Improving Campus Incident Reporting Mechanisms

Incident reporting mechanisms are vital avenues for members of the campus community to report incidents of harassment and discrimination to guarantee thorough investigations and appropriate adjudication. Such mechanisms are not only essential to foster a safer and more inclusive campus climate, but they can also help ensure that students, staff and faculty affected by discriminatory behavior receive the support they need.

However, the effectiveness and impact of incident reporting mechanisms depends in large part on their design and accessibility. This backgrounder aims to provide a series of best practices that can be leveraged by campus administrators seeking to enhance their incident reporting mechanisms.

Reality on the Ground

Following the October 7th, 2023, Hamas terrorist attacks on Israel, and the ensuing onset of the Israel-Hamas war, colleges and universities nationwide faced an unprecedented surge in antisemitic incidents on campus. During the 2023-2024 academic year, ADL tracked more than 1,400 antisemitic incidents on campus, a nearly 500% increase over the prior year. 732 antisemitic incidents were recorded between October 7 and the end of 2023 alone. 

As worrying as the number of incidents recorded by ADL is, the self-reported experiences of Jewish students with antisemitism on campus are even more troubling. In a November 2023 survey of college and university students, 73% of Jewish students reported having experienced or witnessed antisemitism on campus since the beginning of the 2023/24 academic year. A majority (55%) of these students did not report these incidents. Not knowing what to do, and concern about potential backlash, were some of the primary reasons students cited as preventing them from reporting anti-Jewish incidents on campus. These findings, alongside numerous Office for Civil Rights (OCR) resolutions that explicitly call for the strengthening of incident reporting mechanisms and investigative procedures, emphasize the urgent need for an overhaul of existing reporting processes on campus.

This need is further substantiated by the recommendations from five university task forces on antisemitism, all of which (Harvard, University of Virginia, Stanford, Penn and Columbia) focus explicitly on the need to strengthen reporting and investigative mechanisms.

Recommended Best Practices

Reporting Mechanism

One of the primary shortcomings of existing campus incident reporting mechanisms is the prevalence of different departments, point persons, forms and contact details offered by colleges and universities to facilitate incident report submissions. At times, this is rooted in the fact that different forms of discrimination are routed to different departments and investigative teams. However, this approach often leads to slower response and investigation timelines, with many reports slipping through the cracks. In addition, it can lead to confusion for students seeking to report incidents about the correct avenue for reporting for their specific experience.

We recommend that colleges and universities develop consolidated incident reporting mechanisms with the following features:

1. All colleges and universities should have a singular, centralized, and widely-publicized ‘Report an Incident of Harassment or Discrimination’ link and webpage with one form for submissions. In the form, individuals should be able to use a drop-down menu to select the type of discrimination or harassment (antisemitism, racism, ableism, etc.) they have experienced. An in-person alternative for online reporting should also be offered.
2. The singular reporting link should be prominently featured on all campus webpages and in all relevant policies and orientation and training materials.
3. Upon reporting an incident, individuals should be assigned an incident case number that can be entered into a portal, dashboard or other online mechanism so that the reporting party can track the progress of their report. Regular updates regarding the progress and outcome of the investigation should be provided here as well.
4. Every campus should designate a Title VI coordinator, who will be responsible for overseeing the investigation of complaints alleging discrimination or harassment based on protected identity characteristics. Centralizing this work in one department will help ensure that the school’s reporting mechanism complies with the U.S. Department of Education’s expectations. It will also help ensure that schools identify and appropriately respond to systemic problems within the campus environment. The coordinator should play a central role in guiding and collaborating with other university departments on topics like incident response trainings and campus climate assessments.

The reporting webpage should be easily accessible and easy-to-navigate, clearly outlining the following:

1. The importance of reporting incidents.
2. The types of conduct prohibited and not prohibited by the campus Code of Conduct and non-discrimination policies.
   • Different types of harassment and discrimination, including antisemitic harassment and discrimination, should be explicitly defined and accompanied by examples to clarify what constitutes a violation of campus policies.
   • Likewise, free speech policies, and how those policies interact with anti-harassment and discrimination policies, should be outlined.
3. An overview of Title VI (in accessible and plain language) should also be provided on the webpage, and the overview should include information regarding how students can file complaints with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.
4. Thorough instructions, provided via plain text and video recording, walking reporting individuals through the process of reporting an incident via the reporting form and outlining what may be expected of the individual after they report an incident.
   • Guidance regarding confidentiality (e.g., whether and how the reporting party’s identity and personal information will be protected) and the extent to which individuals who report incidents may be safeguarded from retaliation or other negative consequences. Underscore that confidentiality policies may also limit certain details being disclosed to the individual reporting the incident.
5. Clear timelines for incident submission, investigation and adjudication. These timelines should be reasonable and help set realistic expectations for those reporting incidents. Follow-up procedures should also be detailed, including what students can expect during the investigation process.
6. Contact details (email addresses and phone numbers) for bias incident response team members, the Title VI coordinator (where applicable), and any relevant state or federal authorities.
7. A mechanism to solicit feedback, both at the end of the reporting form and following the conclusion of the investigation, to allow individuals to evaluate their experience with the reporting process and suggest improvements.
8. Guidance and support resources for impacted individuals, including contact details for campus-based guidance counsellors, support groups and psychological and counselling services, and information on requesting accommodations.

Reporting Departments and Point People

Consolidation and standardization should go beyond the reporting webpage and should be applied to the function and operations of those tasked with assessing and adjudicating incident reports. This can be done via:

1. The development of clear guidelines for the operations of disciplinary bodies. Where possible, the number of distinct disciplinary bodies should be minimized, and their operations should be consolidated into one disciplinary body.
2. The tasking of a designated team of administrators with reviewing all incident reports and ensuring that they are appropriately routed. This team should undergo training to raise their awareness of different types of discrimination and the rules and policies that govern and prohibit certain types of conduct on campus.
3. The establishment of a specific Title VI coordinator role, similar in design and role description to existing Title IX coordinator roles. The coordinator should be charged with reviewing any potential Title VI (including antisemitism-related) cases, assessing aggregate data to identify patterns and trends, and evaluating incident reporting mechanisms to ensure they align with Department of Education expectations.

To gather more robust datasets, and enhance a school’s understanding of the prevalence of harassment and discrimination (including antisemitic harassment and discrimination) on campus, every campus should develop and circulate annual campus climate surveys.

Feedback forms should also be routinely reviewed to ensure that the reporting process is responsive to user feedback. 

Additionally, to promote reporting, relevant campus departments should strive to:

1. Offer training to all students, staff and faculty on recognizing and reporting incidents. Staff, faculty members and those in other student-facing roles, especially those in ‘first responder’ (including DEI and campus law enforcement) roles, should also be trained on how to fairly handle and follow up on incidents reported to them.
2. Consistently promote, via community-wide messages, the campus’s online reporting mechanism, its significance and how it can be used.

Investigations and Outcomes

Throughout the 2023/24 academic year, many students have reported their lack of satisfaction with their experiences with campus investigation and adjudication processes. To strengthen these processes, administrators and reporting departments should:

1. Commit to timely investigations and transparency regarding the outcomes of complaints.
2. Develop guidelines to ensure consistent processes are followed to mitigate against the risk of biased investigations and outcomes.
3. Where possible, share data regarding incidents with relevant internal and external organizations (e.g. antisemitism task forces, Hillels and Chabads, and ADL) to promote data sharing and aid in the identification of incident trends and patterns.
4. Create a dashboard, updated on an annual or bi-annual basis, that provides anonymized aggregate data on the prevalence and nature of incident reports, the findings of investigations and any actions taken (including sanctions). Such efforts would aid the campus community in understanding trends and instill confidence in the reporting process.
5. Track online incidents of antisemitism and other forms of discrimination on campus-owned and operated online platforms and develop content moderation policies.

Conclusion

Colleges and universities nationwide are facing a surge in antisemitism and anti-Israel bias on campus. Most worryingly, the data we have likely represents a significant undercount of the true number of antisemitic incidents on the ground. By promoting reporting and standardizing incident reporting mechanisms, schools can help ensure a better and more realistic understanding of the severity of campus antisemitism, as well as other forms of hate and discrimination. Such data can also be invaluable in identifying trends and patterns in campus-based incidents, allowing universities, campus partners and civil rights organizations to develop more effective, evidence-based and scalable interventions to lower rates of antisemitism on campus and prevent a repeat of the campus climate witnessed during the 2023/24 academic year.