Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Virtual Events
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    Hands-On Career Preparation
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    Alternative Pathways
Sign In
Students

What ‘Yes Means Yes’ Means for Colleges’ Sex-Assault Investigations

By Katherine Mangan September 3, 2015
Michele Landis Dauber, a professor of law at Stanford U., disputes the argument that affirmative-consent policies put an unfair burden on accused students. Such policies change the elements that have to be proved, she says, but the burden of proving that she did not consent stays on the accuser.
Michele Landis Dauber, a professor of law at Stanford U., disputes the argument that affirmative-consent policies put an unfair burden on accused students. Such policies change the elements that have to be proved, she says, but the burden of proving that she did not consent stays on the accuser.

When “no means no” shifts to “yes means yes,” is a student who can’t produce proof of consent certain to be found responsible for sexual misconduct?

Some opponents of so-called affirmative-consent policies, which are mandatory in California and New York and popular on a growing number of campuses elsewhere, say yes. They argue that such policies, designed to ensure that both students are willing participants and that silence isn’t interpreted as consent, put an unreasonable burden on an accused student. Judges in a handful of cases have agreed.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

Michele Landis Dauber, a professor of law at Stanford U., disputes the argument that affirmative-consent policies put an unfair burden on accused students. Such policies change the elements that have to be proved, she says, but the burden of proving that she did not consent stays on the accuser.
Michele Landis Dauber, a professor of law at Stanford U., disputes the argument that affirmative-consent policies put an unfair burden on accused students. Such policies change the elements that have to be proved, she says, but the burden of proving that she did not consent stays on the accuser.

When “no means no” shifts to “yes means yes,” is a student who can’t produce proof of consent certain to be found responsible for sexual misconduct?

Some opponents of so-called affirmative-consent policies, which are mandatory in California and New York and popular on a growing number of campuses elsewhere, say yes. They argue that such policies, designed to ensure that both students are willing participants and that silence isn’t interpreted as consent, put an unreasonable burden on an accused student. Judges in a handful of cases have agreed.

But on campuses where investigators are applying the new standards, officials insist that students who are accused of assault are still getting a fair shake. The questions investigators ask may have changed and the expectations for communication may have heightened, but no one goes in to those hearings presuming, as some judges have concluded, that accused students are guilty.

“The idea that this somehow shifts the burden onto the accused student is a misconception,” says Kimberly D. Hewitt, director of the Office of Equal Opportunity and Affirmative Action at the University of Minnesota, where a revised sexual-assault policy took effect over the summer.

“The burden remains on the institution to weigh the evidence after hearing both sides,” she said, considering the credibility of both students, and determining whether it was “more likely than not” that an assault had occurred. That standard, known as “preponderance of the evidence,” is lower than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in most criminal cases and is the one that the federal government has directed colleges to use in handling sexual-violence complaints.

Investigators might examine the relationship between the students before and after the alleged assault, what they told their friends, messages texted back and forth. They also ask more-detailed questions of both students about body language and other nonverbal cues.

“What we were finding in the investigation process was that students were telling us they went ahead with the sexual activity because the other student was silent,” says Ms. Hewitt. The university’s new policy, which clearly states that silence or a lack of resistance doesn’t indicate consent, is primarily an education tool, she adds, “for students to think about before they’re in the moment.”

At Stanford University, an affirmative-consent standard simply changes the elements that have to be proved, says Michele Landis Dauber, a professor of law who helped design the university’s disciplinary process for sexual-misconduct cases.

Instead of having to prove that she resisted, or said no, the accuser has to persuade investigators that she did not give consent, or that she withdrew it at some point. The accused would then have the opportunity to explain how he concluded, through words, body language, or other clues, that she was, in fact, a willing participant. The burden of proving that she did not consent stays on the accuser throughout the proceeding, Ms. Dauber says.

ADVERTISEMENT

(Since most cases that come before campus judicial boards involve male students accused of violating female students, those pronouns are used here, but the policies apply equally to same-sex or male-victim complaints.)

Questions of Proof

Critics question whether it’s reasonable to expect a student to come up with proof of consent in an encounter with no witnesses that may boil down to a “he said, she said” debate.

“How do you document it?” asks Samuel R. Staley, a research fellow at the Independent Institute, a libertarian think tank in Oakland, Calif., and the managing director of an interdisciplinary research center at Florida State University. “Are we going to sign a slip of paper at every step along the way saying, ‘I give you permission to kiss me or hold my hand’?”

A state judge who last month ordered the reinstatement of a student who was expelled from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga went further.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Affirmative consent effectively shifts the burden of proof to the accused, making him or her guilty until proven innocent,” wrote the judge, Carol L. McCoy of the chancery court in Nashville. She ruled in a case involving Corey Mock, a senior whom the university had found responsible for sexual misconduct because he was unable to prove that he had obtained consent from a woman who said she was too drunk at the time to remember clearly what had happened.

“The question,” the judge added, “is no longer whether or not someone actually consented to a sexual act; it’s whether the accused can prove that they received such consent — and short of a videotape of the entire encounter, that proof is unlikely to exist.”

But long before affirmative-consent policies were in place, panels of faculty members and students were investigating and adjudicating alleged acquaintance rapes that occur with no witnesses and often boil down to one student’s word against another’s.

Ms. Dauber, of Stanford, describes how a case could play out under an affirmative-consent standard.

ADVERTISEMENT

“After the accuser states that she did not affirmatively consent, the accused can offer his side. But instead of saying, ‘She never said no,’ he might say, ‘She did these things,’ like taking off her shirt or moaning, which he believed meant she was consenting.”

Investigators might ask the accuser if she did those things. Other witnesses could be asked for information, emails, and text messages between the parties.

Ms. Dauber says she’s not surprised by the backlash against yes-means-yes policies by those who already feel the deck is stacked against men.

“There’s a certain group of people who believe that women lie about rape and that this is going to open the floodgate to a deluge of false accusations,” she says. Instead of making it harder for people to defend themselves, “affirmative consent creates a clear default rule about what their responsibilities are and tells them ahead of time what is expected of them.”

Pressure on Universities

Around the country, sexual-misconduct policies are being updated and tweaked as pressure, both from the federal government and from activists, intensifies.

ADVERTISEMENT

The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga’s policy, a revised version of which took effect after the Mock ruling, urges students “to err on the side of caution” when they aren’t sure how to interpret nonverbal actions. While the earlier policy required someone to be able to point to signs of consent that are “unmistakable in their meaning,” the new one says those signs can be evaluated “from the perspective of what a reasonable person who perceived the individual’s words and/or nonverbal actions would have understood.”

The main emphasis of the change “is to clarify what affirmative consent means, to fully explain that it’s the responsibility of anyone initiating contact to get consent and to determine reasonably whether a person can give consent,” says Chuck Cantrell, a spokesman for the university.

Brett A. Sokolow, president of the Ncherm Group, a consulting and law firm that advises colleges, published a blog post about the Chattanooga case in which he questioned whether the ruling really constituted a strike against affirmative-consent policies.

“The court may have assumed that a ‘Yes Means Yes’ policy on consent automatically shifts the legal burden” to accused students, he wrote. That belief “is an erroneous assumption, but one that many foes of affirmative-consent policies want you to believe is inherent in such policies.” The burden, he wrote, is on the university to prove that a sexual assault occurred, and college administrators need to do a better job of articulating that when documenting their decisions.

ADVERTISEMENT

Amy Zavadil, the Title IX coordinator at Barnard College, says it’s important to remember that campus investigators are deciding whether a policy has been violated, not whether a law has been broken, and the evidence they’re looking for is different.

“If someone says the other person didn’t say no, then I would ask him to talk to me about what made him feel he had consent,” she says. “If he says, ‘She turned away, but I put my arm around her and pulled her in and she didn’t pull away,’ that’s not consent.”

Colby Bruno, senior legal counsel at the Victim Rights Law Center, in Boston, says investigators are asking more-detailed questions about the level of intoxication. Yes-means-yes policies often spell out specific things to look for, like slurred speech or difficulty walking, that indicate a person may be incapable of giving consent.

“It used to be that the accuser would give a statement and the accused could read it and say, ‘That’s not the way it happened,’” Ms. Bruno says. Now investigators “are more likely to get both of their stories independently and decide which one is more plausible.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Ultimately, she says, that approach is more likely to result in a resolution that’s fair for everyone involved.

Katherine Mangan writes about community colleges, completion efforts, and job training, as well as other topics in daily news. Follow her on Twitter @KatherineMangan, or email her at katherine.mangan@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the September 11, 2015, issue.
Read other items in Read More About 'Yes Means Yes'.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
mangan-katie.jpg
About the Author
Katherine Mangan
Katherine Mangan writes about community colleges, completion efforts, student success, and job training, as well as free speech and other topics in daily news. Follow her @KatherineMangan, or email her at katherine.mangan@chronicle.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Graphic vector illustration of a ship with education-like embellishments being tossed on a black sea with a Kraken-esque elephant trunk ascending from the depth against a stormy red background.
Creeping concerns
Most Colleges Aren’t a Target of Trump (Yet). Here’s How Their Presidents Are Leading.
Photo-based illustration of calendars on a wall (July, August and September) with a red line marking through most of the dates
'A Creative Solution'
Facing Federal Uncertainty, Swarthmore Makes a Novel Plan: the 3-Month Budget
Marva Johnson is set to take the helm of Florida A&M University this summer.
Leadership & governance
‘Surprising': A DeSantis-Backed Lobbyist Is Tapped to Lead Florida A&M
Students and community members protest outside of Coffman Memorial Union at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, on Tuesday, April 23, 2024.
Campus Activism
One Year After the Encampments, Campuses Are Quieter and Quicker to Stop Protests

From The Review

Glenn Loury in Providence, R.I. on May 7, 2024.
The Review | Conversation
Glenn Loury on the ‘Barbarians at the Gates’
By Evan Goldstein, Len Gutkin
Illustration showing a valedictorian speaker who's tassel is a vintage microphone
The Review | Opinion
A Graduation Speaker Gets Canceled
By Corey Robin
Illustration showing a stack of coins and a university building falling over
The Review | Opinion
Here’s What Congress’s Endowment-Tax Plan Might Cost Your College
By Phillip Levine

Upcoming Events

Ascendium_06-10-25_Plain.png
Views on College and Alternative Pathways
Coursera_06-17-25_Plain.png
AI and Microcredentials
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin