BU should further address rape

Allegations that Boston University mishandled two rape cases have finally been settled by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, which exonerated the university following a 17-month investigation. The office decided BU responded in a ‘prompt and equitable manner’ and disciplinary actions against the complainants did not constitute retaliation. This decision seems reasonable, especially coming from an objective third party after a thorough investigation. However, the cases obviously did not proceed ideally, and BU could still improve its rape services beyond legal requirements.

Kristin Roslonski filed the civil complaint against BU in November 2001, and Meghann Horner joined the complaint in April 2002. BU took just over a month to process Horner’s original complaint, filed Feb. 5, 2002 regarding an alleged rape on Jan. 31, 2002. While at first it can appear that BU was less than prompt in handling Roslonski’s complaint BU gave written notice of the outcome on Nov. 26, 2001 although she filed the complaint on Nov. 30, 2000 in regard to an alleged rape on Nov. 5 the university did continue moving forward with the investigation. Furthermore, the university should not be held responsible for other delays such as the alleged assailant’s counter-claims and Roslonki’s original attorney canceling several meetings. However, while BU informally notified Roslonki’s attorney that the complaint would be dropped without further evidence during spring 2001, since she claims her counsel did not pass along the information, BU should institute practices to specifically notify all involved parties.

The OCR’s findings that BU’s responses were equitable also seem justified. It seems the university did all it could to collect evidence, interview witnesses, issue ‘stay away orders’ and relocate the complainants. Unfortunately, rape can be extremely difficult to definitively prove, and while sexual activity conclusively occurred in both cases, the university could not reconcile differences in accounts of evenings and decided that evidence could not prove that sexual assaults occurred. Because BU pursued disciplinary action against the women for drinking or marijuana use, the OCR also studied two years of student complaints and determined that ‘the policy was uniformly applied.’

However, the issue of whether pursuing such action retaliates against victims and discourages reporting rape is far more contentious. Horner admitted to smoking marijuana before the incident and was originally sanctioned, but later won an appeal based on her belief that officials said she would not be punished for revealing the information. Roslonski admitted to drinking alcohol underage on campus on the night of her incident, and originally was sanctioned for consuming alcohol, engaging in disorderly conduct and sexually harassing the accused. While the April 23, 2001 sanctions included a $500 fine, substance abuse treatment and suspension from BU until May 2003, the sexual assault charges were dropped, reducing the fine to $250 and reducing the suspension.

While BU certainly has the right to pursue known violations of its alcohol and drug policies, it must sensitively handle these cases and recognize that some rape victims may be reluctant to report assaults knowing they will be punished for their own drinking or drug use. Roslonski and Horner both admittedly broke BU rules, and the university should address all crimes it becomes aware of. However, Roslonski’s original sanctions particularly the suspension were overly harsh and contributed to her decision to transfer to Tufts University since she would have had to wait until next semester to return to BU under the original ruling that included the sexual harassment charges.

One way BU can reduce the additional stress put on already distressed students and send a better message to complainants is to pursue independent investigations of all related charges, but then announce their decisions regarding each at the same time. This will help rape victims believe that BU is investigating the charges they make just as much as those the school potentially brings against them. Also, because rape is such a horrible crime often put nearly on par with murder that can have severe and long-lasting psychological effects, alleged victims could then deal with a complete university ruling at the same time rather than being punished for their own actions before a decision is made regarding their alleged assailant.

Although BU is voluntarily making some improvements to its policies suggested by the OCR, most of them resolve minor technicalities. BU will improve the information in its Lifebook to include the name of the Title IX Coordinator, show how to file complaints and provide specific timeframes for its responses. While these changes are helpful and necessary, BU should look for further ways to address rape on campus and improve its response to alleged rapes.

Roslonski and Horner’s allegations have hurt BU’s image, and an earlier OCR decision certainly would have reduced the damage. Somewhat ironically, the OCR findings that included investigating the BU’s promptness came five months later than planned. While the OCR needed to investigate thoroughly, acting quicker would have benefited all parties involved.

The rulings have finally vindicated BU but mark a turning point for discussions about rape here. BU still comes off as cold and hostile to those who complain about rape services or merely discuss rape. While the university meets all legal requirements in handling rape, BU should strive to go beyond the bare minimum. For example, the fact that Roslonski went to several different BU officials in the days after her alleged rape indicates that the school needs to implement a system that gives students a way to comfortably report assaults.

The case will also impact how students and the BU community will call for such improvements as a rape crisis center. Since BU has conclusively met Title IX requirements for responding to rape in a ‘prompt and equitable’ manner without retaliating against victims, activists must accept these findings and use other reasons to convince BU that it should improve its services. These rulings provide ample fodder for initiating open dialogue at this university, which is long overdue and often stymied by a seemingly cold administration. The OCR’s decision ends two specific cases, but it should only further provoke discussion about a difficult and complex issue since rape will continue to occur at BU.