At a University that values the integrity of its community so highly, some students are asking why an offense against trust -- sexual assault (including forcible rape) -- is not enforced by the single sanction when lying (even if it's to a professor about being sick when you were actually hung over), stealing (even if that means participating in the famed fake Brown swipe at Newcomb Dining Hall) or cheating (on even the most minor of assignments) are all subject to the honor code's strict sanctions.
Currently, students found guilty of sexual assault are subject to a variety of sanctions including disciplinary probation, suspension and expulsion.
The difference between the standards used in honor cases and those used in sexual assault cases is the same as the difference between honor and all other University disciplinary proceedings, said Shamim Sisson, senior associate dean of students.
Not applying the single sanction to sexual assault cases and the differences in proceedings between honor and all other University disciplinary proceedings "in some way are historical vestiges." Until the early 1950s, the University had no formal standards of conduct for students beyond those against lying, cheating and stealing and no formal way of dealing with non-honor offenses, Sisson said.
Adopting a single-sanction system for sexual assault cases might lead to a situation similar to the one many critics of the honor system say exists -- the "seriousness clause problem." The problem occurs when authorities (student juries in honor cases and the Sexual Assault Board in sexual assault cases) believe students are guilty of less serious offenses and should not be expelled but they are unable to impose lesser punishments. Oftentimes in these situations, critics hold, no punishment is administered at all.
The ambiguities inherent in many sexual assault cases, especially those involving acquaintances, may make these cases particularly ill-suited for a single sanction system, Sisson said.
Third-year College student Sloane Kuney, Sexual Assault Leadership Council coordinator, advocates adding a lesser charge of sexual misconduct to the standards of conduct and moving to a single sanction system that mandates expulsion in clear cut cases of rape.
Sisson said she understood the motivation behind advocating expulsion for all students found guilty of rape.
"There is certainly a view that some take that if one is guilty of sexual assault -- just as if one is guilty of lying, cheating and stealing -- that they just shouldn't be here," Sisson said.
Mandated removal for rapists may at some point become a part of the University's code, Sisson said.
"It is entirely possible that such a thing might happen," she said. "We're always looking at how the system can be improved."
Sisson said she currently advocates a multiple sanction system.
Kuney agreed with Sisson that multiple sanctions for lesser offenses, such as inappropriate or unwanted touching, should be maintained. Kuney said there should be a two-tiered offense classification -- sexual assault and sexual misconduct.
"This may lead to more perpetrators being punished in a way commensurate with their offense," Kuney said.
Currently, sexual assault falls under the University's Standards of Conduct Standard 1, which forbids "physical or sexual assault."
Additionally, because the University is an educational institution committed to the education of both the accusing student and the accused, it has an obligation to look to the accused student's state of mind and motivation, Sisson said.
It is important to ask "who is this person?" -- whether the accused is "a calculated perpetrator," an "opportunist," or someone who didn't understand what they were doing, Sisson said. "Most importantly we have to ask, 'Are they a continued threat?'"
In cases where the accused student may be able to acknowledge and fully understand their offense, it may be more appropriate to forgo expulsion in favor of disciplinary probation or suspension with the understanding that the student will not repeat their offense and can later reintegrate successfully into the University community, Sisson said
Frustrations with the current system, including a perceived lack of toughness of standards for perpetrators, have led many women who go through the University sexual assault adjudication process to label it as more traumatizing than going through the criminal justice system, Kuney said.
"The University has an interest in increasing reporting and the difficulty of using the system doesn't encourage that," Kuney said.
Because of underreporting, it is difficult to determine how many assaults are perpetrated against students on college campuses each year, according to The Sexual Victimization of College Women study sponsored by the U.S. Department of Justice in 2000.
The study estimated that less than 5 percent of rape or attempted rape cases are reported to the police and victims are often confused about what constitutes rape most likely because of the high incidence of acquaintance assault among college students. The study estimated, however, that a quarter of women experienced rape or attempted rape during their college career.
There were 17 cases of forcible sex offenses (including forcible rape) reported on University Grounds in 2002, as well as three reported cases of forcible sexual assault reported to University authorities as having occurred off-Grounds, according to statistics kept by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Post Secondary Education.
The University has established four procedures for sexual assault cases. Informal procedures include assistance in meeting with the Commonwealth Attorney's Office to learn about the results of the criminal investigation and to better understand any decision not to prosecute the case and mediation.
Formal procedures require students to file a formal complaint and can take the form of a structured meeting with the accused, in which the student making a complaint files a formal statement with the Office of the Dean of Students. Structured meetings can be used to set up procedures, which may include notification of the accused student's whereabouts, in order that the accusing student may feel safe at the University.
Such meetings cannot result in formal sanctions involving suspension or expulsion of the accused. By requesting a structured meeting, the student forfeits the right to begin SAB proceedings.
SAB hearings provide the most formal basis for examination of an alleged sexual assault at the University and can lead to the most stringent sanctions for the accused including disciplinary probation, suspension and expulsion from the University. The board is comprised of University students, faculty and staff and is chaired by Sisson.
SAB processes will undergo a review this year, under the oversight of the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs, Sisson said. Kuney said student groups would like to play a larger role in this year's review than they have in previous years.
"We would like a bigger voice in this," she said. "We are just undergraduates but we know a lot about this issue because we care about it."
Read More
U.Va. students and physicians team up for another year of free kidney screenings
By Merrill Hart | November 5, 2024Saturday’s screening marked the first by KDSAP at Portico Church, near IX Art Park.
U.Va. Health sees a spike in COVID-19 cases
By Emily Horn | September 4, 2023U.Va. Health ended their vaccination requirements in August, and masks were made optional in most hospital areas in early April.
U.Va. Cancer Center harnesses $12 million grant to support opportunities for undergraduates, ongoing research and new center
By Ellen Wu | January 12, 2023The grant provides an opportunity to establish the Center for Systems Analysis of Stress-Adapted Cancer Organelles, which seeks to find the cause of cancer in individual organelles.
