Part III: Disruptive Behavior

Sasha Doe* dropped out of Wichita State this fall because she didn’t feel safe.

“Although I continually tried to convince myself that I was brave, and I truly wanted to be brave, the reality was that I crumbled at the thought of walking on campus,” Doe said.

“To this day I love learning,” Doe said, “but I dreaded the reality of going to a school where I could not avoid coming into contact with certain members of the administration, campus police and other who had already decided that my story was insignificant.”

If anything more were to happen, Doe said, she doesn’t think the university would take her seriously, and although education is of “high importance” to her it was coming at the cost of losing her “sense of safety and dignity.”

But it wasn’t always that way.

Before Doe was stalked, pushed out of an office by the Title IX coordinator or raped, she was threatened with “being trespassed from all Wichita State University property” by then-Vice President of Student Affairs Eric Sexton.

“Staff members on campus have reported that your behavior during visits to their departments has been both concerning and disruptive to the normal processes of the University,” Sexton wrote.

Doe had been asking different university staff members about her case, her safety and the Title IX decision letter she received that seemed unclear.

Some of those visits were with the university police and detectives working her case. Doe wanted to know if David Geddam, her former housemate and a Wichita State graduate student, had been reported to the district attorney’s office for violating an order of protection from stalking at Ablah Library.

Doe said she could never get a clear answer, which she wanted for her court dates related to her order of protection, and at one point she had a strange interaction with a university police dispatcher that made her feel like she had been put on some kind of watch list by the university.

She said she called the WSU police department and told them who she was. After she told the dispatcher her name they “became very aggressive in refusing to pass my phone call through to anyone,” Doe told a university police detective at the time.

University Police Chief Sara Morris replied to her Doe’s email to the detective.

“In reference to your situation with one of my dispatchers,” Morris wrote, “I have listened to the phone recording. Although, the dispatcher should have told you at the start that I was out of the office, the questions are not unusual to determine information in order to get a caller to someone who can help them with their questions. At no time did you indicate that you had an emergency that you were needing immediate assistance with.”

Morris then referred Doe to the District Attorney’s office for any further questions regarding her case.

Doe’s original Title IX decision letter, written by then-Title IX Coordinator Jane Link stated, “You are not to discuss this matter with anyone other than the University staff or law enforcement.”

Nov. 25, Geddam had been found in violation of the university’s stalking policy. Dec. 1, Link alerted Doe that Geddam had appealed the outcome of the investigation.

“Please contact my office if you have any questions regarding the appeal process,” Link wrote. “A complete explanation of the appeal process can be found on page 19 of policy 8.16 Sexual Misconduct, Relationship Violence and Stalking Policy for Students.”

Doe didn’t understand the “legalese” of the policy and wasn’t sure what the proper way to respond to Geddam’s appeal.

In Title IX decisions, both parties are given 5 business days to appeal the decision, on the following grounds: “1. A procedural or substantive error occurred that significantly affected the outcome of the case. 2. There is new, relevant information that was not available at the time of the investigation that, if available, could have significantly affected the outcome of the case. This does not include statements from a Complainant or Respondent who chose not to participate in the investigation.”

Sexton, who resigned after 26 years last summer, sent Doe an email Dec. 3, 2015, encouraging her “to communicate in an appropriate, respectful manner to address any concerns that (she) might have with either Jane Link or the University Police.”

“These two offices need to be your points of contact for resolving the complaints you have filed, and they will assist you with contacting on-campus or community-based entities as necessary,” Sexton said in the email.

That email and the wording of the Title IX decision, directing her to speak only to the university or the university police, Doe said, sent her a clear message.

“They didn’t want me on campus and they didn’t want me asking questions,” Doe said. “They wanted to shut me up.”

Morris, Sexton and Link all either did not respond or declined requests to comment on this story.