“I didn’t even feel like I was heard.”

During the reporting process, UI undergraduate student Jordan said they didn’t feel like they were being listened to throughout the investigation.

When Jordan met with the Title IX and Gender Equity Unit, the unit laid out the options for filing a formal complaint. Their situation, however, was unique.

At the time of the alleged assault, the complainant and respondent were undergraduate students at the UI. When Jordan reported, the respondent was a graduate student and employee. After months of figuring out where the formal complaint would be investigated, Jordan said it was decided their complaint would be investigated by the Office of Student Accountability.

First, Jordan had an initial meeting with the Title IX coordinator and the investigator. They were asked to recount what happened the night of the alleged assault. Jordan said the basis of the alleged assault was that consent was never given.

Although Jordan said they were drinking, it was not to the point of intoxication or incapacitation. Jordan said, however, the investigator seemed fixated on the idea of them drinking and kept asking questions about whether they were incapacitated or not.

The next meeting Jordan said they were called into was a redo of the initial meeting because there was a new Title IX coordinator on the investigation. Jordan said it was retraumatizing to go through another meeting where they had to describe the alleged assault.

After the second meeting, the investigator met with the witnesses and the respondent. Jordan was then invited into a third meeting, where they were asked more specific questions, including more regarding their alcohol consumption.

Click through to see data related to sexual assault/harassment reports at the University of Iowa. 

Data visualization by Molly Milder/The Daily Iowan

After the third meeting, Jordan said they became frustrated over how long the investigation was taking and felt like it was working in opposition to them. They said they felt like they weren’t being listened to because the office kept circling around the idea of alcohol consumption, even though it wasn’t the basis of the complaint.

After the third meeting, Jordan was called back into the unit about two months after the third meeting, and was told there was no policy violation found because the unit couldn’t identify if consent was given.

Jordan said, according to UI policy at the time, the first person to make physical contact must ask for consent, and if they didn’t, it would violate policy. Jordan said the first person that initiated physical contact was the respondent, but they never asked for consent when it was initiated.

“At no point in this fact finding do they include them asking for consent,” Jordan said. “So that means in both my testimony and theirs, there was no consent, and they agreed that there was no consent ever asked for, but they still found no policy violation.”

After consulting with a lawyer about the final determination, Jordan decided to appeal their formal complaint, believing the office didn’t follow its own policy.

While both parties have the opportunity to appeal the outcome of an investigation, DiCarlo said the ability to change the outcome is narrow.

In 2019, 14 out of the 44 resolved investigations were appealed. No decisions or sanctions were overturned or modified.

Jordan’s appeal didn’t change the outcome, and they were told if they wanted to pursue further action, they would have to go through the state Board of Regents. They decided not to go before the regents because they wanted to be done with the process.

Jordan said they felt very angry and upset because the reporting process felt like a traumatizing experience. To this day, they still feel like they haven’t processed it, they said.

“I felt like I gave up a lot of my life to go through this, and I got nothing in return,” Jordan said. “I didn’t even feel like I was heard, so it was difficult.”