Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

in the spirit of healthy disagreement and cynicism -- allow me a chuckle at 
the idea that the university would have done anything at all in response to 
the duke situation if the claim had been anonymous.  i deabted an 
administrator when the story first broke and he was asked about the 
university's lack of response for two weeks -- utter silence from the 
University -- and he said (i'm sure this type of response will not happen 
again) "well -- it didn't get much coverage in the local papers -- only a 
could of very small articles" -- 

i have to say -- i have been critical of duke -- but they easily could have 
avoided cancelling the lacrosse season and they deserve credit for taking 
that step -- among others -- especially that the two indicted players are 
gone.  According to President Brodhead, "many" players weren't even at the 
party -- yet they were punished by the loss of the season -- so I'm sure the 
pressure to do nothing "punitive" was high -- but it remains the case that 
had the whole thing been "anonymously" reported, the whole situation wouldn't 
have been exposed under the mildly bright lights we've seen thus far -- 

anonymity serves primarily the interests of the harm-doer -- and because 
shame is a powerful tool if the goal is deterrence, anonymity undermines 
prevention -- 

I know the traditional thought on this is that not allowing anonymity 
inhibits reporting -- but the data with which i'm familiar does not bear this 
out -- even in states with mandatory no-drop policies in domestic violence 
cases, there is no data that reporting goes down when victims are forced to 
testify, but rather, good data that incidence rates and intimidation tactics 
go down.  It's a bit different, I know, no-drops v. no anonymity but my point 
is that people said "no-drops will inhibit reporting and more women will be 
beaten" -- and the data shows the opposite -- 

wendy