Executive Summary

This thought piece examines a core issue in civil rights enforcement: investigations that, while purporting to uncover misconduct, often act as protective mechanisms for institutions, leaving victims at risk of further harm. Whether conducted by HR, outside counsel, or criminal authorities, these investigations frequently operate under frameworks prioritizing liability containment over truth and institutional preservation over accountability.

Drawing from EEOC guidance, SHRM practices, and interdisciplinary research on credibility bias, this commentary explores how internal and external investigations often dismiss victims’ experiences as “unsubstantiated,” apply inconsistent credibility standards, and use templated procedures that obscure rather than clarify what happened. The result is a predictable pattern: survivors are retraumatized, documentation is sanitized, and the misconduct is reframed as a misunderstanding—or worse, blamed on the complainant.

This failure is particularly acute when criminal investigations weaponize the inconsistencies of trauma against alleged victims, threatening them with legal consequences for speaking up. For women of color, immigrants, low-wage workers, and others at the margins, the investigatory process itself becomes a mechanism of re-victimization. This piece argues that investigative neutrality is often an illusion and calls for a new approach rooted in accountability, trauma-informed practice, and a fundamental rethinking of who investigations are truly for.

I. The Investigative Discount: Prioritizing Institutional Defense Over Truth

A. The Illusion of Neutrality in Investigations
Investigations into workplace harassment—whether conducted by internal HR departments or external counsel—are often presented as neutral, objective processes. In theory, these investigations are meant to uncover the truth, determine if harassment has occurred, address the misconduct, and protect both the complainant and the organization. However, the reality is far more complex. Investigations are often structured to minimize liability, protect the institution, and maintain a veneer of compliance. The result is a system where institutions look for ways to exonerate themselves or downplay the misconduct’s severity rather than getting to the heart of the allegations. This is what I term the “investigative discount.”

B. The Standard Investigation Template: A Tool of Institutional Protection
One of the most significant factors contributing to the “investigative discount” is the standardization of the investigative process. Many organizations, especially large and government employers, rely on templated investigation frameworks to streamline the process and ensure consistency. However, these templates often operate in ways that favor the institution, particularly regarding credibility assessments. For instance, in many harassment cases, an investigator will focus on the “facts” provided by both parties, applying a “he-said-she-said” model. In the case of alleged harassment, this framework minimizes the lived experience of the complainant, placing their testimony on equal footing with the suspected perpetrator, even when the context (e.g., power dynamics, repeated behavior) clearly shows a pattern of abuse.

Furthermore, many investigative templates do not account for the trauma experienced by complainants, who may struggle to recall specific dates or incidents but whose testimony is nonetheless truthful and significant. This failure to recognize trauma as part of the factual record exacerbates the bias against complainants, particularly when they are women of color, immigrants, or other marginalized individuals. The reliance on these generic frameworks can lead to neither fair nor just outcomes, ultimately undermining the purpose of investigations in the first place.

C. Interview Bias and the Presumption of Employer Reasonableness
The interview phase of harassment investigations often reflects another key element of institutional bias. Whether internal or external, investigators are human—and their perspectives, assumptions, and biases inevitably influence the direction of their inquiries. When interviewing both the complainant and the accused, there is often an unspoken presumption that the employer (or alleged perpetrator) is reasonable, well-intentioned, and trustworthy. This presumption is rarely challenged or questioned. On the other hand, the complainant’s testimony is frequently scrutinized for consistency, emotional clarity, and corroborating evidence, leading to an inherent bias against victims of harassment.

The burden placed on victims to prove their allegations, particularly in environments where institutional power is skewed in favor of employers, creates a situation where the complainant’s voice is disproportionately discounted. This phenomenon is compounded by the fact that many of these cases involve low-wage workers or individuals from marginalized backgrounds, whose claims are often dismissed as less credible due to their perceived social status or economic vulnerability.

D. The Impact of Investigator Bias
Workplace investigation bias is unintentional and intentional, and its impact is pervasive. Research by the American Psychological Association (APA) shows that investigations often mirror societal biases that favor those in power while discrediting marginalized voices. Unintentional bias arises when investigators, often without conscious awareness, fail to recognize cultural nuances, misinterpret emotional expressions, or overlook patterns of discrimination. These biases can stem from the investigator’s personal background or institutional conditioning, leading to missed evidence, ignored patterns, and ultimately, a failure to address the alleged misconduct adequately. Unintentional and intentional bias have serious legal ramifications as they distort the fairness of investigations and undermine the complainant’s right to a neutral, thorough process.

However, deliberate bias is also embedded in many investigative practices. Sometimes, organizations design or allow investigative processes that deliberately downplay the seriousness of harassment or fail to recognize systemic issues. This can be driven by a desire to protect the institution’s reputation, avoid legal liability, or maintain the status quo. Intentional bias often manifests in defensive tactics, such as dismissing the complainant’s narrative, minimizing the severity of the harassment, or prioritizing the protection of the accused (frequently a senior figure) over the complainant.

This combination of unintentional and intentional bias leads to a cycle of disbelief, where the complainant’s experiences are minimized or invalidated by a process that is meant to provide protection. Investigators may unconsciously side with the institution they represent, downplaying the complainant’s knowledge and prioritizing the institution’s interests. The result is a flawed investigation that fails to fully address the harm, leaving the complainant feeling further alienated and revictimized by the system designed to offer justice.

EEOC guidance emphasizes that investigations should be impartial and based on a thorough understanding of the facts. However, when investigators fail to recognize or address bias—unintentional or intentional—the system fails both the complainant and the principles of justice. Without addressing these biases, the investigation process becomes another form of institutional harm.

E. The Presumption of Employer Reasonableness
One of the most pervasive issues in workplace investigations is the presumption of employer reasonableness. This assumption often frames the employer’s perspective as inherently credible, while the complainant’s account is scrutinized for inconsistencies or perceived exaggeration. This dynamic can lead to investigators inadvertently favoring the employer’s narrative, even when the evidence supports the complainant’s version of events. The EEOC guidance suggests that investigators should maintain neutrality and impartiality, but the inherent power imbalance in many workplace settings can bias this process. When investigators are conditioned to assume that employers have policies to ensure fairness, they may overlook systemic problems or individual biases that undermine the investigation’s integrity.

This presumption of reasonableness becomes particularly problematic when dealing with entrenched workplace cultures that normalize harassment or discrimination. Investigators unfamiliar with the nuances of workplace discrimination may focus on whether formal procedures were followed rather than questioning whether the procedures themselves were designed to protect the institution rather than the employees. The result is that harassment is often minimized or dismissed as a one-time incident rather than a repeated behavior pattern rooted in structural issues.

F. The Role of Standard Investigation Templates
While meant to streamline the process, standard investigation templates often contribute to biased or incomplete investigations. These templates are designed to collect the most basic information and follow a standardized set of questions. However, they tend to emphasize finding a straightforward, linear narrative that often overlooks the complex dynamics of workplace harassment. Investigators following these templates may focus on whether a specific event meets a legal threshold, such as whether the alleged behavior was “severe or pervasive,” rather than recognizing the cumulative nature of ongoing harassment. These templates often fail to account for the subtle but essential patterns of behavior that define many harassment cases, especially those involving microaggressions, informal coercion, and subtle retaliation.

Furthermore, templates prioritize formal procedures over emotional or cultural contexts, which can further alienate complainants. For example, they might not adequately address interpersonal power dynamics, particularly in hierarchical organizations where subordinates may be less willing or able to speak up. The lack of a holistic approach to the investigation means that important contextual factors—such as the complainant’s history of discrimination or retaliation—can be overlooked. As a result, investigators may inadvertently dismiss claims or fail to document the full scope of the harassment properly.

G. The Presumption of Employer Reasonableness
One of the most significant biases in workplace investigations is the presumption that the employer’s actions are reasonable by default. Investigators often treat the employer’s narrative or defense as inherently credible, assuming the organization is acting in good faith by its established procedures and policies. This presumption is powerful in larger institutions, where HR departments and corporate structures are seen as neutral entities with built-in checks and balances to prevent misconduct. However, this assumption can lead to an incomplete or biased investigation process that overlooks systemic issues within the organization itself.

For example, in cases of workplace harassment, investigators may give more weight to the employer’s policies and compliance with those policies than to the actual experiences of the complainant. This can create a significant barrier for victims, as their testimony is questioned and overshadowed by the company’s established reputation for being a “good employer” or having an internal process designed to protect workers. This bias is particularly dangerous in cases where the employer has a track record of covering up misconduct or minimizing allegations to avoid reputational damage or legal liability.

Such a presumption is detrimental to the complainant and the broader system of workplace protections. When investigators lean too heavily on employer reasonableness, they allow institutional power to dictate the outcome of the investigation, which can ultimately perpetuate a culture of impunity for harassers. In these cases, the real issue—the victim’s experience and the organization’s failure to address it—becomes secondary to the desire to preserve the status quo.

H. The Role of Standard Investigation Templates
A common practice in workplace investigations is using standardized templates designed to maintain consistency and ensure all relevant areas are covered. However, these templates can inadvertently limit the scope of the investigation, reducing the complexity of harassment complaints to mere check boxes. The reliance on these templates often leads to the narrowing of inquiry, which can result in critical aspects of the complaint being overlooked.

Templates typically focus on verifying specific facts—asking whether certain events occurred, whether specific rules were violated, or whether procedures were followed. However, this approach often fails to capture the broader context of the complaint, particularly when it comes to subtle forms of discrimination or the emotional impact of harassment. For example, a complainant might report a pattern of belittling comments from a supervisor over time. Still, if the template is focused only on isolated events, the systemic nature of the abuse is not adequately addressed.

Furthermore, by encouraging investigators to prioritize compliance over context, standardized templates often result in a “tick-box” mentality. Investigators may become fixated on whether the formal rules were breached rather than considering whether the underlying workplace culture enabled or ignored harmful behavior. The use of such templates thus risks reinforcing a limited, incomplete view of the issue at hand, where emotional distress or ongoing psychological harm is overlooked in favor of documenting discrete events.

I. A Call for Reimagining Investigations
Current workplace investigation practices often prioritize institutional protection over individual justice. While intended to ensure fairness, the current system tends to shield employers from liability while diminishing the complainant’s voice. To address this issue, workplace investigations must undergo a fundamental shift prioritizing fairness, empathy, and a commitment to uncovering the truth for all workers.

To begin with, investigations should go beyond merely verifying compliance with policies. They must delve into the systemic context of harassment, acknowledging that simple procedural checks do not always capture behavior rooted in power imbalances and discrimination. Investigators should be trained to recognize their own biases and understand how power dynamics impact the lived experiences of workers, particularly those from marginalized groups. The focus should shift from a presumption of employer reasonableness to a more thorough exploration of the underlying workplace culture.

Additionally, the shift requires recognizing that employers are not neutral entities. Companies are inherently driven by their interests, which can sometimes lead to a failure to protect workers. Investigations must be impartial, not shield institutions from liability or responsibility for harmful behavior. Investigators should treat complaints with the same scrutiny they would apply to any other legal claim, ensuring that employees are treated fairly and that justice is upheld throughout the process.

Ultimately, reimagining workplace investigations means moving away from risk management and compliance and emphasizing fairness and accountability more. Investigations should seek to uncover the truth and ensure that all workers, regardless of their position or power, are treated with dignity and respect. This transformation requires a shift in investigative practices and a cultural change within workplaces—one that truly values the safety and well-being of all employees.

II. Investigator Bias and Its Legal Ramifications

A. Bias and the Legal Standard
Bias in workplace investigations is not merely an ethical issue but also a legal one. Under Title VII and other relevant employment laws, the employer must conduct a fair, unbiased investigation into harassment claims. When intentional or unintentional bias infects the investigative process, it compromises the fairness of the investigation and undermines the legal protections afforded to employees. In many cases, biased investigations lead to the dismissal of legitimate complaints, leaving victims without recourse and reinforcing systemic injustice.

The legal implications are profound. Courts have repeatedly emphasized the importance of impartial investigations in discrimination cases, with several rulings indicating that any failure to investigate adequately could be viewed as evidence of an employer’s indifference to employee rights. The absence of a fair and impartial investigation can form the basis of liability under anti-discrimination statutes, potentially exposing employers to compensatory and punitive damages.

B. Bias’s Impact on Workplace Culture
The consequences of biased investigations extend beyond individual cases and directly influence workplace culture. When employees see that complaints are not taken seriously or are handled unfairly, it sends a clear message that harassment is tolerated. The institution’s interests come before the safety and well-being of its workers. This fosters a toxic work environment where employees feel unsafe and unsupported in raising concerns.

Moreover, biased investigations have a chilling effect on reporting. Employees who witness misconduct or experience it themselves may hesitate to come forward if they perceive that the process is biased or geared toward protecting the employer rather than ensuring justice. This silence perpetuates the cycle of abuse and undermines the overall integrity of the workplace.

C. Solutions: Redesigning the Investigation Process
Workplaces must redesign investigative processes to address investigator bias and its legal ramifications. This redesign should focus on eliminating bias at every level, from training investigators to recognize and mitigate their biases to restructuring the process to prioritize fairness and transparency.

First, investigators should undergo regular training in cultural competency and unconscious bias, which would help them recognize the unique challenges faced by marginalized workers. Investigators must also be taught how to navigate power dynamics within the workplace and understand the broader context of harassment. Without this training, investigators may fail to recognize subtle forms of discrimination and may be less likely to give complainants the benefit of the doubt.

Second, the investigative process should be structured for comprehensive and unbiased evidence gathering. This means considering not only the isolated incidents of alleged harassment but also the broader pattern of behavior, including repeated actions, workplace culture, and the employer’s response (or lack thereof). The investigation should also prioritize the complainant’s lived experience and emotional distress as legitimate and essential parts of the evidence.

Finally, to ensure that investigations are fair and transparent, workplaces should establish independent oversight mechanisms, such as external investigators or audits of internal investigations. This helps prevent the appearance (or reality) of conflicts of interest and ensures that investigations are not conducted solely to shield the employer from liability.

III. Criminal Investigations: From Victim to Suspect

A. When Law Enforcement Fails the Vulnerable
Victims who come forward to report abuse—especially sexual exploitation—often face a harsh and re-traumatizing reality when law enforcement intervenes. Instead of being supported for their harm, they are scrutinized for inconsistencies in their narrative, motives, and behaviors. The very institutions designed to protect them become sites of suspicion. Investigators question the credibility of victims, imposing a burden of proof that should not be theirs to bear. The result is a dynamic where victims are treated as suspects, and their trauma becomes an obstacle rather than a focal point of the investigation.

Research by the National Sexual Violence Resource Center (NSVRC) highlights that many survivors of sexual assault experience post-traumatic stress symptoms, such as delayed reporting and inconsistent narratives. These behaviors are often misinterpreted by law enforcement as signs of deception or unreliable testimony, which may contribute to secondary victimization. This systemic failure discourages further disclosures and undermines the victim’s trust in law enforcement.

The American Psychological Association (APA) has also emphasized how trauma affects memory, making it difficult for survivors to recall specific details. This can lead investigators to question the validity of the victim’s account, contributing to further harm. Law enforcement’s failure to recognize these trauma-related memory lapses leaves victims vulnerable and their stories dismissed.

B. Coercive Interviews and Threats of Prosecution
In some cases, victims are manipulated into doubting their own experiences. Law enforcement may threaten them with prosecution, suggesting that any inconsistencies in their account could lead to charges or that they are being uncooperative. Victims are often accused of “lying to police” or “misusing state resources” if their story evolves, which is a common reaction to trauma. This approach is not only unjust but deeply damaging, as it silences victims, leaving them vulnerable to both further victimization and criminal consequences. Coercion in this form reinforces a dangerous narrative that victims’ accounts are unreliable, making them less likely to seek help and more likely to endure further abuse in silence.

For example, a study titled “Unfounded Sexual Assault: Women’s Experiences of Not Being Believed by the Police” explores women’s experiences when police disbelieved their sexual assault reports. The findings indicate that negative interactions with law enforcement, including being disbelieved or dismissed, can lead to feelings of isolation, distrust, and reluctance to report future incidents. This aligns with the concept of secondary victimization, where victims experience additional harm through the responses of institutions and individuals.

C. Gendered and Racialized Disbelief
Black women, immigrants, sex workers, and LGBTQ+ survivors are disproportionately criminalized when they report abuse. Their experiences are often filtered through a lens of racial or gendered deviance rather than victimhood. These marginalized individuals are far more likely to face skepticism and outright disbelief from law enforcement, who may view them through a narrow, biased perspective. Their vulnerability is not met with empathy or support but with suspicion and the threat of criminal charges.

The National Center for Transgender Equality found that transgender survivors are more likely to face discriminatory treatment when they report abuse, with many survivors stating that they were not believed by law enforcement. This systemic failure not only revictimizes survivors but also perpetuates a cycle of silence and fear, deterring others from coming forward. This approach further undermines the integrity of the investigation process and contributes to the isolation and disempowerment of marginalized communities.

IV. Structural Parallels Between HR and Law Enforcement Investigations

Both workplace harassment investigations and criminal investigations share structural flaws that prioritize institutional protection over personal harm. While these two systems may appear different in their objectives, they often operate similarly by minimizing the experiences of marginalized individuals and reinforcing institutional power dynamics rather than focusing on the complainant’s dignity and safety.

A. Prioritization of Institutional Protection
HR and law enforcement investigations tend to center on preserving the institution’s reputation rather than addressing the harm done to the individual. In the workplace, this often manifests as dismissing harassment claims without a thorough investigation or seeking ways to minimize the perceived impact of the claim on the company. Similarly, in criminal investigations, particularly those involving vulnerable populations, law enforcement may focus more on protecting their department’s image or resources rather than validating the victim’s experience. This institutional prioritization leaves the victim vulnerable, and their claim becomes secondary to the organization’s interests. This prioritization not only prevents meaningful accountability but also fosters an environment where victims feel their experiences are secondary to institutional concerns.

B. Credibility Metrics and Penalizing Trauma Expression
Both HR and criminal investigations utilize credibility metrics that penalize victims’ trauma expression. In workplace investigations, the complainant’s emotional reactions or inconsistencies in testimony are often treated as evidence of exaggeration or unreliability, leading to dismissing their claims. Similarly, in criminal investigations—particularly those involving sexual violence—victims are often questioned about the inconsistencies in their statements or their emotional responses, with those inconsistencies used as justification for disbelieving their accounts. In both systems, the focus is shifted from the substance of the claim to how the victim presents their trauma, reinforcing a cycle of disbelief. Law enforcement, for example, can subject victims to coercive interview tactics, re-traumatizing them by focusing on inconsistencies as evidence of a faulty narrative rather than viewing them as an outcome of trauma. This discourages further disclosures and compounds the survivor’s distress.

C. Demand for Objective Evidence in Contexts of Private Harm
Both HR and criminal investigations often demand objective, physical evidence in cases where abuse is inherently private. Harassment or exploitation usually takes place behind closed doors, with few witnesses or tangible proof. In the workplace, claims are dismissed unless there is clear documentation such as emails, recordings, or direct witnesses to the incident. In criminal investigations, particularly those involving sexual assault, the absence of physical evidence or witnesses is often used to undermine the victim’s testimony, reinforcing the idea that the lack of proof invalidates the claim. This demand for objective evidence places an unfair burden on the victim and overlooks the nature of private, personal abuse. Investigators often fail to recognize that the victim’s testimony, while lacking physical evidence, is still credible and critical to understanding the scope of harm.

D. Normalization of Victim Re-Traumatization
Both systems normalize the re-traumatization of victims by subjecting them to processes that invalidate or discredit their experiences. In workplace investigations, victims are often forced to relive their trauma in a setting that may be invasive and humiliating, with their testimony being scrutinized for inconsistencies or bias. This process, meant to seek justice, often ends up further damaging the victim emotionally and psychologically. In law enforcement investigations, particularly those involving marginalized communities, victims may be treated with suspicion or even threatened with criminal charges, leading to further harm. This issue is exacerbated when coercive tactics are employed in criminal investigations, where victims are threatened with prosecution or accused of “lying to the police,” further minimizing their credibility. These practices of disbelief and minimization of trauma are normalized, reinforcing a system where victims are disempowered rather than supported. The result is a continued cycle of harm, where victims feel their voices are not heard, and their claims are disregarded.

E. Shared Disempowerment: The Impact on Marginalized Groups
Both HR and law enforcement investigations disproportionately affect marginalized groups, such as women, people of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and immigrants. These groups are already subject to societal power imbalances, and when they come forward with claims, they are often doubted or dismissed. In HR investigations, for example, women of color may be labeled as complicated or unreliable when reporting harassment, especially when the accused holds more institutional power. Similarly, in criminal investigations, marginalized victims are more likely to be criminalized or questioned about their credibility, making it harder for them to seek justice. The shared impact of these systems on marginalized communities further deepens existing inequities and perpetuates cycles of harm and injustice. The lack of trust in law enforcement, especially in marginalized communities, discourages reporting and participation in the justice system, maintaining a status quo of unaddressed abuse.

V. Toward a Survivor-Centered Investigative Model

A. Reframing the Investigative Mandate
Investigations must evolve from being risk-management exercises to truth-seeking endeavors. This requires a shift in perspective, where the goal is not to protect the institution’s reputation but to uncover the truth, validate the complainant’s experience, and address any wrongdoing. A key aspect of this shift is recognizing that trauma responses are not linear, nor can they be neatly categorized. Survivors of workplace harassment, assault, or other forms of abuse often display a range of emotional responses—confusion, anger, fear—that may not follow a predictable pattern. These responses should not be dismissed as evidence of deceit but should instead be understood as a natural and valid reaction to the trauma they have experienced. Furthermore, the investigative framework must evolve to recognize that trauma-induced behaviors and delayed reporting are not signs of falsification but reflections of genuine, complex victim experiences. Investigators must be trained to understand and approach these complexities with empathy, not suspicion.

B. Affirming Lived Experience as Valid Evidence
The lived experience of survivors must be considered credible unless there is clear evidence to the contrary. A survivor’s testimony is not just a personal story but valid evidence of the harm they have endured. Courts, investigators, and HR departments must acknowledge the importance of survivor narratives and treat them as legitimate, particularly in the absence of physical evidence. Institutions must invest in training investigators on trauma-informed practices to ensure this recognition. This training would help investigators understand the complexities of trauma and how it impacts memory, behavior, and communication, thereby creating a more empathetic and accurate investigative process. When handled with respect and understanding, survivor narratives become critical pieces of evidence in both legal and workplace contexts. Moreover, recognizing that the institutional power dynamics and bias in HR and law enforcement investigations disproportionately harm marginalized individuals, investigators must be trained to mitigate these biases, ensuring that the process prioritizes truth over institutional protectionism.

C. Legal and Policy Reform
Legal and policy reforms are essential to protect survivors and ensure a more just process. One such reform is the mandated use of independent third-party investigators in cases involving serious allegations of harassment or misconduct. Independent investigators can provide a neutral perspective, minimizing potential bias or institutional protectionism in internal investigations. Furthermore, institutions should be required to document misconduct patterns rather than dismiss isolated complaints. This ensures that repeat offenses are addressed and the broader harassment context is fully understood. Additionally, law enforcement must implement reforms to protect complainants from punitive treatment. Survivors should not fear criminalization or retribution for coming forward with their experiences. Investigations must focus on the perpetrator’s actions, not discredit the survivor’s account.

Trust is a cornerstone of a survivor-centered model, and it can only be restored when survivors feel confident that their experiences will be treated with respect and fairness. Institutions can rebuild that trust by ensuring impartial investigations that prioritize the complainant’s voice and experiences. Legal reforms must create safeguards that prevent retaliatory charges or punitive treatment of vulnerable individuals. The focus of any investigative process—whether internal or criminal—must be to ensure that survivors feel supported and empowered to seek justice without the fear of further victimization.

Through these reforms, we can build a survivor-centered investigative model that prioritizes justice, accountability, and healing. The shift requires institutional and legal change, ensuring that investigations become vehicles for justice rather than mechanisms of institutional defense. Such a transformation can break the cycles of harm and ensure that survivors’ voices are respected and validated.

VI. Conclusion: Investigations Should Not Be Weapons

Civil or criminal investigations are meant to clarify harm, not compound it. Investigations are vital for accountability and justice when conducted impartially, transparently, and with respect for the survivor’s experience. They bring hidden truths to light, ensure that perpetrators are held accountable, and provide healing opportunities for victims. However, when these processes are weaponized—used to defend institutional power or minimize harm—they perpetuate cycles of trauma, further isolating those already vulnerable.

Institutions must evolve in their approach to investigations. The focus must shift from risk management to truth-seeking, from protecting the institution to safeguarding the people it serves. Investigators should recognize that the truth is not always tidy—it is not always clear-cut or linear. It may come in pieces, expressed through fragmented narratives, emotional responses, and unspoken pain. Survivors’ voices are valid, no matter how messy the delivery. Until institutions understand and embrace this truth—until they recognize that trauma and complexity are real, not excuses—they will continue to silence the very people they claim to protect.

Let this be a call to action: Investigations must be about seeking justice, not defending power. Only when we ensure that investigations are conducted with empathy, impartiality, and a focus on truth can we break the cycle of harm and build a justice system where all individuals, especially the most vulnerable, are protected. By adopting a survivor-centered investigative model—rooted in accountability, healing, and structural reform—we can move toward a system that upholds justice and supports every individual’s dignity and well-being.