In an opinion piece in the April 30, 2003 edition, Ms. Ramsland takes me to task for something I did not say which was misquoted or misprinted in your paper and from that point takes off on a flight of fancy attacking what she supposes are my views on “consent,” “‘zero tolerance’ on rape” and other matters which were never discussed with me by your reporter (“Counsel’s rape comment outrageous,” pg. 10). My statement to your reporter was in response to his question about the university’s “zero tolerance” policy. It was not about ignoring rape, sexual assault or any other assault of a student by another student. As the Office of Civil Rights findings make very clear, assaults and sexual assaults are not ignored by the university.

My statement to your reporter was not about consent or sexual assault (“Complainants to file civil suit against BU,” April 29, pg. 1). The full statement was to the effect that the university does not have a policy that says that if you are drunk or high and are assaulted, your violation of law is ignored because you have been victimized. I said that the person who commits such an assault will be punished, but that your violation of law is not ignored. That is what I believe I said. That is what I intended to say.

Ms. Ramsland asks rhetorically “what about ‘zero tolerance’ on rape?” There is no question here. The university has a zero tolerance on assault, sexual assault or rape. There is no issue on this point. And the OCR findings confirm what was never in doubt: Boston University does not and will not tolerate sexual assault.

Nothing I said could or should have been construed to say that anyone who takes advantage of another person while that person is intoxicated or high can escape discipline. In my conversation with your reporter, I discussed the orientation all freshman are required to attend and pointed out that students are told that they are subject to strict discipline if they assault a person who is intoxicated or high. I made very clear to your reporter that the discipline imposed on a student found guilty of sexual assault is and will be severe. Your paper chose not to include those statements.

I am sorry if the incomplete and inaccurate quote, taken out of context, suggested that the victim is to be blamed and the perpetrator of a sexual assault should go free if the victim was high or drunk. I never said that because that is neither university policy or practice nor my belief. What was under discussion with your reporter was the simple point: if you break the law, you are subject to appropriate discipline. Period.