TWO WEEKS ago, University students lined the sidewalks by Garrett Hall and the Amphitheater in silent protest against sexual assault -- and the University's asinine way of handling it.
The University's sexual assault policy had been discussed recently in the media, most notably in a revealing article in The Hook about Annie Hylton, a University student fighting the University's procedures, and the flaws in the policy.
Yet, it was perhaps this eerily powerful demonstration, consisting of hundreds of students, that finally pierced the hearts of our administrators.
The administration is often criticized for its slow response to some issues or sometimes accused of ignoring them completely. This debate usually emerges after some kind of racial incident occurs in the community. But over the Thanksgiving weekend, I was delighted to find an e-mail in my inbox directing me to a link on the University Web site, which revealed itself to be a statement on the matter from President T. Casteen III himself.
It reads, and I happily quote, "Vice President [for Student Affairs Patricia] Lampkin believes, as I do, that changes to the policy prohibiting sexual assault, and the adjudication guidelines administered by the Sexual Assault Board, are warranted now."
The statement goes on to say that the proposed changes to the policy have been published for the community to review, and that the University is actually seeking student feedback. As Casteen says, "I invite comment from all members of the University community as we review the proposed changes."
This chain of events is simply student activism at its best.
Students saw a problem, they spoke out and now they finally have the ears of the administration. Everyone who participated in that demonstration gets a gold star in my book.
The administration should also be commended for their swift response and their willingness to include University students in the decisions that will ultimately affect them. The administration is often censured in situations like these, but this time, they did it right.
The proposed changes, however, do not seem to address some of the larger issues at stake here: the confidentiality rules for sexual assault, adjudication and mandatory expulsion for convicted rapists.
The proposals that are posted on the University Web site include enhanced training for members of the Sexual Assault Board and a decrease in the size of the hearing panel, a new and separate "Sexual Misconduct" offense to encourage more reporting, pre-hearing investigations and clarifying the University's support system and resources for sexual assault.
These proposed changes are all very necessary, and will be helpful in dealing with future cases of sexual assault on Grounds.
But it's the confidentiality agreements that have many students up in arms, because victims aren't allowed to speak about their experiences, even if the accused has been convicted. According to proposed changes to the policies published by Lampkin on the University Web site, "While the University believes its confidentiality policies are in compliance with federal law, in light of a recent ruling by the Department of Education involving Georgetown University, it is reviewing them with General Counsel to be sure they strike an appropriate and lawful balance between the rights and interests of the immediate parties and the greater community."
The University can review the policies with General Counsel, but it should also review them with students. They affect us, after all.
The other big issue in the matter is punishment. Casteen mentioned in his statement that he is "prepared to consider the merits of mandatory expulsion as a single sanction" with regard to students convicted of sexual assault. Yet this single sanction isn't included in the proposed changes, nor is it really mentioned anywhere else at all. Does the administration not seek student feedback on punishment as well?
They should. Hylton's attacker was convicted by the Sexual Assault Board, yet he was merely banned from certain buildings on Grounds and told to stay away from her. He remained at the University and received his diploma, while Hylton faced UJC charges and possible expulsion if she talked about the procedures and lived in constant fear of running into her own rapist. Something needs to change.
University students and administrators have done a commendable job recently in addressing the sexual assault policies, and have truly shown the University to be a community of trust. But there is still much to be improved in the University's procedures, and the administration needs to make sure that students are included in every proposal, every ruling and every regulation. The Sexual Assault Leadership Council is holding an open forum tonight, which all concerned students should attend. We, after all, are the ones at stake here.
Kristin Brown's column appears Wednesdays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at kbrown@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
