Content warning: sexual assault

The author of “DeVos is a defender of due process” chose to place the spotlight on those accused of sexual assault, like many journalists and our society at large, through use of perpetrator-centered language like, “the accused,” meaning the perpetrator, and “the accusing,” meaning the survivor/victim.

The statement released by the Department of Education on September 22 includes that the “odds are overwhelmingly stacked against the accused.” However, I ask you to consider that only 2 to 8 percent of sexual assault claims are false, according to a National Sexual Violence Resource Center study. If this is the case, why are we spending time, tax dollars and media coverage focusing on “due process” for perpetrators of sexual violence and not “due process” for the survivor/victim?

The experience that a survivor/victim of sexual assault may face on a college campus can be quite different than that of other survivors/victims. Allowing offices like Student Conduct and Title IX officials to give students more options than reporting through the criminal justice system which often takes years of agonizing retraumatization, time away from work or school, and financial resources, is necessary.

A fundamental principle of Title IX is that no one should be excluded from education on the basis of sex. This statute includes having sexual assault cases handled in a formal hearing with campus officials and not having to share campus spaces with an assailant.

For example, a student that has previously experienced discrimination from law enforcement may not feel comfortable reporting a sexual assault to law enforcement officials. However, that same student may want to have their perpetrator issued a no-contact order stating that the perpetrator may not be in the same dining hall, classroom, etc. Institutional officials could also find that the crime warrants greater actions like expulsion or suspension of the perpetrator.

While I agree that there are benefits and risks associated with administratively run hearings for sexual assault cases, it is important to note that without evidence collection or a rape kit, the criminal justice system is likely to not find the perpetrator at fault. Through a previous internship, I have become all too familiar with these statistics and the process of evidence collection via rape kit.

The process from start to finish may last four or more hours, if a nurse that is not a SANE (sexual assault nurse examiner) performs the exam it could take longer and the care could be less trauma-informed. Additionally, survivors/victims only have five days after an assault to go into a medical facility for a kit.

The exam, in and of itself, is retraumatizing on many different levels. A survivor/victim must recount in great detail everything they can remember, while having their body plucked and prodded for evidence. Unfortunately, after a trauma, a survivor/victim may not remember things in a linear fashion. They may remember details three days down the road or even longer.

Subsequently, even though evidence collection occurs, a survivor/victim can choose to submit the kit anonymously or with their name attached to it. They may also choose whether or not they would like to press criminal charges and even with evidence collection and a rape kit, the outcome of a criminal trial could be unfavorable.

One of the most vulnerable populations in regards to sexual assault, the LBGT+ community, may not even be able to see same-sex perpetrator convicted of sexual assault in our state.

“A person is guilty of rape in the first degree [and second degree] if the person engages in vaginal intercourse…” as it is written in North Carolina General Statute 14-27.

According to North Carolina law, perpetrators that sexually assault someone of the same sex can only be found guilty of sexual battery, a lesser crime, not sexual assault as the law defines intercourse as penis into vagina penetration only.

Additionally, according to Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (RAINN), 21 percent of transgender, genderqueer, and nonconforming (TGQN) college students have experienced sexual assault.

Not only do LBGT+ victims/survivors face barriers to reporting due to their identity, they could face being “outed” when they are not ready, not being believed or not having their assault taken seriously.

I could fill Technician from front to back with statistics and infographics about barriers in reporting, identities of people who have experienced assault and identities of people who are at an increased risk. However, those would just be numbers on a page and we would still be living in a society that only prosecutes 11 out of 1,000 accused rapists, and blames the victim for drinking too much, not wearing enough clothing or walking alone at night.

The author of “DeVos is a defender of due process” seems to forget the humanity of survivors/victims and the odds that are innumerably stacked against the survivor/victim. In their column, they state that 80 percent of college-aged female sexual assaults go unreported. If this is the case, then why are we not focused on increasing reporting outcomes?

There are ways we can increase reporting and fundamentally change the way sexual assault cases are handled in our criminal justice system and in our Title IX and student conduct offices starting with believing and supporting victims/survivors. Followed by, making victims/survivors aware of their options and trauma-informed resources and empowering victims/survivors, who have experienced a void of power, to decide for themselves how, when and if they chose to report an assault.

If you are reading this as a victim/survivor, please know that there are students, faculty and staff who believe and support you. There are resources on our campus and in our community for you. I believe you. I support you. Your due process matters.

The 24-Hour Sexual Assault Hotline number for NC State’s campus is 919-515-4444.