April 20, 2016

Dear Provost Etchemendy:

Thank you for your letter. We very much appreciate the opportunity to engage in a dialogue with
you on these important issues. We have carefully reviewed the materials on the website to which
you kindly referred us. Writing as both concerned Stanford alumni and as attorneys, we have
some additional questions based on the points raised in your letter.
First, we have a question about your statement (p.3) that Stanford has long used a definition of
sexual assault, specifically, that parallels the definition in California law. It is our understanding
that Stanfords definition of sexual assault changed significantly in October 2014. Prior to that
time, the definition of sexual assault included sexual touching that was carried out by force,
threat of force, duress, or while the victim was incapacitated.1 However, in October 2014,
Stanfords definition of sexual assault was changed to exclude sexual acts other than vaginal or
anal penetration or oral sex. Can you please point us to the change that occurred in California
criminal law in October 2014 such that it was necessary to amend Stanfords definition of
sexual assault so that it would remain parallel to the law?
Additionally, could you help us understand how this new definition of sexual assault that was
adopted in October 2014, continues to parallel the definition in California law? As an initial
matter, it would be helpful to us if you could clarify what is the definition of sexual assault in
California law to which you are referring. It appears that there is not one such definition but that
there instead are many different sex crimes under California Law, see, e.g, Cal. Penal Code
243.4 (sexual battery); 261 (rape); 288a (oral copulation); 286 (sodomy); 289
(penetration with a foreign object).
When Stanford revised its definition of sexual assault in October 2014, it appears to us that the
definition continued to include penetrative offenses (rape, sodomy, oral copulation, and
penetration with a foreign object) but that sexual battery was for some reason no longer reflected
in Stanfords definition of sexual assault. Was this an oversight? If, as you say, you intend to
have a definition of sexual assault that is consistent with California law, then this appears to be
an omission that bears correcting.

The definition of sexual assault in effect prior to October 2014 was the actual, attempted or threatened
unwanted sexual act, whether by an acquaintance or by a stranger, accomplished (1) against a person's will by means
of force (express or implied), violence, duress, menace, fear or fraud, or (2) when a person is incapacitated or
unaware of the nature of the act, due to unconsciousness, sleep and/or intoxicating substances.
1

Moreover, our understanding is that the AAU survey considers sexual battery to be sexual
assault, and that the vast majority of school disciplinary policies also define it as such. We
would very much appreciate your thoughts on this issue. (We note that it is our understanding
that sexual battery would be prohibited only as misconduct but not as assault at Stanford.)
Likewise, California law identifies a sex crime when penetration occurs and the victim is
prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled
substance. See, e.g, Cal. Penal Code 261(a)(3). Yet Stanfords definition of incapacitation
appears to be substantially narrower than this, requiring, for instance, not only that the victim is
prevented from resisting but that the victim lack any control over his/her body, is otherwise
unaware that sexual activity is occurring, or is unable to appreciate the nature and quality of the
act. See Stanford Admin. Guide 1.7.3. Can you help us understand this apparent discrepancy?
We also appreciate your discussion of the reasons that you initially chose not to participate in the
AAU survey. These may well have been good reasons in 2015, but it seems to us that most of
them should no longer be cause for concern. For example, you note that you were concerned
about response rate and cite the overall 19% AAU response rate. This is a laudable concern. But
many schoolsincluding Stanfords closest peer schoolsthat used the AAU survey had
response rates that were similar to Stanfords. For example, Harvards response rate was 53%
(62% for female undergraduates) and Yales was 52% (62% for female undergraduates).
Meanwhile, the University of Chicago with whom Stanford partnered to create this survey, had
only a 31% response rate. Based on these data, it seems to us that the survey instrument is not the
explanation for the response rate. Moreover, given the strong interest in the AAU survey among
the student body, as expressed by the referendum, it seems likely that response rate would be
high. For the same reason, concerns about survey fatigue should not present an impediment to
resurveying students in 2017, two years after the initial survey when many of the survey-takers
were not even attending Stanford.
The original alumni letter expressed the view that the university would be best served by
participating in a large-scale survey that includes our peer schools in which data can be easily
compared across institutions. Furthermore, it appears that the AAU survey released far more data
and information. For instance, the AAU schools reported on sexual battery, and Stanford did not.
Can you please let us know what is the proportion of senior female undergraduate students who
reported experiencing sexual touching through force, threat of force, or while incapacitated?
To take another example that is of great concern to many alumni, the AAU reported for each
school on the proportion of female graduate students who are sexually harassed by faculty. At
Harvard, for example, the survey results included a table showing that approximately half of
female graduate students report sexual harassment, and of those, 22% (around one-tenth of
female graduate students) were harassed by faculty. Stanford asked survey respondents about

faculty harassment but to our knowledge did not report the results publicly as did the AAU
schools. Can you please share with us to the information about the proportion of female graduate
students who reported sexual harassment by faculty, and also point us to where that information
has been publicly shared?
We would be very grateful for your further thoughts on these issues.
We would like to conclude by saying that we have every confidence that you take the issue of
sexual assault very seriously and that you, like the faculty, students, and alumni share the
common goal of making Stanford a better place. We are pleased to have the opportunity to
engage in this conversation with you regarding this important topic, and we look forward to
receiving your response to our questions.
Very truly yours,
Stephanie Beckstrom, JD 05
Salena Copeland, JD 07
John Eden, JD 06
Nancy Leong, JD 06
Matthew Liebman, JD 06
Justin Pidot, JD 06
Craig Segall, JD 07