As members of Advocates for Improved Response Methods to Sexual Assault (AFIRMS), we applaud the Georgetown Voice for its endorsement of our proposed changes to the sexual assault policy. The editors have clearly examined our reports carefully with the interests of students in mind. However, we would like to defend our position on the key issues of disclosure and mandatory counseling during suspension of sexual offenders.

We oppose the disclosure of the survivor’s identity by anyone except the survivor. While we aim to end the silence surrounding sexual assault, we emphasize the unique position of sexual assault survivors. Until the stigma attached to sexual assault survivors is eliminated, disclosing a survivor’s identity against her/his will can only lead to re-victimization.

In response to the editors’ opposition to disclosure of the respondent’s identity by the University, we share their hope that no one returning to campus after a period of suspension would pose a threat to campus security. Nevertheless, we maintain that in order for students to make informed choices about their safety, disclosure of the respondent’s identity is necessary.

The editors also contend that counseling obtained outside of the University during suspension periods would be difficult to monitor. However, that is not sufficient grounds for failing to require counseling altogether. In order to regain admittance to the University, perpetrators should show evidence of rehabilitation through psychiatric evaluation, which is best achieved through counseling.

Finally, we would like to encourage anyone interested in reading the AFIRMS reports to contact afirms2003@yahoo.com to obtain a copy.

Olive Goh (SFS ‘03)
Maureen Keffer (CAS ‘03)

Mike DeBonis’ column (“Trash Talk,” Feb. 6) was reasonably well-written, which is to be applauded. However, the sanctimonious attitude he exhibits is not. The article ends with the paragraph, “Do yourself a favor if you’re a talk radio junkie or a HoyaTalk regular: Break out of the cycle and take a few minutes to get the real story. Read what Joe Lang really said on page 12, and spare our campus your outrage.”

I cannot speak for talk radio junkies, but I can say with reasonable certainty that most “HoyaTalk regulars”certainly did read the entire article. The people on the board are alumni and fans, people who know and care much more about Georgetown Basketball than DeBonis does.

Furthermore, for 90 percent of the outraged fans out there, his campus was our campus long before he ever stepped foot on it. The fact that the flyers and banner most likely came from current students makes his statement annoyingly arrogant, given that apparently it is his campus alone.

I love the condescending air he uses when writing about the HoyaTalk members. The person who runs it does so entirely of his own volition, mostly because the University and the athletic department itself seem entirely uninterested in promoting the basketball team.

More importantly, the members of that board give more time, energy and money to supporting our athletics team than 99 percent of the Georgetown student body. But the University refuses to listen to its alumni. You’re still students, but wait until you graduate. The University’s lack of any attempt to create a post-graduation community aside from a pathetic grab at cash once in a while is shocking. Having compared Georgetown’s interest in its alumni to Duke’s or Northwestern’s, for example, our horrible alumni giving rate is no longer a surprise to me.

The flyers and harsh words on the HoyaTalk board are simply the reaction of very intelligent and passionate alumni who care about the basketball program. They are the ones who pay to travel across the country or gather in a sports bar to see a game. They are the ones who are hoop club members every year.

Any fan knows that the team is struggling despite some very talented players, and this is frustrating. Learning about the possibility of a long-term extension for a coach in the midst of a horrible season or hearing the Athletic Director claim that reaching the NCAA tournament every season is “an unreasonable” expectation is worse (And yes, I do and did understand the difference between goal and expectation). The worst part is writing repeatedly to an athletic department for clarification and having it wait, day after day, to respond.

Basketball is no longer a priority, no matter what Joe Lang may have said in his press conference. Many alumni (and apparently, current students) wish it to be a priority. What is so wrong with them speaking out? Letters to Coach Esherick and Lang went ignored. I applaud whomever created the flyers and banners, if not necessarily their message. They succeeded in getting a response from an unresponsive athletic department and administration.

Alan Greene (MSB ‘99)