In November 2020, USA Today published an investigation into the University’s mishandling of sexual assault and dating violence cases. The press coverage and campus outrage it sparked created a situation the University finally could not ignore.
In an email titled “Response to Today’s News Article,” Interim President Tom Galligan wrote, “I want to assure you that LSU takes every report of sexual assault or violence seriously. We investigate them thoroughly, support victims sensitively and hold offenders accountable.”
Galligan explained that the University was retaining Husch Blackwell to look into the claims made by the article and launch a broader review of Title IX operations on campus.
Months later, as the Husch Blackwell report concluded, Galligan’s tone took a sharp turn. When findings were released on March 5, Galligan warned, “Perhaps most troubling of all the report’s findings is the understanding that, whether through our actions or inactions, our institution betrayed the very people we are sworn to protect.”
The contents of the report were deeply disturbing, spelling out years of noncompliance with federal, state and University policy. As troubling as the findings were, they told a story that many students already knew far too well — and, as the report itself would iterate repeatedly, a story University officials have been made aware of numerous times over the years, to no amends.
The most emphatic institutional failure laid out in the report centered around gross inadequacies in staffing and resourcing the Title IX Office, as well as poorly worded policy around reporting cases.
In 1975, the Department of Education released guidelines requiring universities to establish a designated Title IX coordinator, an expectation further clarified in 2011.
No such position existed at the University until 2014. When the University finally did decide to follow federal law, it selected Jim Marchand, an attorney in the Office of General Counsel.
This decision, the report notes, “posed a serious risk of conflict of interest.” Even to someone unversed in this sphere, it seems obvious that a person vested with protecting the University’s legal interests would be unable to simultaneously look out for the best interest of survivors.
It wasn’t until 2016 that the University made some effort to create a full-time Title IX coordinator position. Jennie Stewart was chosen to fill this position — or, more accurately, chosen to fill three impossibly demanding positions: Title IX Coordinator, Clery Coordinator for the entire University system and Campus Coordinator for the University’s main campus.
As Husch Blackwell lawyer Scott Schneider stated, it would have been virtually impossible for anyone to succeed in such a role. And, by making Stewart report directly to the Office of General Counsel, the position was again rife with conflicts of interest expressly warned against by the Department of Education.
Almost immediately upon entering her position, Stewart made clear to University leadership that the Title IX Office was severely under-resourced. The report described the leadership’s response to these pressing concerns as “lackluster.”
The report also emphasizes the University’s poor policy wording, which made it difficult to discern who had the responsibility to report Title IX cases and where those reports were to be made.
This was further complicated by University Athletics implementing its own reporting hierarchy, an arrangement made without the knowledge of the Title IX Office.
Senior Associate Athletics Director for Student Services Miriam Segar was the individual that employees within Athletics, at the direction of former Athletic Director Joe Alleva, were told to report to. In fact, a number of people interviewed by Husch Blackwell in the Athletics Department had no idea who Jennie Stewart was. Up until recently, Segar herself incorrectly believed that she was a “Deputy Title IX coordinator for Athletics.”
Notably, similar issues were found in other University departments.
In one department, students reported that the department chair required reports be made directly to the chair and ordered that the reports be discussed with no one else. People who did not follow this irresponsible, unilaterally-instituted policy faced backlash. In another department, a dean made a similar directive.
These poor arrangements within the Title IX Office and the Athletics Department were doomed to fail — and fail they did.
A profound example of this is found in the horrific case of former Football Coach Les Miles.
For years, Miles made predatory remarks and advances on female employees. Reports were made that Miles wanted to be directly involved with hiring student employees and demanded they hire “blondes with big boobs.” He “wanted them to have a certain look,” and witnesses reported that only “attractive” female employees were “allowed” to be in Miles’ office.
Sharon Lewis, now-associate athletic director for Football Recruiting and Alumni Relations, told Husch Blackwell that she repeatedly brought this to the attention of Athletics administrators, but her concerns were dismissed.
There is no record of the University ever investigating repeated concerns of Miles’ attitude toward female employees.
What was already despicable enough became even worse. According to Lewis’ interview with Husch Blackwell, a student came to Lewis “very upset about something that happened when she was alone with Coach Miles.” Other witnesses said this student was clearly disturbed by something that had occurred.
Lewis immediately brought this report to Segar, who then met with the student. That is where the process ended, however.
There is no evidence that this report was ever brought to the Title IX Office. There is no evidence that this student was given any sort of proper investigation. There is no evidence that this student was made aware of her rights or the support resources available to her. In short, nothing suggests that any action was taken to protect this student or investigate her report.
This incident prompted AD Alleva to tell Les Miles to avoid contact with student workers. Despite this, another student later filed a report of “inappropriate contact and text messages with Miles.” This was brought to Alleva and referred to an outside law firm instead of the University’s Title IX Office. This firm — to Husch Blackwell’s objection — determined these allegations did not constitute sexual harassment.
To great concern, the report describes that: “Again, there was no file of this matter at the University. Instead, the report regarding the investigation was intentionally stored offsite at LSU’s outside counsel’s office and with Miles’ attorneys.”
Alleva advocated for firing Miles with cause but no action was taken. Lewis filed reports of retaliatory treatment by Miles and other employees, but again, as in a pattern of the Les Miles case, these reports were not investigated and no action was taken. Lewis had a mental breakdown, deeply affected by the University’s handling of allegations against Miles.
It was not until years later, when Miles had a rough start to the football season, that Alleva fired him.
The belittling, harassment, and abuse of female employees? The intimidation of those who dare report the misconduct of the head football coach? Apparently fine, in the University’s books. But a spotty football record? Now that’s just unacceptable.
One athletics employee described the culture created by the handling of the Miles’ cases in an interview with Husch Blackwell: “To think that that was almost normal for us and because we had been involved in that so long, until you step back and look at it and go, my God, what did we — what were we doing, you know? But that’s how — that’s the progression it came to.”
This was nothing short of a coverup by the University. To repeatedly ignore complaints against Miles was to enable his continued abuse of female employees. This report not being brought to the Title IX Office by Athletics officials was a severe error. Not only did the University fail to take action against Miles but it went to extensive lengths to avoid documenting the allegations against him.
This immense failure set the stage for future inaction.
One particularly troubling and high profile case involved football player Drake Davis and tennis player Jade Lewis. Numerous missteps were made by the University that endangered Lewis and unnecessarily prolonged justice being served to Davis.
In a text message from April 2018, Davis told Executive Deputy Athletic Director Verge Ausberry: “I hit her in the stomach.(which is not good).”
Ausberry never reported this admission of violence to Segar or the Title IX Office. Husch Blackwell determined that Ausberry’s explanations for why he did not report the crime were “not credible.” Ausberry did not even check in on Lewis, who had been punched so hard that her rib was fractured, leaving her unable to sleep because of the pain.
This failure to report was deeply negligent and enabled the continued abuse of Lewis.
In April 2018, Segar reported a Title IX report against Davis. Despite the severity of the allegations, there were great delays in scheduling an interview with Davis. Between the time of the initial report and the first interview of Davis, Davis sent texts to Lewis in which he threatened to “beat” and even that he “might kill” her.
By failing to quickly address the initial report, the University opened up the potential for escalation of violence against Lewis. In another situation, such delay in action could have caused irrevocable harm.
In his Title IX interview, Davis once again admitted he had punched Davis. Despite this, the University took no immediate action against Davis nor took significant steps to protect Lewis. They ordered him to “mandatory” counseling, a weak response that they did not even enforce.
A third incident of violence occurred. Despite the obvious danger posed to Lewis, it took the University two weeks to even charge Davis. In fact, prior to charging Davis for violence, the University charged Lewis for having a candle lit in her apartment. Yes: the University took quicker and more decisive action against Lewis for having a candle than it did against Davis for beating her.
Lewis’ roommate reported to the University that she had witnessed Lewis being abused by Davis, including choking so bad that it left red marks on her neck. Again, no action was taken against Davis.
In August 2018, Lewis filed a police report against Davis for dating violence. That same day, she was charged by Residential Life for violating alcohol policy. The next day, Davis was arrested. However, it took an additional two weeks for the University to issue a “comprehensive suspension” to Davis. Again, the University had acted more quickly to punish Lewis for a comparatively minor infraction than it had against the man that repeatedly beat her.
Davis was found guilty for his crimes, but an error in record-keeping neglected to acknowledge this on his transcript, enabling him to transfer to another university.
The report goes on to detail numerous other failures of the Athletic Department and Title IX Office, but these two case studies illustrate the profound administrative failures that characterize the University’s mishandling of Title IX cases.
Another troubling aspect of the report was its findings of the University’s weak sanctions against those found guilty of sexual violence.
In one instance, after a fraternity member was found guilty four times of sexual assault against two students, he was given a suspension of a few months.
In another instance, a perpetrator labelled in the report as “Respondent F” was given a suspension after being convicted of rape. Though he was eventually allowed to return to the University, the perpetrator moved on to a different institution.
Sexual assault, rape and dating violence are some of the most heinous crimes a person can commit. It is difficult to understand how the University could readmit someone to this institution after finding them guilty of such terrible infractions. Such policies privilege perpetrators to the detriment of survivors. No one should be forced to attend school with someone found guilty — and oftentimes found guilty multiple times through appeal processes — of assaulting them. The University has been far too lenient in sanctioning perpetrators.
These outlined errors were repeated, numerous and visible. Though this investigation is a useful tool for understanding how to move forward, it begs the question: why did it take a national media scandal for the University to address a problem that has been recognized for years?
As powerfully put to the Board by survivor and LSU alumna Caroline Schroeder, who is included in the report and the USA Today investigation: “We are not here out of the goodness of your heart. We are here because a national newspaper published a story in November that created a bit of a public relations problem for you.”
As admitted by Galligan during that same meeting, actions speak louder than words. But students are already disappointed with administrative action, which handed down measly suspensions to Segar and Ausberry for failures to report Title IX violations.
Galligan says failure to report will result in “discipline” moving forward. I implore the University to go a step further. No one who perpetuates abuse by failing to report Title IX violations should remain at the University, plain and simple. If someone is aware of their obligation to report and they fail to do so, they are violating federal policy. If that’s not grounds for dismissal, I’m not sure what is.
There have been decades of institutional failure on behalf of the University, yes. But that does not absolve individuals who should have known better — who could have done better — of their role in denying justice to survivors and protecting perpetrators roaming our campus.
Only time will tell how serious the University really is about the 18 recommendations laid out by Husch Blackwell.
But what is certainly different this time is that our community is paying closer attention than ever before. Students will not sit idly by should the University continue to fail survivors — and that is a promise you can trust.
Claire Sullivan is an 18-year-old coastal environmental science freshman from Southbury, CT.