In a bias incident near the Bank of America on the Corner, a suspect leaped from his vehicle to punch a University student in the neck. Another attack, which is believed to be a sexual assault, also occurred on Chancellor Street. A second sexual assault, the third incident, occurred in an unidentified fraternity house during a party. No suspects have been identified. Photo by Albin Oh.

Between Sept. 17-19, three University students were attacked in separate instances. Two of the assaults occurred in the Chancellor Street area by the Corner, while the other took place at an undisclosed fraternity house.

Dean of Students Allen Groves distributed a University-wide e-mail at 11 p.m. Tuesday in which he alerted students about the string of attacks. Afterward, University Police and the Office of Student Affairs held a press conference yesterday afternoon to address questions about the assaults and the University’s delayed response.

The first incident occurred at about 1:15 a.m. Sept. 17. In the Chancellor Street area, an unidentified white male attacked a female University student from behind as she was walking to her residence. The perpetrator sexually assaulted the victim, and Charlottesville Police officers investigating the incident, Groves stated in the e-mail.

The second incident occurred at about 1:30 a.m. the next day. Fourth-year College student Sean Bugg was physically assaulted near the Bank of America on the Corner as he was walking home. Groves said a 5-foot-10 black male about 20 years old jumped out of a Ford and then punched and knocked the student to the ground. The attack is believed to have been motivated by the student’s sexual orientation, according to the e-mail.

The third incident occurred at a Sept. 19 fraternity party. An unidentified white male pushed a female University student into a pantry and attempted to sexually assault her, according to the e-mail. The student’s friends heard her screams and opened the pantry door, prompting the assailant to flee on foot.
Groves emphasized that he did not want to notify the student body until he had reliable factual information.

“There is always some degree of tension” between releasing information as quickly as possible and making sure the information is factual rather than speculation, he said.

Regarding the Sept. 17 assault, Groves said members of his office first received indications that the incident had occurred 11 hours after it happened. That afternoon, his office reached out to the president of the victim’s sorority and began attempts to gain direct information about the incident. His office continued to meet about the incident without direct knowledge from the victim, who was not yet ready to discuss what happened, Groves said.

In regards to the Sept. 19 assault, Groves said his office still has “very incomplete information.” His office, at the time of the press conference, did not know the identity of the victim or the particular fraternity house in which the attack occurred. Groves said the incident was reported to his office by the victim’s mother, who declined to identify her daughter. Others present at the party did not know the assailant, Groves said, although he appeared to be about the age of a college student.

Groves called the crimes “fairly brazen attacks,” both for their motivations and for their proximity to hubs of student social life at the University.

Bugg, the victim of the Sept. 18 attack, said he was especially shocked that the attack took place near Chancellor Street because it is so heavily populated by students. He does not know whether his attacker was a student.

“As much trust as I have lost in the Charlottesville community, it would be even worse if it was a student,” he said.
Arts & Sciences Graduate student Gillian Breckenridge, who lives on Chancellor Street, agreed that not only the nature but also the location of the attacks were causes for concern.

“You just don’t think about the Corner being dangerous,” Breckenridge said. “It’s just surprising because you think of it as a student area.”

University Police Lt. Melissa Fielding said it is “important for members of the community to be aware and exercise precautions” by trusting your instincts, removing yourself from suspicious situations and contacting police. She emphasized, however, that her warnings are not intended to place blame on the victims and that University Police merely “want the community to be more aware” that these attacks can happen.

Both Charlottesville and the University offer resources for students who have been attacked. The Sexual Assault Resource Agency in Charlottesville offers support, advocacy and counseling to victims of sexual assault. “We’re here for people whether they were assaulted yesterday or years ago,” said Executive Director Margaret Mikkelsen.  Additionally, the University encourages students to use the resources provided through Counseling and Psychological Services.

Although Bugg is less confident about the greater Charlottesville area, he said he feels the University community itself is safe.

“The University as a whole needs to make it very well known that violence, intolerance, prejudice and discrimination are not acceptable,” Bugg said. “Our community needs to take a very firm stance on it. There need to be conversations on how we can proactively and positively take a stance.”

Joe Morrissey. D-Henrico, is considering a bill that would allow protective orders to be obtained against any abused partner. Courtesy Office of Joe Morrissey.

The General Assembly is debating legislation that will extend protections to victims of abusive relationships. Virginia Del. Joe Morrissey, D-Henrico County, is planning to introduce legislation early next year in response to last May’s Yeardley Love tragedy — a fatal example of domestic violence in a university setting.

Currently, protective orders are granted against two types of perpetrators: individuals charged with stalking, threatening or harming the victim, and members of the same household as the victim. Morrissey’s proposal, though, would change the law to cover any individuals suffering in abusive relationships, thus removing legal requirements such as cohabitation from the provision.

“In my legislation, there will be no specific requirement,” Morrissey said. “It will focus instead on the behavior of the aggressor.”

Morrissey said the catalyst for his proposal was the death of Virginia lacrosse player Yeardley Love, who allegedly was involved in an abusive relationship with George Huguely before he beat her to death in her 14th Street apartment May 3.

“Unfortunately, Yeardley’s death has brought this to a head,” he said, adding that the incident serves as an example of how the bill could provide a tool for victims of abusive relationships in the future.

A similar bill was proposed in the Assembly last year, said Virginia Del. Robert Bell, R-Albemarle County. It was sent to the Assembly’s Crime Commission and was debated by police officers, domestic violence advocates and attorney general representatives, but failed to win approval.

Delegates are currently trying to identify possible stumbling blocks with this year’s bill, Bell said.

“One of the thoughts would be … to enable others who are not family or household members to obtain protective orders under other [inapplicable] circumstances,” he said.

It also is possible that passing the bill would lead to a sudden spike in the number of requested protective orders and how they would be handled.

“Everyone in law enforcement is concerned with providing protection without swamping the system to the point where they can’t provide protection to those who need it,” Bell said. “If that happens, there would be thousands upon thousands of protective orders.”

Legislators such as Bell hope to balance the number of police officers and a backlog of orders that could potentially overwhelm them. “If you spread them too thin, you won’t be able to enforce the protective orders you’re really worried about,” he said.

In Thomas Jefferson’s original architectural plans for the University, he complained that traditional schools that housed students, teachers, classrooms and dining halls under one roof were unattractive and likely to catch on fire. He suggested that faculty live in separate lodges, fitted out with classrooms and study space, that adjoin rows of students’ rooms, creating what he called the Academical Village. Although fires are no longer as pressing of a concern, colleges are favoring this 19th-century approach as a way to foster relationships among students and professors in one integrated living space.

George Washington University is encouraging professors and family members to join students in residence halls, providing the incentive of free rent and additional funding to take students to dinner or hold programs.

“I’ve learned that students stay up a lot later than I do,” said Jeffrey Sich, an associate professor who is currently living with 200 sophomore students in a dormitory. “I learned where to find ear plugs at CVS.”

GWU has had its program in place for the past 12 years, and other universities have had them for the past few decades. Duke University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology are two such schools, and since the 1970s, they have allowed faculty to live on campus among students.

Joe Gonzalez, associate dean of residence life at Duke University, said the arrangement could “engage students in conversation that they might not otherwise have” on a daily basis.

The University also has a similar program — one that was intended to start as early as the 1950s. “It has been a conscious part of U.Va.’s design from the beginning. McCormick residences were designed that way, which were built long before I was here,” said John Evans, director of accommodations in the Housing Division.Faculty members did not actually live in those spaces until 1986, however.

Currently, nine professors are living in on-Grounds residential colleges, many with their family members.

Proponents of the program find that immersing professors in student dorms allows them to connect with students in a more intimate setting. “I do think that with the size of the University, it helps the students get to know faculty and for professors to get to know students out of the classroom setting,” Evans said.

Asst. Art Prof. Eric Ramirez-Weaver is living in Tucker Hall, a part of the Brown Residential College, with his 14-month-old daughter and wife. “We just thought it would be a lot of fun, primarily because my wife and I are very social, and we just wanted to interact with the students.”

Dennis Collins, director of housing at MIT, said the arrangement likely fosters a closer relationship among students and faculty.

“Faculty choose it because they want to become involved not just academically with their students, but also socially,” Collins said. “They want to be a part of the other side.”

The demographics of the Lawn Selection Committee have faced some scrutiny in the past, and Monday’s Focus story (“The greenness of the Lawn”) features the complaints of several former Lawn residents looking to change this process. Although there is no panacea that can quell every complaint, the Lawn Selection Process Organizing Committee — the only group that can make permanent changes to the process — ought to re-evaluate what each of the appointed members of the LSC brings to the process.

The LSC is comprised of 35 fourth-year students, 15 of whom are randomly chosen students who submit their names for drawing by the LSPOC. The other 20 members are fourth-year student leaders of high-profile organizations, such as Student Council and the Honor and University Judiciary Committees. Among these leaders are the fourth-year presidents of the various schools at the University, such as the Nursing, Commerce and Engineering Schools. Although it makes sense to include Council and undergraduate school presidents — who are elected by their peers to represent their interests — spots for other leaders should be reviewed. The Honor Committee and UJC play a prominent role at the University and in student self-governance, but their elected members serve as part of a judiciary, not as general representatives of the student body.

Some students have voiced objections to the underrepresentation of the Greek community on the LSC — even though there are four seats for official Greek representatives. The presidents of the Inter-Fraternity, Inter-Sorority, National Pan-Hellenic and Multicultural Greek Councils all serve on the LSC and represent a fifth of the appointed seats. Additionally, a significant number of other LSC members are Greek, which does not reflect the proportion of students involved in Greek life at the University. Last year’s Council president and Honor Committee chair, for example, were both fraternity members and served on the LSC. It can be difficult to avoid this scenario because a large proportion of student leaders participate in Greek life, but it nevertheless presents an interesting challenge for the committee to ensure fair representation of the University community.

The pros and cons of having either an entirely randomized LSC or one comprised of only student leaders are apparent. An LSC consisting entirely of random fourth-year students may mean some members are apathetic and not interested in putting in the long hours needed to review applications. But it would in theory diversify the pool of members and ensure a number of different perspectives are represented. A committee entirely comprised of student leaders, however, sends the wrong message by implying that traditionally influential student groups ought to have the most say.

Representation of minority groups also is somewhat skewed. For example, the Office of the African-American Affairs dean sits on LSPOC, but there are no additional administrators that represent other ethnic groups. This fact may in part be because there are only program coordinators — not deans — for Hispanic/Latino, Native American, Muslim, and Middle Eastern Student Services or the Asian/Asian Pacific American Student Services offices at the University. Regardless, it seems to send an odd message that only one minority group has official administrative representation on LSPOC.

The LSPOC is correct to create a mix of random yet self-selecting fourth-year students and student leaders to serve on the LSC. Nevertheless, the composition of student leaders chosen makes a significant difference in how students perceive the legitimacy of the committee and the Lawn selection process.

This is a two-part editorial that will continue tomorrow by addressing the transparency of the process for endowed rooms.