The Names Of Those Responsible Of Title IX Violations May Be Released, And I Have A Lot To Say

The Names Of Those Responsible Of Title IX Violations May Be Released, And I Have A Lot To Say

While I'm ready for some accountability, I believe we must respect the survivors who went through investigations under the impression it would be private.

According to the Daily Tar Heel, a ruling on April 17th, 2018, by the North Carolina Court of Appeals reports that there is a chance that UNC must report the names of people found responsible of violations against the Title IX policy, which includes sexual assault, harassment, stalking, discrimination, retaliation, and other related misconduct. A variety of news companies wanted names, dates, and sanctions related to these acts of misconduct.

The University, citing FERPA, said they want to protect survivors and the rights of all students; however, the decision made on that Tuesday in April repeals the decision that the privacy of student records dominates all else.

I have both concerns and joys about this.

First of all, thank goodness. I’m ready to see some accountability of perpetrators. I’m ready for the university to care about the safety of its students. I’m ready for an investigation that takes a lot of emotional energy and months of time to mean something, not only for the survivor, but for the well-being of all.

Sexual assault is a rampant and serious epidemic on college campuses, reaching further than we’d like to know. Approximately one in five of our friends will experience sexual assault during his or her time in college alone, with minorities at greater risk than others.

Clearly, we have a big problem.

For those who advocate for rapists or the falsely accused, I have a lot to say. First of all, know that only two to six percent of accusations are false -- which is the same amount as any other crime. In addition, some reports included in that statistic that have been labeled as “false allegations” are actually just people’s original worries for themselves or someone else before realizing an assault didn’t happen after all and correct that with the police, and are tied to vague descriptions of strangers rather than an acquaintance, which is clarified with police before any person’s life outside of the survivor’s is negatively affected. Many people who have been assaulted don’t label their experience as such, even if the definitions clearly state that assault is what they experienced.

For the very few who are truly falsely accused, I am sorry that happened to you. However, statistically, we should err on the side of the 94-98 percent. In many cases, no matter how much good evidence a survivor has (when finding evidence can be pretty tough and scarce in the first place), they’ve still lost cases. Statistically, it is more likely than not that a perpetrator will go free -- and perpetrate again -- than a survivor will win his or her case, despite the fact that the large, large majority of accusations are true.

This system supposedly aims for impartiality in equality, which should be good -- but equality is not what we need here -- we need equity. Equity levels the playing field, in which both sides have the chance they deserve for justice.

However, as far as problems with this legal finding, I believe some survivors may be more reluctant to seek justice for their experiences, especially if they know the person who perpetrated this act of violence against them. They may fear retaliation, drama within their relationships, or potentially harming the reputation of someone that could be as close to them as a friend or significant other.

In addition, the report of these names will be carried out retroactively as well -- meaning survivors who pursued these cases under the mutual understanding of confidentiality can no longer maintain that assured confidentiality.

The North Carolina Coalition Against Sexual Assault's press release said they are grateful that the Court of Appeals overturned the decision between the Wake County Superior Court and UNC to keep those records public, but they feel steps towards accountability and transparency in this way should be taken with caution for survivors.

“Transparency without thoughtful consideration of the consequences to survivors that were not aware that this information would be released also causes us to pause,” the press release said. “We have concerns...Responsible party identification could have severe intended consequences including, but not limited to retaliation and/or suppression of victim reporting at universities.”

Students feel similar ways. Alexandra Smith, a UNC sophomore and future intern for NCCASA through the Carolina Women’s Center, says she likes the accountability of perpetrators and the knowledge for others who want to feel safer, but publicizing these names can hurt survivors through a multitude of avenues -- and that’s after a long, complex process that most likely was met with injustice and doubt of survivors’ true experiences.

“While this would work toward destigmatizing sexual assault, it’s not exactly a judge’s decision to force people to be ready all of a sudden,” Alexandra said. “Sharing a story of harassment or assault takes a lot of trust and understanding, and there are unfortunately cruel people out there who would use the information they learned from these names coming out against them.”

However, she’s interested to hear other people’s views. “I’m not out here to demand and say that my opinion is the right one; this is a really nuanced and complex decision that can affect everyone at the university. Everyone has different experiences that might make them react differently to the final decision.”

She also raises the point that a look at the demographics has the potential to say something about who is usually found responsible and how the university sees and values its students. “If, for example, a successful student athlete was found guilty of something but received a lighter penalty, it would imply that the University cares more about their public appearance and success of programs than doing what is right.”

She believes it’s also important to look at minorities who experience discrimination and stereotypes. “The same goes for people of color -- if it’s discovered that people of color receive harsher punishment than others, then there’s definitely an issue that needs to be addressed now.”

“I've heard more failure stories than success stories, and that speaks loads about the issue at hand,” she said. “Since ‘The Hunting Ground’ came out, I know there have been students and community members who question the true intentions behind the University, and wonder whether or not they give survivors the justice they deserve at the end of the day.”

Sammie Espada, an activist and outgoing Student Safety and Wellness co-chair, also sees the pros and cons of the names getting out. As an advocate, she thinks that "seeing the names can help us advocate for change at our university and try to hold the university accountable for specific cases."

However, she believes that survivors and their privacy should be our priority. "At this time we need to think about survivors -- their security, their mindset, and their needs."

She worries that the names becoming public will deter future survivors from feeling comfortable to pursue an investigation; but, she worries more about past survivors. "I also think I am most concerned about the previous survivors who have not been outspoken about their stories and how this might affect them. They never consented to this and we are not truly assessing the ramifications it may have on them."

Sammie works closely with the Equal Opportunity and Compliance Office on Title IX policy. While she's excited to see their changes to the website, she felt frustrated over how few changes were able to be made, and how little time people met to work on these changes. One of her main problems with the policy is retaliation.

"I think there needs to be faster responses to retaliation, more rigorous penalties, and no additional processes should be created for a retaliation case in order for it to be less overwhelming for the survivor," she said.

The EOC Office reminds “reporting parties” that they can get a no contact order and that policies regarding retaliation are in place, but looking at the 2014 policy -- which won’t be revised until December 31, 2018 -- contains too many broad statements that don’t assist anyone’s understanding.

As the chair for the Carolina Sexual Assault Coalition, which works with Student Government’s Student Safety and Wellness Committee, I meet with other members to discuss our issues with the policy and discuss them with those in the EOC office.

Our concerns entail questions of what certain words -- good faith, intimidation, and sanctions, for example -- look like exactly. As far as the definition in the policy above retaliation -- complicity -- are we talking more like an accomplice or person contacting another person on the behalf of someone else? Are inactive bystanders charged? How many? What evidence is needed if obvious examples, like screenshots, aren’t available? If someone who has a No Contact Order against them retaliates, does that violate just the NCO or also the retaliation policy?

In this field and under these circumstances, we need three things: information, empathy, and equity. We need to know the composition of the policy that affects us. We need to know how the survivors related in retroactive cases feel about names becoming public and how we can work for the benefit of all. We need to have empathy for those who are scared and in tricky situations. We need equity in investigations that are inundated with injustice in various forms. UNC and legal systems: we need more.

Cover Image Credit: Pexels

Popular Right Now

An Open Letter To Democrats From A Millennial Republican

Why being a Republican doesn't mean I'm inhuman.

Dear Democrats,

I have a few things to say to you — all of you.

You probably don't know me. But you think you do. Because I am a Republican.

Gasp. Shock. Horror. The usual. I know it all. I hear it every time I come out of the conservative closet here at my liberal arts university.

SEE ALSO: What I Mean When I Say I'm A Young Republican

“You're a Republican?" people ask, saying the word in the same tone that Draco Malfoy says “Mudblood."

I know that not all Democrats feel about Republicans this way. Honestly, I can't even say for certain that most of them do. But in my experience, saying you're a Republican on a liberal college campus has the same effect as telling someone you're a child molester.

You see, in this day and age, with leaders of the Republican Party standing up and spouting unfortunately ridiculous phrases like “build a wall," and standing next to Kim Davis in Kentucky after her release, we Republicans are given an extreme stereotype. If you're a Republican, you're a bigot. You don't believe in marriage equality. You don't believe in racial equality. You don't believe in a woman's right to choose. You're extremely religious and want to impose it on everyone else.

Unfortunately, stereotypes are rooted in truth. There are some people out there who really do think these things and feel this way. And it makes me mad. The far right is so far right that they make the rest of us look bad. They make sure we aren't heard. Plenty of us are fed up with their theatrics and extremism.

For those of us brave enough to wear the title “Republican" in this day and age, as millennials, it's different. Many of us don't agree with these brash ideas. I'd even go as far as to say that most of us don't feel this way.

For me personally, being a Republican doesn't even mean that I automatically vote red.

When people ask me to describe my political views, I usually put it pretty simply. “Conservative, but with liberal social views."

“Oh," they say, “so you're a libertarian."

“Sure," I say. But that's the thing. I'm not really a libertarian.

Here's what I believe:

I believe in marriage equality. I believe in feminism. I believe in racial equality. I don't want to defund Planned Parenthood. I believe in birth control. I believe in a woman's right to choose. I believe in welfare. I believe more funds should be allocated to the public school system.

Then what's the problem? Obviously, I'm a Democrat then, right?

Wrong. Because I have other beliefs too.

Yes, I believe in the right to choose — but I'd always hope that unless a pregnancy would result in the bodily harm of the woman, that she would choose life. I believe in welfare, but I also believe that our current system is broken — there are people who don't need it receiving it, and others who need it that cannot access it.

I believe in capitalism. I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, because I believe we have a people crisis on our hands, not a gun crisis. Contrary to popular opinion, I do believe in science. I don't believe in charter schools. I believe in privatizing as many things as possible. I don't believe in Obamacare.

Obviously, there are other topics on the table. But, generally speaking, these are the types of things we millennial Republicans get flack for. And while it is OK to disagree on political beliefs, and even healthy, it is NOT OK to make snap judgments about me as a person. Identifying as a Republican does not mean I am the same as Donald Trump.

Just because I am a Republican, does not mean you know everything about me. That does not give you the right to make assumptions about who I am as a person. It is not OK for you to group me with my stereotype or condemn me for what I feel and believe. And for a party that prides itself on being so open-minded, it shocks me that many of you would be so judgmental.

So I ask you to please, please, please reexamine how you view Republicans. Chances are, you're missing some extremely important details. If you only hang out with people who belong to your own party, chances are you're missing out on great people. Because, despite what everyone believes, we are not our stereotype.


A millennial Republican

Cover Image Credit: NEWSWORK.ORG

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

Why The Idea Of 'No Politics At The Dinner Table' Takes Place And Why We Should Avoid It

When did having a dialogue become so rare?


Why has the art of civilized debate and conversation become unheard of in daily life? Why is it considered impolite to talk politics with coworkers and friends? Expressing ideas and discussing different opinions should not be looked down upon.

I have a few ideas as to why this is our current societal norm.

1. Politics is personal.

Your politics can reveal a lot about who you are. Expressing these (sometimes controversial) opinions may put you in a vulnerable position. It is possible for people to draw unfair conclusions from one viewpoint you hold. This fosters a fear of judgment when it comes to our political beliefs.

Regardless of where you lie on the spectrum of political belief, there is a world of assumption that goes along with any opinion. People have a growing concern that others won't hear them out based on one belief.

As if a single opinion could tell you all that you should know about someone. Do your political opinions reflect who you are as a person? Does it reflect your hobbies? Your past?

The question becomes "are your politics indicative enough of who you are as a person to warrant a complete judgment?"

Personally, I do not think you would even scratch the surface of who I am just from knowing my political identification.

2. People are impolite.

The politics themselves are not impolite. But many people who wield passionate, political opinion act impolite and rude when it comes to those who disagree.

The avoidance of this topic among friends, family, acquaintances and just in general, is out of a desire to 'keep the peace'. Many people have friends who disagree with them and even family who disagree with them. We justify our silence out of a desire to avoid unpleasant situations.

I will offer this: It might even be better to argue with the ones you love and care about, because they already know who you are aside from your politics, and they love you unconditionally (or at least I would hope).

We should be having these unpleasant conversations. And you know what? They don't even need to be unpleasant! Shouldn't we be capable of debating in a civilized manner? Can't we find common ground?

I attribute the loss of political conversation in daily life to these factors. 'Keeping the peace' isn't an excuse. We should be discussing our opinions constantly and we should be discussing them with those who think differently.

Instead of discouraging political conversation, we should be encouraging kindness and understanding. That's how we will avoid the unpleasantness that these conversations sometimes bring.

By avoiding them altogether, we are doing our youth a disservice because they are not being exposed to government, law, and politics, and they are not learning to deal with people and ideas that they don't agree with.

Next Thanksgiving, talk politics at the table.

Related Content

Facebook Comments