A new policy concerning the cross-examination process in sexual assault hearings has been implemented by the Office of Judicial Programs to lessen the “confrontational” aspect of the previous procedure.
Under the prior policy, the alleged rape victim would have to face the student being accused of sexual assault face-to-face. This cross-examination would occur in front of a judicial board, and each party would have the opportunity to question one another, according to Tamara King, director of judicial programs.
“The cross-examination is a major part of this process because of the emotional tone and the nature of the hearing,” said King. “Additionally, this is one of the most difficult cases to adjudicate and from which to move forward because it involves two students who know each other, making it that much more difficult.”
Responding to suggestions that students were not comfortable with the direct, confrontational aspect of the policy, a committee to review the Washington University judicial code and a subcommittee designed to assess the sexual assault policies were formed last year.
WU’s decision to create a better working procedure comes at the heels of similar attempts by several universities across the country.
Columbia University revised its policy to be liberally protective of the individual alleging assault, while Harvard University decided that there had to be evidence beyond the victim’s own account, or the case would not be heard.
WU wanted to fall somewhere in the middle of these two policies.
“Our goal was to make the system more user-friendly,” said King. “Our hopes were to bring more cases forward and to improve upon our procedures, which were extremely adversarial and extremely uncomfortable.”
Under the new policy, a case coordinator facilitates the cross-examination between the respective parties and witnesses who are involved in the sexual assault accusation. The university hopes these changes will allow more victims to come forward.
However, according to Karen Levin Coburn, assistant vice chancellor for students and a women’s crisis counselor who served on the revision committee, there remain several reasons why a student would choose not to bring his or her case forward.
For example, alcohol can leave a victim without a clear memory and lead to self-doubt. The public scrutiny and rumors that come from WU being a small campus can also be a concern. And being in a committed relationshiop with someone other than the assulter might discourage a victim of sexual assault from coming forward.
“Most importantly there is a major emotional strain is cases of sexual assault,” said Levin Coburn. “There is a natural inclination to forget about it, to want to consciously make the rape disappear. But then in some cases, some students don’t want it to happen to other students and they feel they have the support they need, and so they come forward.”
Although, according to Levin Coburn, 75 percent of sexual assault cases are not brought forward for judicial review, the school has worked to make the proceedings less worrisome for a victim to come forward with an accusation.
“We did not want the process to be a deterrent to those who wish to come forward about sexual assault,” said King. “For those who did come forward, it was a very painful process and a difficult system to work under. I can understand that emotional and academic concerns are indeed reasons that an individual would not come forward, but I did not want the process to be the reason people were not coming forward.”
Most imporantly, according to Levin Coburn, the committee hopes that the fight against sexual assult extends beyond a formal policy and judicial review. Levin Coburn hopes students consider the damaging physical and psychological effects of sexual assaualt, and hold their peers accountable for their actions.
“We want to create an environment in which students think about it and talk about it,” said Levin Coburn. “The hope is that this will do away with barriers and help them to realize that this is reality, and though the situation is sometimes ambiguous, the message is clear: unless there is real consent, it is considered rape.”