LAST WEEK hundreds of students, staff and faculty members assembled in silent protest of the University's sexual assault policy. The demonstration targeted, among other things, the Sexual Assault Board's confidentiality policy, which prevents those involved in proceedings from speaking out and precludes the release of all trial records. The protest was certainly praise-worthy. Indeed, the arcane ethos of secrecy surrounding sexual assault at the University has gone on too long. Our system is in desperate need of immediate change in favor of an open system that will allow community scrutiny. But the implications of such a move will likely upset those currently protesting the sexual assault policy more than they realize.
Recent outcry against University sexual assault policy has been based on perceptions that the institution does not do enough to support victims of sexual assault. Last year, the mother of a University student launched a Web site calling for change, claiming the University failed to respond adequately after her daughter reported she was raped by a fellow student. Numerous columns and editorials on the pages of this newspaper have highlighted similar concern. To boot, a scathing story in local news magazine The Hook indicted the University for "turn[ing] its back on rape."
While these calls for reform have focused on many aspects of University policy and procedure, the silence that stems from confidentiality agreements is routinely questioned. The consensus seems to be that keeping matters of sexual assault quiet allows the University to avoid scrutiny for its lax prosecution of alleged sexual predators. And whether the school is unfairly lenient or not, such concern is well-founded. Without transparency, a community is unable to verify the validity of any judicial system.
But in an ironic twist, those concerned with victims' rights are now questioning provisos originally established to protect those same victims. Unusual confidentiality policies are frequently inserted in sexual assault procedure in an effort to facilitate case reporting and prosecution. Many have long fretted over the troubling statistic that 95 percent of college sexual assaults allegedly go unreported. A traditional explanation claims that victims have a difficult time going public with something as traumatic and embarrassing as sexual assault, especially in a small community. Confidentiality policies and proceedings closed to the public aim to offer victims the protection of anonymity.
But as the University community now realizes, such attempts are fatally flawed. No system that deals with important punitive issues can operate in secret and hope to inspire trust in its fidelity. The U.S. judicial system has long held that visibility and forthrightness are paramount, no matter the circumstance, for this very reason. Similarly, recent judicial findings hold that policies like the University's confidentiality agreement are unconstitutional.
As University activists come to this realization, they will have to cope with the reality that matters of transparency do not necessarily mesh with the longstanding focus on victims' rights. It is unfortunate that it has taken outcry from disenfranchised plaintiffs to raise awareness of an illegitimate system that has long stripped those accused of crimes of their basic right to fair judicial proceedings.
It has never been particularly fashionable to speak up for those accused of sexual assault. Instead, activists call for more education to prevent assault and more protection for accusers. But these demands, while reasonable, must be balanced with the need for impartiality. While it is gut-wrenching for a young woman to prosecute a fellow student, it is equally horrible for a young man to be prosecuted unfairly. And just as public involvement in a rape trial can be socially difficult for a young woman, accusation of such an atrocity can destroy a young man's life.
As a result, sexual assault policy must be unprejudiced. It cannot give precedent to accuser or accused. To ensure this, our system must be completely transparent. Concern for saving public face cannot trump the need for community review of judicial proceedings. There is too much at stake.
It is reassuring to see the University community come together to protest an arrangement as illegitimate as the University's current sexual assault policy. But as many vocal parties have come to condemn the system because of plaintiffs' complaints, we must be wary lest any new policy fall into the trap of pre-empting fairness in favor of protecting accusers or the accused. Transparency is a worthy goal, but everyone involved needs to understand that it will not come without sacrifice.
Nick Chapin's column appears Tuesdays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at nchapin@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
