Sexual assault guideline should be codified

In July, the Office of Student Conduct took a bold leap towards securing justice for victims of sexual assault when it agreed to increase the recommended sanction for sexual assault from suspension to expulsion. Duke students would be hard-pressed, however, to find evidence of this new guideline for it is not codified in any official documents.

Vice President for Student Affairs Larry Moneta said the Office of Student Conduct does not have strict rules for sentencing practices because “every case is different and merits thoughtful and distinctive consideration.” But failing to put the new sexual assault guidelines in writing calls into question the practical effect of the new guideline. Additionally, the panel can choose not to apply the guideline if there are “compelling and mitigating factors” that justify variance, though there are no examples of what qualifies as compelling and mitigating factors.

It is not clear why the Office of Student Conduct has failed to codify the new rule. Stephen Bryan, associate dean of students and director of Office of Student Conduct, has refused to discuss the issue with the Chronicle, and other administrators have also been reluctant to comment. Although Bryan’s silence is troubling, we suspect that any panel reviewing a sexual assault case would be aware of the guideline change.

By not codifying this guideline, however, the Office of Student Conduct risks treating the new sanction as an informal rule rather than an official standard. If the guideline only applies when a panel decides to use it, the guideline could easily fall into disuse, and the ill-defined standard of “mitigating circumstances” almost begs circumvention. Duke Student Government and the Office of Student Conduct have taken credit for the guideline change, but the rule’s weak implementation suggests that those groups do not want to be held accountable for giving the sanction teeth.

In general, Duke students deserve access to legitimate and detailed information about the University’s policy on sexual assault. It is unacceptable if students only learn of a major change through a DSG e-mail blast.

The absence of a written standard also raises practical concerns—how can a victim of sexual assault weigh his or her options without access to the University’s official sanctions? Although campus resources like the Women’s Center offer counseling, students should have a chance to gather information on their own. Moreover, though this change generated much buzz over the summer, how will future generations of students learn about the guideline if it is not recorded in any official documents?

The administration should accompany more severe consequences for sexual assault with better procedures. Refusing to codify the new guideline undermines its effectiveness and weakens the force of the victory. If this policy is the triumph DSG claims it is, then it should be written down. Also, if the Office of Student Conduct refuses to produce a written standard, then it should explain its reasoning behind the decision. Serious rules should be codified and enforced, not implemented with a flippant, decide-as-you-go attitude.