Sexual assault cases should be handled carefully
Sarah Park | Daily Trojan
If Prince Charming went to Brandeis University, he’d be thrown out. That’s the experience of one Brandeis student who was punished for sexual misconduct partially on account of waking a long-term boyfriend with a kiss. Here on campus, a USC student was suspended for sexual assault, not for assaulting a woman, but for not preventing another man from slapping her butt. In fact, the victim explicitly said that her sexual encounter with the accused was completely consensual. Later, judges overturned both cases and rebuked the colleges responsible.
Unfortunately, these cases are not unique. In the last year, an unprecedented 10 such cases have been overturned. In an effort to combat sexual assault, college administrations have created a new class of victims and undermined the fight against sexual assault by cutting corners and adhering to zero-tolerance policies rather than common sense.
These cases irreversibly affected the lives of both of the accused Brandeis University and USC students; although their punishments were later overturned, they must both live with the stigma of sexual assault and will have to explain this incident for years to come. The national outcry on college campuses against sexual assault is a call for justice, and these incidents make a mockery of that cry by committing a further injustice.
Besides the damage done to these students, these miscarriages of justice hurt the fight against sexual assault by destroying trust in the institutions that are tasked with balancing the rights of the victim with those of the accused. Historically, activists condemned universities for not protecting the victims, but in these cases, some colleges have committed an equally atrocious offense.
Perhaps most damagingly, these outlandish cases lend credence to the ideas of those who refuse to acknowledge the reality of sexual assault on campus. Despite the evidence that one in five women are sexually assaulted during college, some, like conservative commentator Milo Yiannopoulos, a recent speaker at USC, maintain that rape culture is a facet of the liberal imagination. However ridiculous Yiannopoulos’ claim may be, these similarly ridiculous cases are easily used as a distraction from the real issue of sexual assault on campus. Though women are the victims in the vast majority of sexual assault cases, these botched decisions allow for such distractions as the “men’s rights” movement, which further detracts from the actual issue of protecting victims of sexual assault.
Finally, the procedural sloppiness demonstrated in some overturned cases poses the risk of letting predators return to campus. Though the very premises of the Brandeis University and USC cases were ridiculous, other sexual assault cases are being appealed based on procedural failings such as not presenting the accused with the full evidence. Besides the fact that this is an affront to the accused, it is also dangerous in that it could let rapists go unpunished because of administrative mistakes.
Colleges have a great responsibility to provide a safe environment for their students, and it is important that they are able to effectively and efficiently handle allegations of sexual assault. Given the lengthy and often ineffective nature of criminal investigations and trials, it is essential that colleges have the ability to keep their campuses safe. As such, these incidents are not a reason for colleges to cede all power to the local police. Rather, these cases should act as a lesson in what not to do and a call for colleges to follow standardized procedures while leaving room for common sense and human judgment. No one need be punished over waking their loved one with a kiss.
The bias and lack of professionalism is by design. Victim’s (read Women’s) advocates have long bridled at the hurdles and evidence based judicial processes that have prevented some women from getting justice.
So at every turn, they have sought to a) reduce or eliminate evidence requirements, and b) reduce or eliminate rights for the accused including cross examination of witnesses.
The single investigator model does both – a single person gets to choose who to interview, what evidence gets considered, how that evidence is presented (including errors or lies) and then decides. Since the colleges are under threat of losing funding if they don’t to the OCR and activists bidding, it’s better err on the side of throwing men under the bus. Let them sue later.
Administrators care only about one thing – their paychecks. Until schools get sued enough to start losing money, they will sacrifice genuine victims as well an the unfairly accused.