This subject is debated a lot these days. Where does responsibility begin and end and where does criminality take over. It was pointed out that the woman waited several months before she reported the attack. Such a period between the alleged crime and reporting it often leaves the woman open to charges of falsifying what really happened; crying rape after a sexual encounter or relationship has gone sour and the woman has had second thoughts.
The conversation brought to mind a case which is being filed by a woman student against Virginia Tech University. In a similar situation, Christy Brzonkala accused two black males of raping her. After several months of depression, and at the urging of her parents and the support of a rape counselor, Christy "agreed to bring a confidential university disciplinary complaint against the young men she identified as her assailants: two freshmen football players, both residents in her dormitory." (NY Sunday Times; Sun. Feb 11, 1996, p.1,32)
The university judicial system found one of the male students innocent but the other guilty of "sexual assault." But because this crime was in the new Student handbook, printed after the incident occurred, the male student cried foul. He was granted an appeal, during which he was allowed an audio tape of the first hearing, which was denied to Ms. Brzonkala, the alleged victim. The male student was again found guilty and sentenced to a one year suspension. On final appeal, the university provost overturned the sentence, calling it "unduly harsh" and reduced the sentence to a "one hour educational session."
In response, Ms. Brzonkala and her family are suing the university under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. At the heart of their suit is their contention that the university's own judicial system is inadequate to handle rape and sexual assault cases. They point to the "favorable treatment" given to the athletes, and that the university put Ms. Brzonkala at a disadvantage for the benefit of the football team. And finally, the incredible sentence of just a "one hour educational session."
There is even more at stake here than just this case. Do university and college judicial systems fairly protect both the victim of the crime and the alleged "perpetrator." Schools do need the power to expel students they consider a danger to the university. But what recourse does someone like Ms. Brzonkala have when the verdict for someone found guilty of sexual assault is a "one hour educational session" and when she is denied evidence that is given to her alleged assailant?
The alternative is to have such sexual assaults be heard in the civil courts. Though it moves more slowly than college judicial systems, it might allow women a fairer hearing and would not be a respecter of an alleged assailant's ability to score touchdowns or slam dunk. As Jeffrey Benedict, an author of a 1995 study on male student athletes and sexual assault at more than 20 colleges said, preferential treatment is inevitable. "Provosts and presidents get into it," he said, "If there is an exception, they will find it."
I confess to be torn by both sides of this case. I am not confident that college university judicial systems are always fair to women and often give athletes a "more" than fair treatment. Yet the time and money it takes to try a sexual assault case in the civil courts may leave the guilty unpunished, even untried, for years. Perhaps a compromise might be to include an off-campus observer who could assist in the hearing of disciplinary cases and be able to judge whether any bias, racial, athletic, gender, has been allowed to mar the fairness of the hearings. Maybe a retired judge could help protect both the students and the school's best interests. Just a thought.
Give feedback: newspeak@wpi.wpi.edu