Recently, University officials approved changes to Georgetown’s sexual assault policy that will become effective at the start of the 2004-05 academic year. Dr. Todd Olson, Vice President for Student Affairs, accepted the recommendations submitted by the Disciplinary Review Committee, which began a review of the policy after Advocates for Improved Response Methods to Sexual Assault (AFIRMS) released an analysis of the policy along with a series of proposals for reform in January 2003.
The four major recommendations approved by Olson are an important step toward creating a reasonable policy toward sexual assault that is both sensitive to the victim and respectful of the rights of any student accused of such a serious a violation.
Most importantly, the new policy would elevate any allegation of non-consensual penetration to the more serious Category C Sexual Assault violation, rather than Category B Sexual Misconduct. In the past, only assaults committed with the threat of immediate physical harm resulted in Category C violations. The University will also adopt sanctioning guidelines for Sexual Assault and Sexual Misconduct Hearing Boards, as well as providing for special training for boards that will hear sexual assault and misconduct cases.
Finally, in response to recommendations from AFIRMS and the Sexual Assault Working Group, a physical barrier will be placed between the complainant and the respondent during sexual assault hearings.
Unfortunately, the changes do not go far enough to address many of the issues with which AFIRMS and other campus groups are concerned. Violent offenders of any type have no place in the academic environment, and as a result, once found guilty of a Category C violation, an offender should be subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of two semesters suspension from the University. After the two-semester suspension, the hearing board would then have the option of readmitting the student to Georgetown, as it feels appropriate.
Finally, the changes do not address the issue of disclosure in sexual assault and misconduct cases. Currently, complainants must sign confidentiality agreements at the beginning of the adjudication process consenting not to disclose the identity of the respondent or the circumstances of the case if they wish to be informed of the outcome of the hearing and resulting sanctions. Respondents are permitted to reveal the identity of the complainant, circumstances, and sanctions, however. While the University should not release the names of either the respondent or the complainant, both parties should have the option of disclosure.
Even as Georgetown adopts these important measures, students and University officials should continue to review the sexual assault policy as new issues arise, and strive to develop a sensible policy that is fair and respectful.
