with the united states and the fact of, you know, turkey opening injured there after and probably persuaded them that that indeed was what this was all about. and i think the pkk is on the one hand saying to the turkish government, if you continue to try to undermine us, this is what we'll do. and on the other hand, it's also saying that if you continue to undermine the kurdish movement inside turkey, if you continue to try to marginalize the hdp -- that's sort of where we disagree -- i'm going to make turkey ungovernable for you. this is sort of a way of saying, if you're going to play hardball with me, i'm going to play hardball with you. and very few of us actually predicted this, because we all seemed to believe that when the pkk was bogged down in this fight against the islamic state it could hardly afford to open up a second front against turkey, but in a very eironic twist in a certain sense, it's america that enabled it to do so, because america rode to the rescue with its air support, which, of course, took a lot of pressure on the pkk on the ground and making it easier for them to do what they're doing today. >> i think when we talk about tactics of pkk we have to keep in mind that splintering strategy. which pkk or whether it's the pkk. essentially, when as buy john was captured in 1999, they said never will they capture or kill us. that's why we have to splinter into multiple nodes of decision making. there's a certain degree of autonomy in local assets as well. so, as a result of this, it's beneficial in the sense that when you want to completely, you know, play hardball in the sense that you have to create chaos that nobody can manage it, it works really well. but on the other hand, when you are trying to control that chaos, as pkk itself, it's also very difficult, which became very obvious in two pipeline attacks recently. when the, you know, one local branch basically said that we did this pipeline attack, but then hdp said we have no connection to the attack. we don't know who did it. and then several days later they all agreed that oh, okay then, we did it kind of. so that splintering strategy has pluses and minuses as well. plus when you want to create chaos, perfect environment. when you try to control these assets, it's impossible. so killing police. one thing, it's very easy to do so. especially when you're running an asymmetrical conflict and when you're trying to gain the upper hand in the psychological aspect of war. when there's a car crash, you call the police. you know, there's a car crash. the police comes. you ambush them and kill them. it's very easy to do so. the same thing is true for health services, firefighters, that kind of state services as well. but what happened in last week's is that, you know, the leadership started to publish directives to those local commands that do not of target police men that are actually off duty with their families. so that's one way of trying to bring the battle into a manageable phase. but once organizations start to splinter, you can't unsplinter them. because that autonomy's a very sweet thing. you have that operational autonomy, this operational free hand. it would be very difficult for the centralized leadership to manage it all together again. so i think police killings is part of this splintering strategy. and i don't think it's going to go away in short term. >> may i just add something? let's not forget what happened in october of last year when you had, after, during the kobani riots, we could call them that. and it was down to erdogan to sort of stop that. and these youth movements, and i've talked about when they were learning their trenches, they say they will only answer to erdogan, so, in a sense, this may also be part of this pkk strategy of making erdogan relevant once again, because they need to pull him out to stop it. so that might be part of the strategy, the pkk strategy of getting erdogan back into the picture by activating the youth movement that says it's only answerable to him. that's just a guess. >> yes, sir? >> thank you. jim holmes, retired foreign service officer, retired president of american turkish counsel. amberin opened something that i think is important. as akin was describing at the beginning, there were differences between the 1990s and the 2000s. one of the differences which you did not elaborate on was provide comfort and security which u.s. and other coalition of course has provided for the kurds in northern iraq in the 1990s. in the absence of that, in the case of syria, indeed, it wasn't 2 million, it wasn't 3 million it wasn't 4 million in refugees that created interest in america. it was isis that did it. now we're reaping the consequences of that. amberin spoke about the possibility of the u.s. using its lerm now effectively with respect to turkey. i wonder, what are the dimensions of an effective u.s. policy that respects the situation as it now exists. but in that region with respect to refugees, with respect to daesh. what are the strategies of that concept? >> i'll leave the great middle east expert to answer that one. >> jim, shall we sit here for a few days? >> look -- [ inaudible question ] >> oh, a change in the american policy? [ inaudible question ] >> i, look, the american policy is very clear. there's not going to be an american military involvement in syria. however, having said this, again, looking at the tv so to say, the united states managed to get the turks to open up three bases. all right, three bases means it's n it's much closer to raqqah. i suspect the white house must be planning something much mo more robust militarily, without ground troops. maybe special forces, i don't know. but certainly, you don't ask to open three bases just to send three f-16s as we did. i think we are slowly repositioning stuff for more muscular policy towards isis. again, for us, the focus is isis. there is no other concern. and whoever helps us on isis we will partner with. it happens to be that the ypg, pyd are the most of imposing force working with isis. and we will help them provided this kerfuffle doesn't get in the way. but i suspect the administration is probably thinking a little bit bigger in terms of military involvement bringing more iraqi troops up. maybe this thing about organizing some of the syrian business men, but that's limbs to which the united states will go. it is also part of the deal with turkey in opening the bases is also sealing the border. that also is very important. and already we are seeing reports that isis is having trouble bringing people across the turkish, turkish border. that the border is becoming a little bit more difficult to cross. so that's, i think, is the extent of the american involvement for the future. they're going to bring in much more air assets and more drones, more wherewithal. and not just american, but probably british and french as well. but that's it. that's my, what i, i can see u.s. doing. >> thank you very much. chp representative here in united states. briefly comment and i question, just about the presidential debate in turkey. for our party, we've commissioned more than a dozen polls between december of last year and may of this year. and even less than half of the akp voters are convinced that presidential system in turkey is a good idea. so i think even if no matter what the outcome of this election may be, i still think it's a newspaper-issue for most of the turks in turkey. so this one quick observation that i want to share. and my question is about the pyd policy or u.s. policy towards pyd. we know that they do get all their support from the u.s., but why the decision to grant the visa. >> you should ask this to the white house. i don't, i don't know. united states sometimes works in very mysterious ways. i mean, for a super power, they cannot decide or cannot give a visa to a man because we may offend the turks, that's the only reason i can think of. there is no other reason. i mean, we talked to him. >> but so do the turks. >> and so do the turks. but for some reason, i have no idea. please, if you find out, if your white house tells you, please tell me, because i want to know. and mind you, i said the white house, not the state department. >> i'm from maryland. i have a follow-up question regarding the potential operations on isis and whether the election results could potentially change turkey's position on whom to support on the ground because turkey so far couldn't come up with a strong alternative constantly pushed toward the partners. >> what's the question? >> what could possibly change after the election regarding, let's say erdogan has all the words he needs of are we going to see a change on whom to support as the partners on the ground considering and issuing that there will be increased number of air operations on isis. >> it's an interesting question, because if he feels confident, he might then pick up the peace process again. and, of course, we know that mr. erdogan is an incredibly flexible person. he may indeed, you know, decide that the hdp needs to support the kinds of constitutional changes that mr. erdogan is seeking. so, with that in turn mean that turkey starts partnering with ypg and that it finally decides that yes indeed, isis is really a threat to itself probably more than anyone else since we have a 900-kilometer long border with syria, that part i don't know, to be honest with you, whether what happens inside syria, whether the peace process will be pecked up again, whether it will be reflected with the ypg, but if not, that process is going absolutely nowhere that we can safely predict. >> i would say that the danger for this policy change would occur if the election results are an exact duplicate of what happened in june. in order, -- in other words, i he loses again that he might not retaliate but change policy maybe to punish. one of the thing that's a little bit disturbing, very disturbing, i should say. when you look at the erdogan press at the moment, the press is sympathetic. it is amazingly, at the moment, antiwestern and making a connection between the pkk and the west. this constant barrage of, my friend just wrote me this morning r morning and said she watched a documentary on television about how germany is providing arms and training to the turkish army. that's what they keep saying that all the equipment that the pkk has is using against turkish troops now all came from the united states. that the united states has trained them to put ieds. i mean, this kind of atmosphere is not necessarily conducive to, a, today decision making, because i'm sure a lot of people around mr. erdogan may believe this nonsense, and second, you know, in the event that he's defeated again, it may be, this may be a place where he can change. but maybe not. i mean, look, it's too speculative of a question. >> may i just add something? i think we're all focussing a lot on mr. erdogan, and we're sort of not looking closely enough at the army and the police in turkey. and i think that there is in a very sort of odd kind of way, some sympathy for i.s. to the extent that it seems that the only force capable of dealing with the pkk, and i've heard this from people who are very close to these security force members. the fact that they hear people within the security forces saying well, good for i. srnlts. good for them. they are going after these guys. they seem to be the only ones who are capable of teaching these kurds a lesson, and i find that extremely worrying, and it's something that you can divide to some extent if you look at twitter, if you look at some of the followers of some of these i. srnlts sympathizers. to me it was quite a shock that they were of people whose profile pictures who had the gray wall, ultra nationalist types who somehow connected. perhaps it's, i guess, similar case of these old brothers in iraq who had this alliance with people, with al qaeda, because they have the same enemy, and i think that's a phenomenon that people like akin should be scrutinizing more carefully. and now you hear reports, and, indeed, you see it on youtube, of security personnel who, in the old days, they'd have the droopy gray wolf mustache and now have the isis beard and no mustache. and that's kind of really scary. and, as i said, needs to be examined more closely. >> yes, sir. >> art amules. if i'm wrong, please correct me. you mentioned about army position, and you said there's no monolithic leadership. what do you mean by that? >> no monolithic leadership of the pkk. no, i didn't say that. no. i said there's no monolithic leadership of the pkk. pkk used to have a very clear-cut leadership where erdogan was the leader, and the leadership pyramid then spilled over through erdogan. right now there's no monolithic leadership in the pkk as it is splintered. i didn't say that for the army. >> thank you very much. i'm from the turkish embassy. i have a few comments and a question. my first comment is actually just i think need to underline a fact here which is not touched upon very muchle . and this is how the turkish government is eager to fight against daesh, isis. and against terrorism in general and also isis. i would just, the point that isis, some people can say good for isis for going after pkk, but this is not a government policy. that's for sure. i need to underline this. and one fact is the peace process was started by the government and also its counterpart, the kurdish part. but one point is we shouldn't forget, i mean, this peace process was stopped by pkk itself. so it was not the turkish government's place to say, okay, let's stop this. it's over. we're finished. but it was pkk who announced, which announced it. and if you think about kobani, there is a general perception that turkey has not supported kobani. but also, i need to put one fact about this as well. turkey, i mean, which was not mentioned here maybe. most of us knew this. turkey has helped peshmerga forces through its supporters and to go to kobani and fight against isis. and there are other helps that, assistance that turkey gives, especially to peshmerga training and et cetera. so fighting isis is a priority. it's very important. my question is, is a general one. i just, there are some clues that i heard, but maybe if the panelists can comment on it. why do we think the pkk has chose to, opted for stopping this peace process and violent, starting a violent acts, because it started just after surge by pkk. thank you very much. >> i think i kind of elaborated on that at some length. i explained to you what i thought was the pk k's vantage point, but i really don't have much to add to that. >> okay. let me just, one important issue that you brought up. the fact that the turkish government allowed the peshmerga to cross from northern iraq into kobani, you have to, you have to remember that that came much, much later. it's after united states dropped supplies, after united states started bombing. it was essentially an effort that show both, to repair, if you want, a very significant problem that the government had created for itself in turkey. it was an attempt to show that yes, we're not against the kurds here. we're going to use the peshmerga to help. but by the time the peshmerga came, the fight had already been stabilized, mostly by the united states air force. and look, let me also remind you that mr. erdogan was absolutely livid about american bombing of kobani to support, to support the pyd, because if you remember, he said, he came out and said something like what's in kobani? oil? gold? diamonds? and, in a way, as if, first of all, the unit would only intervene if there was gold or diamonds. in a way, it was a very demeaning attack on u.s. intentions and u.s. strategy in that particular case. and then anybody you talk to at the time will tell you in turkey, and maybe you know, too, that kobani was not a place that turkey wanted to defend. it came, it allowed the peshmerga to come after both world opinion and kurdish opinion, especially in turkey changed. look, kobani was a main breaking point for turkish kurds, respective of what happened with the person ga, you know, the peshmerga was a way to signal to those kurds who i said earlier who eventually defected from the akp to stabilize that constituency, and it didn't work. and as far as why the pkk started it, look, i think, what amberin said, i think the pkk probably decided when kobani that the turks were not serious about, it's not just kobani, it's also during the election process. if you remember, during the election pro set, i'm talking about the june 7th, in the period, coming to the june 7th election, both mr. erdogan and the akp press went wild in terms of accusations against hdp. it was a campaign against hdp because they understood very correctly that hdp was the single most important threat to akp getting its place in parliament. so you have essentially a government wabling war on hdp while at the same time engaging in peace process. that contradiction is one of the reasons why i think the pkk decided there was no hope. >> but even before that, as you know, the government was building these army calico, fort, what would you call them in english? yeah, posts throughout the south east. and also building these dams which were cutting off, well, i mean, i'm not saying that's why the government was building dams, but as the pkk saw it, cutting off their routes and their sort of supply, logistical routes inside turkey, and the pkk was very unhappy about this and was making a lot of noise about that. as you remember, you had those protests, rather deadly ones in legeh and some people died. and so it didn't just happen overnight. there was a lot of mutual distrust and the government for its part would argue that even while they were discussing peace, the pkk was busy stockpiling weapons within turkey. so obviously a lot of distrust between the sides. that's obviously a big problem, the lack of trust, which i think begs the question of why you don't have a third party as you did in oslo. sort of a monitor the peace process. >> we're running out of time. do we have time for one last question? i think i'm going to take my prerogative and ask the last question myself. and since we only have five minutes, i'm going to pose it to all three of you and ask you to be relatively brief with the answers. i have a rather big picture with where turkey is heading. and there are two conflicting narratives about the june election, one is that the akp lost its majority for the first time. erdogan did not get what he wanted from the election, the other is that the opposition party won 7 million plus more votes. they saw their percentage die crease. which of the narratives is the more persuasive explanation of where turkey is heading? i mean, is there an opposition movement forming that could be the next governing party? or does it look like it's the next indispensable party for years to come? start with you. >> that's actually the topic of my next article. i'm writing something on party dynamics in turkey. it's a very long debate, so i'll just cut it short. but practically, when you look at turkish politics in crisis period such as during cold war, '60s, '70s, or 1990s, kurdish question, every crisis period election that produces a coalition option, the coalition government, in that setting, whichever party is the third becomes the first party in the next election. this is almost like a 100% uninterrupted pattern that i've discovered. it's quite interesting. like, whichever third party becomes first party, the other election third party becomes first party. it's a really interesting dynamic. i have a whole set of theories to explain it, but i'm going to spare you from that. but, then, how does, what does that tell us? it tells us that one thing that we have two third parties. one is more like coalition-oriented party. hdp is more ideology cal party. i think the big picture here is the main poority polarities are established. you have one turkish national party, one political movement party. and which i think if the proper political process continues, it's going to become the blueprint for turkish elections for years to come. that's my answer to it. >> thank you. >> i think that if you look at turkey, traditionally, you've always had a single party rule that's managed to push through reform in turkey, right? and that single party rule has traditionally always been held by a center-right party. and until the president, that was the up party. when you look at the democrat ickes of turkey, any party that wants to rule alone needs the kurdish vote. that's the reality. so given that the akp or mr. erdogan has totally alienated the kurds, how do you move forward? can you move forward with the coalition? even if it's say the chp? i'm afraid i have to say that i'm somewhat doubtful, and i think that what really immediates to happen is for the akp to somehow shake off mr. erdogan, put him back in his box and then only then can we move forward. hopefully i'll be proven wrong. >> look, the problem in turkey is that the people's party has made significant changes of late, but somehow has yet to figure out the way to connect with the bulk of the population. in turkey, the center left has always been very weak. historically. it's not just this, this rendition. so the center left has to figure out a new message, a new organization, but that will take a very, very long time. i think before that even happens, i actually think there's another likelihood that we haven't talked about, and that is that the akp may splinter. now we are seeing a great deal of opposition within the akp. they're still for the former president who is maybe moving in the direction of a new party or something new. so it's quite conceivable that especially if the next elections produce the same results as they did in june that you will see new organization and defactioning. he is essentially sucking up all the oxygen from the party. and that's the most likely outcome. >> well, greg, thank you. i think we're out of time at this point. but i really want to thank all of our panelists for terrific presentations and join me in giving them a round of applause. [ applause ] pope francis is headed to the u.s. part of a multi-day visit. c-span has live coverage beginning tuesday with the pope's arrival at joint base andrews where he'll be greeted by president obama and the first lady. then on wednesday we're live at the white house for an official welcoming ceremony followed later that day by a mass held at the basilica of the immaculate conception. and on thursday, the pontiff addresses a joint meeting of congress before heading to new york and philadelphia for other scheduled events. all that live on c-span and available online at c-span.org. all persons having business before the honorable, the supreme court of the united states are admonished to draw near and give their attention. >> number 759, earnest miranda, the petitioner, versus arizona. >> arguemans number 18, roe against wade. >> dred and harriet were here on land where slavery wasn't legally recognized. >> it would take presidential orders and the presence of federal troops and marshals and the courage of children. >> we wanted to pick cases that changed the direction and import of the court in society and that also changed society. ♪ >> so, she told them that they'd have to have a search warrant, and mrs. mapp demanded to see the paper and to read and see what it was, which they refused to do, so she grabbed it out of his hand to look at it, and thereafter the police officer handcuffed her. >> i can't imagine a better way to bring the constitution to life than by tilling the human stories behind great supreme court cases. >> fred komatsu boldly opposed the forced internment of japanese americans during world war ii. after being convicted for failing to report for relocation, mr. coe matt sue took his case all the way to the supreme court. >> they were cases that the court took that were quite unpopular. >> if you had to pick one freedom that was the most sanction to the functioning of a democracy, it has to be freedom of speech. >> let's go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who have helped stick together because they believe in a rule of law. ♪ >> landmark cases, an exploration of 12 historic cases. produced by c-span, debuting monday october 5th at 9:00. and, as a companion to our new series, landmark cases the book. it features the 12 cases we've selected for the series, with a brief introduction into the back ground, highlights and impact of each case, written by vet yan supreme court journalist tony morrow in coordination with quarterly press. it is available for $8.95 plus shipping and handling. get your copy at c-span.org/landmark cases. next, the house sub committee hearing on campus sexual assaults. they a one of the topics discussed on whether cases should be handled by the university or outside law enforcement in the criminal justice system. this is about two hours and 15 minutes. >> gun of the -- one of >> good morning, everyone. the subcommittee on higher education workforce will come to order. i welcome everyone today's committee hearing we are in a different location and we are a little tighter in here today than we normally would be and ask everybody's indulgence as the renovation work goes on in the committee room. we'll all be friendlier and kinder to each other today and closer to each other. i'd like to thank our witnesses for joining us for an issue that affects far too many student, campus sexual assault. earlier this week as millions of students stepped foot on campus, members of congress returned from their districts to continue their work strengthening america's higher education system. as we all know, that effort often requires difficult but necessary conversations about tough issues, which is why we're here today. every college student should be able to learn an environment that's safe and free from fear and intimidation. yet for some students, that is not the case. according to one study approximately 1 in 5 women in college has been sexually assaulted. several universities including michigan and m.i.t. report similar findings and a number of recent high profile cases further highlight the scope and seriousness of this important issue. as a former community college president, mother, grandmother, i know i'm not alone when i say all of us have a responsibility to protect students from sexual assault on campus. as one university president claimed, the issue of sexual assault keeps me awake at night. i feel personally responsible for the safety and well-being of all students. another said i see the issue of sexual violence and sexual assault on colleges and universities as a matter of national importance. students, parents, administrators and policymakers across the country share the same sentiment and have joined a a national conversation about these heinous crimes and how we can better protect students. at the college and university level, efforts to protect and respond sexual assault are under way. for instance, some colleges and universities now require students to participate in seminars to help them understand what sexual assault is and how to prevent and report it. at the university of north carolina chapel hill, for example, the seminars reenforce safe campus culture and explain policies and procedures for responding to reports of sexual violence. institutions are also improving how they support victims of sexual assault, providing resources and counselling services to help students recover from such a terrible event. complete their education and continue with their lives. just as important administrators are working to put in place a fair resolution process that respects the rights of the victim and the accused. at the national level, the federal government has been working with colleges and universities to prevent and respond to sexual assault for decades. recently members of congress have introduced legislative proposals intended to improve protections for college students. additionally, new policies, institutions must follow. colleges and universities have rightly raised concerns about the administration's one-size-fits-all regulatory approach. the administration has further complicated a maize of legal requirements added to the confusion facing students, administrators and faculty and made it harder for constitutions to guarantee safety. as dr. rue will explain during her testimony, the patchwork of federal and state policies has impeded the efforts of administrators and educators to prevent and respond effectively to sexual assault on their campus. as congress works to strengthen higher education, it must insure tough responsible policies are in place to fight these crimes and support the victims. i'm pleased we have a panel of witnesses to represent all sides of this difficult, yet important discussion. your observations and recommendations are vital to our efforts to help colleges and universities provide students the safe learning environment they deserve. with that, i now recognize the ranking member for his opening remarks. >> thank you, chairman fox. i join you in welcoming our distinguished panel of witnesses. the subject of this hearing is extremely sensitive. as ranking member of this subcommittee, i believe that we must raise the level of awareness in our communities and throughout our nation about the seriousness of campus sexual assault and its impact on our victims. both women and men and their families. these impacts are far reaching and include poor academic performance, stress, depression and abuse of alcohol and drugs. in addition to supporting the victim, we must also be sensitive to the rights of the accused. institutions of higher education must have processes that ensure fairness in handling the allegations of campus assaults and that campus investigations are consistent with our nation's long standing principles of due process. whatever system is put in place, we must ensure victims are not afraid to come forward. many victims are reluctant to report sexual assaults because of shame or fear of retaliation or worried about lack of proof, uncertainty that what happened constitutes assault or because the lack of information on where or how to report the assault in fear of being treated poorly by the criminal justice system. as a nation, we have made progress towards better understanding and addressing this serious challenge of campus sexual assault. for example, through the development of the task force o to protect sexual assaults, a department of justice's office of violence against women developed a multiyear initiative to provide support to programs o to prevent campus sexual assault and their recent online resource center for changing our campus culture. in the year 2007, the u.s. department of justice also funded a ground breaking study on campus sexual assault. the findings of that study were staggering. let me give you some examples. amongst women in college nearly 20% will be victims of attempted or actual sexual assault. as will about 6% of undergraduate men. most victims are violated in their first or second year at college. the majority, 75% to 80% knew their attackers, often a friend, a classmate. acquaintance or someone they dated. the study also confirmed that the risk of campus sexual assault for undergraduate women increases greatly with the consumption of alcohol and/or drugs. it's clear our concerted efforts are needed to deal with these serious issues. in addition to these federal efforts, i am proud to report that my own home state of texas is responding to calls of action. starting this year, colleges and universities are required to inform students of campus sexual assault policies during freshman orientation. schools are also required to review and update those policies every two years. students returning to class at the university of texas campuses this fall will also be participating in the nation's most comprehensive study on sexual assaults ever conducted in higher education. the cultivating learning and safe environments case study will be led by researchers at ut austin school of social work and will include online questionnaires for students, surveys and focus groups of faculty, staff and campus law enforcement and a four-year cohort study of entering fresh men to identify the psychological and economic impact of sexual vie loan. the ut system is spending $1.75 million on this study. so i applaud ut's effort to address campus sexual assault and urge other colleges and universities throughout our country to join in the commitment to end sexual violence on their campuses. in closing, let us renew our efforts to support victims of campus sexual assault. we can't wait for yet another high profile incident to occur before we address this issue. i look forward to hearing what recommendations our panel of witnesses may have to reduce sexual assault on our college campuses and i thank you and with that, madame chair, i yield back. >> thank you. pursuant to committee rules, all members will be permitted to submit written statements to be included in the permanent hearing record. without objection, the hearing record will remain open for 14 days to allow such statements and other material referenced during the hearing to be submitted for the official hearing record. it's now my pleasure to introduce our distinguished witnesses. the general council at dickenson college in carlisle, pennsylvania. previously, she was in private practice in harrisburg, pennsylvania, where she chaired her firm's practice and represented several pennsylvania private colleges, including dickenson. ms. scaduto is an active member of the national association of college and university attorneys and a member of the legal services review panel of the national association of independent colleges and universities. dr. penny rue is vice president for campus like at wake forest in north carolina. she's responsible for the well being and safety of wake forest university students and their education outside the classroom and is nationally known for her creative leadership in strengthening campus communities. ms. lisa maatz is vice president of government relations for the association of university women here in washington, d.c. she previously spent 16 months serving concurrently as the interim director of the aauw legal defense fund. she has done similar work for the now legal defense and education fund and the older women's league. mr. joseph kohn is policy director at the foundation for individual rights and education in philadelphia, pennsylvania. he's a former staff attorney for the united states court of appeals for the third circuit and a law clerk in the field court of common pleas. immediately prior to joining fire, mr. cohn served as the interim legal director in nevada and utah. i now ask our witnesses to stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect the witnesses answered in the affirmative. you may take your seat. before i recognize you to provide your testimony, let me briefly explain our lighting system. you have five minutes to present your testimony. when you begin, the light in front of you will turn green. when one minute is left, the light will turn yellow. when your time is expired, the light will turn red. at that point, i will ask that you wrap up your remarks as best as you are able. members will each have five minutes to ask questions. now, i want to recognize ms. scaduto for her comments. >> good morning, i thank you for the opportunity to be here today. as a higher education senior administrator with a long history of involvement in the issue of sexual misconduct on our nation's campus, i'm here today because we share the committee's commitment to educating our nation's students in safe and supportive environments. american colleges and universities are happy to work in partnership with the government and others on finding solutions that will help bring about cultural change and put an end to this most serious problem. as we move forward, i want to take a few minutes to share with you some of the challenges higher education is facing in our efforts and to propose some ways in which our government and this subcommittee can further help us achieve greater success in preventing and responding to sexual violence. as i make my comments, i will use my term victim out of expediency and because it's referenced in the campus save act but without personal preference as to terminology. first, please recognize that the reports of sexual violence we receive on our campuses are not straight forward or easy to resolve. the sexual violence claims we see most frequently do not involve force or attacks by strangers but between individual who are acquainted, where one or both are intoxicated, and the primary issue is whether con extent to a sexual act was given. we're left to resolve word on word conflicts between two people whose memories may be impaired and where there are no witnesses. add to this the fact that reports may not be made for days, weeks or months following an event and i can hope you see the complexity of resolving such issues in a manner that the parties believe to be fair. while speaking of fairness, colleges and universities are committed to providing fair treatment to all of our students including not only victims, but also to those accused of sexual violence. the changes over the last four years have resulted in complexities and challenges in maintaining the necessary balance. for example, on a small campus removing an accused student from a class in order to keep the student away from an alleged victim before any determination of responsibility can be made may result in the accused student being forced out of a class where there are no other sections or being forced out of a class shortly before graduation. we're also trying to navigate the complexities of title ix regulations and guide and as well as state laws. simultaneously and without the confidence that we can do so to the satisfaction of all. employees duties to report under various standards differ what and how we're supposed to advise victims of options of moving forward when they report a sexual assault are just two examples of those complexities. additionally, the current laws and guidance do not appear to proceedings are not equipped to replace law enforcement or judicial functions. the members of our campus communities expected to meet and discharge the new standards for claims are faculty, staff and historically students, not judges nor lawyers. to support colleges and universities' efforts to improve culture around this serious issue and to help us in our efforts to hold violators accountability through processes that are fair and impartial, i recommend the following four points for your consideration. first, pause and considering legislation that adds additional requirements to those already complex network of federal and state laws, regulations and guidance until there has been an opportunity to evaluate whether the efforts to date are working. as a reminder, the regulations went into effect july 1st of this year. second, consider creating a safe harbor for higher education that does not relieve us from accountability for failures to comply, but which provides us with certain presumptions of good faith when reviewing our conduct. for example, when we are applying fact-based tests by various laws such as in deciding whether to investigate or a victim's objection, if we miss the mark but have found to acted in good faith, provide us with protection from penalties or administrative action. third, if new requirements are considered at some point in the future, ocr should follow, notice and comment requirements of the administrative procedures act. the title ix guidance put in place since 1991 was done -- since 2001, was done without notice or comment from parties outside the agency depriving colleges and universities, victims and survivors and other interested parties of the opportunity to provide input that may have been helpful in improving clarity and alignment with existing laws and regulations. i'll leave my fourth point for your reading. thank you for listening and considering my perspective as a higher education administrator. >> thank you, chairwoman foxx, ranking member and honorable committee members for the opportunity to testify about this critically important issue. the higher education community takes the problem of campus sexual assault very seriously, and we are working diligently to manage systems fair to all students. these are not new issues for us. it's been a priority for decades because of our genuine care for the health, safety and well being of our students. currently, we must address sexual compliance responsibilities under a swirl of regulations. this one size fits all creates challenges to impede our effort to prevent and respond to sexual assault. added to these challenges now are state legislatures that are enacting statutes creating a patchwork of conflicting regulations. prevention and education efforts are critical to reducing incidents of sexual violence. many campuses imply online modules allow new students to participate in prevention, orientation and beyond. online training programs educate faculty and staff to whom students might report about where to turn. according to the cdc, bystander intervention training are promising practices, but have not yet been validated through rigorous design. some more grant support is needed to conduct evaluation research in had this growing field. at wake forest, we use prepare peer educators to deliver highly interactive situational programs to put incoming students attitudes to the test and really get them to think. a highly engaging peer theater program reenforces those messages and is followed by an online curriculum that uses scenarios highly relevant to students. this program will also give us benchmark attitudes that we can use to assess the effectiveness of our programs over time. after students have time to navigate the social scene, they will participate in a program. in their residence halls on intervention training using the step up model. surveys are another growing practice. these are used to assess perception of and experience with sexual violence and these surveys are designed to provide an institution specific picture that in turn enables leaders to coordinate with the community to strengthen e prevention efforts. one survey imposed on all institutions would not accommodate the wide array of campus environments. they range from four-year residential like my own to community colleges and primarily online universities. each institution should have the awe tommy to develop the best survey. although prevention strategies are in place, sexual violence will still occur on our campuses. student affairs administrators are committed to being fair and balanced to all students engaged in the conduct process. critical to this process is the widely established practice of confidentiality for the victim and accused. one of the reasons a student will choose an on campus practice over reporting to the police. one of our most important points in trauma informed work is to allow the survivor the right to choose the path to follow in. the wake of an incident. some may want to report to the campus, some may want to report to the police or both. some may only want support. the institution really needs to respect that source. to take the decision out of the victim's hand by mandating that a report to campus automatically is turned over to police will create a chilling effect on the willingness of victims to come forward. exactly the opposite of what we want to happen. the confidentiality of our conduct processes guaranteed creates uncertainty about their fairness. we know that. most recently towards the respondent, but it's important to reiterate the processes are structured to be fair and equitable to all parties. in the recent "washington post" foundation poll, 84% of current and recent college students said they are very or somewhat confident in the school administration's ability to address complaints. we are not a court of law. ours is an educational process intended to derive at a fair outcome for all parties. at the core of this distinction is our standard of scrutiny. of the evidence. is our standard of scrutiny. of the evidence. i think i speak for most colleges and universities in saying we do not need more regulation. e we need more consultation. guidance from the department of education coming without notice often does not help us navigate these waters. i strongly believe it is important to provide opportunities for public comment and discussion where the full complexity of the issues can be explored from those who know them firsthand. in closing, i must express deep concern about the narrative from the media that colleges and universities care more about their institutions, reputation than the rights and experiences of our students.