STUDENTS returning to the University's jurisdiction last week were greeted by yet another revised draft of the much-maligned sexual assault procedures. The old rules were blasted for being too lax on the accused and imposing a blanket gag order on accusers. But the new rules, whether in substance or practice, are likely to engender continued controversy. In light of these problems, the University should consider abolishing its adjudicatory processes for sexual assault apart from those in the criminal justice system.
Patricia Lampkin, vice president for student affairs, points out that universities are required by law under Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments to have procedures in place to address sexual assault. However, that statute, prohibiting gender discrimination, does not actually mention sexual assault or procedures; rather, the courts have imputed this requirement. While it is crucial for universities to provide sexual assault victims the counseling and treatment they need and deserve, as well as implementing programs to prevent assault, it is not as clear that universities are particularly well-suited to adjudicate or punish sexual assault cases.
As close-knit communities where members have far greater interpersonal interactions than in society at large, it is appropriate for universities to have their own police force and judicial systems. Many actions that are appropriately prohibited in academia, like cheating, also have no analogues in our civil or criminal law. On the other hand, there is absolutely no reason why universities should have special jurisdiction over serious crimes like sexual assault, notwithstanding the fact that they occur on university property.
Of course, universities have concurrent -- not exclusive jurisdiction -- over sexual assault. As Lampkin stated in an e-mail, "Sexual assault cases may also be brought to the criminal justice system. Many complainants in our system have elected to pursue criminal charges in addition to proceeding under the University process." But having a flawed process in place, whether it gags victims or fails to punish perpetrators, can be worse than having no separate procedure at all. Sexual assault victims who are induced by the availability of the University's separate adjudicatory procedure may come to rely on it. They have already been victimized once; they should not have to suffer insult on top of injury when that procedure fails them.
Some have defended universities' separate adjudicatory process on the grounds that the criminal justice system is too onerous. Many sexual assaults that purportedly are not
Read More
GILLIKIN and JOHNSON: U.Va., please rescind your Federal Executive Institute bid
By Steven L. Johnson and Matthew Gillikin | 2 hours agoBy withdrawing its competing bid and endorsing the Charlottesville City Schools’ bid, the University has a high-profile opportunity to strengthen its partnership with Charlottesville City Schools.
GARVIE: Commend the University’s continuous care for the environment
By Adeline Garvie | 2 days agoWe must applaud the University for the efforts they are continuously making to be more sustainable.
CARTER: Did anyone actually want VERVE?
By Nathaniel Carter | April 19, 2025While VERVE may shift student demand closer to Grounds, whether housing market effects will outweigh the harms of the University’s expanding presence is a gamble Charlottesville residents may not wish to take.
