Princeton University is committed to providing an inclusive and welcoming educational and working environment for all members of its community.  Consistent with these values and applicable law, including Title IX, the Clery Act, and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013, the University maintains a comprehensive program designed to protect members of the University community from discrimination on the basis of sex or gender, which includes sexual misconduct such as sexual harassment and sexual assault, stalking, and intimate partner violence.

 

Prevention Efforts

As part of this program, the University offers multiple education and prevention initiatives for the campus community.

Resources[1] and Reporting

In addition, the University offers many options to individuals who have experienced or witnessed an alleged incident of sex discrimination or sexual misconduct, including (a) consultation with confidential resources or other support organization and/or (b) filing an internal and/or criminal complaint. 

Investigations and Disciplinary Procedures

The University is committed to providing a prompt and impartial investigation of all alleged violations of the Sex Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct policy.  Allegations of sexual misconduct are investigated and adjudicated according to the policies set forth in section 1.3 of Rights, Rules, Responsibilities.  During the disciplinary process, both parties (complainant and respondent) have equivalent rights, including the opportunity to present evidence, to review and respond to evidence collected during an investigation, to be accompanied by an adviser of their choice, and to appeal.  The University concurrently provides both parties with written notification of the outcome of the process and any appeal.

2017-2018 Academic Year[2]

This report presents information about reports of sexual misconduct that were adjudicated under the University’s Sex Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct policy between July 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018 (“2017-2018 academic year”).[3]  While intended to be informative, this report has inherent limitations, in that the privacy of the individuals involved must be protected, which necessarily limits the detail that can be provided regarding each particular case.

During the 2017-2018 academic year, 33 cases were adjudicated through this process.[4]  There were 19 cases in which 17 respondents were found responsible for violating University policy, and 14 cases in which 13 respondents were found not responsible for violating University policy.[5]  Appeals were submitted in 15 cases; 13 cases were upheld by the appellate body, one case was overturned, and one penalty was reduced.

The data in this section[6] refer to violations of University policy for which respondents were formally found responsible following an investigation and adjudication, as described in section 1.3 of Rights, Rules, Responsibilities; they do not refer to crimes.[7]  For this and other reasons, it should not be expected that the data in this report align with the Clery data provided by the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for reported crimes.

In addition, the University recognizes that the majority of incidents of sexual misconduct are not reported to non-confidential University resources.[8]  Thus, the data contained in this report are not intended to reflect all incidents of sexual misconduct.  In addition, this report is not intended to reflect matters that were reported to the University’s Sexual Harassment/Assault Advising, Resources, and Education (SHARE) office, which is a confidential resource that offers support and advocacy services and provides information about the roles and reporting obligations of other offices at the University in order to empower individuals to make informed decisions about their options.

Undergraduate/Graduate Student Respondents

Of the 33 cases adjudicated through this process during the 2017-2018 academic year, 22 cases involved undergraduate and/or graduate student respondents.  Of these 22 cases, there were 13 cases in which 12 student respondents were found responsible for violating University policy, and nine cases in which eight student respondents were found not responsible for violating University policy; three of these nine cases were counterclaims in which the initial respondents brought charges against the initial complainants after the investigations were initiated.. 

Penalties imposed for violations of this policy are based on the particular facts and circumstances relating to the violation, including the nature of the violation, the seriousness of the violation, and the respondent’s previous disciplinary history (if any).  Penalties for students can include a dean’s warning, disciplinary probation, suspension (with or without conditions), withholding of a degree, or expulsion.  In addition to the penalty, respondents found responsible for violations are required to complete the Community Integrity Program (“CIP”).  CIP is a time-limited, individualized psychoeducational curriculum administered by a clinical psychologist.  It serves to assist individuals in exploring harmful attitudes and behaviors, with an aim to empower individuals to actively contribute to a healthier and safer campus community.

Employee (Faculty/Staff Member) Respondents

Of the 33 cases adjudicated through this process during the 2017-2018 academic year, 11 cases involved employee (faculty or staff member) respondents. There were five cases in which five employee respondents were found responsible for violating University policy, and six cases in which employee respondents were found not responsible for violating University policy. Two of these cases involved student complainants and faculty or academic professional respondents; three of the cases involved staff member complainants and staff member respondents.

Penalties, which for faculty can include an oral or written warning, probation, probation with conditions, suspension, suspension with conditions, or dismissal, and for staff members may include a letter of concern, warning letter, probation, suspension, or termination, are determined based on the seriousness of the misconduct and the respondent’s previous disciplinary history (if any).  In addition, respondents found responsible for violations are required to complete CIP.

Findings of Violation of the Sex Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct Policy

 

Non-Consensual Sexual Penetration

Non-Consensual Sexual Penetration (commonly referred to as rape) is defined as, “Any act of vaginal or anal penetration by a person’s penis, finger, other body part, or an object, or oral penetration by a penis, without consent.”

Three student or alumni respondents were found responsible for Non-Consensual Sexual Penetration:  one respondent was expelled, one respondent was suspended for two years, and one respondent (an alumnus) received a Persona Non Grata barring them from campus for five years.[9] 

Non-Consensual Sexual Contact

Non-Consensual Sexual Contact (commonly referred to as sexual assault) is defined as “Any sexual touching other than non-consensual sexual penetration without consent. Examples of non-consensual sexual contact may include: genital-genital or oral-genital contact not involving penetration; contact with breasts, buttocks, or genital area, including over clothing; removing the clothing of another person; and kissing.”

Five student respondents were found responsible for Non-Consensual Sexual Contact:  one respondent was suspended for one year; one respondent’s degree was withheld for six months; and three respondents were placed on disciplinary probation.

Sexual Harassment

Sexual Harassment is defined as, “Unwelcome verbal or physical behavior which is directed at a person based on sex, gender identity or gender expression, when these behaviors are sufficiently severe and/or pervasive to have the effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s educational experience, working conditions, or living conditions by creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment.  Examples of conduct that can constitute sexual harassment if based on an individual’s sex, gender identity or gender expression include but are not limited to:

• Unwelcome jokes or comments (e.g., sexist jokes);
• Disparaging remarks about sex, gender identity, or gender expression (e.g., negative or offensive remarks or jokes about a person’s self-presentation)
• Displaying negative or offensive posters or pictures about sex, gender, or gender expression;
• Electronic communications, such as e-mail, text messaging, and Internet use, that violate this policy.

Sexual Harassment is deemed especially serious when submission to or rejection of such conduct is made implicitly or explicitly a term or condition of instruction, employment, or participation in any University activity or benefit; or submission to or rejection of these behaviors by an individual is used as a basis for evaluation in making academic or personnel decisions.”

Two employees were found responsible for Sexual Harassment:  both respondents’ employment was terminated.[10]

Inappropriate Conduct Related to Sex, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression

Inappropriate Conduct Related to Sex, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression is defined as, “Unwelcome or inappropriate conduct that does not fall under other forms of sexual misconduct, but that is sexual and/or gender-based in nature.  Examples may include public sex acts or flashing.”

Three student respondents were found responsible for Inappropriate Conduct Related to Sex, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression:  one respondent’s degree was withheld for eighteen months, and two respondents were placed on disciplinary probation. 

Two employees were found responsible for Inappropriate Conduct Related to Sex, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression:  one respondent’s employment was terminated and one respondent was placed on probation.

Non-Sexual Misconduct Policy Violations[11]

In addition to the above cases, there were cases in which allegations were raised related to sexual misconduct and other related disciplinary violations.  As a result of such investigations, though found not responsible for violating the Sex Discrimination and Sexual Misconduct policy, one student respondent was found responsible for other disciplinary violations and was placed on disciplinary probation.  Under similar circumstances, one employee respondent was found responsible for other disciplinary violation and their employment was terminated.

Additional Information

In some cases, respondents were found responsible for multiple violations related to a single complainant, or were found responsible for violations relating to more than one complainant.  Thus, the data in this section may not align with the total number of cases adjudicated during the 2017-2018 academic year or with the data provided in the descriptions of conduct and penalties provided above. 

Number of Respondents Found Responsible for Violating University Policy:  16

Number of Cases Resulting in at Least One Violation:  19

 

Total Violations

Category	Number of Violations
Sex Discrimination	0
Non-Consensual Sexual Penetration (commonly referred to as rape)	3
Non-Consensual Sexual Contact (commonly referred to as sexual assault)	6
Sexual Exploitation	0
Sexual Harassment	3
Inappropriate Conduct Related to Sex, Gender Identity, or Gender Expression	5
Intimate Relationship Violence	0
Domestic Violence in the Context of Intimate Relationships	0
Stalking	0
Retaliation	0
Other Policy Violations	4
Total Violations	21

 

Penalties

Whenever a respondent was found responsible for violating University policy, the respondent received a disciplinary penalty.  A total of 19 complainants’ cases resulted in findings of responsibility against 17 respondents.  17 respondents received the below penalties:

 

Expulsion	1 student
2-year Suspension	1 student
1-year Suspension	1 student
Withheld Degree	2 students
Persona Non Grata	1 alum
Disciplinary Probation	6 students
Termination of Employment	4 employees
Probation	1 employee