Open Letter Regarding
Inequitable Victim-Centered Practices1
“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie— deliberate,
contrived and dishonest— but the myth— persistent, persuasive, and
unrealistic.” -- John F. Kennedy2
The undersigned professors and legal experts write regarding the use of investigative “victim-centered”
practices that threaten to subvert the objective collection and presentation of evidence in administrative,
civil, and criminal sexual assault proceedings. These guilt-presuming methods include “victim-centered”
investigations, “trauma-informed” theories, and the admonition to always “believe the victim.”
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter once wrote that “the history of American freedom is, in no
small measure, the history of procedure.”3 That “procedure” is the constitutional guarantee of due
process, rooted in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. “Without due process for those we hate and
fear — even those whose guilt is obvious — we will all lose our freedoms.”4
To enforce this guarantee of due process, our criminal justice system has been refined over the years to
strike a delicate balance between the interests of the government and its citizens. To ensure the thorough
and unbiased discovery and production of evidence, law enforcement ethics codes have required
diligence, integrity, and impartiality in the conduct of investigations. “Investigators do not determine the
suspects to be guilty; they remain objective in their investigation.”5
Over the last decade, however, policies that direct investigators to “believe the victim” have come to the
fore. These policies undermine neutrality in campus Title IX disciplinary processes as well as in the
criminal justice system. This trend is disturbingly reminiscent of the 1980s and 90s satanic daycare child
abuse “witch hunt” during which investigators were instructed to “believe the children” without
scrutiny.6
Ideological Origins of Victim-Centered Practices
The movement to prioritize belief over truth can be traced back to the early 1990s when advocates began
to call for “swift and unquestioning judgments about the facts of [sexual] harassment without standard

1

This Open Letter, dated February 7, 2018, is sponsored by Stop Abusive and Violent Environments:
http://www.saveservices.org/sexual-assault/investigations/ For more information, contact Christopher Perry, Esq. at
cperry@saveservices.org .
2
Kennedy Library & Museum Rededication Film (1993): Source of Quotation, We Enjoy the Comfort of Opinion, Address
by President John F. Kennedy Yale University Commencement, June 11, 1962
https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/Ready-Reference/Kennedy-Library-Fast-Facts/Yale-UniversityCommencement-Address.aspx
3
Malinski v. New York, 324 U.S. 401, 414 (1945) (Assoc. Justice Felix Frankfurter, concurring opinion.)
4
Andrew Napolitano, Why Due Process is Vital to Freedom,” The Washington Times, (Sept. 21, 2016)
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/21/why-due-process-is-vital-to-freedom/
5
Karen M. Hess, Christine Hess Orthmann & Henry Lim Cho, Introduction to Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, 12th
Ed., Chapter 7: Specialized Roles of Police, p. 255, Cengage Learning (2016).
6
Maureen Casey, How the daycare child abuse hysteria of the 1980s became a witch hunt, The Washington Post, (July 31,
2015) https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-modern-witch-hunt/2015/07/31/057effd8-2f1a-11e5-83531215475949f4_story.html?utm_term=.34045a13ae52

 evidentiary procedures with the chant ‘always believe the victim.’”7 Within the realm of psychological
treatment and care, the need for the therapist to believe the victim is necessary and appropriate. But in
the investigative or adjudicative contexts, it is decidedly not.
The central “believe the victim” concepts are recited in a 2006 End Violence Against Women
International (EVAWI) manual titled Effective Report Writing.8 The manual is expressly designed to
train investigators to prepare an investigative report that “support[s] the charges filed”9 and undermines
“potential defense strategies,”10 with the explicit goal of achieving a “successful prosecution.”11
Investigators are cautioned to focus on “suspect” and witness statements that “corroborate the victim’s
account”12 and highlight only inconsistencies in witness or “suspect” statements that support the
allegations.13
Conspicuously absent from Effective Report Writing is any discussion about how to reconcile
misleading or implausible statements. Instead, the manual ascribes inconsistencies in witness statements
to investigator errors in documentation.14 Moreover, the manual advocates “making sure” the incident
does “not look like a consensual sexual experience”15 by making the complainant “appear more
innocent.”16
Effective Report Writing meticulously avoids use of the words “complainant” or “accuser.” Instead, it
refers to complainants as “victims,” even though District Court Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote it was
presumptuous to assume someone is a “victim” in the investigative context because “[w]hether someone
is a ‘victim’ is a conclusion to be reached at the end of a fair process, not an assumption to be made at
the beginning.”17
Ideological biases in favor of alleged sexual assault victims are particularly ubiquitous in the
campus setting. Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk Gerson describes the “believe the victim”
mantra as attaining the status of a “near-religious teaching.”18 Writers KC Johnson and Stuart
Taylor further explain, “[T]he ideological regimes used on many campuses are designed more to
stack the deck against accused students than to ensure a fair inquiry.”19

Patricia Sharpe and Frances E. Mascia-Lees Source, “Always Believe the Victim," "Innocent Until Proven Guilty," "There Is
No Truth": The Competing Claims of Feminism, Humanism, and Postmodernism in Interpreting Charges of Harassment in
the Academy, Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2, p. 88, Part 1 (1993).
8
End Violence Against Women International, Effective Report Writing: Using the Language of Non-Consensual Sex (2006).
http://olti.evawintl.org/images/docs/REPORT%20WRITING%205-15-12.pdf
9
Id. at 4.
10
Id. at 4, 26.
11
Id. at 3.
12
Id. at 3, 19.
13
Id. at 20.
14
Id. at 23.
15
Id. at 14.
16
Id. at 11.
17
John Doe v. Brandeis University, Memorandum and Order on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, J. Saylor (March 31, 2016).
18
Jeannie Suk Gersen, Shutting Down Conversations About Rape at Harvard Law, The New Yorker (Dec. 11, 2015)
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/argument-sexual-assault-race-harvard-law-school
19
KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, Why Campus Rape Tribunals Hand Down So Many ‘Guilty’ Verdicts, The Weekly
Standard (Nov. 9, 2017) http://www.weeklystandard.com/why-campus-rape-tribunals-hand-down-so-many-guiltyverdicts/article/2010401
7

2

 Victim-Centered Investigations
On college campuses, “believe the victim” ideology is evidenced by the widespread use of “victimcentered” investigations. According to a Human Rights Watch report, a “victim-centered” approach
means the investigator assumes “all sexual assault cases are valid unless established otherwise by
investigative findings.”20
The University of Texas School of Social Work’s Blueprint for Campus Police takes the “victimcentered” concept a step further. The manual instructs investigators to anticipate legal defense
strategies21 and urges that inconsistencies be downplayed by not recording “a detailed account of prior
interview statements.”22
The utilization of victim-centered investigations on campus has given rise to numerous lawsuits by
accused students alleging incomplete or faulty collection of evidence.23 Eric Rosenberg, who has
represented many accused students, notes that “systemic bias” in training materials essentially
“mandat[es] adjudicators shield accusers from exculpatory evidence” because such evidence may “revictimize the victim.”24
Understandably, the use of victim-centered investigations in university settings has been roundly
criticized:
•
•
•

The Federalist Society: “Many of the professors and campus officials who adjudicate campus
sexual assault claims are ‘trained’ to believe accusers and disbelieve accused students, and
barely feign impartiality.”25
The Heritage Foundation: “Extreme care must be taken to avoid having either investigators
or members of a tribunal with preconceived biases or conflicts of interest.”26
The Association of Title IX Administrators: recognized that certain Title IX investigators
have taken victim-centered investigations too far, thereby placing their “thumb on the scale”
on the side of guilt.27

20

Human Rights Watch, Improving Police Response to Sexual Assault, p. 23 (2013).
https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/improvingSAInvest_0.pdf
21
Noel Busch-Armendariz, Caitlin Sulley, & Kathleen Hill, Blueprint for campus police: Responding to sexual assault,
Institute on Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault, University of Texas at Austin, p. 68, Table 7.3 (2016)
https://utexas.app.box.com/v/blueprintforcampuspolice
22
Id. at 68, Table 7.4.
23
SAVE, Victim-Centered Investigations: New Liability Risk for Colleges and Universities (2016)
http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/Victim-Centered-Investigations-and-Liability-Risk.pdf
24
KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, supra note 19.
25
Hans Bader, et al., A Review of Department of Education Programs: Transgender Issues, Racial Quotas in School
Discipline, and Campus Sexual Assault Mandates, Regulatory Transparency Project of the Federalist Society, (Sept. 12,
2017) https://regproject.org/wp-content/uploads/RTP-Race-Sex-Working-Group-Paper.pdf).
26
Hans von Spakovsky, Campus Sexual Assault: Understanding the Problem and How to Fix It, Heritage Foundation (July
25, 2017) http://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/report/campus-sexual-assault-understanding-the-problem-and-how-fix-it
27
ATIXA, The ATIXA Playbook, p. 56 (2017) https://atixa.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/The-ATIXAPlaybook-Final-Electronic-Version.pdf

3

 Trauma-Informed Theories
While “victim-centered” investigations rest upon an easily discernible ideological foundation, “traumainformed” theories represent an attempt to impute a veneer of scientific respectability to the broader
“believe the victim” movement.
Trauma-informed behavioral theories originated with anecdotal reports of how victims of forcible rape
responded to their experiences. The concept of “rape trauma syndrome” (RTS) stemmed from a 1974
survey of 92 forcible rape victims’ self-reported symptoms.28 Authors of the survey classified the
symptoms into two stages: “fear or terror,” followed by efforts to “reorganize” their lives.29
The 1974 survey has been the focus of sharp criticism, highlighting “definitional problems, biased
research samples,” and unreliability because “the inherent complexity of the phenomenon vitiate all
attempts to establish empirically the causal relationship implicit in the concept of a rape trauma
syndrome."30 The survey’s credibility is also compromised by its “failure to distinguish between victims
of rapes, attempted rapes, and molestation.”31 One legal expert concluded rape trauma syndrome is not
“generally accepted by experts.”32 Another found it “troubling” that theories of traumatic memory
“continue to thrive as tenacious cultural memes” despite “very minimal” scientific support.33
But these criticisms have not deterred the accretion of even more symptoms putatively encompassed by
“rape trauma syndrome,” creating a veritable chicken soup of quasi-diagnoses like “tonic immobility,”
“fragmentation of memories,”34 and “factual inconsistencies.”35 One author predicted, “[i]f virtually any
victim behavior is described as consistent with RTS, the term soon will have little meaning.”36
Despite research concluding that extreme stress may actually enhance the subsequent recall of stressful
incidents,37 rape trauma theories have spawned an industry to teach investigators “trauma-informed”
approaches. Rebecca Campbell, PhD, long-time victims’ advocate and psychology professor at Michigan
State University, has popularized the “trauma-informed” approach through numerous publications38 and
presentations to professional audiences across the country.

28

Ann Wolbert Burgess & Lynda Lytle Holmstrom, Rape Trauma Syndrome, 131 Am. J. Psychiatry 98 (1974).
Julian D. Ford, Christine A. Courtois, Rape Trauma Syndrome, Prevention of PTSD, Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (2015)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/rape-trauma-syndrome
30
Giannelli, Paul C., Rape Trauma Syndrome, Faculty Publications, Paper 346, p. 271 (1997).
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/346
31
Robert R. Lawrence, Checking the Allure of Increased Conviction Rates: The Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Rape
Trauma Syndrome in Criminal Proceedings, 70 Va. L. Rev. 1657, 1678-1680 (1984)
32
William O’Donohue, Gwendolyn C. Carlson, Lorraine T. Benuto & Natalie M. Bennett, Examining the Scientific Validity
of Rape Trauma Syndrome, University of Nevada, Reno, Psychiatry, 21 Psych. & Law, Issue 6, 858-876, 860 (2014).
33
Robert A. Nash and James Ost, ed., Concluding Remarks; Malleable knowledge about malleable memories, False and
Distorted Memories, p. 159, Psychology Press (2016).
34
Stephen Porter and Angela R. Birt, Is Traumatic Memory Special? Appl. Cognit. Psychol. 15 S101-S117, S101 (2001).
35
Joanne Archambault (Ret.), Understanding the Neurobiology of Trauma and Implications for Interviewing Victims, p. 25
(2016) https://www.evawintl.org/Library/DocumentLibraryHandler.ashx?id=842.
36
Frazier and Borgida, Rape Trauma Syndrome: A Review of Case Law and Psychological Research, 16 Law & Hum.
Behav. 293, 304-305 (1992).
37
Richard McNally, Pres. and Fellows Harvard Col., Remembering Trauma, Harvard University Press, p. 180 (2005).
38
See, for example, Campbell, R., Shaw, J., & Fehler-Cabral, G., Evaluation of a victim-centered, trauma-informed victim
notification protocol for untested sexual assault kits (SAKs), Violence Against Women (April 24, 2017).
29

4

 Campus investigators stand at the epicenter of trauma-informed concepts. Guidance from the
Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights directed Title IX training to include “the effects of
trauma, including neurobiological change”39 — a phrase pregnant with hidden meaning. Although this
guidance has been rescinded, many college Title IX programs continue to follow its admonitions.
The illusory evidence for trauma-informed theory is found in various training regimes, including a
program on trauma-informed sexual assault investigation offered by the National Center for Campus
Public Safety (NCCPS).40 NCCPS’s Why Campuses Should Conduct Trauma-Informed Sexual Assault
Investigations webinar repeats the same unsupported “trauma-informed” theories on memory
fragmentation, and suggests it is normal for victims to engage in counterintuitive victim behavior such
as communicating and “consensual sexual or social activities” with the alleged perpetrator.41
Journalist Emily Yoffe has characterized trauma-informed approaches as emblematic of “junk science:”
The result is not only a system in which some men are wrongly accused and wrongly
punished. It is a system vulnerable to substantial backlash. University professors and
administrators should understand this. And they, of all people, should identify and call
out junk science.42
Harvard law professor Janet Halley has ridiculed the trauma-informed training employed by her
university, noting the materials provide a “sixth grade level summary of selected neurobiological
research” and are “100% aimed to convince them to believe complainants, precisely when they seem
unreliable and incoherent.”43
In sum, under the umbrella of “trauma-informed” theories, victims’ advocates not only recommend
disregarding complainants’ inconsistencies or behavioral anomalies; they also insist such inconsistencies
should be viewed as probative evidence of trauma. Illogically, this interpretation precludes any
consideration of a complainant’s incongruous statements or inconsistent behavior as evidence, resulting
in an irrefutable argument that the victim’s fragmented or lost memories are certain evidence of trauma,
with the implication that therefore the allegations are true.
Start by Believing Campaign
The Start by Believing campaign, launched in 2011 by End Violence Against Women International, has
been touted as a “global campaign transforming the way we respond to sexual assault.”44 Funded by

39

Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, Questions and Answers on Title IX and Sexual Violence, p. 40 (2014),
withdrawn by 2017 Dear Colleague Letter, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-title-ix-201709.pdf;
see archived 2014 Questions and Answers, https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/qa-201404-title-ix.pdf
40
National Center for Campus Public Safety, Not Alone Report, https://www.nccpsafety.org/resources/library/not-alonereport/.
41
Jeffrey J. Nolan, J.D., Why Campuses Should Conduct Trauma-Informed Sexual Assault Investigations (webinar) TraumaInformed Sexual Assault Investigation and Adjudication Institute, Slides 23, 24 (2016). https://www.nccpsafety.org/trainingtechnical-assistance/webinars/why-campuses-should-conduct-trauma-informed-sexual-assault-investigations#embeds
42
Emily Yoffe, The Bad Science Behind Campus Response to Sexual Assault, The Atlantic, (Sept. 8, 2017)
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/
43
Janet Halley, Trading the Megaphone for the Gavel in Title IX Enforcement, Harvard Law Review 128 Harv. L. Rev. F.
103 (Feb. 18, 2015) https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/trading-the-megaphone-for-the-gavel-in-title-ix-enforcement-2/
44
End Violence Against Women International, Start by Believing, http://www.startbybelieving.org/home

5

 numerous federal grants,45 the Start by Believing philosophy has been disseminated to law enforcement
and other professionals throughout the country, including detectives, criminal investigators, and college
administrators.
According to Stuart Taylor and K.C. Johnson, “campus-training materials are permeated by highly
debatable psychological theories, spawned in part by the Obama administration’s directive that Title IX
training incorporate information on ‘neurobiological change.”46 Taylor and Johnson report, for example,
that Middlebury College’s training urges adjudicators to ‘start by believing’ the accuser:
The training further suggests that in order to be “objective,” investigation reports must
not use the word “alleged” before “victim” or “sexual assault” and must avoid concluding
a victim’s account is inconsistent, “not believable or credible,” based on “her actions
during and after the encounter with the suspect.47
An expert panel consisting of investigators, attorneys, and others analyzed investigative methods such as
those endorsed by Start by Believing, and concluded these approaches “violate ethical requirements for
impartial and honest investigations, are inconsistent with basic notions of fairness and justice, and give
rise to wrongful convictions and determinations of guilt.”48
In 2016, the Arizona Governor’s Commission to Prevent Violence Against Women issued a letter
advising Arizona’s criminal justice agencies to reject the investigative methods proposed by Start by
Believing because their use “creates the possibility of real or perceived confirmation bias.”49 The
Commission’s letter highlighted the distinction between respecting the victim versus allowing a
presumption of guilt to taint the overall criminal justice system:
While investigations and interviews with victims should always be done in a respectful
and trauma-informed manner, law enforcement agencies, and other agencies co-located in
advocacy centers, are strongly cautioned against adopting Start By Believing.50
Citing an Iowa case in which a detective testified the Start by Believing campaign required him to
believe the victim, “no matter what,” the governor’s commission reminded Arizona law enforcement
agencies that they must conduct an “un-biased investigation of allegations of sexual assault.”51
While interviews of complainants should always proceed in a respectful and nonjudgmental manner,
investigators must be instructed to refrain from adopting policies like those advocated by the Start By
Believing campaign.

45

EVAWI has received over $7.5 million in grant funding, mostly from the Department of Justice.
http://www.evawintl.org/grants.aspx
46
KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor, supra note 19.
47
Id.
48
Center for Prosecutor Integrity, Victim-Centered Investigations Undermine the Presumption of Innocence and Victimize the
Innocent: Report of an Expert Panel (2016) http://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/wrongful-conviction-day/victim-centeredinvestigations-undermine-the-presumption-of-innocence-and-victimize-the-innocent-report-of-an-expert-panel/
49
Ray Stern, Ducey’s Faith Office Assails ‘Start by Believing’ Advocacy Program for Rape Victims, Phoenix New Times
(Dec. 15, 2016). http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/duceys-faith-office-assails-start-by-believing-advocacy-programfor-rape-victims-8896373
50
Id. The Commission’s letter is embedded in the article.
51
Id.

6

 Call to Restore Due Process and Fundamental Fairness
By their very name, their ideology, and the methods they foster, “believe the victim” concepts presume
the guilt of an accused. This is the antithesis of the most rudimentary notions of justice. In directing
investigators to corroborate allegations, ignore reporting inconsistencies, and undermine defenses, the
“believe the victim” movement threatens to subvert constitutionally-rooted due process protections.
Canadian Justice Anne Molloy recently recognized the subversive impact of “believe the victim”
policies:
Although the slogan “Believe the victim” has become popularized of late, it has no place
in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling
the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of
sexual assault and then placing a burden on him to prove his innocence. That is
antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the
values underlying our free and democratic society.52
The undersigned professors and criminal justice experts hereby call upon lawmakers, federal agencies,
criminal justice officials, and college administrators to promptly discontinue the use of victim-centered,
trauma-informed, and believe the victim practices that threaten to subvert the objective collection and
presentation of evidence in administrative, civil, and criminal sexual assault proceedings.
Signed:53

Mike Adams, Ph.D.
University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Wilmington, NC

J. Michael Bailey
Professor of Psychology
Northwestern University
Evanston, IL

Michel Alary, M.D., Ph.D.
Laval University
Quebec, QC, Canada

Gregg Barak, Ph.D.
Professor of Criminology & Criminal Justice
Eastern Michigan University
Ypsilanti, MI

Larry Alexander
Warren Distinguished Professor of Law
University of San Diego
San Diego, CA

Elizabeth Bartholet
Morris Wasserstein Professor of Law
Faculty Director, Child Advocacy Program
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA

Michael Allen, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of History
University of Washington, Tacoma
Ellensburg, WA

52

R v. Nyznik, et.al, Superior Court of Justice, Ontario (Aug. 9, 2017). https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/08/09/theacquittal-of-three-cops-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-another-is-a-victory-for-victims-dimanno.html
53
Persons signed this Open Letter in their individual capacities. Organizations are listed for identification purposes only.

7

 Michael Barton, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Social Science and
American Studies
Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg
Middletown, PA

Stephen H. Burns, Ph.D.
Professor of Electrical Engineering (retired)
U. S. Naval Academy
Annapolis, MD
Marshall Burns, Ph.D.
SOL Research, Inc.
Los Angeles, CA

Jay Bergman
Professor of History
Central Connecticut State University
New Britain, CT

Ardel B. Caneday, Ph.D.
Professor of New Testament & Greek
University of Northwestern - St. Paul
St. Paul, MN

G. Robert Blakey
William J. and Dorothy K. O’Neill Professor of
Law Emeritus
Notre Dame Law School
Notre Dame, IN

Adam Candeub
College of Law
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI

Jan H. Blits
Professor Emeritus
University of Delaware
Newark, DE

Russell Cecil, M.D. Ph.D.
Albany Medical College
Albany, NY

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.
Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar
Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics
Loyola University New Orleans
New Orleans, LA

Marco Del Giudice
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM
Steven Dennis, J.D.
Retired judge, Former prosecutor
Columbia, SC

David Bradshaw, Ph.D.
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY

George W. Dent, Jr.
Case Western Reserve University
School of Law
Cleveland, OH

Robert J. Bresler
Professor Emeritus
Penn State University – Harrisburg
Harrisburg, PA

Justin Dillon
KaiserDillon PLLC
Washington, DC

Loretta Graziano Breuning, Ph.D.
California State University, East Bay
Hayward, CA

Thomas Dineen, MA (Oxon.), LLM
Baltimore, MD

Catharine Savage Brosman, Ph.D.
Tulane University
New Orleans, LA

Donald A. Downs
Emeritus
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Sarasota, FL

M. Northrup Buechner, Ph.D.
St. John’s University
New York City, NY

Roger G. Dunham
Professor & Chair
Department of Sociology
University of Miami
Coral Gables, FL

Michael Burlingame
Professor of History
University of Illinois
Springfield, IL

8

 John Dale Dunn, M.D. J.D.
Lecturer, Civilian Faculty Emergency Medicine
Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center
Fort Hood, TX

Professor Marsha Frey
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS
Bruce P. Frohnen
Ohio Northern University College of Law
Ada, OH

John M. Ellis
Emeritus
University of California
Santa Cruz, CA

Jeffrey M. Gamso
Assistant Cuyahoga County Public Defender
Former Legal Director, ACLU of Ohio
Cleveland, OH

Roger Entringer, Ph.D.
Emeritus
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM

Charles Geshekter, Ph.D.
California State University, Chico
Chico, CA

Erwin H. Epstein
Professor Emeritus
Center for Comparative Education
Loyola University Chicago
Chicago, IL

Bruce Gilley, Ph.D.
Portland State University
Portland, OR

Timothy Fay
Former Special Assistant
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Silver Spring, MD

Jerry Glenn, Ph.D.
Emeritus
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, OH

Melvyn L. Fein, Ph.D.
Professor of Sociology
Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice
Kennesaw State University
Kennesaw, GA

Mary Grabar, Ph.D.
Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of
Western Civilization
Clinton, NY
Lino Graglia, LL.B.
University of Texas School of Law
Austin, TX

Gordon E. Finley, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology Emeritus
Florida International University
Miami, FL

Daniel Guerriere, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Philosophy
California State University - Long Beach
Long Beach, CA

Hyman W. Fisher, M.D.
Department of Preventive Medicine
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
New York, NY

George Hagedorn
Professor Emeritus
Virginia Tech University
Pembroke, VA

Douglas C. Frechtling, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
George Washington University
Washington, DC

Janet Halley
Royall Professor of Law
Harvard Law School
Cambridge, MA

Professor Linda Frey
University of Montana
Missoula, MT

Patricia M. Hamill, Esquire
Conrad O'Brien PC
Philadelphia, PA

9

 Ann Hartle, Ph.D.
Emory University
Atlanta, GA

Sajid A. Khan
Deputy Public Defender
Santa Clara County
San Jose, CA

Bruce Heiden, Ph.D.
Professor of Classics
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH

Richard Klein, J.D.
Bruce K. Gould Distinguished Professor of Law
Touro Law School
Central Islip, NY

Mark Y. Herring, Ed.D.
Dean of Library Services
Winthrop University
Rock Hill, SC

David Kopel, J.D.
University of Denver
Denver, CO

Donald A. Hicks, Ph.D.
Professor of Political Economy & Public Policy
University of Texas at Dallas
Dallas, TX

Alan Charles Kors
Henry Charles Lea Professor Emeritus of
History
University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA

Max Hocutt, Ph.D.
Professor of Philosophy Emeritus
University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL

James J. Krivacska, Psy.D.
Psychology & Law Consultants
Woodland Park, NJ

Paul Hollander, Ph.D.
Emeritus
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, MA

Jeffrey A. Kroessler, Ph.D.
Lloyd Sealy Library
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
City University of New York
New York, NY

James L. Hood, Ph.D., M.B.A.
Midway University
Midway, KY

William Kuechler, Ph.D.
University of Nevada at Reno
Reno, NV

Scott C. Idleman
Marquette University Law School
Milwaukee, WI

Nora Laiken, Ph.D.
University of California, San Diego
La Jolla, CA

Jack Kammer, MSW, MBA
Former Parole and Probation Agent
Maryland Dept. of Public Safety and
Correctional Services
Baltimore, MD

Barton Lane, M.D.
Professor of Radiology
Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, CA

Susan Kaplan, PhD, Esq.
Kaplan Law Office
New York, NY

Mitchell Langbert, Ph.D.
Brooklyn College, CUNY
West Shokan, NY

Jonathan Katz
Professor of Physics
Washington University
St. Louis, MO

Barry Latzer, J.D., Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Criminal Justice
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, CUNY
New York, NY

10

 Kimberly C. Lau
Attorney
New York, NY

Joseph H. Manson
Professor, Department of Anthropology
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA

George C. Leef
Director of Research
James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal
Raleigh, NC

Allen Martin, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Texas at Tyler
Tyler, TX

Stan Liebowitz
Ashbel Smith Professor
University of Texas at Dallas
Richardson, TX

Robert McCrie, Ph.D., C.P.P.
Professor and Deputy Chair
Department of Security, Fire and Emergency
Management
John Jay College, CUNY
New York, NY

Jay Logsdon
Deputy Public Defender
Kootenai County
Coeur d’Alene, ID

R.L. McNeely, Ph.D., J.D.
Professor Emeritus
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Milwaukee, WI

Robert Oscar Lopez
Professor of Humanities
L.R. Scarborough College at Southwestern
Baptist Theological Seminary
Fort Worth, TX

Geoffrey Miller, Ph.D.
Professor of Psychology
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM

Carnes Lord, Ph.D.
United States Naval War College
Newport, RI

Prof. James E. Moore, II, Ph.D.
Director, Transportation Engineering Program
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA

Professor Ian Maitland, Ph.D., J.D.
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN

James W. Muller
Professor of Political Science
University of Alaska, Anchorage
Anchorage, AK

Joyce Lee Malcolm
Patrick Henry Professor of Constitutional Law
and the Second Amendment
Antonin Scalia Law School
George Mason University
Arlington, VA

David R. Musher, M.D.
Fellow, N.Y. Academy of Medicine
Associate Professor of Clinical Medicine
New York University School of Medicine
New York, NY

Matthew Malkan, Ph.D.
University of California, Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
Michael Maller, Ph.D.
Queens College
Flushing, NY

Donald F Nelson, Ph.D.
Professor of Physics, Emeritus
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester, MA

Joel C. Mandelman
Deputy General Counsel
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1984-1986)
Arlington, VA

Anthony Nicastro, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Williams College
Williamstown, MA

11

 Sharon Russell Nicoll, Ph.D.
Biologist and Lecturer (Retired)
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley, CA

Eric Rosenberg, Esq.
Rosenberg & Ball Co., L.P.A.
Granville, OH
David J. Rothman, PhD
Director, Graduate Program in Creative Writing
Western State Colorado University
Gunnison, CO

Robert L. Paquette
Executive Director
Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of
Western Civilization
Clinton, NY

David Rudovsky
Senior Fellow
Penn Law School
Philadelphia, PA

Paul C. Parlato, Ph.D.
Dean Emeritus
Wittenberg University
Springfield, OH

Howard S. Schwartz, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Oakland University
Rochester, MI

Jill D. Pasteris, Ph.D.
Washington University
St. Louis, MO

Maimon Schwarzschild
Professor of Law
University of San Diego
San Diego, CA

N. Christopher Phillips, Ph.D.
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR
William S. Peirce, Ph.D.
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, OH

Allen Schwenk, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Mathematics
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI

Harry W Power, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ

James R. Scott, Ph.D. (retired)
NASA Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, OH

Steven E. Rhoads
Professor Emeritus
Department of Politics
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, VA

Charles M. Sevilla
Former President
California Attorneys for Criminal Justice
San Diego, CA
Gary M. Shaw
Professor of Law
Touro Law Center
Central Islip, NY

Glenn M. Ricketts, Ph.D.
Public Affairs Director
National Association of Scholars
New York, NY

Marcus Sheffield, Ph.D.
English Department
Southern Adventist University
Collegedale, TN

Reginald Leamon Robinson
Howard University Law School
Washington, D.C.
Jenna A. Robinson, Ph.D.
President
James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal
Raleigh, NC

Brian M. Sirman, Ph.D.
Boston University
Boston, MA

12

 Thomas A. Smith
Professor of Law
University of San Diego
San Diego, CA

Michael Tonry
Professor of Law and Public Policy
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN

Steven Smith
University of San Diego
San Diego, CA

Warren Treadgold
Saint Louis University
St. Louis, MO

Margaret Snyder, M.A.
Moravian College
Bethlehem, PA

Brandon Van Dyck
Assistant Professor of Government and Law
Lafayette College
Easton, PA

James J. Stewart, D.Sc.
Professor
University of Maryland, University College
Upper Marlboro, MD

Sylvia Wasson, Ed.D.
Santa Rosa Junior College
Santa Rosa, CA

Frederic M. Stiner, Jr., C.P.A. Ph.D., Retired
University of Delaware
Newark, DE

Bradley C. S. Watson, Ph.D.
Philip M. McKenna Professor of Politics
Saint Vincent College
Latrobe, PA

Peter Suedfeld, Ph.D., F.R.S.C.
Department of Psychology
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada

John M. Wermuth, M.B.A.
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Maarten van Swaay, Ph.D.
Emeritus
Kansas State University
Manhattan, KS

Ralph David Westfall, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor
California State Polytechnic University
Pomona, CA

Richard L. Swallow, Ph.D.
Coker College
Hartsville, SC

David E. Williams, Ph.D.
Professor
Oregon State University
Corvallis, OR

George C. Thomas, III
Rutgers University School of Law
Newark, NJ

Peter W. Wood, Ph.D.
President
National Association of Scholars
New York, NY

Lionel Tiger, Ph.D.
Professor of Anthropology Emeritus
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ
Jackson Toby
Professor of Sociology, Emeritus
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, NJ

13