Part II: The Title IX Investigation

Sasha Doe* should be preparing to graduate this semester, but after a lengthy struggle to protect herself and seek answers from university administrators and police — to no avail — she chose to drop out.

In the summer of 2015, Doe moved into a house within biking distance of Wichita State with four strangers. After taking a year off, she said she had plans to continue her work toward a bachelor’s degree in communications that fall.

But one of her housemates, David Geddam, soon began making her feel uncomfortable and afraid. She said he had started coming into her room while she was asleep, called her his “last resort,” made suicidal threats, became “uncomfortably invested” in her ex-boyfriend and asked her to marry him in a handwritten letter.

Within a month, she had moved out of the house and secured an order of protection from stalking against him. In the next year and a half, Doe would get another order of protection against a different man, file a police report against WSU’s Title IX coordinator for battery and, off campus, report a rape that was never prosecuted.

This is her story.

Doe’s plans to resume her education at Wichita State were now mired in fear. By the start of the school year, she contacted the office of student conduct to alert them her situation with Geddam, who was a graduate teaching assistant at the time. According to university records, Geddam taught 110 students in the fall of 2015.

A Sedgwick County Judge had ordered that Geddam not “follow, harass, telephone, contact or otherwise communicate with” Doe, either directly or indirectly. He was not allowed to come within 100 feet of her.

At the advice of Wichita police, Doe said she had moved into a safe house for battered and endangered women.

By Sept. 3, Wichita State had contacted Doe back about her Title IX complaint about Geddam, according to university emails. Title IX is a federal law forbidding discrimination based on sex at universities that accept federal financial assistance, including Wichita State.

Three weeks later, Sept. 24, Mandy Hambelton, director of student conduct and community standards and deputy Title IX coordinator for students, notified Doe she and Jane Link, then-Title IX coordinator and current Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity, had interviewed seven witnesses for the investigation into Geddam’s behavior.

It wasn’t until Nov. 25 that a decision was made — more than two-and-a-half months after Doe made the complaint. No interim measures were taken by the university.

Between the dates Doe filed the complaint with Wichita State and a decision was made, Doe said Geddam violated the order of protection.

It happened in the library. Doe was at the information technology desk, asking a question, when Geddam walked through the doors.

“I looked over and there he was,” Doe said. “He looked me right in the eyes and he walked toward me. He knew he wasn’t supposed to be that close to me. He could have turned around and gone the other way.”

Instead, Geddam approached her, passed her and entered the computer area of the library.

Geddam said he didn’t know it was Doe in the library when he first entered. He said he was staring at her because he wasn’t sure it was Doe.

“I don’t know how far away it is,” Geddam said, “but by the time I reached the computer — the printer — I was sure that was her. And I don’t know how far that is, but it could have been in violation.

“But I didn’t do it intentionally, and I thought that running back — running out would be basically running towards her and running in would be like running into the computers, so it didn’t make sense.”

Doe said she was “petrified” as he walked in her direction.

“He came very close,” Doe said. “I didn’t know what he would do.”

She reported the violation of the order of protection to university police on Nov. 2.

On Nov. 25, the Title IX office sent Doe a copy of the decision letter, which found Geddam in violation of the university’s stalking policy.

As a result, Geddam faced a set of “consequences and remedies” imposed by the university, which included a no contact order, coordination of schedules through the Title IX office at the beginning of each semester and a deferred suspension.

The terms of Geddams deferred suspension are as follows:

“David will be officially suspended from the University, but the suspension will be deferred, meaning that he may continue to attend classes at this time. His deferred suspension is effective from Nov. 25, 2015 through the duration of his enrollment at Wichita State University. The suspension will be automatically enforced for failure to complete and/or comply with any assigned consequences by the deadline and/or for any subsequent violation of University policy, unless determined otherwise in exceptional circumstances.

“If David is found responsible for any additional violation of Section 8.05/Student Code of Conduct and/or 8.16/Sexual Misconduct, Relationship Violence, and Stalking Policy for Students, he will be automatically suspended for the length of the original deferred suspension in addition to the other consequences imposed for the subsequent violation.”

Doe said it was the wording of this consequence that landed her in Link’s office on Jan. 14, 2016. It seemed to her the university had delayed a decision and set aside any consequences for Geddam’s stalking until after he graduated — Geddam graduated Dec. 13 with a master’s of education — which meant no consequences at all.

The decision, which was signed and sent by Link, included what is commonly known in Title IX investigations as a “gag order.”

“You are not to discuss this matter with anyone other than the University staff or law enforcement,” Link said in the letter.

Both Geddam and Doe formally appealed the decision, and Christine Schneikart-Luebbe, then-Dean of Students, dismissed both appeals. Doe found out her appeal had been dismissed on Jan. 12.

Doe scheduled an appointment with Schneikart-Luebbe to better understand what the decision meant. Schneikart-Luebbe, in a video taken by Doe, appeared unable to answer her questions with a satisfactory level of clarity. She took Doe to Link’s office to “better answer her questions.”

In a recorded interview Doe provided The Sunflower, Link continued to refer Doe to the language of the code of conduct and would not answer Doe’s questions.

Link eventually asked Doe to leave her office, which she appears to do in the video. Once outside the office, Doe alerted Link she was recording.

That’s when Doe said she was pushed, clawed, scratched and her fingers were twisted back. Doe provided The Sunflower with a copy of the video, which dates Jan. 14, 2016.

In the video, which takes place outside Link’s office in the Rhatigan Student Center, Doe can be heard saying, “I’m sorry. You’re on camera,” as she points the camera at Link.

The video then gets shaky and Doe can be heard saying, “You can’t do that to me — you can’t do that to me — you’re hurting me,” as Link’s chest fills the frame and she appears to grab Doe by the hand and twist back her fingers.

You can hear Link say, “Call the police right now” and what sounds like “Get off campus.”

Doe says, “You are in trouble, and you can’t physically touch me.”

Doe then appears to back away and enter the elevator. The footage continues as she runs off campus. There appear to be several witnesses to the incident.

According to a police report filed that day, Link reported an incident to university police. It appears in the crime blotter, filed under “Information,” as “Female was causing staff members problems” between 9 and 11:21 a.m., Jan. 14, 2016.

Doe waited to report the incident until Feb. 24, when she said she told a university police captain, twice — once in person and once on the phone — that Link battered her. Doe provided video footage of that conversation to The Sunflower.

Doe said she waited so long to report the battery because she was afraid of university police and the office of student conduct after being chased off campus by Link.

However, the reported battery did not appear on the police blotter until Mar. 28 — 29 days later. The blotter reads: “Female reports being grabbed in an angry manner by another female,” with no mention of a staff member or student being involved.

According to the Jeanne Clery Act, federal guidelines for crime reporting by campus security, “If new information about an entry into a log becomes available to a police or security department, then the new information shall be recorded in the log not later than two business days after the information becomes available to the police or security department.”

The reason for the delay, the police captain told Doe in a Mar. 25 email, was that he misunderstood the intent of her first report. He said he thought she wanted an internal investigation of the battery done by WSU, so he sent the information he received from her to human resources.

In the email, the captain told Doe: “I understand that you need to make an assault report, you can come to the station and they will have an officer come in and take the report from you.”

Citing student privacy rights, Link declined an interview for this story. The Family Education Rights and Privacy Act does not apply to personal observations or impressions.

Sedgwick County District Attorney Marc Bennett did not file a charge in the case based on evidence provided by university police.

“Both our charging attorney and the District Attorney looked at the available evidence in this case. Based on that evidence, a decision was made not to file a charge at this time,” Dan Dillon, spokeman for the district attorney, said in a statement in July.

This case would not be the last reported by Doe to meet a dead end once it hit the court system.