Three years ago this April, I was sexually assaulted at the College of William and Mary. For the purpose of this article I will refer to my assailant as John Doe.
I made the decision to report the incident to the Dean of Students Office during the summer of 2006. After a seven-hour hearing, Doe was found responsible and dismissed from the College until my graduation. His subsequent appeals were denied.
I cannot properly describe how profoundly the assault affected my personal life and academic career. I felt incredibly alone and isolated as I realized many of my peers judged and blamed me for my assault. Prior to the judicial hearing I was harassed, and my car was keyed with “shut up whore” by members of my assailant’s fraternity. In my junior year, I took a medical withdrawal from the College to take time to deal with my issues stemming from the incident.
In December of 2006, then-President Gene Nichol was asked to review the case in the last line of appeal. Imagine my surprise when the Dean of Students Office informed me at the end of last year that Nichol had ruled on my case. Unbeknownst to me, Doe’s lawyer and the Office of the President had been in continuous contact for the last two years.
Before Nichol left the College, he granted Doe a degree in absentia. The deans expressed their outrage over the decision to me. In their words, this ruling was “completely unprecedented.” In previous similar cases, presidents have consulted the dean of students and asked how and why initial rulings were made. Nichol made this decision without consulting anyone. By granting a degree in absentia, Nichol completely undermines the entire judicial process.
Doe eventually would have been allowed to return to the College. However, the original sanctions would have required him to undergo counseling, perform community service and report to a committee on what he had learned before he could return. Nichol’s decision removed all responsibility and accountability for Doe’s actions.
Nichol also clearly saw the value in keeping Doe off campus, considering he was not allowed to return for his senior year or participate in Commencement. In his resignation e-mail to the College, Nichol said, “I’ve said before that the values of the College are not for sale.” Where was this sentiment to refuse to compromise in my case?
After the initial shock and anger wore off, I was determined to figure out what had transpired over the last two years. My inquiries were stonewalled by the current administration. I only received meetings with high-level administrators by being obnoxiously persistent. Since this was a legal case between Doe and the College, I was not entitled to know the details even though the case directly involved me.
I learned that Doe appealed the ruling under the four umbrella options for sexual misconduct cases, including “additional material evidence to his benefit.” I cannot even know what this new evidence was. As far as reasons for why the decision was made, administrators cited “institutional concerns” and fears over creating an incident similar to the one at Duke University.
What institutional concerns are these? Not to get sued? Nichol and the current administration need to think of exactly what message they are sending to other victims of sexual assault. Their handling of my case sets a dangerous precedent for similar cases in the future.
Of all of my friends in college who were sexually assaulted, I was the only one who went through with a judicial hearing. I felt like justice was done and that my voice was heard through my hearing, but now I feel like my voice was effectively silenced by the actions of Nichol and the administration.
My case highlights a serious lack consideration for victims’ rights in judicial cases. That it took months for the College to inform me of Nichol’s actions is inexcusable. The Student Handbook requires written notification to the reporting party of the outcome of the initial hearing. However, the Student Handbook is silent on informing the reporting party of the outcome of appeals, which I believe is an intentional oversight.
The College’s number one concern, after all, is liability. The same confidentiality clause that serves to protect the victim also acts to protect College administrators. The handbook also offers reporting parties no protection from harassment.
I cannot help but compare the lack of transparency in my case to the Board of Visitor’s actions last year. For that reason, I end with Nichol’s own farewell words: that in the future, the College should not “be afraid to defend the weak because of the anger of the strong nor afraid to defend the poor because of the anger of the rich.”
Laura Rogers is a senior at the College.
Editor’s Note: The views, opinions and assertions of the writer do not neccessarily reflect the opinion of The Flat Hat.
RSS Feeds
4 Comments
I agree fully with Susan
I agree fully with Susan and what she said about programs and school disciplinary hearings. Schools today, particularly public schools, have serious problems when they try to enter into the realm of discipline for offenses that are truly serious, especially when those offenses constitute legal crimes.
While I can’t speak for Laura’s particular situation, it sounds at least like this may have occurred after a party and alcohol may have been involved. Those sorts of factors make these disciplinary matters tough, first because many peoples’ recollections are tainted because of outside factors like distractions and alcohol often leaving just a “he said, she said” situation, and second, because many of these disciplinary situations resolve themselves into issues of consent and whether a person gave consent (I’m not speculating about Laura’s particular situation, just giving a general opinion of these types of cases from my own experience).
The problem for students like Laura who bring allegations is that a college is in no way equipped to do any form of justice in these matters. The result often allows students (either rightly or wrongly) to bring legal challenges against the school alleging gross violations of due process. These allegations are generally accurate, whether or not the student was in fact guilty of the allegation. These allegations can result because no member of the panel is trained or equipped to determine information about alcohol consumption with any degree of expertise, because evidence is severely restricted, because administrators may hide things from students, because panel members may commit violations, because administrators don’t disclose panel member biases, and because these hearings are often rushed through because administrators want to get some sort of resolution for all parties.
Consider all these problems, and particularly the consent-based nature of most allegations, and then place yourself in the shoes of an accused student who didn’t do anything wrong. They’d have every incentive to file a legal challenge to set aside the result, and because we’re a public school, they’ve got near a 50% chance of succeeding (probably). Now consider the accused student who did something wrong, but faced the same type of process. Much like the innocent student, they have every incentive to sue, and they get the same percentage of success. So its no wonder in these cases that students like Laura are left wanting from the system.
Unfortunately, here it looks like the school must have screwed up in some way. That would explain why the guy was awarded his degree, especially in light of an ongoing legal suit. My guess would be that some settlement was entered into because the school recognized that something went wrong in the process. This doesn’t mean that Laura isn’t 100% correct about what took place, and that’s exactly the problem.
Schools really and truly have no place handling these type of disciplinary matters. It may actually be better for schools to provide the means and resources to encourage students to actually seek criminal charges. That way, the accuser could get real justice, the accused could get fair justice (or as fair as possible), and the school could remove the accused from campus while the charges are pending (protecting the accuser and others while not harming the accused in terms of their academic record).
Instead, we have a system that naturally fails in almost every case. And because of that, public schools absolutely place their liability over the safety of others. I’m not shocked Nichol refused to talk to Laura. If her allegations are true, and if I were Nichol, I’d probably be too ashamed to speak with her either.
Great article. Two
Great article. Two points:
1) It’s good that the article didn’t mention the name of the accused. It’s not necessary, and it might distract from the point made by the writer that she was wronged not just by the accused, but by the institution.
2) Thanks for the focus on injustices in the institutional process. More should be written about this.
Students have far less due process rights than they are aware of, and fewer than they’ve had in the past, as administrators have taken advantage of changes in policy after lawsuites over the last couple decades related to sexual assualts, suicides, drug overdoses and alcohol poisioning, not to mention violent mass incidents on campus, which really have only been in the headlines (and arguably only significantly increasing) in the last several years. But hey why do you need legal rights, the right to confront your accuser, and to hold the institution that is involved in some way potentially responsible when that institution funds so many friendly social services like victim counseling services, which will listen to your feelings but won’t do jack when it comes to holding the administration (which funds those services) legally responsible? And you want to run around banging pots in some protest or hosting the “vagina monologues” you can get funds for that, but go try and get a dime of funding to offer legal advice or support to someone who might sue the university.
Students deserve to know more about what their rights are (and aren’t), and how best to assert them, even if the administration and the various agencies it funds (and hence has a conflict of interest when it comes to opposing admistration action and policy, or even discussing it in public, even when stories like Ms Roger’s comes to light). Maybe the campus press, or an independent press, might be the best way to inform people about this.
GOOD FOR THE FLAT HAT for
GOOD FOR THE FLAT HAT for running this piece by this brave young lady, Laura Rogers, and their own piece as well …. but… (there is always a “but” in journalism)
She and The Flat Hat should have run the name of the sexual assailant since he has been tried and found guilty by College process. The public and readers should want to evaluate this. We know the name of the thief who was head of the SGA… we should certainly know the sexual assailant’s name in public print. “John Doe” doesn’t do it.
It fits the public’s need to know and no law can interfere with that. It just takes the courage to do it. The Flat Hat can let the assailant have the space to make his case, if he wants it. There is always another side and it isn’t a publication’s job to choose sides in an issue once it has opened it.
I admire this young woman immensely. Her courage should help others come forward and their ability to witness the offense is an essential part of the cure.
Justice Brandeis stated that “sunlight is the best disinfectant.” Anyone who feels so keen an injustice should make sure the curtains are pulled back vigorously. There is no shame in being victimized. And identifying the victimizer is a key part of restoring the full vigor of a woman’s self-image.
The problem with sexual assault is that it may have been a single event but it has lasting consequences. It amounts to what a man might better understand as a form of castration of the victim; it shuts down sexual responsiveness for an indefinite period of time. To do that in a young woman’s most vital life period for forming relationships and possibly finding a life partner is a form of crippling of lifetime opportunity no different than a disabling injury like an amputation.
This is simply not understood or compensated by forms of justice laid down centuries ago in which a woman’s sexual violation was regarded more as a theft of MALE property rights than any conception that the blighting of a WOMAN’S life was of MORE value and far more importance.
Our civil and criminal law has only partially been revised to reflect what we have learned of the realities of the situation. It is not surprising if the College’s procedures lag as well. Let’s hope this airing will encourage the College Administration to take this opportunity to review its procedures.
Congratulations to The Flat Hat and especially Laura Rogers for their fine service to The College of William and Mary.
What happened to you is an
What happened to you is an utter disgrace. Nichol’s behavior is fitting for a man who habitually abuses power. “John Doe” disgraced W&M, as did Nichol, as did every lousy beaurocrat that failed and continues the cycle of power abuse at W&M. Keep telling your story. The facts are stubborn things, and the power abusers should be held accountable for them. Your strength to speak up is admirable. For every victim who speaks out, there are many others who suffer in silence.
C Brown (alumna)