Maintaining Impartiality in School Investigations

School Districts have many different investigations they must initiate under their policies. What follows is a general reminder for School Districts, irrespective of the type of investigation, to ensure equitable treatment of both parties and maintain impartiality.

Presuming an individual’s guilt or innocence quickly is entirely understandable. However, in school investigations such quick judgments can be highly problematic. An investigator may be absolutely certain of a party’s guilt or innocence, but it is imperative that such preconceived notions do not spill into the investigation itself.  If the investigation becomes part of a court case, it is far better to defend a report wherein all the pertinent details are provided and no predetermination has occurred.

Consider the difference between the following:

“Student Y said she witnessed Suzie hit Stephen in the throat.”

“Student Y said she witnessed the alleged altercation between Suzie and Stephen.”

In the first of these examples, the investigator has presumed Suzie hit Stephen in the throat. This may have been done entirely unintentionally, but it seems to suggest the investigator has already found Suzie guilty of hitting Stephen. In the second, the investigator has provided the witness’s importance to an event that is alleged to have occurred. The second is preferred because of the clear impartiality. Even if what follows that sentence is a detailed explanation of how Suzie hit Stephen in the throat, the investigator’s impartiality is clear. They have shown anything that follows that initial sentence is a recitation of alleged events told from the perspective of an apparent witness. 

It is also important to remember removing potential sources of bias in investigations. Look at the following two investigators and consider which investigator could have impartiality and bias concerns.

Potential Investigator A – The alleged misconduct is that Employee A is alleged to have engaged in sexual harassment against Student B. Potential Investigator H had Student B in her math class last year and has been heard in the teacher’s lounge and throughout the school bemoaning Student B as “lazy” and “the worst.”

Potential Investigator Z – Same alleged misconduct as above. This time Potential Investigator Z knows Employee A, but has not expressed any formal opinions on Employee A.

You could get allegations of bias with both of these individuals as an investigator. However, Investigator Z’s alleged bias is largely inconsequential to the investigation itself. So long as the investigator is sure he/she can maintain neutrality, Potential Investigator Z would be preferred.

While on the topic of school investigations, our office wants to remind districts of their responsibility to ensure those involved in the Title IX investigation process are properly trained. Our office currently offers an on-demand Title IX training, compliant with current federal regulations.