Did media outlets reporting the
sexual assault allegations against Brown University student Daniel
Kopin properly scrutinize the claims of his accuser, Lena Sclove?
Over at Minding the Campus, Cathy Young argues persuasively that
the accounts of the incident in both
Salon and The Huffington Post
contained inaccuracies that painted Kopin in an undeservedly
poor light.
First, some background. Brown student Lena Sclove accused Kopin
of assault after a sexual encounter at his campus residence last
summer. Sclove said that Kopin forced himself on her and choked
her. The police did not pursue charges, but university
administrators determined that it was more likely than not that
Kopin was guilty of “sexual misconduct.”
But the story is much more complicated than it was portrayed in
the media,
according to Young:
None of the media accounts gave any details of Sclove’s alleged
assault. Both the Huffington Post and Salon claimed that the
charges on which Kopin was found responsible included “sexual
violence involving physical force and injury.” In fact, the conduct
board made no such finding; the official document a scan of which
was featured in the Huffington Post article showed that the offense
was described as “sexual misconduct that includes one or more of
the following: penetration, violent physical
force, or injury” (emphasis added). Kopin was
also found responsible for “actions that can result in or can be
reasonably expected to result in physical harm” and “non-consensual
physical contact of a sexual nature.”… Aside from Brown’s handling of the case, the most striking
aspect of this story is the utterly pathetic performance of the
media. No attempt was made to independently verify any of Sclove’s
claims. Most publications made no attempt to get Kopin’s side of
the story. No one thought to ask such basic questions as: If Sclove
was indeed violently raped and strangled, why didn’t she go to the
police? Would Brown officials really readmit a known violent rapist
after a brief suspension and run the risk of him reoffending?
Young
interviewed both Kopin and his attorney, Harvey
Silverglate, who was barred from attending the disciplinary
hearing. Some previously unreported details:
* Sclove never alleged that there was physically forced sex;
rather, the finding of non-consensual sex was based on the fact
that, as she testified and Kopin confirmed, when they got to his
place she told him she did not want to have sex with him. She
claimed that Kopin continued to make physical advances which she
did not resist because she was “in a fuzzy state” from drinking at
the party and because she felt he was not giving her the option to
refuse.* According to Kopin, he told Sclove he was fine with her
decision and even offered to walk her home if she wanted to go–but
she refused. Sclove conceded that he made such an offer; she said
she didn’t leave because she felt unsafe either walking by herself
or walking with Kopin, after the earlier choking incident (yet was
willing to stay alone with him in his apartment).* Kopin claimed, shortly after telling him she didn’t want to
have sex, Sclove was the one who made sexual advances. (He also
testified, with some corroboration, that she had a history of
sending such mixed signals.) While Sclove denied this, she admitted
that she asked Kopin to get a condom and agreed to give him oral
sex–though, according to her, she did so only because it was the
least “horrible” of her options.* Kopin’s three housemates, who came home during the alleged
assault and saw Sclove moments later, testified in support of
Kopin. The three, two men and one woman, heard the sounds of a
sexual encounter from outside and knocked loudly to alert the pair;
Kopin and Sclove collected their clothes and ran upstairs to his
bedroom, from which Sclove shortly came down. According to the
housemates’ testimony, she seemed embarrassed but not frightened,
traumatized or disoriented.
The notion that Kopin choked Sclove is especially dubious, given
what Sclove said—or didn’t say—about the matter. In an email to
Kopin a week after the encounter, she did not mention choking and
instead wrote that he had “crossed a boundary.” She claimed to have
been sexually harassed by someone else a few days before, and the
way in which Kopin touched her “triggered” the memory of that
harassment.
Given all that, it’s not quite clear why administrators deemed
Kopin guilty, even under the lesser “preponderance of evidence”
standard.
According to Silverglate, the decision not to expel Kopin from
campus outright was an implicit acknowledgement that the case
against him was weak.
Of course, this has not stopped countless
media outlets and a lynch mob of Brown students and faculty
from declaring a miscarriage of justice over the fact that Kopin
was merely suspended for one year (he ultimately dropped out).
But there will always be injustice in campus rape proceedings as
long as administrators
continue to deprive the accused—at the unfortunate insistence
of the federal government—of their due process rights.
from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/SOxKjV
via IFTTT