals who have fallen victim to them, the university should be proactive in explicitly and clearly integrating those programs into the report.  It should also be a priority of the university to provide accurate reporting in order to determine the extent of effectiveness of current and future programs.

  1. Individual Reporting and Subsequent Investigations

            The reporting procedures in place for victims of gender-based violence at ASU are sufficient to cover the newly classified crimes, but some additional steps should be taken to address the distinct aspects of these crimes.  The victim should be permitted to make decisions about the direction and pace of the investigation and proceedings after a report has been made.[xxii]  Oklahoma State University treats decisions to prosecute, adjudicate through the university, or file a civil action as separate steps, each with its own distinct decision.[xxiii]  The victim is advised of the consequences of each decision made throughout the process.[xxiv]  ASU should clearly explain this process in their Campus Security Report in order to assure students that reporting does not commit a victim to any course of action.

Although ASU currently attempts to maintain confidentiality when possible, procedures should be written more concretely to guarantee such confidentiality during an investigation until the victim provides written permission to disclose their identity in order to continue the investigation.  Victims who decide not to pursue charges or disciplinary action by the university should not be required to disclose their identity to the suspected perpetrator because of the risk of retaliation.  Also, the university should have protocols in place to assure information sharing between all campus security officials in order to refrain from subjecting the victim to the completion of multiple incident reports.[xxv]  The university wellness centers should also employ trained medical staff that can identify signs of intimate partner abuse and sexual assault. These employees should be utilized in the investigation whenever possible.

  1. Adjudication

            Adjudication is a particular area of weakness for many universities, including ASU, and was not addressed by the Campus SaVE Act, but should not be overlooked by universities as they reform their procedures to comply with the act.  The mission of university adjudication should move from education and rehabilitation to accountability.  Students should no longer have to fear the consequences of reporting a crime if the abuser is allowed to remain on campus with little positive protection for the victim.  ASU should take the lead in implementing mandatory consequences for a guilty student that should not be less than a one year suspension for any of the newly classified crimes as well as sexual assault.  Furthermore, these consequences should not be tied to criminal sentencing in any way because this will provide an avenue for results to the victim outside of pressing criminal charges.

Conclusion

            Arizona State University has an opportunity to become a leader in the movement to end gender-based violence on campus.  As it takes steps to reform its policies to adhere to the new requirements of the Campus SaVE Act, ASU should venture further to ensure that these new changes are not merely lip service, but are significant steps to combat a very real problem at colleges and universities throughout the country.  Some steps will require significant capital and support from the academic and local community while others will require mere alterations to current university policies; however, if the university is not serious about these changes, they serve as nothing more than words on a page and their apathy will become more evident as the Campus Security Reports continue to communicate increases in gender-based crimes on and off campus.  The university cannot achieve the goal of educating students if it is ineffective at making sure they are safe. Without significant change, student’s safety cannot be assured. Failure to execute a sustainable and sufficient system of protecting students from violent crimes prohibits ASU from achieving its ultimate goal – and that is the education of all students who call Arizona State University home.

[i] Sexual Assault on Campus: Margaux J. Interview Part II, PublicIntegrity.org, http://www.publicintegrity.org/2010/02/24/4360/lack-consequences-sexual-assault (last visited Nov. 2, 2013).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Kristen Lombardi, A Lack of Consequences for Sexual Assault, PublicIntegrity.org, http://www.publicintegrity.org/2010/02/24/4360/lack-consequences-sexual-assault (last visited Nov. 2, 2013).

[iv] See, e.g., Kristen Lombardi, Biden, Duncan Highlight New Federal Guidance on Campus Sex assault probe, PublicIntegrity.org, (Apr. 4, 2011, 1:52 PM), http://www.publicintegrity.org/2011/04/04/3885/biden-duncan-highlight-new-federal-guidance-campus-sex-assault-probes; KristenLombardi, Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act Headed for President’s Signature, PublicIntegrity.org, (Mar. 1 2013, 12:39 PM),  http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/03/01/12259/campus-sexual-violence-elimination-act-headed-presidents-signature.

[v] Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, PUB. L. No. 113–4, 127 Stat. 54.

[vi] Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1092(f) (2012).

[vii] Campus Sexual Violence Elimination Act, 20 U.S.C.A. § 1092(f).

[viii] 20 U.S.C.A. § 1092(f)(1)(F)(ii).

[ix] Hate Crimes Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, And Transgender Individuals, CivilRights.org, http://www.civilrights.org/publications/hatecrimes/lgbt.html (last visited Dec. 1, 2013).

[x] Id.

[xi] 20 U.S.C.A. § 1092(f)(1)(F)(iii).

[xii] 20 U.S.C.A. § 1092(f)(8)(A)(i).

[xiii] 20 U.S.C.A. § 1092(f)(8)(B)(iii).

[xiv] 20 U.S.C.A. § 1092(f)(8)(B)(iii).

[xv] 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1092(f)(8)(B)(iv), 1092(f)(8)(B)(v).

[xvi] 20 U.S.C.A. § 1092(f)(17).

[xvii] See Nati’l Inst. of Just.,  Sexual Assault on Campus: What Colleges are doing about it 12.

[xviii]See generally Sabrina White et al., Impact of Curriculum Infusion on College Students’ Drinking Behavior, 58 J. Amer. C. Health 515, 516.

[xix]See Ann L Coker et al., Evaluation of Green Dot: An Active Bystander Intervention to Reduce Sexual Assault on College Campuses 4 (2011).

[xx] Id. at 3.

[xxi] See Id.

[xxii] Nati’l Inst. of Just., supra note 17 at  13.

[xxiii] Id.

[xxiv] Id.

[xxv] Id.