Taking sexual assault more seriously

Last week, the Badger Herald (one of two student dailies in Madison) reported on a young woman who was allegedly raped last October while attending a party at a local fraternity. You can read the article here, and the accompanying transcript of the interview with the woman here.

The story itself is horrifying: The young woman went to a party, blacked out, and woke up the next morning partially undressed and lying in a strange bedroom. Tests performed at the hospital after the fact show that she was likely raped by several men, and though she has since filed a formal complaint with police and an investigation is ongoing, there hasn't been so much as a peep from the frat involved.

But scroll down into the comments section of that original article for the massive insult to this already terrible injury. While a good few people chime in with words of support and reason, all too many (mostly anonymous) start in with the victim blaming.

(There's more commentary over at the Critical Badger's blog, too, including some further insight into the Greek system's private governing board, etc.)

For all our society's progress in dealing with sexual assault, incidents like this make it all too painfully clear what a long way we've still to go.

There is legitimate concern that this story will automatically paint every member of the fraternity as a potential rapist. As a few, refreshingly logical comments have already pointed out, it's of the utmost importance in cases like these to let the investigation play out so that the guilty parties can be properly brought to justice and those who've done nothing wrong don't get their names dragged through the mud along the way. Throwing bricks through frat windows doesn't help, either (though I certainly understand the impulse).

But, with apologies to all perfectly nice and moral members of the Greek system, our main concern in this sort of situation should be for the person making the allegations--not for the frat. Journalists and law enforcement should certainly do their best to keep the story from getting away from them and tarnishing the names of the innocent, but our primary concern should be support for the victim.

You always believe someone when they tell you they were raped. If the facts later turn out to prove something to the contrary, you deal with that then. Up front, it is incredibly important, as a friend or just someone in the community, not to cast aspersions and doubt upon the person who has had to come forward to tell a deeply personal and awful story. Statistically, only a very small percentage of those who experience sexual assault ever come forward and/or press charges. A major part of the reason for that is the social stigma they then are usually forced to deal with: people calling them liars, accusing them of trying to smear the "good names" of friends and family (because attackers are more likely to be someone you know), claiming that by being in a certain house at a certain time or drinking alcohol or wearing revealing clothing means they were just "asking for it."

As though somehow, some way, this was at least partially their fault and they should just shut up and move on.

Bull. Shit.

The only person who deserves blame in situations like these is the perpetrator. No one forced them to commit the crime. Too often, however, our society plays it off as drunken hijinks or "boys being boys" (which, quite frankly, I would be insulted by if I were a guy--insinuating that I had no control over myself).

It hasn't helped that the UW Dean of Students, Lori Berquam, apparently dropped the ball when contacted by the victim. She is now trying to make up for that by holding a forum on sexual assault--which is good--but I'm a bit suspicious of anyone who would say that "We do take [vandalism] very seriously, the same way we take sexual assault seriously." Which one of these is not like the other?

I don't doubt her sincerity in saying that sexual assault should not be tolerated, and in wanting to help provide support for those who've been affected. What I do doubt is a real understanding of what victims often go through, and what they need in the aftermath. My own alma mater had serious problems dealing with this very issue, as they were seemingly more concerned with the appearance of being pro-active than actually being pro-active. Cases involving students from prominent, wealthy families were swept under the rug. And those that did go public were often dealt with incompentently and slowly (for instance: the perpetrator of one sexual assault was allowed to continue living in the same dorm as the victim for months after the case was reported).

Certainly, it's no easy thing for anyone to deal with sexual assault. But we must all keep in mind that the person having the hardest time with it all is the person who was attacked. Taking care of them should be our number one priority, right next to finding the individual(s) responsible and making sure they spend a hefty amount of time behind bars.

Who's watching the local races, anyway?

The rumblings and general chatter about the race for District 5's County Supervisor position have officially begun, and contrary to what most people probably thought (if they thought about it at all) just a couple of months ago, it looks to be an interesting and close contest. The decision will be between freshmen UW student Conor O'Hagan and senior UW student Wyndham Manning. Both seem to be fired up about the race, both bring experience in student government and other organizational positions to the table, and both are definitely left-of-center politically. Manning, however, has the benefit of a few more years on campus under his belt, while O'Hagan boasts a fresh pair of eyes.

I don't live in District 5 anymore, having thrown off the shackles of my student days and moved to greener pastures over in District 6 (which will feature a race between incumbent John Hendrick and challenger Mark Schmitt), but I'll still be watching that race with some interest.

Full list of candidates for the board here.

Already there are allegations flying back and forth between supporters of the two candidates. Whoever ends up getting elected will be taking over for Ashok Kumar, who has garnered his fair share of scrutiny for his board meeting attendance record and his accusations of racial bias against some of his critics. Any connection to Kumar, perceived or real, will likely be met with a great deal of criticism and scorn, especially from the more right-leaning side of campus.

A few bravely anonymous voices in the wilderness have even gone so far as to accuse Manning of being Kumar's "hand-picked" successor, while others claim that O'Hagan is the newest tool of the UW Democrats. Raucous debates about Kumar, especially, and now the two new candidates as well have gone down over at the Critical Badger, who has made it his mission to cover this race extensively. A quick thumbing through CB's archives will bring up a great deal of content concerning Kumar, the UW Dems, Progressive Dane and UW Republicans. It's not unbiased, but it's certainly interesting (read the latest "interview" with O'Hagan and the comments left for some insight into this battle).

As with a lot of Madison politicking, it all seems to boil down to different visions of what it means to be a Democrat, and/or a progressive, and/or a liberal. There's a great deal of infighting between those seen as the "establishment" (UW Dems, for instance) and those who call themselves the "outsiders."

I fully support continued and ardent debate over the path and policies of the left-leaning parties and people in this city (and beyond), but I don't wish to see us eat our own. We must be honest with ourselves when we make mistakes, and hard working when we identify a worthwhile goal. Unfortunately, that's a hard task when egos and ambition get in the way, which is the case all too often when it comes to politics. I'm hoping this race doesn't get too bogged down by it, but I'm not holding my breath.