FROM READING the news in various weeks, one thing is clear: U.Va. has a problem with sexual assault. From the silent protest to the slightly sensational article in the Hook, many different people have been decrying the status quo with sexual assault and how it is dealt with at this university.
What was not particularly clear from a number of the reported news items, however, was exactly whatthe problem is with how U.Va. deals with sexual assault. From talking with the heads of various advocacy organizations, the general sentiment I received was that the problem cannot quite be explained in a simple one-sentence diagnosis.
It seems as though some survivors of assault feel as though the University has not done an adequate job of dealing with the offenders. There have been calls for a single sanction-type policy or sentencing guidelines for people who are convicted of rape. However, a two-pronged solution appears to be necessary: Those equipped with dealing with all aspects of sexual assault must receive more education, and the system must have some degree of accountability to the public. These changes must be enacted to ensure a balance exists between the rights of the accuser and the accused.
According to Vicky Long, who organized the silent protest several weeks ago, 83 percent of the reported cases of sexual assault at the University are cases known as acquaintance rape, in which the victim knows his or her attacker beforehand. Alcohol is usually involved. These two factors combine to make it extremely difficult to prosecute such an offense in the criminal justice system. One's first reaction may be to simply dismiss such attacks which cannot be criminally prosecuted, however, the University has a distinct obligation to its students to hold them to a standard of conduct higher than the rest of society, much like with the honor code. As such, an offense that may not be prosecutable in the criminal system may still hold implications for life at this university.
It is precisely this issue that makes suggesting changes to the Sexual Assault Board so difficult. Can we really advocate mandatory expulsion for a student accused of rape who would never be found guilty in a court of law? Yet, must we force a victim of sexual assault to face the fact that their attacker is still walking around Grounds? Striking the balance between these extremes is of the utmost importance. Thus we must be exceptionally careful in suggesting the changes.
Realistically speaking, the only time we can approach something such as a single sanction for rape is if a student is found criminally guilty. As horrible as a crime sexual assault is, if there is not enough evidence to convict a student beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, we cannot simply automatically remove them from the University. Sentencing guidelines are also hard to define as each situation is different, yet expulsion should remain as an option available to the SAB. We have determined that the system needs to be changed because the victims are not feeling that justice has been served. We have determined that the University has a compelling interest to enforce standards of behavior, even if that means punishing students who would not have been accused in a court of law. But that fundamental problem remains -- in order to accomplish this, we must empower a group of people who are not publicly accountable for their decisions to determine guilt or innocence and appropriate punishment.
The members of the SAB are quite aware of this fine line that they must walk when determining guilt or innocence, and that may have been one of the causes of the somewhat lax sentences for convicted students over the past five years. Privacy rules were put into place to protect the accused, the accuser and the University. Nevertheless, opening up the system more will allow actually allow more flexibility in sentencing.
The case for more transparency in the system has already been compellingly made on these very pages, so it is unnecessary to elaborate much further, other than to reiterate that transparency, while maintaining a degree of protection for both the accuser and the accused, ensures that the bureaucratic entity is functioning as it should.
Along with transparency, education is key to solving this problem, but it is important to understand the distinction between the Sexual Assault Board and other resources. Members of the Sexual Assault Board should receive more education to deal with evaluating the facts of a rape case. They should not, however, be turned into another victims advocacy group.
Sexual assault is an extremely heinous crime, and if there was some sort of simple solution that could identify the true perpetrators and remove them from the University, all would be satisfied. But in the absence of such a magical solution, we must work to find a balance between punishing the convicted and protecting the accused against false allegations.
Daniel Bagley is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at dbagley@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | YesterdayThe 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 | 2 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.
