I'm digging into the new #TitleIX regulations on live hearings and I found a provision that isn't getting much attention, but should. It's the section on what happens if either a complainant or respondent refuses to appear for cross-examination.

At the core of the issue is whether statements made by the party who didn't appear can be taken into consideration (i.e., a police statement, a SANE report, a confession to a friend, text messages). The simple answer is no.

You might be imagining a survivor who came forward, but doesn't want to come face-to-face with their attacker, so decides against attending the hearing. According to the policy, that is their right, but then NONE of their other statements can be taken into consideration.

That's everything from telling a friend about the assault the next day to the original statement made to the Title IX investigators. It's all out. Since most sexual assaults happen in private without other witnesses, this would likely be the end of a sexual assault case.

Since survivors can be forced into silence through the harassment by their perpetrators and their friends, parents, etc., this is horrifying. To end most cases, all a perpetrator needs to do is scare the victim away from the cross-examination.

And while there is an anti-retaliation clause, if a survivor already felt failed or betrayed by their school, they probably aren't going to trust the same school to protect them against retaliation. It's words on a page, but they don't mean much.

That's upsetting. But the ways respondents can use this rule for their own gain might be even worse.

The primary scenario discussed in the regulation is when a respondent has confessed the sexual assault and doesn't want the confession considered. Not attending the hearing accomplishes that goal.

This doesn't just apply to written confessions or statements made aloud, but also text exchanges--even if the other party involved is willing to testify. The hearing body cannot consider anything the respondent said.

This really emphasizes just how different the stakes are for complainants and respondents. Even though the provision is "equal," the effects could not be farther apart.

If a complainant refuses cross-examination, the respondent will likely face no consequences. If a respondent wants to refuse cross-examination as a tactic to exclude damning evidence, that is explicitly allowed and will probably end the same way: no consequences.

The more I read these regulations, the more I learn about how hard it's going to be for a survivor to hold their perpetrator accountable. Every time I think I've seen the worst of it, this policy stops me in my tracks again.