The role of a university in handling rape cases

If I had been deeply disturbed after reading the Rolling Stone’s article on the rape culture at the University of Virginia, I was even more so after watching the uncut interview video of Nicole Eramo, associate dean of students and head of the Sexual Misconduct Board at UVA. The article discusses the rape culture at this southern campus, where Greek life dominates the social life and where a girl, who goes by the pseudonym Jackie, was gang-raped by seven Phi Kappa Psi brothers as a freshman. This interview was conducted by a student media organization, WUVA, weeks prior to the publication of the article. The interviewee —Eramo —is who Jackie went to for support at the end of her freshman year.

Jackie is currently defending Eramofrom the attacks that the Rolling Stone article generated; she is one of the many signatories to an open letter to UVA’s President Teresa Sullivan, which aims to “advocat[e] for our advocate.” She believes that Eramo’s emotional support was crucial to her. She writes, “Dean Eramo has truly saved my life. If it were not for her, I do not know if I could be alive today.” And, of course, Jackie is entitled to this view.

But to me, there is a difference between conceding that Eramo is an asset to UVA and arguing that the views she holds are beneficial to UVA. Eramo as a person may have been helpful, but as an administrator, she has failed the survivors.

In the interview, the student interviewer asks in frustration why those who have admitted to being rapists are not expelled while those who are found guilty of academic cheating are. Eramo's response:

"I feel like if a person is willing to come forward in that setting and admit that they violated the policy when there's absolutely no advantage to do so, that that does deserve some consideration. That they're willing to say, 'I've done something wrong, and I recognize that, and I'm willing to take my licks and deal with it,' that's very important to me. I think that shows a level of understanding of what they did that I don't see in a hearing necessarily."

This is an outrageous statement. To begin with, I actually don’t know how they are taking their "licks" when they will only be suspended for one to two years maximum. While Eramo seems to believe that this is “stiff punishment,” a two-year suspension to punish a horrendous violation of someone else’s privacy is not sufficient. Her statement reveals a troubling thought process that universities maintain when handling rape cases.

Academic institutions are not equipped to handle criminal cases. Failures by even top-tier institutions such as Harvard University, Columbia Universityand even our own Princeton University attest to this. Ideally, such cases should go to a court of law. However, given that this is a long, frustrating and costly process, this is often an unrealistic option.

But with respect to cases of sexual assault, universities should have one and one role only: to ensure the permanent removal of danger from campus.

Eramo doesn’t have the expertise to differentiate between a genuinely sorry person and a scheming criminal who has read records of how previous rape cases were handled. No university does. The university’s job is not to rehabilitate known dangers, but rather to create a campus that is as removed from danger as possible. Therefore, a suspension simply does not make the cut. The university can require completion of community service and sex education, but it will never be sure if it has successfully rehabilitated the rapists. And it will never know until that person graduates or commits another crime. This is a large risk to take when studies show that rapists tend to be repeat offenders. Expulsion is simply the most effective risk management.

Eramo will say that such a measure will decrease the number of victims coming forward because survivors often do not want to punish their rapists. In her words, they only want to be able to look them in the eyes and say, “You have wronged me.” But Eramo needs to realize that her job expands beyond that. Her job is to ensure both that the victim has their say and that the campus is a safe place. And this is where her most egregious failure comes into play: As an adviser, she should encourage survivors to file complaints, both informal and formal.

It is a university’s responsibility to make survivors aware of the consequences, both to victims and to the student body more generally, of allowing the perpetrator of a rape to remain on campus.Universities should make sure, even before rape cases occur, that students are informed that it is natural and right to seek retribution toward someone who has wronged them.

And then the university should expel the rapists.