Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (Jan. 6, 1998)
CONTACTING US NEWSROOM: (541)346-5511 E-MAIL: ode@oregon. uoregon edu ADDRESS: Oregon Daily Emerald P.0. BOX 3159 Eugene, Oregon 97403 ONLINE EDITION: darkwing.uoregon.edu/-ode Perspectives EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Sarah Kickler EDITORIAL EDITOR Mike Schmierbach NIGHT EDITOR Holly Sanders Don’t make excuses for sexual assault A8 EMERALD EDITORIAL The Register-Guard was wrong to focus on the sexual history of two students who claim they were raped The Register-Guard pledges on its editorial page to be “candid but fair and helpful in the de velopment of constructive com munity policy.” In a Dec. 19 edi torial, the Guard was certainly candid, but the only thing it helped develop were flawed atti tudes about sexual assault. The Guard was writing about the case of Danta Graham-Pre ston, a University student who was suspended by the school on the basis of two separate charges of sexual misconduct. A hearings board considered the charges and ordered the suspension, a deci sion that was recently upheld by the University Appeals Board. According to the Guard, this suspension and the case as a whole represent a "miscarriage of justice.” We don’t claim to be fa miliar with the specific claims of the case, and we certainly would n’t decide upon its merits without having been present for all testi mony. Nevertheless, we have se rious objections to certain aspects of the editorial. Whether the Guard is right in saying this particular case is un fair, the arguments it gives to de fend Graham-Preston are pro foundly flawed and even offensive. The editorial focuses upon the past sexual contact that took place between the accusers and the accused, something all parties confirm happened. This contact is irrelevant. Both women claim Graham-Preston engaged in sexual intercourse with them without their consent. In addition, both say they told Graham-Preston, either at the time or earlier in the evening, that they did not wish to have sex. The question the hearings board needed to answer was sim ply whether these claims are true. The Guard obviously thinks the claims are false. Fine. Newspa pers and the public as a whole are always welcome to debate about hearings and court cases. The Guard goes beyond simply arguing the claims are false, how ever. According to the Guard, this case would not have gone to crim inal trial and lacks legal merit be cause “the acknowledged prior sexual intimacy and the volun tary nature of the overnight visits in both cases would destroy the credibility of any charge of sexual assault.” In short, the Guard is suggesting that either the women lied or that what they say hap pened would not be considered rape. False claims of rape do occur. According to the November/De cember Columbia Journalism Re view, the FBI estimates that roughly 8 percent of rape reports are false. That means, of course, that the vast majority of rape claims are true. Moreover, according to a 1993 Senate Judiciary Committee re port, only 16 percent of rapes are reported to the police. Despite the Guard’s suggestion that the women would have gone to the police if their claims were legiti mate, the fact is many women are reluctant to report rape for a num ber of reasons. According to that 1993 report, one of the biggest reasons is that 69 percent of rape victims worry people will blame the victim. With its rhetoric about destroyed credibility and its emphasis on past sexual intimacy, the Guard is helping to perpetuate the mental ity that leads to this reluctance on the part of victims. If the Guard wants rape claims to go through the justice system and receive the fair treatment it apparently believes occurs there, it shouldn’t insult rape victims, women and society as a whole by continuing to use the tired and destructive “she asked for it” atti tude. A 1985 survey by Mary Koss found that 84 percent of rape vic tims knew their assailant and that 57 percent of rapes occurred dur ing dates. This survey and others with similar results suggest the cir cumstances of the case, far from destroying the credibility of the claims, are similar to incidents of confirmed rape. It is not uncom mon for people to remain close to those with whom they were once sexually intimate. It is not un common for people to spend the night at a friend’s house or even in a friend’s bed without there be ing any sexual context. All that matters in claims of rape and sexual assault is whether both parties were capa ble of giving and gave explicit consent for physical intimacy. If the victim said no, it doesn’t mat ter how many times he or she might have said yes in the past; it doesn't matter what the person is wearing or where he or she is sleeping. Rape is, as Elaine Green, associate dean of student life, said, “Simply about an issue of ‘no’ means ‘no’” (ODE, Jan. 5). It is precisely to clarify such is sues and set a clear standard of consent that the University passed its new conduct code. While Graham-Preston is being tried under the old code, the fo cus of the case or any such case should still be on the question of consent — a yes or no question. Nevertheless, many people still believe that rape can somehow be justified if you find enough ex cuses. Jerry Lidz, Graham-Pre ston’s attorney, said women shouldn’t “tempt biology" by sharing a bed with a man. The Guard goes into great detail about prior sexual acts, telling its family audience that one of the accusers “on occasion ... had oral and anal sex with the man. ” In other cases, lawyers and reporters emphasize what a woman was wearing, where she was walking or whom she had had the “poor judgment” to speak with. As a society, we cannot afford to continue to hold such ideas. The Koss survey indicated that 15 percent of women in college will be raped and that another 11 per cent will be the victims of at tempted rape. The key to reduc ing the number of these horrific events is teaching people not to make excuses for rape and men talities that accept rape. The particular case at the Uni versity may or may not fall within that 15 percent. The Guard asked University President Dave Frohn mayer to take up the issue. When and if he does, Frohnmayer needs to consider only the question of consent, not the relationship be tween the parties in question. To do anything else would be to suc cumb to the ignorant attitudes the Guard endorsed in its editorial. Tfjis editorial represents the opinion of the Emerald editorial hoard. Responses may he sent to ode@oregon i toregon. edi i LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Recognize donation reality The letter from Claudia Villena (ODE, fan. 5), which labeled as "misleading” my comments about a recent student protest on so-called corporate influence, deserves a response. I present it here, in the faint hope that repetition of the truth somehow will overcome the consistent and, on occa sion, purposeful distortion of fact. To head the long list of errors cited as fact, University President Dave Frohnmay er has not received a "$1 million salary in crease.” My, that would be news! In fact, President Frohnmayer has received no salary increase at all from the Knight gift, which was given from private, not corpo rate, sources. There is provision for the eventual creation of a Knight Chair for all University Presidents, which would amount to an average $40,000 supplement to salary, expenses or programmatic sup port. In any case, such increases would re quire the approval of the state system’s chancellor. No such chair has been put in place yet, as the first 15 Knight Chairs are still in the process of being funded. I must add that the editors of the Emer ald should be more careful readers of let ters sent to them. The ludicrous nature of Villena’s statement deserved an immedi ate postscript from them, which is com mon journalistic practice in alerting the public to such errors. Given her inability to recognize fact, it makes my assessment of her other allega tions problematic. I would appreciate re ceiving specifics from her about which corporate ties — exactly — have bound us so? It has been my long experience, as pro fessor, dean and now a vice president that donors have been reluctant — even shy — about receiving notice and honor for their quiet philanthropy. Villena wants to cre ate a student group to review private dona tions made to this university; no doubt she is unaware that in the first five years of this capital campaign, which has made trans forming support available to students, fac ulty and our many programs, more than 150,000 donations have been received. Of those, fewer than 9 percent came directly from corporations — frequently as gifts to match those of private donors. It’s time to face the truth, Villena. Many students and faculty I talk to regularly are fed up with the constant agitation that takes place on this issue. Like me, they re alize the dialogue from these groups that want to “save” the University ranges from disingenuous to dishonest. The real heroes here are the thousands and thousands of alumni and friends who want nothing more than to make our University a stronger place — and to do it without no tice or favor. Duncan McDonald Vice President, Public Affairs & Development Drawing Board *ew Year s Resolutions ... WE RCgXVC TO REFORM (AMRNGM FINANCE RIGHT AFTER THf EtfCTTON r TO.CllCK_ lOOSEN VW-HKRW?.. Uf» f-—-N PROVE that JoSTlCf *5m Ut«NO. ^—/ -TOOFnRlMt MTKE PtPT • jay. (*a * TOTTAI iAME Duck.. BUT, AT LEAST Ivf GOT **t NSW P06HCTE.. PAl-HSU ** WITW ME THROUGH THICK amp thin.. ff/CH, buddy/
