Prior to this law, neither law enforcement nor college campus administration showed the ability

to handle student sexual assault cases individually. Robert Davis KC Johnson, Professor of
History and author of Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful injustices of
the Duke Lacrosse rape case, argues, that universities judicial systems do not parallel that of law
enforcement; therefore they are not prepared to handle sexual assault cases. He notes that
because of this inadequacy, it leads to the mishandling of alleged cases and to the conviction of
innocent students (Mantel). Also, when left in the sole hands of the federal government, studies
have shown even in those 39% of rapes reported to the police there is only a 16.3% chance of a
felony conviction; 15 out of 16 rapists will walk free. It may be reasonable to acknowledge the
unmatched power of the federal government in comparison to schools, nevertheless, both
institutions have been inefficient when working independently. The California bill enforces a
common ground shared between the justice branch of the government and schools.
The passage of this law forces colleges and law enforcement to work in unison. Astonishingly,
73 percent of institutions have no protocols on how the institution and law enforcement work
together to respond to such violence ().Rather than individual proposals, collaborative
partnerships provide a more integrative approach to handling sexual assault cases. An integrative
partnership will encourage both parties to fulfill their legal obligations. According to the
California Senate Bill 967, schools are required to form, collaborative partnerships with on-andoff campus and community based organizations to refer students for assistance or make services
available to students (California Legislative Counsel). According to California State
Assemblyman who was consulted for the drafting of this bill, Mike Gatto, this bill could result
in a closer working relationship between campuses and local police and sheriffs departments,
which will result in more thorough investigations, better outcomes for victims, and safer
communities (Kellan). This breeds a more well-rounded system of communication. Also,
students now have a mandated support system to address issues concerning sexual assault,
regardless of their position in the sexual assault case. This includes victims, bystanders, the
accused, as well as campus administration who want information about or have experienced
sexual assault on the property of their institution.
The law holds schools accountable to implement training programs about sexual assault for
students and administration. About 30 percent of institutions receive no training on how to
respond to reports of sexual violence (). A school offering little to no training leads students to
feel they have no qualified resources to turn too. School administrators can also feel hesitant
because they feel inadequately prepared to help students through sexual assault issues. Without
clear guidelines, neither group can contribute to bettering campus sexual violence issues. The bill
requires a comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in
investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking
cases (). By expanding training programs, faculty and students will have the necessary tools for
the prevention and response to sexual violence.
The law promotes positive communication by requiring affirmative consent. It improves on the
no means no policy by requiring conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual
activity (Bill). Instead of waiting for someone to say no, each partner must clarify that they are
ready and willing to proceed. This can come in the form of verbal communication such as an
explicit yes, or nonverbal communication such as a thumbs-up.