Continue to address assault

In the aftermath of the retracted assault report, I have had a series of reactions. I am extremely relieved to know that my friend was not attacked. I am also frightened and worried for her psychological and physical well-being. As a friend of hers with similar goals of raising Duke’s assault awareness, I had several conversations with her about how frustrating it is to watch students’ anger rise immediately after high-profile assaults, only to dissipate a few days later. It troubles me deeply that she unintentionally undermined the cause for which we both fought so strongly, and that she did so in such an illogical and irresponsible way. And I am furious at the prospect that this incident may be used to invalidate or discourage women who have been assaulted from coming forward to report their stories. That unfortunate prospect is the focus of my letter today.

According to the National Coalition Against Sexual Assault and the Office for Victims of Crime, false reports are estimated to comprise only 2 percent of reported cases. The asymmetrical amount of press that these cases receive is dreadfully misleading. It is important to realize that the reason that these events incite so much press response is because of their relative rarity and scandalous nature. Equally important to remember—as another fact which often receives less than its due press time—is the frightening fact that the majority of assaults on Duke’s campus are perpetrated by acquaintances, not strangers.

It is utterly crucial to understand that the climate of support and respect the Duke administration holds towards survivors must not and will not change in the wake of this news. The University’s response to this and related events is indicative of its support: though inconsistencies with the 2002 account were apparent immediately after it was reported, the University took it seriously and has kept the investigation open for upwards of two years. University policy is, according to SASS, to assume survivor honesty and to then conduct a meticulous and respectful investigation. The fact that this particular assault was fabricated will not change that stance. Duke will continue to be a place that and works to make sure that survivors of sexual assault receive the help and support that they need. The University is not infallible, but the credit that it receives for its efforts is often diminutive compared to that which it deserves.

I am comforted by the fact that the retraction of this report was made public because of late, the climate of fear among Duke students has been heightened beyond any semblance of appropriateness or normalcy. I hope that this news will allay the fears of students somewhat, so that we can attempt to rebuild trust and confidence in the administration’s protection of the community in which we live. It is imperative that we understand, however, that to use this isolated and atypical incident as a means to devalue and discredit the reports of survivors is absolutely inappropriate and fundamentally wrong.

Alessandra Colaianni

Trinity ’07