ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Friday, February 2, 1996 TAG: 9602030009
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CATHRYN GOREE
RECENTLY, former Virginia Tech student Christy Brzonkala sued Virginia Tech, alleging that two football players raped her and that the campus judicial system failed to provide an adequate response to her complaint. Her lawsuit against Virginia Tech asks that the university be forbidden from hearing cases of sexual assault. There are several important reasons that Virginia Tech and other universities should continue to address sexual-assault cases as campus judicial issues.
The most important reason, from the point of view of a woman who has been raped, is that it is easier to prove her case in a campus hearing than in a criminal court. Most campus judicial hearings do not require proof "beyond a reasonable doubt," as criminal courts do.
At Virginia Tech, the standard of proof is "a preponderance of evidence." This means that, to win her case, a woman has to provide a greater weight of evidence in favor of guilt than her opponent provides against it. Criminal courts require a high standard of proof because their power to punish is so great. Courts can put people in jail; universities can only suspend them from school.
In practical terms for a rape survivor, the standard of proof is a crucial factor. To meet the test required for criminal conviction, rape survivors typically have to have physical evidence of the rape, collected at a hospital within hours of the assault. But most rape survivors, and particularly the survivors of acquaintance rape, do not go to a hospital and do not get the necessary evidence. Many are not emotionally able to report the assault quickly. In fact, over half of rape survivors never tell anyone - even a close friend - about the assault.
The option always lies with the rape survivor whether to pursue criminal charges, or a civil complaint, or campus judicial charges, or an anonymous report, or to take no official action at all against her assailant. A student always has the right to pursue redress both on campus and off.
Brzonkala, for example, can still file charges. But because of differing standards of evidence, a woman has a better chance in a campus judicial hearing than criminal court to win a case, if she has waited to report the incident and if she has no physical evidence.
This doesn't mean that a rape survivor is guaranteed of winning her case on campus. Sexual assault is classically difficult to prove in any situation, since it typically boils down to "he said/she said." Campus judicial systems, like the courts, must begin with the presumption that the accused student is innocent. But it is more likely that a rape survivor will win her case on campus than in criminal courts. A recent study of Virginia colleges found that about half of all sexual-assault cases heard in campus judicial systems result in a finding of guilt. This mirrors Virginia Tech's record in hearing sexual-assault cases.
Brzonkala has been quoted in the press as saying that she did not consider criminal prosecution a viable option in her case, because there was no physical evidence and she had waited seven months to come forward. If the court now grants her request and forbids Virginia Tech from hearing sexual-assault cases, then women who find themselves in her shoes in the future will effectively have no place to turn.
Another advantage of the campus judicial system over the courts for rape survivors is that campus proceedings are confidential. This confidentiality protects both the accused and the accuser in sexual-assault cases. A woman who has been assaulted may find that she has the emotional strength to confront her attacker in privacy, but not in open court under the glare of publicity. It is important to note that Brzonkala herself made her case and her name public; Virginia Tech did not.
Campuses should also continue to address sexual-assault cases because they can act more quickly than the courts. The wheels of justice sometimes move slowly. If the campus judicial system cannot act unless and until a court has found a rapist guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt," then the university would have no way to remove him from campus to protect the rest of the student body. The court has supported this reason for campus judicial systems to hear sexual-assault cases.
Campus judicial systems are not a substitute for criminal or civil courts. They exist for a different purpose entirely: to support the educational mission of the university, by educating students about appropriate behavior and by fostering a campus environment where academic success is possible. Certainly, sexual assault is a threat to the educational mission of all universities, so it is an appropriate issue for campus judicial systems to handle. Judicial proceedings cannot prevent all campus rapes any more than criminal trials prevent all rapes in the broader society.
The campus judicial hearing is the most private arena in which a survivor of campus rape can confront her attacker; it is the place where she can find the swiftest resolution of her claims; and often it is where she is most likely to win her case. It would be sad if, as a result of Brzonkala's lawsuit, rape survivors were denied this option.
Cathryn Goree is dean of students at Virginia Tech.
LENGTH: Medium: 91 linesby CNB