Reform sexual assault sanctions

Developments in the Duke Student Government elections have brought sexual assault policy back into the limelight. We do not have the facts to come to any conclusions about the recent controversy and will not attempt to do so. Instead, we would like to comment more broadly on our University’s conduct policy. Far worse than simply fostering controversies, the sexual assault policy—specifically, the sanctions doled out to perpetrators—raises serious safety concerns.

Under the current disciplinary system, students found guilty of sexual assault can be allowed to return to Duke after serving a suspension of several semesters, typically amounting to one year. This creates an unsafe and hostile environment for other students upon the perpetrator’s return to campus. Studies have shown that sex offenders are often repeat offenders, and the knowledge that penalized perpetrators are present on campus can be traumatic for those who have been victims of these crimes.

As we see it, there are two potential solutions to this problem. Neither is perfect, but, of the two, we endorse the lesser evil.

The first solution would be to establish an internal sex offender registry accessible to members of the Duke community. There are several problems with this approach. First, it would stigmatize offenders to the point of impeding their ability to act as basic functioning members of the community. It is difficult to maintain a community of scholars when some members are publicly recognized as responsible for sexual assault, and it is hard to imagine people on such a list maintaining even a semblance of a normal academic, extracurricular and social life. More importantly, it would not necessarily solve the safety problem. Simply because information about sex offenders is broadly available does not mean potential victims can protect themselves from a repeat offense.

A slightly better solution would be the creation of a zero-tolerance policy toward sexual assault, with anyone found guilty automatically expelled from the University. This would better reflect the gravity of sexual assault, which is currently treated in the same manner as offenses like cheating. It would also promote a more trusting and safe community.

To be sure, there are problems with this solution. Detractors will note, for instance, that the ‘preponderance of evidence’ standard used for sexual assault cases makes wrongful findings of guilt more likely. Given the lacrosse episode, this consideration cannot be ignored.

But the evidentiary standard, which is based on government recommendations and used by universities nationwide, cannot be the justification for a lenient sentencing policy. Duke should use a standard it feels confident is sufficient to establish guilt in cases involving sexual assault. That standard having been set, the University must not hedge by meting out lighter punishments. Sentencing should not be tied to the degree to which the University is certain of someone’s guilt—if there is significant doubt as to the guilt of the perpetrator, he or she should not be convicted.

One thing is clear: The status quo, in which the University allows perpetrators of sexual assault—as acknowledged by the disciplinary process—is unacceptable. There is no place for those found guilty of sexual assault at Duke.