(un)silenced: Journeys through Ohio State’s Title IX process
The Investigation
“He was just so unfair to me…”
“…extremely intimidating…”
“…to undermine what I was saying…”
Maeve Walsh
John R. Oller Special Projects Editor
Sarah Szilagy
Campus Editor
Kat Kinnen reported her assault to Ohio State in June 2018 — two months after she was raped — while on a study abroad trip to Greece. She said the day she landed in the U.S., she spoke with the civil rights investigator assigned to her case: Ronnie Boyer.
After hearing the details of her assault, Boyer told her the next step would be to interview her perpetrator and any relevant witnesses. He told Kinnen the investigation should take 60 to 70 days. A few days later, Kinnen sent Boyer a slideshow of texts to and from her perpetrator and her friends the night of her assault, and she spoke with Boyer again June 18.
Then on July 13, 2018, Kinnen sent Boyer a follow-up email, asking about the status of the investigation and whether that 60 to 70-day timeline was still applicable.
“These past few months have been quite stressful,” Kinnen wrote in her email.
Boyer never responded.
“(un)silenced: Journeys through Ohio State’s Title IX process” is a four-part series about Title IX at Ohio State. It centers on the voices of students who experienced sexual violence while at the university and their journey through the Title IX process. Part two delves into the investigation phase: the interviews, the evidence, the email chains and the choices these women had to make. The Lantern also spoke with Ohio State’s Office of Institutional Equity to understand more about the official side of investigations.
Details pertaining to sexual assault, violence and harassment may be disturbing or triggering for some readers.
In order to verify these stories, The Lantern obtained official letters, emails, court documents and other records for each case. For the safety of the women, the names and major identifying features of perpetrators are not included in this series.
Resources
For those who have or know someone who has experienced sexual violence, there are resources available.
- Report an incident of sexual misconduct to Title IX here.
- Sexual Assault Response Network of Central Ohio On-Campus Advocates: 614-688-2518
- SARNCO 24/7 Helpline: 614-267-7020
- Ohio State STAR Trauma Recovery Center: 614-293-7827
Kat Kinnen returned to campus for the fall semester of 2018 — still recovering from a whirlwind of a summer that included a study abroad program in Greece and a complaint of sexual misconduct against a fraternity member at Ohio State.
Kinnen, a May Ohio State alumna, did not know when she filed her complaint the long process ahead of her. Neither did Ashley Yong, Syreeta Palackdharry, Lisa Radochonski nor Uma Subrayan — they went into the investigation process scared, traumatized and confused, and they said they left the same way.
Throughout its investigation of Title IX’s investigation process, The Lantern uncovered several disparities in the way victims and survivors were treated.
They were given, or even pushed, toward different options. They were offered different resources and promised different things. Several of the women in this story had the same investigator assigned to their case — Ronnie Boyer. Their individual experiences with him ranged from positive to frustrating to terrifying.
Boyer did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
Kat Kinnen, left, tailgates with a friend during an Ohio State football game. After she was sexually assaulted her sophomore year, Kinnen encountered a 9-month long Title IX investigation with an often unresponsive — and in Kinnen’s words — “unfair” investigator.
Courtesy of Kat Kinnen
Kat Kinnen sports a bouquet of flowers purchased from a sustainability fair she attended on Ohio State’s West Campus near the Adventure and Recreation Center. She graduated in May 2020 with a degree in history.
Courtesy of Kat Kinnen
Despite vastly different treatments and outcomes, these women told The Lantern about similar feelings of shame, exhaustion, anger and anxiety. They said they felt their cases were dragged out, not prioritized and not taken seriously. Documents obtained by The Lantern corroborate the feeling of despair the women reported — emails and questions to investigators went unanswered for weeks or even months. When investigators did respond, they reused the same phrases: “Thank you for your patience” and “There are no updates at this time,” among others.
The Lantern presented this information in an interview with Interim Title IX Coordinator Molly Peirano and university spokesperson Ben Johnson Oct. 9. At the time of the interview, Peirano was unable to answer key questions The Lantern had about the investigatory process, such as how many investigators the Office of Institutional Equity employed, and the university took more than a month to respond to requests for comment on specific cases and questions about the investigation process.
When a victim or survivor reports an incident of sexual misconduct, they have the option to pursue a formal investigation against their perpetrator, Peirano said.
To adhere to the new Title IX guidelines released by the U.S. Department of Education in May, Peirano said the Office of Institutional Equity added the option for a victim or survivor to file a formal complaint, which, when signed, signifies their desire to pursue an investigation.
If a student does ultimately file a formal complaint, the civil rights investigator assigned to their case will address what is known as a “written notice” to the victim or survivor and the respondent, Peirano said. The notice, which Peirano said was added in 2018 following the establishment of the Office of Institutional Equity, notifies all parties of the victim or survivor’s intent to pursue a formal investigation.
The intent of the investigation is to determine whether or not there is reasonable cause to charge a perpetrator with violating the Code of Student Conduct, Peirano said.
Throughout the investigation, an adviser is permitted to accompany victims and survivors to meetings with their investigator, which can include but is not limited to advocates from the Sexual Assault Response Network of Central Ohio, resident advisers and professors.
Although the Title IX office has a general timeframe for its investigation phase as recommended by the U.S. Department of Education, Peirano said the length of time an investigator takes to conduct interviews and gather information about the case may vary.
“It really does depend on the facts of each case,” Peirano said. “How many people are there to talk to, how many witnesses to interview? How much other evidence to gather? And so it is so case-by-case.”
The new Title IX guidelines — which had not been confirmed before the publication of Part 1 of (un)silenced — extend the former 60-day recommendation to 90 days. According to the university’s investigative resolution standards, within the 90-day time frame are two 10-day periods for parties to have equal opportunity to inspect and review evidence and to submit a written response to the preliminary investigative report, respectively.
Learn more about these women.
The decision
Similar to reporting a complaint of sexual misconduct, as highlighted in Part 1 of the (un)silenced series, the decision to pursue an investigation often requires significant deliberation, as a myriad of factors may either motivate or deter a victim or survivor from moving forward with an investigation.
Among the 7,443 students who participated in the 2019 Campus Climate Survey, only 18.9 percent reported being “very or extremely knowledgeable” about what happens after a complaint of sexual misconduct is reported — indicating a lack of understanding of what the investigation process entails.
The perception of fairness during an investigation may also influence whether a victim or survivor files a formal complaint.
Just more than half of students, 53.3 percent, reported feeling “very or extremely likely” that an investigation into a complaint of sexual misconduct would be conducted fairly by campus officials, according to the Campus Climate Survey.
The perception of fairness during an investigation is even lower among marginalized undergraduate students. For female students, 45.9 percent reported feeling “very or extremely likely” an investigation would be conducted fairly, as opposed to just 23.7 percent of transgender, queer and gender-nonconforming students.
Among undergraduate men, 60.4 percent reported feeling “very or extremely likely” that campus officials would conduct an investigation fairly.
The investigator
After a person discloses their assault, typically to a Title IX intake coordinator, the next point of contact is often a civil rights investigator who gathers evidence through interviews and ultimately decides if there is a reasonable cause to pursue a formal investigation.
For three of the women who spoke with The Lantern, the same person investigated their cases: Ronnie Boyer.
Kinnen was the first of the women who spoke to The Lantern to have Boyer as her investigator. On Aug. 13, 2018, one month after Kinnen asked for an update, Boyer requested a meeting with Kinnen to discuss new information that delayed the investigation. Kinnen would find out later that although Boyer interviewed her perpetrator in July, he had not interviewed any witnesses.
In an Aug. 20 meeting, Boyer told Kinnen something many students surveyed in the Campus Climate Survey said prevented them from reporting their assault in the first place: Her perpetrator filed his own Title IX complaint against her.
Kinnen said she believes Boyer found her perpetrator’s complaint credible largely due to the frustration he expressed to Kinnen over a Reddit post she published inquiring about his failure to respond to her questions — as well as potential fear of being sued by her perpetrator, she said.
The Reddit post Kinnen wrote.
Is anyone familiar with the investigation process through Title IX?
I submitted a report in early June and the investigation is still occurring.
I have reached out to 2 different people (the investigator and a coordinator) and both did not respond to my emails, I am wondering if this is expected or normal and if anyone knows anyone else I can contact for advice.
I contacted the investigator in mid July to let him know I would be in Columbus the following week if he would like to meet in person (I’m not from Columbus so all previous questioning was done entirely over the phone). He responded that it was not necessary unless I would like to, I emailed back that I didn’t think so but wanted to offer and asked if he could give a rough estimate to when the investigation would be over, which he never responded to. I also mentioned that I was asking because of the stress from having an open case. I understand that he may not be able to make such an estimate or be allowed to tell me where the investigation is, but I still found it odd that I got no response.
About a week ago I emailed a coordinator because I have safety concerns about going back to campus without it being finalized. I know there are many reasons that it is not, I was just curious about what resources I will have and how they can help ensure the person being investigated doesn’t try anything. They emailed back to tell me about the no contact directive (which I believe has already been issued) and offered to talk on the phone Monday (as in August 6th) to give more detail and discuss it further. I responded to ask if there was a good time for me to call and never got a response.
Am I wrong to be upset by the lack of communication?
“If someone else was handling the case and Ronnie wasn’t pissed at me [for posting on Reddit], I wouldn’t have been charged. ’Cause he was just so unfair to me,” Kinnen said.
Though she asked Title IX employees how her perpetrator’s complaint could have any credibility, Kinnen said the office approved it, citing a policy that anyone can file a complaint.
“I felt like it was a lot of OSU trying to cover up, because they really stood behind Ronnie for charging me, but then it was like, ‘We need to make sure this stays here because charging a sexual assault victim is not a great look,’” she said.
In addition to what Kinnen said was retaliation against her, she said Boyer made several errors during the course of the investigation. In an email to one of Kinnen’s witnesses, he addressed the witness by the wrong name — his name was Harrison, and Boyer called him “Betsy.”
Further, according to a letter Kinnen’s lawyers sent to former Title IX coordinator Kellie Brennan, Kinnen did not see notes from her first meeting with Boyer until October — more than four months after it occurred. According to Ohio State’s investigative resolution standards, investigators are required to “provide parties an equal opportunity to inspect and review any evidence obtained as part of the investigation.”
“The meeting notes were riddled with incorrect spellings of key witness names,” the letter reads. According to the letter, when Kinnen saw the notes for the first time, Boyer had already signed off indicating she reviewed them.
Ashley Yong, a graduate student in higher education and student affairs, was also assigned Boyer as an investigator for her case. She said his questioning was “relentless” and seemed as though he was attempting to invalidate her experience.
“Ronnie was asking questions in a very direct manner that was extremely intimidating and that felt like he was again trying to undermine what I was saying and to poke at the truth,” Yong said.
Listen to Ashley Yong describe how she felt Boyer was trying to undermine what she was saying.
Read the transcript
ASHLEY YONG:
There were moments where I willingly and like, consented to kissing. And there were other times where I like, turned my head away and said, ‘No.’
So Ronnie asked these questions of like, ‘Well, well, did you give consent?’
And, and I said, ‘You know, not explicitly. I didn’t say yes, I wasn’t explicitly asked.’
But then I started to like, rationalize, which is not a good thing, but it’s something that I was conditioned to do, right? And I was like, ‘You know, but I could see how he could have interpreted that as like, as this as like, me giving consent.’
And then it was just like, some back and forth and, and Ronnie, again, just a scary person, but was like, asking questions in a very direct manner that was extremely intimidating, and that felt like he was again trying to like, undermine what I was saying and to poke at the truth.
Kind of like what you see in those court cases that people are just like, the lawyers are firing off questions really quick to fluster people.
That’s how I felt by him.
Although Kinnen and Yong often felt “intimidated” by Boyer’s behavior and handling of their investigations, Syreeta Palackdharry, a fourth-year in women’s, gender and sexuality studies, said Boyer, who was also assigned to the investigation of her case, was supportive throughout the investigation and made it clear to her that every step of the process was voluntary.
She said Boyer’s background as a criminal investigator in the army made her more comfortable during her meetings with him.
“There was a clear difference in his level of trauma-informed questioning compared to the police officers that I’ve worked with,” Palackdharry said.
When her perpetrator violated his no-contact order at a Halloween party, Palackdharry said she struggled to decide whether or not to open a second Title IX investigation.
“Ultimately, I didn’t feel safe, so I reported it,” she said.
Syreeta Palackdharry sits in front of her favorite place on Ohio State’s campus: the McCorkle Aquatic Pavillion. Palackdharry dove at the pavillion in high school and now coaches diving at the facility.
Christian Harsa | Asst. Photo Editor
Because of the relationship she formed with Boyer and the assistance he provided her in her first Title IX case, Palackdharry said she requested he be assigned to investigate her second case.
When her investigation was finalized, Palackdharry said she sent Boyer a letter to thank him for treating her like a person rather than a “case number.” Soon after, Boyer responded by thanking Palackdharry for the letter and informed her he would be leaving his position as a civil rights investigator.
For Lisa Radochonski, a May Ohio State alumna, the experience with her investigator, Jad Rizk, eased her anxiety and provided reassurance throughout her Title IX investigation.
At her first meeting with Rizk Feb. 7, 2018 — nearly four months after her assault — Radochonski was unsure about whether or not she wanted to file a formal complaint. She said Rizk was “super empathetic” during the meeting and made it clear that either decision Radochonski made was valid.
“My investigator, I thought, was very professional with his job, and he was very empathetic and understanding,” Radochonski said.
Uma Subrayan, a May Ohio State alumna whose case was also investigated by Rizk, said she had a “really good” experience with the Title IX office and said the turnover rate of her meetings with Rizk and other employees, including Peirano and Brennan, were quick and efficient.
“[Rizk] just made me feel more comfortable because I know in situations like that, it’s really tense, and he gave me all my options and told me, ‘Everything is up to you, whatever you want. We will support it,’” Subrayan said.
She said from the very beginning, Rizk was transparent and straightforward about the potential length of her Title IX investigation, allowing Subrayan to mentally prepare for what she might encounter throughout her case.
“[Rizk] had told me the timeline. He said, ‘If the [perpetrator] is cooperative, it could take six months. If he’s not cooperative, it could take way longer.’ So, he was pretty upfront about both the pros and cons of filing a formal case against him,” Subrayan said.
Ultimately, Subrayan chose not to file formal charges against her perpetrator, as she said the thought of a months-long investigation was too much to handle.
Subrayan instead settled for a cease and desist order to be sent to her perpetrator, which warned him that telecommunication harassment is a misdemeanor in Ohio. If he continued to stalk and harass Subrayan, she said he could serve up to three months in jail or pay a $1,000 fine.
“I just thought to myself like, ‘I just want it to stop, and I don’t want it to go into my senior year,’” she said. “I just want peace.”
Uma Subrayan, left, poses with a friend at Buckeyethon 2019.
Courtesy of Uma Subrayan
Boyer was employed by Ohio State as a civil rights investigator from May 2017 to June 2020, when he resigned, Johnson said in an email. As of December 2019, Boyer had an annual salary of $61,981.
On Oct. 9, The Lantern emailed the university’s public records office to request “any and all emails, letters and official correspondence addressed to, pertaining to or about Ronnie Boyer in his role as a Civil Rights Investigator at Ohio State,” including but not limited to performance reviews, resignation records and complaints filed against him. At the time of publication, the university did not provide The Lantern with any requested documents nor an explanation for Boyer’s resignation.
Investigations facilitated through Ohio State
Once a civil rights investigator is assigned to the case, another decision is made during the investigation process regarding the type of resolution — formal or informal — that a Title IX case will pursue to determine how a case will be resolved.
Radochonski is among the victims and survivors whose case took the route of a formal resolution, meaning it was resolved through the university’s internal process.
From when she first reported her complaint Jan. 24, 2018, to the date of her hearing May 31, 2018, Radochonski’s Title IX case lasted a total of 128 days.
128
Number of days Radochonski’s case took
Here’s a brief timeline of her case:
Over a month-long period from Feb. 7 to March 9, 2018, Rizk sent a no-contact directive to Radochonski’s perpetrator, preventing him from speaking to her or reaching out to her, either directly or indirectly, whether in person or through social media. Rizk then interviewed Radochonski, her perpetrator and witnesses — in this case, two of Radochonski’s best friends and her boyfriend at the time.
On April 5, Rizk informed Radochonski that he found reasonable cause to charge her perpetrator with several violations of the code of Student Conduct, which included non-consensual sexual intercourse, endangering behavior and sexual harassment.
If an investigator determines that reasonable cause exists in a Title IX case, a Charge and Process form is sent to the perpetrator, who typically has a few days to either accept or deny the charges.
The Charge and Process form outlines the specific sections of the Code of Student Code that a perpetrator is charged with, as well as a section for the perpetrator to either accept or deny responsibility for the charges.
If the perpetrator chooses to not accept responsibility for the charges, the perpetrator typically can select either an administrative hearing in front of one hearing officer, or a university conduct board hearing in front of a panel of four or five faculty or staff members.
If the civil rights investigator finds reasonable cause to charge the perpetrator with conduct violations, a Charge and Process form will be sent to both the victim or survivor and perpetrator. The perpetrator can accept or deny the charges and request a hearing.
In Radochonski’s case, the Charge and Process form was emailed to her perpetrator on April 5, and he had until April 9 to respond to the charges.
Radochonski’s hearing was scheduled for April 26, 2018.
Although Radochonski said she was pleased with the initiative Rizk took to investigate her case in a timely manner, she said her perpetrator took “as long as possible” to respond to emails and required steps in the process.
“It wasn’t [Rizk] I was mad at; it was the perpetrator for literally taking 1,000 years to do everything,” Radochonski said.
Radochonski’s perpetrator, for example, missed the deadline to review his initial interview notes but was still able to make changes.
Yong, whose case was also resolved through the university, faced an even lengthier investigation process — which she said she felt was largely drawn out by her investigator. From the initial report she made to Title IX Sept. 11, 2019, to her hearing Aug. 13, 2020, Yong’s case lasted a total of 338 days.
338
Number of days Yong’s case took
Yong first connected with her civil rights investigator, Martha Phillips, Sept. 12, 2019, after originally communicating with Boyer, who told Yong he would oversee Phillip’s investigation.
“I kind of had two-ish investigators throughout my case because they were essentially trying to train her with my case,” Yong said.
Yong said at first, the process moved quickly, and by Sept. 25, Yong’s perpetrator was notified of the no-contact directive and administrative summons. Yong, at this point, was also sent the notes from her investigator regarding the details Yong disclosed about her assault.
But by Oct. 5, Yong’s mental health began to take a serious toll on her.
“I started having rape nightmares, like sexual assault-related nightmares,” she said. “That’s when I started sleeping with a knife next to my bed. Because I started to feel unsafe.”
On Oct. 30, Yong’s investigator emailed her to inform her that she had interviewed a witness involved in the case and told Yong she should expect an update on the investigation “within the next couple of weeks.”
Nearly a month later, Yong decided to break what she said was the “radio silence” from the Office of Institutional Equity and emailed her investigator Nov. 26 to request an update on her case.
Yong’s email to the Office of Institutional Equity.
From: Yong, Ashley <last.12@buckeyemail.osu.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2019 9:47 AM
To: Phillips, Martha J. <phillips.xxx@osu.edu>
Cc: Boyer, Ronnie J. <boyer.xxx@osu.edu>
Subject: Re: update
Hi Martha and Ronnie,
I hope you are both having a good week so far. I’m writing to check in about where we are at in this process. My mental health is devolving quite a bit and I would really appreciate some clarity going into the break.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving,
Ashley
Later that day, Phillips called Yong to let her know there was no update on her case.
Phillips emailed Yong again Dec. 5 to inform her the next step was to determine whether to file any charges against her perpetrator, and if so, which codes of student conduct he violated.
The month of December passed. January and February disappeared. Then the month of March. Over the course of four months, Yong received no updates on her case from her investigator.
It wasn’t until April 2, 2020 — nearly eight months after Yong reported her assault — that the investigator informed her she found reasonable cause to charge Yong’s perpetrator with non-consensual sexual contact.
Peirano said she could not comment on specific cases and reasons for length of time, as the details and circumstances of each case differ tremendously.
Although civil rights investigators typically average about 30 cases each at any given time, their caseload is expected to decrease as the Office of Institutional Equity recently hired four new investigators, bringing the current total number of investigators to seven, Johnson said.
Two days after her perpetrator’s deadline for responding to the charges passed, Yong asked Phillips for an update. It was then that Phillips told Yong her perpetrator requested an administrative hearing.
“I wanted to be on top of everything to not give them any excuses for why things were taking so long,” Yong said.
Ashley Yong sits at the kayak launch site on the Olentangy River trail. Yong started coming to the site in September 2019, and it has become her favorite spot for reflection and prayer.
Christian Harsa | Asst. Photo Editor
On April 21, Phillips emailed Yong to inform her that a charge of nonconsensual sexual penetration was mistakenly omitted from the initial Charge and Process form. Phillips then sent a revised form to Yong’s perpetrator, who had a week to accept or deny the revised charges.
After a multitude of back-and-forth emails discussing the logistics of her hearing, Yong’s hearing was finally scheduled for June 18 via Zoom.
Throughout the course of the investigation, Yong said she felt obligated to continually reach out to her investigator and respond to emails in a timely nature.
“I definitely had some sympathy, I think, for them working in that office and knowing there’s a lot of people going through [Title IX] right now,” Yong said. “The unfortunate thing is I personally don’t think I should have to feel that way. That’s not a burden that I should need to carry as someone that has already experienced this trauma.”
Informal resolutions
Although formal resolutions — those resolved by the university — are the most common for Title IX complaints, some cases are resolved outside of the university through what is known as an informal resolution.
Informal resolutions are resolutions that occur between parties, typically facilitated by legal assistance outside of the university, where parties seek to resolve a complaint without the requirement of the full investigation process adhered to by the Title IX office.
Although the U.S. Department of Education recently amended its Title IX guidelines in May to permit the use of informal resolutions, Ohio State has always allowed students and employees to pursue informal resolutions — which it implements on a case-by-case basis.
“Informal resolution has always been at the discretion of the university,” Peirano said.
With university approval, both parties must express consent to the informal resolution in writing, and both parties have the right to end the informal process and revert back to an investigation through the university at any time, according to Ohio State’s sexual misconduct policy.
Peirano could not provide specific information regarding the number of sexual misconduct cases that result in informal resolution. She said the reasons for pursuing an informal resolution vary, but she could not offer examples of when such resolutions would be appropriate.
For Palackdharry, the informal resolution process seemed like the only option for her. From the Title IX report she made July 13, 2018, to the hearing April 19, 2019, Palackdharry’s first Title IX case lasted 281 days. When her perpetrator violated his no contact directive, Palackdharry made a second Title IX report Nov. 4, 2019, and her second case was open until June 4, 2020 — a total of 214 days. All in all, Palackdharry spent a cumulative 495 days involved in a Title IX investigation.
281
Number of days Palackdharry’s first case took
214
Number of days Palackdharry’s second case took
495
Number of total days Palackdharry’s cases took
Palackdharry said from the very beginning of her first investigation, her perpetrator tried to focus the attention onto her — mentioning her previous sexual abuse and her role as founder of a campus chapter of a national sexual violence prevention organization.
“He made a statement, and it was like, ‘It seems pretty convenient that she does advocacy work with sexual abuse. Don’t you think she has an agenda?’” Palackdharry said.
Palackdharry said her perpetrator and his lawyer threatened to “go to the media” about her, claiming she made up her complaint for the student organization’s publicity. She even shut down the organization’s campus chapter during her investigation for fear of negatively impacting the national organization, she said.
“So, he proposed an informal resolution,” Palackdharry said. “And we tried to work that out for probably six months before Title IX ultimately said, ‘Just kidding, we can’t do an informal resolution.’”
Listen to Syreeta Palackdharry explain her frustration with informal resolutions.
Read the transcript
SYREETA PALACKDHARRY:
I was just really frustrated because I had no idea really what was even happening with my investigation.
I didn’t know if I was going to have a hearing. I didn’t know if the informal resolution was going to work.
I didn’t want to go to a hearing and have to have direct cross-examination with my rapist, like, all these things.
Palackdharry said she originally wanted her perpetrator to see a licensed counselor about the incident and take courses in healthy relationships, sexual health and social skills. But the university was not quick to accept her proposal, she said, and her perpetrator countered with proposals of his own.
Ultimately, the final informal resolution proposal was for Palackdharry’s perpetrator to accept responsibility and be suspended from the university. But he refused to admit wrongdoing, Palckdharry said, and she agreed to end the informal process.
Palackdharry sent an email to Kellie Brennan, Ohio State’s former Title IX coordinator, asking for the office to end the informal resolution.
Palackdharry, Syreeta L.
Wed 2/27/2019 3:31 PM
To: Brennan, Kellie L.
Hi Kellie,
I just wanted to let you know that I asked Fran to call XXXX‘s advisor yesterday and let him know that we are no longer interested in an informal resolution and want to go to a hearing if he is unwilling to admit responsibility. I know that they were wanting to propose another informal resolution to you with a break from the University of some kind (I think interim suspension) – but I wanted to make it clear to you that if they do that, that’s not coming from me. I’m exhausted by this process and don’t really want to be the informal resolution guinea pig, so let’s just have a hearing and get this over with. My case has been open for 8 months now and I want a resolution.
Thanks,
Syreeta
Palackdharry’s hearing was scheduled for April 19, 2019.
After much deliberation, Palackdharry opened a second case with Title IX in November 2019. She said that despite what she thought was a straightforward issue — a violation of a no-contact directive — the investigation still took a little more than seven months.
For two weeks, Palackdharry debated whether to drop the charges against her perpetrator and end the investigation. She decided she didn’t want to relive the entire investigation and hearing process, and on June 4, 2020, a month after her perpetrator graduated from Ohio State, she dropped the charges completely.
“It felt painful to have invested so much time into an investigation and not have anything happen from it,” Palackdharry said. “Ultimately, it was relieving because it meant this can be over now, [my perpetrator] has graduated. Maybe I can just move on with my life now.”
In the middle of Kinnen’s investigation, her perpetrator and his lawyer proposed an informal resolution, something she said she was hesitant to accept. From when she reported June 3, 2018, to when her case officially closed Feb. 8, 2019, Kinnen’s Title IX case lasted a total of 251 days.
251
Number of days Kinnen’s case took
After being told by Boyer that her perpetrator’s retaliatory complaint against her would be investigated, Kinnen said she was stunned and grappled with what to do.
In her perpetrator’s counter-accusation, he said he did not remember anything after drinking with Kinnen downstairs at the party, including physically forcing her to perform sexual acts and telling her he was going to “rape her” later that evening.
“Based on her messages and statement, it is apparent that I was heavily intoxicated,” her perpetrator wrote in his complaint.
Kinnen’s perpetrator claimed he “lacked the ability to consent to the sexual conduct and sexual contact that occurred.” At the end of his complaint, he requested an informal resolution process to settle both complaints.
On Sept. 11, 2018, Boyer told Kinnen he found reasonable cause to investigate her rapist’s complaint against her.
“I had to pause and be like, ‘I really might get expelled because I was assaulted by a drunk guy,’” Kinnen said.
Feeling dismayed by the entire investigation process — and in disbelief that her investigator found her perpetrator’s Title IX complaint to be worth investigating — Kinnen requested to withdraw her complaint against her perpetrator entirely. Boyer told her that was not possible.
After being unable to withdraw her Title IX complaint and her frustration with Boyer, Kinnen said she ultimately felt pressured to accept her perpetrator’s request to pursue an informal resolution.
“When OSU said it was OK [to pursue an informal resolution], I felt pressured to settle because OSU made it clear that’s what they wanted. They never said it, but it just was obvious to me it would never end. And my mental health was terrible, so at one point I gave in,” Kinnen said.
Brennan then informed Kinnen that Title IX closed her case, since lawyers from both parties would now see the case to its end.
“If I didn’t have access to lawyers, or people who could explain legal shit to me, it would have just ended up with me dropping it, and then him still being at OSU, which is terrifying,” Kinnen said.
Per the informal resolution, Kinnen and her perpetrator would file an agreement in court prohibiting him from contacting Kinnen or coming within one mile of her; both parties would “release each other from all liability” and neither would admit wrongdoing; Kinnen’s perpetrator would pay her legal fees; and the university would not take further action against either party.
The resolution was approved Feb. 8, 2019, and Kinnen withdrew her complaint that day. Because of the restraining order, her perpetrator withdrew from Ohio State. The order is in effect until Feb. 14, 2024.
While her investigation was ongoing, Kinnen said she constantly worried whether she would see her perpetrator on campus — including while she worked at Curl Market.
Kinnen said one day at work, she noticed a man from her perpetrator’s fraternity walk into Curl Market, and although she didn’t know if the man was aware of her assault or Title IX complaint, she said it was an alarming experience.
“I’ve never seen this kid, but he just stared at me for 20 minutes,” Kinnen said. “I just sat there and cried, and I went home early, and it was terrifying and unsettling.”
To make matters worse, Kinnen said her perpetrator showed up at her house “unknowingly,” as her roommate’s friend was dating him at the time.
“I didn’t think I had to explain (to my roommates) why I wouldn’t be okay with that,” Kinnen said. “But I did.”
Kinnen said the thought of her perpetrator knowing where she lives “terrified” her and made her feel “incredibly unsafe” in her own home. She said she was scared he would kill her.
Ultimately, Kinnen said that given what she had to endure during her Title IX investigation, if she were sexually assaulted in the future, she would not report a complaint.
“Nine months is a long time to be constantly reminded of the kid who raped you,” she said.
Words by Maeve Walsh and Sarah Szilagy
Web Design by Jack Long
Graphics by Ivan Kostovski
Former Editor-in-Chief Kaylee Harter contributed reporting.
Part three of (un)silenced will explain the rules, procedures and source experiences of the Title IX hearing. Check The Lantern’s website for part three at a later date.
Correction: A previous version identified Yong’s investigator with the incorrect surname. The story has been updated to reflect the correct surname.