Although the University does not acknowledge my role in creating the new policy, I have the satisfaction of knowing that change would not have occurred if I had not created this website and been persistent with my letter writing, phone calls, meetings with students and VP Lampkin. Many issues that the Administration insisted to be resolved were not. For example, over and over I was told that the SAB Panel members were trained in sexual assault, yet when I submitted a Freedom of Information Act Request to the University to obtain information about the dates and types of training the panel members attended, it was determined that none of the Panel members had received appropriate training. The new policy now mandates training - and hopefully it will include psychological trauma training.

This website gave an insight to students of a subject the University had purposely shrouded in secrecy - sexual assault. The writers at The Cavalier Daily published many excellent articles throughout the past year to keep the topic "on the table" - thereby stimulating continued student discussion and action. The cover feature in The Hook brought the topic to a new level and gained the attention of many across the state. Hats off to the Silent Protest - a pivotal moment in the quest for change.

Rape and sexual assault are crimes that the University will continue to handle as administrative issues. No other campus crime is handled in this manner. The fact that the policy has been changed is the only way they have acknowledged that their policy was neither compliant with federal law nor victim-friendly. If administered correctly, the new policy should improve the way this Community of Trust responds to sexual assault.

This policy change is bittersweet - while I know that it will help other women it will not change how my daughter was treated by the University Staff or correct the way her case was mishandled by the University Police. Her rapist will cross the Lawn in 2005 and receive his diploma on time. Sadly for her, she will not. Despite my numerous requests, President Casteen and Vice President Lampkin have never provided any of the past victims (to include my daughter) with an apology for turning a blind eye to the pain and suffering they experienced that was caused by the Administration's continued tolerance for campus rape. My daughter's life was altered by her assault and not one person within the Administration has ever shown empathy for the hell they put her through. At the very least, they owe all campus rape victims a public apology. Since they won't do it, I will:

And finally, to my daughter's rapist, Dean Rue, and Dean Sisson: If not for you three, this sexual assault policy change would never have occurred - and that is not meant as a compliment. Your offensive treatment of my daughter is the reason I created this website. Your offensive treatment of others is what moved the students to demand a change in policy and attitude.

AREAS FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION:

Many of the ideas we presented have been incorporated into the new policy: creating a user-friendly website to clearly explain options and procedures, improving speed and efficiency of the process to become compliant with the Clery Act and Title IX federal law, properly trained Board members, consistency with Board members, removal of the Confidentiality Clause, which allows victims to discuss the results of the SAB without being charged with an honor code violation, and most importantly, mandatory sanctions when a person is found guilty of sexual assault. The boxes contain the exact wording of the new policy. Below them I've listed fourteen areas that require further review:

1. The most important goal that students must work towards is this: "mandatory expulsion" as the only option available when a person is found guilty of sexual assault, "mandatory probation" when a person is found guilty of sexual misconduct, and an accompanying sanction that prohibits the offender from ever holding a UJC position, student council position, club leadership, or community liaison position for the remainder of their time at the University (when the sanction is probation).

2. The poor management of the SAB was one of the main reasons that not one student in the past five years found guilty of sexual assault received a sanction. I believe that with a new policy, it is time for a new and more aggressive Board Chair. For the new policy to succeed it needs new leadership.

3. The Chair of the Sexual Assault Board should only be present to assist with the presentation of materials to the panel during the SAB hearing and should not be present during panel deliberations nor be allowed to vote. I found the Chair to be a strong influence not only to the outcome of the panel, but over the advisor's ability to do her job (the advisor worked directly for the Chair and did not challenge the Chair, even when she felt she could because of her primary work situation.)

4. The student representative on the panel should be an undergraduate representing the same year as the victim. My daughter was not afforded an undergraduate representative at her panel hearing, which creates a generational difference in attitude between the panel and the victim.

5. The advisor to the students involved in a SAB Hearing should not be family members. Siblings, cousins, or others also attending/working for UVA should never be allowed to represent the accused or the victim during the SAB hearing. If parents are not allowed to represent the accused, then neither should any other family member be allowed that option, regardless if they are students at the University.

6. Parents should be allowed to witness the hearing. If necessary, they may sit behind a screen so that facial expression and hand gestures are not visible to the panel or the accused. If they are not allowed to witness the hearing, they should be limited to a room away from the Panel hearing, possibly on another floor. While this may seem trivial, the parents of the accused sat in full view of the panel during my daughter's hearing. Elsewhere on this site you can read of my experience with this issue.

9. Clear and Convincing is a difficult concept for most people to clearly explain. With the lack of training and lawyers present, the panel's ability to understand the difference between "clear and convincing" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" may be subject to scrutiny. If the hearing is not an actual trial, then why have the standard of proof higher than the standard used in a civil court?  This appears to be an easy way to find someone "not guilty". The standards used in an honor trial for plagiarism should be more than sufficient to use in an SAB hearing. However, I applaud the option to allow a charge of sexual misconduct when "clear and convincing" evidence is not determined in cases of sexual assault.

10. The number of votes for a "guilty" finding is not stated. The number of panel members should be increased to 4 or 5, with a simple majority ruling.

11. Both the victim and the accused should be required to attend a minimum of 3 counseling sessions, regardless of the outcome of the SAB. The SAB is traumatic event for both sides and should be discussed with a counselor. While everyone says "the victim should see a counselor", people need to maintain that the accused is obviously in need of counseling as well. All accused should be required to view the One-in-Four presentation.