F r o n t   L i n e Arresting Assault by Chris Bunn In recent years, the specter of sexual assault has both loomed as a haunting presence and propelled the University of Virginia toward change. In the past four years the University Judiciary Committee on Sexual Assault and Judicial Review (UCSJR), had received and heard very few cases. The problem wasn't that sexual assaults weren't occurring; SARA and Women's Center statistics showed several university students were seeking counseling and services related to sexual assaults they endured during their time at the university. The problem stemmed from the fact that for some reason students didn't feel comfortable employing the system available to them -- possibly because of past experiences that survivors had endured at the hands of the workings of this committee. Individuals who had used the system complained of everything from enduring law council members rolling their eyes during testimony to cross-examinations by law council who seemed to be trying out for next season's episodes of L.A. Law. Other individuals have claimed that in the past, committee members allowed testimony about survivors' sexual history to be admitted and declared inadmissable evidence pertaining to survivors' possible mental or physical helplessness due to chemical substance intake. Both of these situations are legally risky considering current Rape Shield Laws and the Campus Security Act. Regardless of past actions, the university had enough foresight to recognize that the system wasn't being used and that changes to the system might facilitate the initiation of more cases. The current proposed changes would do nothing to change the definition of sexual assault, which is defined as rape, forcible sodomy or sexual penetration with an inanimate object, the touching of an unwilling person's intimate parts (defined as genitalia, groin, breasts, buttocks, or clothing covering them), or forcing an unwilling person to touch another's intimate parts. To be defined as assault, these acts must be committed either by force, threat, intimidation, or through the use of the victim's physical or mental helplessness of which the accused was aware or should have been aware. The strengths of this definition include the final clause, which clearly outlines that drug or alcohol use doesn't necessarily preclude or occlude a sexual assault, and that the definition is inclusive of acquaintance assaults. Unfortunately the wordiness and legal jargon contained within the definition doesn't ring true to many survivor's experiences. In other words, the definition is so rational and cold that many people don't recognize themselves or their experience of sexual violence within the context of the definition. Other faults with the definition include the exclusion of the idea of consent as an integral part of the definition. By not explicitly defining verbal consent as the linchpin in the determination of sexual act as sexual assault, the definition leaves the refusal of sexual acts open to much interpretation. Explicitly stated, the definition places the recipient of a sexual act in the position of refusing sexual advances in order for sexual assault to be proven; instead of placing the responsibility for permission of sexual advances on the initiator of a sexual act. In other words, silence, or the myriad other responses which could be used to say no to sexual advances, can be interpreted as complicit to a sexual encounter, instead of placing the expressed responsibility for obtaining consent on the individual who initiates a sexual encounter. Unfortunately the Campus Security Act requires that all judicial procedure within universities define their crimes in the same manner as the state in which the university resides. Until Virginia State Law changes, U.Va. has no legal grounds for changing it's definition of sexual assault. While the definition remains obtuse and flawed, as it does in the Virginia judicial system on which the U.Va.'s definition is modeled, several proactive changes have been made to make the process of adjudication less adversarial and more egalitarian. The current committee that hears sexual assault cases also bears the task of hearing judiciary cases which have been granted appeals. Since sexual assault and appeals don't logically flow together, the first proposed change will split this panel into two entities: one that exclusively hears appellate procedures, and one that exclusively hears sexual assault cases. The sexual assault committee will be comprised of five trained faculty and student members who are selected from a larger pool. As always, the proceedings will remain closed and confidential, but the new procedures allow one advocate for both the accused and the accuser to be present throughout the entire proceedings. These individuals aren't allowed to contribute to the proceedings in any manner, except to offer support to the accused and the accuser. The former hot shot law students will be removed from the process entirely, and the accused and accuser will be able to tell their stories directly to the panel. This panel will hear the case from both sides and ask questions directly to both individuals involved. After reviewing the testimony each member will vote, and the verdict will be handed down by the committee. Possible sanctions range from a formal letter of reprimand, which would follow the individual along with their transcript to expulsion from the university. These proposed changes have been in the revision stages for nearly two years now. They have traversed the great road of red tape that is the bureaucracy known as U.Va. In order for these changes to occur, they must be approved by the overwhelmingly upper middle class white male Board of Visitors. If all goes well, the BOV will review and vote on the proposed changes by the end of summer. These proposed changes should make the system more accessible and less intimidating to survivors, while still keeping the system as objective and unbiased as possible. Students who may be concerned that the BOV might not understand or rationally legitimize these changes as necessary should begin contacting members by mail. BOV members' mailing addresses are located in the front of the current University of Virginia phone directory, and I am sure that they look forward to hearing from concerned parties.

back to Decweb main