Smashed to pieces »« No smoking, no drinking — not even water

Bent over a pool table

Kirsten Gillibrand – you know, the wild and crazy “radical feminist” US Senator – tweeted about a must-read article in the New York Times today, so I read it.

It’s an extended look at one investigation of a sexual assault complaint at a college.

She was 18 years old, a freshman, and had been on campus for just two weeks when one Saturday night last September her friends grew worried because she had been drinking and suddenly disappeared.

Around midnight, the missing girl texted a friend, saying she was frightened by a student she had met that evening. “Idk what to do,” she wrote. “I’m scared.” When she did not answer a call, the friend began searching for her.

In the early-morning hours on the campus of Hobart and William Smith Colleges in central New York, the friend said, he found her — bent over a pool table as a football player appeared to be sexually assaulting her from behind in a darkened dance hall with six or seven people watching and laughing. Some had their cellphones out, apparently taking pictures, he said.

sexual-assault nurse said there was blunt-force trauma; the football player said he’d been too tired after the game to get it up; two other players, also accused, also denied it. The college investigated, held a hearing, and cleared the football players.

The football team went on to finish undefeated in its conference, while the woman was left, she said, to face the consequences — threats and harassment for accusing members of the most popular sports team on campus.

The Times got access to the records. (It doesn’t say how.)

Whatever precisely happened that September night, the internal records, along with interviews with students, sexual-assault experts and college officials, depict a school ill prepared to evaluate an allegation so serious that, if proved in a court of law, would be a felony, with a likely prison sentence. As the case illustrates, school disciplinary panels are a world unto themselves, operating in secret with scant accountability and limited protections for the accuser or the accused.

Well – that sounds exactly like the Catholic church’s way with accusations of rape and other sexual abuse. Most students who decide to press charges go to the school rather than the cops, thinking the schools will be kinder.

Yet many students come to regret that decision, wishing they had never reported the assault in the first place.

The woman at Hobart and William Smith is no exception. With no advocate to speak up for her at the disciplinary hearing, panelists interrupted her answers, at times misrepresented evidence and asked about a campus-police report she had not seen. The hearing proceeded before her rape-kit results were known, and the medical records indicating trauma were not shown to two of the three panel members.

Also? They ratted her out.

Yet privacy laws did not stop Hobart and William Smith from disclosing the name of the woman — a possible rape victim — in letters to dozens of students. “I’m surprised they didn’t attach my picture,” she said.

The college said it had to identify her to students who might have to testify, but a district attorney said nope, that was wrong.

And this is just one college, one sample.

Colleges nationwide are navigating the treacherous legal and emotional terrain of sexual assault. In May, the federal Department of Education disclosed for the first time the names of colleges — 55 in all, including Hobart and William Smith — under investigation for possibly violating federal rules aimed at stopping sexual harassment.

But it’s not as if the police do a better job.

For example, as The Times reported in April, the Tallahassee police conducted virtually no investigation of a Florida State University student’s rape complaint against the star quarterback Jameis Winston.

College administrators have their own incentive to deal with such cases on campus, since a public prosecution could frighten parents, prospective students and donors. Until last year, Hobart and William Smith’s chief fund-raiser also helped oversee the school’s handling of sexual assaults. The two functions are now separate.

Does that sound familiar? Yes that does sound familiar.

Here’s an interesting bit.

The second player, during three separate interviews with campus officers, denied even being in the fraternity room. It wasn’t until his fourth interview two days after the sexual encounter that he confessed to being in the room with his teammate and having oral sex with Anna.

That same day, the football coach, Mike Cragg, summoned the three accused players, two team captains and the pool table witness for a private locker-room meeting where he heard their recollections, then passed on details of Anna’s account, hearing transcripts show.

Two days after that meeting, the senior player changed his account a second time, telling the campus police that he “wanted us to know that he was ready to come clean about the truth,” records show. A second player had in fact been with him at the fraternity house, the player said, and Anna had given both oral sex. He said he had lied to protect himself and his teammate from Anna’s false allegations.

Mr. Cragg declined to answer questions from The Times. But in a written statement he said, “If I were to learn that a member of my team had behaved in a manner that violated our code of ethics or community standards, I would want him removed from the team immediately.” He added: “I have never and would never encourage any player or players to coordinate stories to avoid disciplinary actions.”

And, as mentioned, the panel cleared all three football players.

The next day, the panel chairwoman sent Anna written confirmation of the decision, informing her that if she wished to appeal, she could find directions on Page 13 of the sexual-misconduct policy.

But Page 13 said nothing about appeals. Instead, it contained a section titled “False Allegations.” The college admitted its mistake, Anna’s mother said.

Sweet.

And then, insult added to insult.

As students returned after winter break, amid swirling rumors of a gang rape, they were greeted by a new mandate: Everyone had to watch an interactive video designed to educate them about sexual assault. The video contained hypotheticals and a series of questions. Answer them, students were told, or be denied campus housing.

The video generated instant controversy, beginning with its title — “ThinkLuv.”

“So right from the start, it’s the kind of program that’s fun and playful and not something that needs to be taken seriously,” said Kelsey Carroll, a recent graduate who founded a student group to combat sexism. “Rape is not about love. It is about violence and power.”

The campus paper said the video attempted to educate students “while slut-shaming, generalizing and even being sexist in the process.”

I suppose they were going for balance.

Looking back, Anna said she knows only too well the price of pursuing her complaint — physical threats and obscenities on her dormitory door, being pushed in the dining hall and asked to leave a fraternity party. Her roommate moved out with no explanation.

Mr. Flowers said the school continued to strengthen programs to stop sexual violence. Over the last two years, he said, seven students have undergone disciplinary hearings for sexual assaults; four were expelled.

Against her parents’ wishes, Anna plans to return to Hobart and William Smith in the fall.

“Someone needs to help survivors there,” she said.

That is one brave college student.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

  1. carlie says

    Colleges just have to stop this shit entirely. If it’s something that could be a crime, IT GOES TO THE POLICE. Full stop. Judicial boards are for roommate arguments and who started what fight and who cheated and how. NOT CRIMES.

  2. Al Dente says

    I hope the woman and her parents sue the school for at least the equivalent of four years tuition, books, fees, etc. at a college which cares about its students.

  3. says

    Judicial boards are for roommate arguments and who started what fight and who cheated and how. NOT CRIMES.

    Yes, I’ve never understood this. If it’s an allegation of a misdemeanour or a tort, then the judicial board has a role (although it should never be the end of the matter if it’s an actionable tort). If it’s an allegation of a crime, then the college’s role should be to notify the police to come and take statements from all parties, and then to keep on calling the police to come and take statements from any witnesses who come forward later.

  4. Erp says

    I can also see a university having a role if the government decides not to pursue a prosecution (which is another big problem) or if the trial verdict is not guilty since I suspect a university (even a state one) can decide at the level of a civil case (preponderance of evidence) rather than criminal case (beyond reasonable doubt) to take action. A university can also act towards a group that has encouraged or turned a blind eye to the situation (e.g., a frat house caught spiking drinks at its parties can be kicked out or at a lesser level lose its privilege to have parties) where the law might not be able to go. The university still has to be willing to take action.

    The university I graduated from is currently arguing the issue though in this case the assault happened during break and well away from campus (it isn’t the only case just the most recent in the news).

  5. Trebuchet says

    I just posted a link to here on PZ’s post on the same subject. This one is far more powerful.

    Fucke Footballe. (American Football, that is.)

  6. says

    In college I worked as a resident assistant. Everything at universities is geared toward keeping things within the university. The students are told at orientations, events, and published materials to go to a university representative or campus security. The student staffers are told the same things. In our case the university even owned the hospital most residents were taken to if they needed it.

    Nothing requiring the intervention of the police ever happened with my residents (that I know of), but had it, all my training would’ve probably had me call campus security first. In hindsight, I’m not even sure most of the campus security were qualified to deal with theft, let alone assault or rape.

    It doesn’t seem like much has changed and that type of outlook seems to be pretty across-the-board with universities.

  7. screechymonkey says

    I agree with Erp @8: a university still has a duty to provide a safe campus, and it can’t simply outsource that to law enforcement and throw up its hands if law enforcement decides not to prosecute. Which is not to say that university disciplinary proceedings are a substitute for the criminal justice system — law enforcement shouldn’t be outsourcing its responsibilities to the university, either.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>