May 28, 2017



OPINION

Exemplary conduct

The University

This summer, the University issued revisions to its sexual misconduct policy as part of a scheduled five-year reevaluation. These changes came under close scrutiny in light of new guidelines issued by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights, as well as complaints about the University's handling of previous instances of sexual violence. Although there remain questions regarding the exact impact of the policy revisions, the new definitions and standards that the administration has established will serve to better protect those students who are most vulnerable to instances of sexual misconduct.

Among the changes is an expansion of the term "sexual misconduct" to include a more comprehensive variety of prohibited actions. Of particular importance is the revised definition of "sexual harassment," which now encompasses threats such as cyberstalking and relationship violence. In the case of cyberstalking, the new policy closes a loophole that for too long has convinced students to tolerate menacing or obnoxious behavior such as incessant text-messaging and emailing. This is a much needed update that keeps the University's approach to sexual misconduct in line with technological developments such as the proliferation of cell phones and school-issued email accounts.

Also significant is the expanded jurisdiction the University has claimed with regard to violations of its sexual misconduct policy. Previously, the policy only applied to actions that took place on University-owned or leased property or within the local residence of a student, faculty member, employee or visitor. The new policy, however, extends to any incident of sexual misconduct regardless of location. Given that more students are traveling together and communicating with one another remotely while off Grounds, it is encouraging to see the University strengthening its policy so it reaches sexually aggressive behavior that takes place on vacations, study abroad trips and while students are home for their academic breaks.

Finally, the University's new standard of evidence for convicting an individual of a policy violation shows a much greater awareness of the complexities surrounding many sexual misconduct cases. The new policy only requires a "preponderance of the evidence" be indicative of a violation for a conviction to be warranted, rather than the previous requirement that there be "clear and convincing evidence." In layman's terms, a "preponderance of the evidence" simply means that evidence "shows that it is 'more likely than not' that the accused student violated" the policy.

This addresses a glaring shortcoming in the current policy, which fails to acknowledge that few cases of rape or sexual assault feature "clear and convincing" facts. "The self doubt and confusion a survivor feels after experiencing an assault combined with a lack of knowledge of what to do and where to go in the hours after an assault makes hard evidence difficult to come by in some cases," Andrea Mousouris, a fourth-year College student and external chair of the Sexual Assault Leadership Council, said in an email. "For example, date rape drugs leave the system relatively quickly, so if you do not go to the hospital soon after, all evidence is lost." Although some might claim that this standard is too harsh, there are simple ways for individuals to avoid compromising situations that could lead to false accusations of sexual misconduct. Drinking responsibly at parties and respecting personal boundaries when communicating digitally, for example, would be a good start.

The University's new policy does not address past concerns about the punishments handed down to those guilty of sexual misconduct. This has been a lingering issue since former student Annie Hylton publicly criticized the University in 2004 for allowing another student, Matthew Hamilton, to remain enrolled after he was found guilty of sexually assaulting her. "The policy regarding sanctioning has not changed drastically," Associate Dean of Students Nicole Eramo said in an email. "The new version continues to require that the panel consider suspension or expulsion for a student found responsible of sexual misconduct. Given that there is a broader range of behaviors included under the term sexual misconduct ... it is hard to predict what the impact will be upon sanctioning."

Nevertheless, the University's policy revisions are a responsible and necessary step toward addressing what is among the most severe crises in American higher education. At a time when nearly one in five women experiences attempted or actual sexual assault while in college, the University should be praised for tailoring its sexual misconduct policy to account for evidentiary uncertainty and the evolving realities of student life.


Published August 24, 2011 in Opinion









The Cavalier Daily welcomes thoughtful, respectful and relevant comments that contribute to a public dialogue. In order to maintain a high level of discourse, all comments must be approved by our moderator. For more information, view our full comment policy.

Commentary

Add your $0.02, go to the comment form or follow the comment feed

Mark
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

Why does noone ever consider the defendant in these cases? Being accused of sexual misconduct can be every bit as damaging as being the victim, and setting a "more likely than not," or just about 50-50 standard of proof is appalling. More likely than not literally means that you would be willing to convict 49 times incorrectly to get it right 51. This is miserable. Especially when the hard evidence would exist except for the alleged victim choosing not to get the proper testing. There is no similar act an alleged perpetrator can do to protect themselves.

We all think that sexual assault is a terrible thing, but this involves deciding whether it happened or not, not whether its bad or not. Making conviction to easy is reckless and immoral.


Sean
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

After 22 years of squelching and cover ups to protect the university's image, they have finally been forced to change their policy. But I doubt they will follow that policy. Old habits die hard.

Google.. UVA Victims of Rape.

The Bill that will be voted on in the Virginia General Assembly in January that will take away the administration's own private armed militia (UVA Police) will be the real change that will force them to start being honest. They won't be able to tell UVA police to keep their mouth shut anymore.


R Shake
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

Wow so to protect young Women who make bad judgements on Male companions, or who have regrets after too much alcohol and a hook up. We infantalize Women by holding only Men accountable. This nonsense is labeled "progress". So we throw out the Constitution and Due Process rights of Men. This is beginning to more and more resemble the Soviet Union and political crimes against the State. This follows the standard that Feminists like Jessica Valenti are advocating that there is no Consent. That a Woman can change her mind at any time and it is automatic Rape.

So young people who are experimenting with Sex, make bad judgments of sexual encounters or who are clumsy at seduction will be made criminals. This may be one of the reasons that the War on Men and Boys in the US. Is why so many are avoiding College. It is a dangerous place if you are straight and male.

For Academic Institutions that during the 1960s promoted the concept of questioning authority. The folks who questioned it are now imposing their Gender Feminist view to criminalize the attraction Men have for Women.

Already on many Colleges once a Woman consumes a drink of Alcohol she cannot give consent. This heavy handed, unconstitutional approach to social interactions between Men and Women will backfire. Count on it.


W&L Married to UVA
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

"The sword of the law should never fall but on those whose guilt is so apparent as to be pronounced by their friends as well as foes." --Thomas Jefferson to Mrs. Sarah Mease, 1801. FE 8:35

"It [is] more dangerous that even a guilty person should be punished without the forms of law, than that he should escape." --Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788. ME 7:30

"It [is] more a duty [of the Attorney General] to save an innocent than to convict a guilty man." --Thomas Jefferson: Biographical Sketch of Peyton Randolph. ME 18:139

\nMr. Jefferson sure seemed to advocate more than a simple preponderance of evidence.


Mark
(12/31/69 7:00pm)
Report
Comment

The articles gleefully celebrates the end of American due process.

"At a time when nearly one in five women experiences attempted or actual sexual assault while in college..."

The real number is more like 1 in 1750:\nhttp://communityvoices.sites.post-gazette.com/index.php/opinion/the-radical-middle/27667--one-in-one-thousand-eight-hundred-seventy-seven

also read:\nhttp://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2011/04/one-of-our-readers-destroys-study-that.html

This is just awful.



All Content © Copyright 2017, The Cavalier Daily


Powered by powered by SNworks Solutions by The State News