Handling Cases of Sexual Assault: What Not To Do

Students organizing the sit-in last Thursday posted on their stories: "Sit In! DM me for details about what we are protesting.” Afterwards, I spoke to "X," who said that the protest was about "A recent case involving four girls," while "Y" said this "was a sit-down to discuss sexual assault cases being handled badly on campus." 

It was fascinating to see and hear the sheer amount of differing things people were trying to accomplish and the general confusion surrounding all of it.

I am certain that there were students who were genuinely there to protest the school’s handling of sexual assault in the past. However, the conversations afterwards, in which students discussed the recent case and bad-mouthed the accused, were irresponsible. 

There is a section in the E Book titled Retaliation: “Retaliation for complaining about sexual misconduct or participating in an investigation or disciplinary proceeding involving a complaint of sexual misconduct is prohibited. Any student engaging in retaliation against a student who alleges sexual misconduct or against an accused student, including through electronic means or in social media, will face discipline.”

And that is what this piece will be about—retaliation, and the reason behind why, if someone accused of sexual assault does not face a disciplinary response, it is not your job as a student to “fight for justice.” This is not a piece written to defend people who commit sexual assault, but one that attempts to illuminate the disparity between mere feelings and the law. 

Many students seem to be upset by the term “Principal's discretion,” without realizing that this does not mean that he has the sole power to review both sides of the accusation and come to a conclusion. It is stated clearly in the E Book that, if an accusation of sexual assault is made to a dean, their first reaction is to report it to the police. “Following allegations of sexual misconduct, the Academy, in accordance with our MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the Exeter Police Department, will notify the police,” says the E Book on page 18. “The Academy will not proceed with any school investigation until the Exeter Police Department notifies the Academy that their case is closed.” 

Imagine that there is a hypothetical person being investigated for sexual misconduct. They have been reported by an undisclosed number of people, within circumstances we are unsure about because the school believes in privacy for both parties. They have also been subjected to months and months of interviews, police interrogations and sit downs with councils and Principal Rawson. Then, after all these months, the police find that there isn't enough evidence to support any of the claims made by the accusers.

There is a difference between saying that the police did not find adequate evidence of assault and calling the accused innocent. Within our hypothetical scenario, I am not saying that the accused is necessarily innocent. 

What I am saying is that the case is closed. There was an accusation, the police opened a case, but there was not enough evidence to charge the accused with a misdemeanor. The Academy should and will be wary of kicking out a student based off of the feelings of an undisclosed number of other students, when there isn't a case based on factual evidence against the accused. 

Compared to something like theft, breach of contract or physical abuse, the crime of sexual assault is much more difficult to prove. This is often true because the circumstances surrounding consensual sex and non-consensual sex are often incredibly similar. Two people leave a party, go to a room, get naked, have intercourse and leave. This could either be a great hookup or a life-changing assault, and the only way to know is usually based on the testimony of both parties. This is why sexual assault cases are often referred to as “he-said, she-said.” 

There are three types of evidence: testimonial, circumstantial and documentary. Testimonial evidence is the least trustworthy, because one must take into account the various failures of human memory. Because of this, it is incredibly difficult to prove an emotion in court. To pursue a case against someone accused of a crime like sexual assault, police would need some level of circumstantial evidence (skin of the accused under the victims nails, bruises on the victims arms, a swollen vagina, etcetera) or preferably documentary evidence (texts where the accused describes assaulting the victim or a literal video of the assault). 

The article about the sit-in printed in The Exonian last week included dialogue between Anna Clark and Principal Rawson: “You acknowledged that any sexual interaction that does not involve affirmative, verbal, non-coerced consent constitutes sexual misconduct. Are you then saying that any reported case for which you decide on a disciplinary response was in fact based on a sexual interaction that did not involve affirmative, verbal, non-coerced, continuous consent and that you do not believe the survivor.” To this question, principal Rawson reportedly said: “Yes.” Student Nat Love was seemingly horrified, saying “I was so shocked.” And this was one of the most scandalous and memorable moments of the whole sit-in. 

The question is convoluted, but I've interpreted it to mean that, if Principal Rawson decides to not punish the accused, that means he is saying that the victims were not assaulted, therefore invalidating them and the experiences that believe they had. But when he said this, I do not think he meant that the accusers don’t feel or believe that they were sexually assaulted. 

The harsh reality that many students seem to have a hard time grasping is that the law does not care about your feelings. If a thorough police investigation was conducted, concluded and there wasn't enough evidence to support any accusation, then, in the eyes of the law, those people were not assaulted. In their eyes, in their friends eyes, maybe even in the alleged assaulters eyes, they were assaulted, but not in the eyes of the law. And that is an important distinction to make.

The Duke Lacrosse case that took place in 2006 is a good reminder for schools not to jump directly to conclusions. When students found out that 3 Duke Lacrosse players were charged and put on trial for raping a black exotic dancer at a party, there was major retaliation. Duke allowed for photographs of the accused to be posted around campus, with captions requesting them to come forward with a confession. 

Only after 2 years and one suspension was it revealed by the court that there was actually close to no evidence to support the case. The woman's accusations were completely invalid.

The moment that we begin to live in a world where one does not need evidence to be committed for a crime is when we begin living in a totalitarian system. Presumption of innocence—the principle stating that a person is innocent unless proven guilty—is one of the most basic tenets of the American Judicial system. 

There is a difference between state punishment, academic punishment and social punishment. While the former two require proper evidence, the last form of punishment is one at the discretion of students. If you choose to believe the accuser’s story, you may keep your distance from the accused. Or if you are the accuser, you can request to be moved from a class because their alleged assaulter makes them feel uncomfortable. 

But if you think you are in the right when you discuss the details of a case, that you have acquired enough information through word-of-mouth to call someone a rapist despite them not being charged as such, you are not. 

Some statements are so egregious that they will always be considered slander—the accuser wouldn't even need to prove that what you said was harmful to their reputation. Accusing any person of serious sexual misconduct after they have been found innocent is an example of defamation “per se,” and, if the accused overheard, could lead to a lawsuit that you would not win.

And to those who are fantasising that the accused bribed Principal Rawson, that their parents gave him money to keep them in school: you are torn from reality. 

Beyond the abhorrent defamation of the Principal’s character, does no one understand how much risk accepting a bribe would involve? I understand that, in the past, the school has been terrible with handling sexual assault—hiding it, shutting victims down, allowing predators to roam free, all to avoid a scandal. Now, after The Boston Globe incident, the school is petrified. However, the administration would not risk the scandal. Is there juicier news than “Principal of Pretentious Boarding School Allows Rapist to Remain on Campus After Receiving Bribes”? 

You don’t trust the American judicial system. Fair enough. But trust the media to properly report cases of injustice and to hold the school accountable for its actions, like it has done in the past. 

The school is not incompetent because there wasn’t enough evidence to convict someone or because you (a person who does not know the facts of the case) are convinced sexual assault has occurred. The police department is not inherently racist because they didn’t find evidence of an assault in a case where the alleged abuser is white. If they weren't convicted of anything and no case was filed after months of investigation, it is because there wasn't enough evidence.

Students say they want more transparency, but do they not realize that to have the details of every case made public would be horrible for both the alleged victim and assaulter? The process is embarrassing enough, but to have aspects of your sex life, that were potentially traumatic or hurtful, discussed publicly by the administration with its students would be even more scarring for the alleged victims.

The reality is that the students don’t want transparency on the process and rules. They want the juicy details of every case, to know exactly who assaulted who and know as many case-specific details as possible, which is ridiculous. It is a breach of privacy that the school has no right to make. 

How much were bystander trainings and other sexual assault trainings ridiculed by students? Actively dicked? The school does have resources, and they make an effort to make everyone know about these resources: there are posters with hotlines and sections that detail exactly what you can do in case of sexual assault, there have been assemblies, talks and advisory meetings with discussion questions. They make these resources extremely clear to everyone; they are all outlined in the E Book. But for some reason, students still claims that the process is not ‘transparent’ enough.

In conclusion, general anger and a want to revolt against nothing in particular is aggressive, unproductive and frankly immature.