The Wesleyan Artifex

"Nothing Amiss": the Far Reaches of Scott Backer

May 17, 2017

Comment on recent article from 2003 victim

[female student, age 15]

VICTIM PRIVACY

Recent e-mail contact from 2003 victim

VICTIM PRIVACY
[female student, age 15]

VICTIM PRIVACY
VICTIM PRIVACY
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdYyvW4Yzruzmry-Z60hwKPK6PaPsEhuxJT5kmLmRhPDz3Bjw/viewform?c=0&w=1

Petition to Make Wesleyan Admit Scott

Backer Mishandled Students’ Cases
May 23, 2017
Dear President Roth,

We, members of the Wesleyan community, demand more than the hollow apology you shared with us
in your “Campus Update” after the news broke about Scott Backer’s solicitation of a 15 year-old girl on
Yik Yak. Serious conversations need to continue to happen about how Title IX cases are handled and
adjudicated on this campus, and about how survivors are supported in general. Many in our
community are extremely upset that this man worked here for so long and in the capacity that he did.
We have lost trust in the administration after watching you continue to claim that Scott Backer’s
history of sexual predation influenced zero of the cases he presided over here. Admitting that a man
with a long history of sexual predation acted inappropriately and hurt students’ lives in his role as
Associate Dean of Students for almost ten years is a necessary first step, and further changes and
amends also need to follow.

We demand that:

1). You admit that Scott Backer mishandled cases while he was Associate Dean of Students, as
numerous survivors have come forward and stated;

2). You acknowledge the transgressions Backer committed while in charge of disability services,
including violation of privacy of students receiving accommodations. We demand that Wesleyan be
held accountable for their choice to put someone unqualified in that position, where he worked with
students who are often rendered especially vulnerable by systemic ableism. We demand an apology
from the school for Backer's transgressions in this position as well as continued improvements to the
Office of Accessibility Resources.

3). You disclose how Pepper Hamilton conducted its review of these cases and share the report they
gave you that led you to conclude that there were “no concerning issues or impropriety” during his
tenure;

4). You start supporting survivors and their accounts of how Scott Backer’s words and actions
affected them and take real steps to make amends for the harm he caused. We know many of the
students whose cases he adjudicated have since graduated, so working with survivors and experts to
update Wesleyan’s Title IX reporting process would have a positive outcome. For example,
assembling a task force made up of more students than administrators to commission an
independent review of Backer’s conduct and impact as well as Title IX reform would help to increase
transparency in the process. Additionally, this team could study the potential of removing the
redundancy of holding a hearing after a thorough investigation has already been conducted, which
could be beneficial for future students who report.

Members on this campus and in our alumni community are deeply, deeply hurt, not only by the way
Scott Backer treated them, but by your continued refusal to admit that the experiences they’ve shared
with you are real. Because of your denial and faux apologies, there is no sense of trust in the
administration or in the entirety of the Title IX process, and that can literally destroy lives. If survivors
don't trust the process or Wesleyan’s leadership to stick up for them, they're less likely to come
forward. Just like students are held accountable for their mistakes, the Wesleyan administration
should lead by example and own theirs.

Signed,
Concerned students, alums, employees, parents, and friend

This form was created inside of Wesleyan University. Report Abuse - Terms of Service - Additional Terms
 Scott Backer Arrested in West Hartford for Soliciting Minor on Yik Yak
May 15, 2017

A student from the Survivor Support Network, who has chosen to

remain anonymous, believes that the news of Backer’s arrest puts the
university’s actions last semester into new light:

Scott Backer’s recent arrest confirms that his abuses at Vermont

Academy weren’t just a one-time event. However, we shouldn’t need
any further confirmation of his predatory habits to justify treating
him like the abuser he is. Scott Backer received no punishment for
his actions in the past, so he never received any punishment or
rehabilitation that could have prevented him from continuing to be a
sexual predator. He was allowed to be quietly shuffled (promoted!)
from one elite institution to another because no one cared about
protecting the girls and young women under his power. And when
his story finally came to light, Scott Backer was allowed to leave
Wesleyan without anyone in the administration thinking it was
necessary to alert students to his history of sexual predation. This is
why it is so important to listen to survivors. The Wesleyan
administration has proven that it does not care about the safety of
people on this campus, especially survivors. Even when they do
things “right” by going through the Title IX reporting process,
survivors cannot count on the Wesleyan administration to protect
them, or even maintain the least bit of accountability and alert
survivors that the school fucked up by hiring a serial sexual predator
to hold one-on-one meetings with vulnerable students and oversee
the Title IX adjudication process. We are disappointed, we are angry,
and we demand better of Wesleyan’s administration.

http://wesleying.org/2017/05/15/scott-backer-arrested-in-west-hartford-for-soliciting-minor-on-yik-yak/
 the Wesleyan …
HOME | NEWS | FEATURES | ARTS | VOICES | OPINION
| SPORTS | LETTERS TO THE EDITOR | 
ABOUT | STAFF | DONATE | SUBMIT A LETTER | SUBMIT A TIP
| NOMINATE A WESCELEB | ADVICE

Tensions Heighten in the Wake of Scott Backer

Scandal

October 7, 2016, by Jenny Davis, Aaron Stagoff-Belfort, Gili Lipman, Jake Lahut, Editor-in-Chief, News
Editors, Features Editor

Before the Boston Globe article, before the calls

for President Roth’s and Dean Farias’
resignations, and before the social media
pandaemonium, there were only rumors.

The lawsuit against former Associate Dean of

Students Scott Backer and Vermont Academy
has been in the public record since 2011, and
two alumni claim that past students had been
aware of Backer’s sexual misconduct.

“The WSA executive committee and student

affairs committee members seemed to know
about Scott Backer’s firing at around that time,”
Protestors hung posters on poles, windows, and walls across campus.
a former WSA executive close to the matter c/o William Halliday, Photo Editor
said. “It was usually brought up in jest, to make
fun of him behind closed doors.”

According to the former WSA executive, students made jokes involving Backer’s texts with a 15-year-old
student at Vermont Academy. Nothing, however, was reported to the administration.

“I never reported it or really mentioned it because one, at the time, I thought it was just a rumor,” the WSA
executive said. “Two, I thought it could also be a pair of WSA members in particular making shit up because
Scott Backer sucks, and three, I figured the administration knew and didn’t care, or had investigated it
somehow and came to the conclusion that they had nothing to worry about. In retrospect, I probably should’ve
followed up, but I assumed that the Vermont Academy stuff was just a rumor and not verifiable.”

Another former member of the WSA, who also wished to remain anonymous, also had suspicions about
Backer, but did not follow through with official reporting to the administration.

“I definitely had concerns at the time, some of them I raised, some of them I didn’t,” the former member said.
“Now it’s too late. It is what it is.”

The fallout from Backer’s recently revealed sexual misconduct by the Boston Globe has sent the University
community into a tailspin of anger, grief, and confusion. Along with examining an additional court case involving
Backer, The Argus spoke with current students, administrators, and alumni to shed light on the full
repercussions of his concealed past.

“Everything Is Inherently Sullied”

Hidden from students he interacted with throughout his nearly decade-long tenure at the University, Backer’s
past has drawn forth raw emotions and troubling realizations after the fact for students who dealt with him in
reporting sexual misconduct.

Former Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) Intern Maggie Cohen ’12 brought a sexual assault case to the
University through Backer. Finding out about his past at Vermont Academy re-opened a traumatic wound from
her time on campus.

“The unearthing of Scott’s past twisted the knife,” Cohen wrote in an email to The Argus. “It made me feel that
my already fragile safety was nonexistent if the administrator responsible for adjudicating cases of sexual
violence—not to mention other ethical infractions—was himself guilty of preying upon young people.”

Cohen remembers her interactions with Backer as being unpleasant.

“My interactions with Scott were strained and uncomfortable,” she said. “I knew that he was telling me he had
my best interests in mind but that he represented Wesleyan and he wanted to keep any controversies to a
minimum. Scott treated my case like it was routine.”

Cohen, however, noted that the issues surrounding sexual assault at the University go far beyond Backer.

“The lack of transparency goes beyond him & beyond President Roth,” she wrote. “The entire process has
always been rigged, and I never knew what my rights were as a student coming forward to report sexual
assault. In the year that I reported [2010-2011], Alysha Warren had not yet been hired, Tanya Purdy had not
yet been hired, and the SART intern had only been a formal position for one year. The [previous] SART Intern
was the only person who wholeheartedly supported me.”

For Chloe Murtagh ’15, the recent Backer revelations put a cloud over the cases she was familiar with involving
her friends, who she helped in the reporting process when working through the former dean.

“He was the one handing out these moral judgments and verdicts, and he clearly had no standards of ethics
and respect,” Murtagh said. “Everything is inherently sullied.”

Elias v. Wesleyan University

One of the most thoroughly documented

examples of how Backer operated in sexual
assault hearings is the federal lawsuit Elias v.
Wesleyan. The case, which involves Backer
as the adjudicator of a contested sexual
assault ruling at the University, was recently
settled out of court on Sept. 29, 2016 and calls
into question Backer’s credibility in
adjudicating sexual assault cases.

The plaintiff, Scott Elias ’14, who served as

the chair of the WSA’s Public Safety Advisory
Committee and was a brother of Beta Theta A student examines a poster detailing the Roth administration’s
failures. c/o William Halliday, Photo Editor
Pi, was found guilty on two of three counts of
sexual misconduct at the end of his senior
year: one for sexual harassment, the other for sexual assault. The central argument of the Elias suit contends
that Backer’s ruling on Elias’ sexual misconduct and its subsequent punishment—which allowed him to
graduate but prevented him from attending senior week and commencement—was unfair and overly
burdensome, mainly because of the political climate and controversy surrounding sexual assault at the
University in 2014.

In a text correspondence with Jane Doe 1, Elias was intoxicated and sent a flurry of disturbing messages. He
wrote, “Don’t be that girl” after Doe didn’t reply to a text about meeting up while he was leaving the Beta
Fraternity. After Jane Doe wrote, “you know we’re not hooking up, right?” at 12:48 a.m., some of Elias’ 14
unanswered texts in response were “I rally like you a lt,” “I kinda wana do dirty things to slut,” and “I Anna sleep
with you babe.”

Given the nature of his own case, Backer ironically dismissed the severity of Elias’ text messages.

“Later that day, Plaintiff met with Dean Scott Backer who assured him that because Jane Doe’s allegations
appeared to involve a ‘stupid drunken message a long time ago,’ which was an isolated occurrence as opposed
to repeated behavior, it would not be ‘a serious Title IX concern,’’’ a court document states, quoting Backer.
“Plaintiff left the meeting under the impression that he would be able to participate in the WSA meeting on April
20.”

Upon reading the amended complaint available online, Murtagh argued why Backer was in no position to
preside over sexual misconduct cases.

“It’s stuff like that, that quote really illustrates how, even if we don’t dig up the fact that Scott Backer ever said
some ridiculously fucked up thing…it’s just like this reality that, that’s [Backer’s] threshold of something that’s
fucked up,” Murtaugh said. “If he doesn’t think that that’s fucked up, it’s very clear that the stuff we were
reporting to him is fucked up.”

Elias’ attorney, Kimberly Lau of Warshaw Burnstein LLP, has been a vocal opponent of many aspects of sexual
assault adjudications writ large, such as: the definition of consent; assumptions about those accused in false
reports, which account for somewhere between two and eight percent of all accusations according to a
commonly cited study by UMass and Northeastern professors; and the methods behind sexual assault
statistics themselves.

In an article entitled “Is there a rape culture on college campuses?,” Lau, who is the piece’s main contributor,
argues that the statistics surrounding sexual assault on college campuses, such as the proverbial “one in four”
or “one in five,” are fundamentally flawed in methodology. For Lau, this flaw is connected to what she calls an
“over inclusive” definition of consent.

“The way the term is defined in the Survey is over inclusive and appears to be more the product of political and
social agendas than what most people would consider ‘sexual assault,’” Lau said.

The article further contends that the definition of “incapacitated” is too vague, advocating to void all assaults
based on a lack of consent due to intoxication in the revised statistics.

When asked if former Dean Backer’s credibility as an adjudicator would have been undermined given recent
revelations about his personal past of sexual misconduct, Lau declined to comment when contacted less than a
week after the settlement of the case. Because of the recent settlement, Lau said that she was unable to
comment on any aspect of the suit.

In defending Elias, Lau and Warshaw Burnstein focus extensively on the damages caused to the plaintiff, such
as his loss of employment on Capitol Hill by a “prominent” member of congress, the loss of tuition, his future
employment and graduate school prospects, and his deteriorating mental health.

Elias’ legal team claims that the investigation, and mainly Backer’s judgment in the proceedings, ruined his
post-graduate ambitions.

“Plaintiff has not applied to any post-graduate institutions of higher education due to stress, depression, and
anxiety associated with coping with Wesleyan’s wrongful findings,” Elias’ lawyers said in the plaintiff’s response
to the University’s request for production of documents.

Following graduation, Elias was employed as a staff assistant in 2014 for Congresswoman Ann Kuster (D) of
New Hampshire’s second district. Elias left the team after just a couple of months in the summer of 2014 and
complained that losing his position served as sufficient punishment. In Exhibit L of the court documents, Elias
obfuscates his reason for departing, citing “personal reasons” rather than his exposure as a perpetrator.

“I also interned and briefly served as a Staff Assistant on the House side before leaving for personal reasons
earlier this summer and beginning a government affairs internship with the Solar Energy Industry Association
this fall,” he said.

Elias ended up applying to many prestigious companies, including APCO Worldwide, an independent global
public affairs and strategic communications consultancy, and Group Gordon, a public relations and strategic
communications firm.

The chief claim of the employment section is that Backer’s verdict prevented Elias from finding employment.
Despite this, just one month after resigning from his job as a staffer, Elias joined Solar Energy Industries
Association as a business development associate in September 2014. He was promoted to membership
development manager in July 2015.

“Scott Elias has been with the Solar Energy Industries Association since 2014, where he operates at the
intersection between renewable energy policy and renewable energy business development. Scott currently
focuses on identifying and connecting solar industry thought leaders through membership development and
strategic alliance opportunities that build the size and influence of the U.S. solar industry,” Elias’ current bio on
his LinkedIn account reads.

President Roth argued in his Sunday blog post that Backer’s authority in sexual assault investigations was
checked by a multi-person process that struck the “appropriate balances.” Although he worked with other
deans, mainly Dean Rick Culliton, it became clear in the Elias suit that Backer played an instrumental role at
every level of the sexual assault reporting process.

Backer was responsible for recording the entirety of the testimony and proceedings in Elias’ three cases. In
addition, a photo of Elias and Jane Doe 1 at a formal was deemed “irrelevant and off limits” by Backer and the
University during the course of the investigation, according to Exhibit M of the court documents. Backer also
issued a no-contact order and restrictions on University facilities to Elias. This is included in Backer’s letter to
Elias informing him of the University’s decision. Backer’s signature is on almost every document concerning
Elias’ case in the suit, and he worked with all three of Elias’ accusers throughout the reporting process.

In Elias’ account of the night, he claimed that there were no signs that Jane Doe was unable to consent to his
sexual advances.

“I assumed that she had also drank at least some alcohol, but I had no reason to believe that [redac] was in a
state of drunkenness or intoxication because she seemed to have complete control of her balance, and did not
speak to me with slurred speech,” Elias said. “[redac]’s steady gait on the walk towards the Butterfields tunnels
and her verbal confirmation that she wanted to enter the Butterfields, continued to lead me to believe that she
was not incapacitated in any way.”

However, the Administrative Panel’s written judgment on the hearings, signed at the bottom by Scott Backer,
found Elias guilty of violating the University’s sexual misconduct policy from 2010-2011. Overall, the panel
found the details Jane Doe provided to be more persuasive than Elias’ account. Critical to the panel’s
assessment was their belief that Elias had presented self-incriminating evidence, indicating in his written
account that there was no verbal consent to repeated sexual contact.

While the two parties in the case differed on the details on what happened in the Butterfields tunnels, the panel
determined that there was enough overlap in the accounts to validate central elements of Jane Doe’s
testimony. Elias seemingly called into question the reliability of his own account when describing his alcohol
consumption that night and how it clouded his judgment.

“The respondent also admittedly misread or misinterpreted nonverbal from the complainant which should have
indicated the lack of consent,” the decision said. “Further, the panel found that the respondent’s aggressive
engagement with the complainant did not allow for the acquisition of consent before the sexual contact
commenced.”

After Backer’s ruling on behalf of the University, Elias was given nine judicial points out of a maximum of ten
between the two counts, and subsequently graduated despite being barred from commencement and senior
week.

Responses: Administrative and Activist

On Monday, Oct. 3, two days after the Globe article ran and one day after Roth published a blog post
addressing Backer’s firing, Amy Mattox ’17 and Avigayl Sharp ’17 penned choice words from Roth’s post in
Sharpie markers on their chests and left their shirts at home.

“Avigayl and I had been hanging out all day,

fuming and not sure where to put that,” Mattox
said. “We were talking about the importance of
rendering pain visible. Everything kept coming
back to the material reality of pain in the body,
and the fact that those emails, which seemed so
casual and so unimportant, and so symbolic of
bureaucracy—sending a lot of emails—landed
with a lot of pain….Avigayl and I both felt the
need to exteriorize the pain in some way and
make people who were going about their daily
lives, knowing the information but really electing
to suppress it, aware of the fact that this was
landing in some sort of material, real way.”

Mattox was particularly struck by the words

“nothing amiss,” which Roth wrote in his blog
post to discuss the findings of the Pepper
Hamilton investigation; she wrote those words
on her body, while Sharp penned “an
abundance of caution.”

“It was, like, the most absurd statement to read

in the aftermath of eight years of this shit,” she
said. “And then the whole apparatus of the
administration not dealing with violence against
students, and their own violence against Mattox ’17, left, and Sharp ’17, right, protest the administration’s
response to Backer’s firing. c/o Jacob Karlin
students.”

Nudity was vital to Mattox and Sharp’s protest.

“There’s a direct analog of…the fact that the body is where sexual violence occurs, and the nude body is
generally where it occurs,” Mattox said. “My body in particular, and Avigayl’s body, have been subject to that
sort of violence, and it’s normally concealed for fear of shame and fear of people not caring….It’s also just a
freaky thing to see people’s naked bodies….It’s something you’re supposed to keep at home, something you’re
supposed to keep under your clothes. That tension is never going to go away.”

Later that same afternoon, Roth sent a brief, campus-wide apology email (subject line: “An apology”), noting
that he’d neglected to include one in his blog post and preliminary staffing update. Later that afternoon, The
Argus asked him what he would say to survivors who were still upset in the wake of the information about
Backer’s firing.

“I think that dealing with the aftermath of sexual violence is hard enough, and the worst part of this episode with
Scott Backer is that we are adding to the anguish that some of those people feel,” Roth said. “That’s one of the
things I most regret about the current situation.”

Roth reflected on his dismay at the news that Backer had been fired from his previous position for sexual
misconduct.

“The first thing I asked when we heard this—I was actually away; it was in the summer—was, ‘How did we hire
this guy?’ and ‘How did we never hear?’” he said. “Well, of course we don’t do background checks once
someone is on the job. And so should we have known? Well, in retrospect, yes, we should have known. Do I
have an avenue where I think someone was negligent and not pursuing a reasonable report about this? I don’t.
I have confidence in the Dean of Students office, that they would never have concealed this. In fact, once we
heard this, Backer was immediately confronted and fired.”

Paige Hutton ’18, though, was hardly appeased by Roth’s apology or his explanation. Finding fault with Roth’s
decision to not inform students immediately after Backer’s firing, Hutton pointed out the administration’s
apparent lack of attention to students’ needs.

“They clearly didn’t see this as a big deal, or a big enough deal, and that happened in two different phases,”
she said. “Years ago, when students were raising concerns about him, and they [the administration] didn’t
listen, and now when Roth is saying, basically, that in this not telling it was clear that they didn’t think it was
important enough to tell us. That, to me, is probably the worst thing.”

Immediately after firing Backer, the Roth administration hired the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton to
investigate his handling of sexual assault cases while at the University. Although the firm was criticized in a
BuzzFeed article for being notoriously soft on administrators, as well as failing to consider student complaints
of administrators in their review process, the firm’s report at Baylor University resulted in multiple firings and
resignations, most notably with the school’s football coach and president.

“We believe that they are best in class,” Roth said of Pepper Hamilton. “Of course, BuzzFeed, and other
publications, perhaps, will say that they don’t always satisfy the students who bring the complaints. Well, that’s
going to be true with any law firm; they don’t always satisfy people who bring these issues to the fore, because
sometimes they don’t find what those people want. Not that they’re immune from criticism. They’re not perfect.
But I don’t know that any other firm has a better reputation.”

Besides, Roth continued, the University had sought the firm to identify issues with Backer’s performance.

“We were not looking for a clean slate,” Roth said. “We were looking for problems, because if there were
problems there, we wanted to fix them.”

Sarah Chen Small ’18, however, wasn’t so sure.

“The administration continues to set student needs as a last priority and then tells us that we’re too stupid to
understand why this continual state of neglect and abuse is actually not that bad not the administration’s fault,”
she wrote in an email to The Argus. “For example, Michael Roth said he didn’t take complaints [about Scott
Backer] seriously or utilize them in the Pepper Hamilton review process because people only complain when a
case doesn’t go their way, essentially throwing a tantrum. Last year not a single rapist was found guilty on this
campus. So by basic logic and deduction, something this administration clearly lacks, complaints about Backer
are not neutral, evenly distributable, or disposable. The people ‘complaining’ are majority female, of color,
queer, trans, and low income. You cannot explain away the repeated harm the administration has done to
these students.”

More than just criticize Roth’s choice not to reveal the reasons for Backer’s firing, students have railed against
the administration’s failure to address what they see as a flawed sexual assault policy. Much of Tuesday’s open
town hall meeting focused on these perceived failures.

“It’s consistently clear that the administration will always fail students as it’s set up right now,” Yael Horowitz ’17
said, who co-organized the town hall called “WhoRunsWes: an open town hall about community events.” “And
it’s also pretty obvious that students really need to talk about this, and need to heal. The administration isn’t
going to create those spaces for us, so if these spaces are going to happen, they’re going to have to be created
by students.”

Horowitz reflected on what she sees as a legacy of administrative failure, noting that it extends far beyond
sexual assault policy.
“I’ve seen the administration fail, always, like when [Vice President of Equity and Inclusion/Title IX Officer
Antonio] Farias signed onto the letter about [defending free speech in] The Argus, and Farias’ actions in
general of not supporting students of color, and Roth’s actions about sexual assault and about divestment and
about a lot of issues on campus,” Horowitz said. “I think there’s been a ton of attempts to mobilize in the past
around this, and there’s always another one. This is building off of that legacy.”

In her eyes, the Backer scandal reveals skewed administrative priorities.

“Right now, it’s clear that the administration and the school are concerned about continuing to make money and
covering their asses in terms of liability, and they don’t care at all about survivors or victims or people who are
underrepresented or experience microaggressions or anything like that,” she said. “They care about ‘fairness,’
but fairness is a coded word that doesn’t actually acknowledge the systemic power dynamics that are at play in
most of these situations.”

At the end of the over two-hour long town hall meeting, the group engaged in a blind consensus to decide on
action items discussed throughout the night. Abby Cunniff ’17 felt heartened by the group’s cohesion.

“I was hearing a lot of people really interested in investing in collectivism, and investing in prioritizing the needs
of the student body in response to the administration clearly failing to do that routinely for the past four years,”
she said. “I think that those two things were incredibly empowering for me to hear from other people, and I think
that this is one of the highest levels of collective analysis that I’ve ever seen in a group, especially in a group of
two hundred people.”

Perhaps the most significant moment was the consensus to pursue measures to remove Roth and Farias from
their posts. Hutton commented on that decision.

“I think no matter who’s in charge, it would be roughly the same, but even just the image of Roth and Farias
gone will encourage students to expect more of the next people,” Hutton said.

“It’s unprecedented that two hundred people here called for the removal of the top two administrators at this
school,” Henry Prine ’18 agreed immediately following the consensus. “In looking at the many failures of the
admin, we are recognizing the overall trend of a detrimental lack of transparency, accountability, and leadership
when dealing with situations. The way they dealt with the firing and investigation of Backer was only the latest
iteration of this.”

Another main point of action on which town hall meeting attendees focused was the lack of an advanced
practice registered nurse, or an APRN, who has the ability to prescribe medication, on the Counseling and
Psychological Services staff.

“The fact that there’s not a psychiatrist in CAPS is craziness,” Hutton said. “I really think that that should have
been their main priority from the beginning.”

Despite the necessity of an APRN, this year’s Sexual Assault Response Team intern Lex Spirtes ’17 reiterated
that when it comes to sexual assault, ad-hoc counseling is not enough.

“I feel like the administrators bring you to CAPS, as if it’s an emotional issue rather than a policy one,” Spirtes
said.“It may be an emotional issue as well, but I’ve been seeking emotional help, and you can’t just put me on
CAPS to resolve this issue that has arisen because of policy issues that have nothing to do with my emotional
stability.”

In a Monday interview, Roth defended his administration’s sexual assault policies.

“I do think that we have to ensure a fair procedure so that a person accused of sexual assault also feels that
the procedures are fair, because it is possible that someone is accused who is not responsible,” he said. “So on
the one hand, fairness and due process are important. On the other hand, supporting survivors and making
sure that their complaints are held, or heard in a speedy and fair way is also important.”

Roth also reiterated his commitment to protecting those who are vulnerable to abuse of power, as well as his
deep regret about Backer’s tenure at the University.

“I think that the abuse of power by men and by people in administrative and professorial positions is
disgusting,” he said. “It’s unjust, and it is counter-educational. So finding ways to make sure that people who
are vulnerable to those with power can defend themselves has been one of the most important things that I’ve
tried to do. For this to happen on my watch is a terrible thing for the University, because I do think that fighting
for more equality for women, and for LGBTQ students, and for minority students, is what I try to do every day.”

Spirtes still has myriad issues with the administration’s handling of sexual assault cases, including her own.

“I’m feeling frustrated,” she said. “I’m currently going through something with the administration right now. It’s
about a sexual assault, and I’ve had to go to various parts of the administration, and I’ve been told, ‘Nothing
can be done!’ I’m like, ‘Can nothing be done? Or are you just shrugging off my case?’”

Spirtes further spoke to the ways that the wake of the Backer case opens up conversations about
transparency.

“They’re saying that conversations are happening that then I’m not included in, and I think people keep hiding
behind policy instead of engaging with students and having these conversations,” she said. “At this point, in my
situation at least, I feel like I’m at a loss with the administration and academic accommodations. I never
interacted with Scott Backer myself, but it’s definitely stirring up these things. It’s terrible, and what happened
with Scott Backer is terrible, but it’s part of a larger system in which Scott Backer, to some extent, is being able
to be used as a scapegoat for other members of the administration, who are in smaller ways not helping
survivors and defending perpetrators.”

As for Scott Backer, his whereabouts are currently unknown.

May 22, 2017 - Students at Wesleyan Action Against Scott Backer