Student Title IX Scenarios

The following scenarios help illustrate some applications of the Policy:

Pat and Dana, Columbia University students, met at a party. They spent the entire party getting to know each other and dancing. Dana had four shots of tequila and four beers over the course of the evening. At one point, Dana went to the bathroom and Pat noticed that Dana stumbled when walking back into the room.  Dana’s friend told Pat that Dana had been vomiting. Pat volunteered to take Dana home. When they arrived at Dana’s room, Pat began kissing Dana and proceeded to have sex with Dana. When Dana woke up in the morning, Dana asked Pat what happened that evening. Pat told Dana that they had sex and that Dana had asked to have sex.

 A reasonable person could have concluded that Dana was incapacitated due to her alcohol use because Pat saw Dana stumbling and knew Dana had vomited in the bathroom. Dana was therefore unable to affirmatively consent to sexual activity and Pat having sex with Dana while Dana was incapacitated constitutes Prohibited Conduct under this Policy.  If the incident happened on-campus, in a dorm room or University apartment, it may meet the definition of Title IX Rape. If the incident happened at an off-campus location or outside the United States, including on a study abroad program, it may constitute Rape and be addressed under the process for Related Misconduct.

***

Taylor, a Columbia student, and Hong, a Barnard student, have been dating for a few months. On several occasions, Taylor and Hong have engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. One night, in Taylor’s off-campus apartment, Taylor and Hong were making out when Hong said, "I don't feel like having sex tonight.” Taylor continued to kiss Hong and took off Hong’s clothing despite Hong’s verbal and physical objections. Eventually, Hong became silent and submitted to Taylor’s insistence to have sex.

Taylor did not have Hong’s affirmative consent to engage in sexual intercourse, which is a violation of this Policy. Hong objected to having sex and Taylor ignored these objections. Although Taylor and Hong were in an intimate relationship and had previously had consensual sexual intercourse, Hong did not consent to sexual conduct on this particular evening.  Hong’s silence does not imply consent. This conduct may constitute Rape and would be addressed under the process for Related Misconduct because it occurred at an off-campus apartment.

***

Peyton and Jordan were in the hallway of their residence hall with a group of their neighbors on the floor, joking around and telling stories. During the conversation, Peyton casually commented that Jordan was hot, but Jordan did not say anything in response. Peyton placed his arms around Jordan’s waist as they continued their conversation and then touched Jordan’s breasts. Jordan removed Peyton’s hands from her body. A few minutes later, Peyton said he did not understand why Jordan was making such a big deal about Peyton touching her.

Peyton touched Jordan without Jordan’s affirmative consent and under circumstances that suggest the touching was for the purpose of sexual gratification. Because this conduct occurred inside a Columbia University residence hall, it may meet the definition of Title IX Non-Consensual Sexual Contact, which includes touching under or over clothes. 

***

Kai and Lee met at an off-campus location and quickly realized they were both Columbia students.  Lee asked Kai for their number and suggested that they meet for lunch on campus.  A few hours later, Lee began to call and text Kai, asking Kai out on a date. Kai told Lee repeatedly that they are not interested and did not want to date them. After that, Lee found Kai’s campus address and began to send cards and flowers to Kai’s room. Kai wrote to Lee after the first card arrived and asked Lee to leave them alone. Then Lee waited for Kai outside of their class to invite them to dinner. 

Lee’s repeated contact with Kai after Kai told Lee that they were not interested and asked Lee to leave them alone may constitute Title IX Stalking because it occurred on campus.

***

Melissa and Joe, a Ph.D student at Columbia, are married and live in an off-campus housing. After a stressful meeting with his advisor concerning his dissertation, Joe came back to the apartment and berated Melissa about the apartment being messy. Joe grabbed the dinner that Melissa ordered and threw it in her direction, though he did not hit her. When Melissa tried to leave the apartment, Joe grabbed her by the wrist. In the struggle to get away from Joe, Melissa fell and hit her head on the table.

Joe’s actions are Domestic Violence. Any use or threat of physical violence toward a domestic partner or spouse constitutes domestic violence. Because this incident occurred off-campus, it would be addressed under the process for Related Misconduct, which applies regardless of whether Melissa has any relationship to the University.

***

Bette and Tina had been dating for a few months. Tina, an aspiring photographer, asked Bette to pose nude for her portfolio. Bette and Tina got into an argument regarding Tina’s photography. Shortly after they broke up, a mutual friend informed Bette that Tina had posted Bette’s nude photographs on Facebook.

The distribution of photographs of another person’s unclothed body or body parts, without affirmative consent, regardless of whether they originally consented to the taking of the photographs, constitutes Sexual Exploitation and is prohibited by this Policy. This incident would be addressed under the process for Related Misconduct. 

***

Noam, a Teachers College student, and Xiang, a Barnard student, have been dating for a couple weeks.  On several occasions, Noam and Xiang have engaged in consensual sexual intercourse with a condom.  One night, Noam asked Xiang to have sex without a condom, and Xiang said no. Noam and Xiang began having consensual intercourse with a condom, but Noam removed the condom without Xiang’s knowledge.

Noam removing the condom while having sex with Xiang (sometimes referred to as “stealthing”) constitutes Prohibited Conduct under this Policy. Xiang consented to sex with a condom. Contrary to Xiang’s wishes, Noam deliberately removed the condom without Xiang’s knowledge. Noam did not have Xiang’s affirmative consent to engage in this type of sexual interaction. Whether this incident would be addressed under the Title IX Process or the process for Related Misconduct depends on the location where the conduct occurred. Had they agreed to have sex with a condom, and the condom fell off without either of their knowledge unintentionally, this would not be “stealthing,” nor would this impact Xiang’s affirmative consent given before they had sex.