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/