Yoaav Isaacs
Baylor University
In 2011, the Office for Civil Rights made substantial changes to the regulations governing campus sexual assault investigations. These changes were the subject of significant controversy, and in 2017 the Department of Education issued further guidance, contravening some—but not all—of the 2011 reforms. In light of this action, regulations governing campus sexual assault investigations continue to be the focus of intense debate, and their future is far from certain. Despite this sharp disagreement between supporters and opponents of the reforms, a general consensus has emerged on one key aspect: The 2011 reforms unequivocally benefited sexual assault victims and unequivocally harmed sexual assault perpetrators. In this Article, we challenge that consensus. Drawing upon insights from Bayesian epistemology, we argue that the true effects of the 2011 reforms were far from uniform. In certain situations, accusers benefitted, but in other situations, those accused of sexual assault benefitted. Although this result may seem evenly balanced, the precise distribution of benefits and harms is concerning. Specifically, our analysis reveals that the benefits were most likely to accrue to guilty defendants and lying accusers and that the harms were most likely to fall upon innocent defendants and truth-telling accusers. This outcome runs counter to the goals of any just or reasonable adjudicatory system and calls into question the efficacy of the campus sexual assault reforms. In addition, these same findings indicate that certain aspects of the 2011 reforms left in place—and in some cases accentuated—by the 2017 guidance may make it even more difficult for victims to obtain justice.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/jopp.12250
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 58,937
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

The Structure of Epistemic Probabilities.Nevin Climenhaga - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (11):3213-3242.
Inference to the Best Explanation Made Incoherent.Nevin Climenhaga - 2017 - Journal of Philosophy 114 (5):251-273.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

The Law and Ethics of Virtual Sexual Assault.John Danaher - forthcoming - In Marc Blitz & Woodrow Barfield (eds.), The Law of Virtual and Augmented Reality. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Press.
Alcoff’s Rape and Resistance : A Précis.Ann J. Cahill - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (2):289-296.
Ethics in College Sexual Assault Research.Cari B. Rosoff - 2018 - Ethics and Behavior 28 (2):91-103.
Unjust Sex Vs. Rape.Ann J. Cahill - 2016 - Hypatia 31 (4):746-761.
An Exploration of the Ethics of Collecting Forensic Evidence From Sexual Assault Survivors.Leona Bruijns - 2019 - International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 12 (1):61-76.


Added to PP index

Total views
16 ( #626,720 of 2,426,581 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
4 ( #188,330 of 2,426,581 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes