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

["Foubert, John" <>]

SAPC Colleagues,

I wonder if we as a movement can look at the letter we received from 
Elizabeth Griego and identify every way in which she seems to be missing the 
point.  S. Daniel Carter got us off to a good start by raising the troubling 
issue that the University of the Pacific allowed three men they found 
responsible for sexual assault to remain on a campus with a woman they were 
found responsible for attacking.  That is an issue unto itself. There are 
many things I think we can all be deeply troubled by in her letter though.  
Here are a several:


1.       A letter was sent by 13 members of the sexual assault education 
movement, not just by one person.  This isn't about one person disagreeing 
with a VP's decision, it is about a broad representation of a movement 
raising objections to a VP who made decisions at the University of the 
Pacific that clearly seem to have revictimized a sexual assault survivor.

2.       VP Griego puts the focus on herself and her being "viciously" 
attacked.  How is sharing contents of a lawsuit available in the public 
record vicious?  Moreover, the main point is not what is being done to draw 
attention to her own actions, the main point is what happened to a first-year 
woman at the University of the Pacific, how three men treated her when she 
was intoxicated, what it appears the University knew about the dangers 
beforehand, and how VP Griego and others at the University treated her 
afterward.

3.       VP Greigo states that all professionals should be concerned that the 
University's account of the case should be receiving more attention.  Nothing 
is stopping them from sharing their accounts.  They have done so to the press 
and stated that they don't believe what happened was rape.  They later 
changed their mind and said that it was.  They can continue to share as many 
versions of their account of the case as they would like.

4.       VP Griego repeatedly uses the term "best practices" and talks about 
using them in this case.  Was VP Griego following some kind of "best 
practice" when - as is admitted in the University's response to the lawsuit - 
she told the survivor "that given the testimony of all witnesses 
questioned... ...there might be 'competing truths', as it appeared from third 
party witnesses and Respondents' testimony, that two of the Respondents 
believed they had Plaintiff's consent to engage in the conduct alleged."   
When this is stated to the survivor when the survivor calls the University 
asking for the verdict from the hearing about her sexual assault case and she 
hears this statement from VP Griego, what is the survivor to conclude?  Those 
in the sexual assault education field and the student affairs profession at 
large need only seconds to say that this response blames the victim, tells 
her she isn't believed, and is retraumatizing.  What possible helpful motive 
could VP Griego have had to state this to the survivor?  Are these the words 
of someone who should be the leader of NASPA?

5.       VP Griego refers to inaccurate and fabricated statements being 
circulated in the media coverage and on the Internet.  Aside from later 
stating that the survivor is lying about a comment regarding the perpetrators 
being popular and not needing to be involved in a sexual assault, there is no 
statement of what is being fabricated.  What exactly does she believe is 
being fabricated?  And, of course, stating that a survivor is lying is an 
obvious rape myth.

6.       VP Griego states that her Pacific colleagues "can only be commended 
for their swift, thoughtful, and fair handling of all of the events 
surrounding this incident."  Does that statement apply to the public comments 
of University Spokesperson Richard Rojo who stated, as reported in the 
Stockton Record, that the University did not consider the case to be rape?  
He continued, "We would call it date rape," he said. Rojo said the university 
considers "outright rape" and date rape to be different, in that date rape 
does not involve "a rapist jumping out of bushes and attacking people 
randomly." He said, "These are people who knew each other. ... It's a social 
situation and unfortunately an all-too common problem at universities."

7.       On what basis does VP Griego justify the statement that the 
University of the Pacific has policies and practices that reflect the best 
standards in the country?

8.       Among the "facts" listed  in her letter and among the statements 
listed in the University's response to the lawsuit is reference to relevant 
witnesses.  These "relevant" witnesses included people who claimed that the 
survivor was "flirtatious" "promiscuous" "sleazy" and "very sexual" at a 
party where she became drunk prior to the events later in the evening where 
three men chose to sexually assault her.  Why does VP Griego and the 
University of the Pacific find these behaviors and these witnesses to be 
relevant?   I think all of us deserve a full explanation of each step of 
their logic in believing that witnesses who believe a woman was flirtatious 
at a party has something to do with men's choices to commit a violent act 
against her; and moreover why would the University of Pacific and VP Griego 
draw attention to this?

9.       How is the claim that Jane Doe's family was pleased with the 
University's handling of the case during part of the process relevant to 
their feelings now?  There are many people who have relationships with each 
other that go sour, business partnerships that fail, and sometimes people are 
treated well during part of a process and have reason to question another 
part of a process.

10.   VP Griego accuses a rape survivor of lying about a comment regarding 
the perpetrators not needing to commit sexual assault due to their 
popularity.  We all have to ask ourselves, why would a rape survivor lie?  Is 
VP Griego's denial credible?

11.   Perhaps the most important point of all that VP Griego misses, or just 
as likely tries to divert everyone's attention from is that the intent of the 
letter sent out recently by 13 of us in the sexual assault education movement 
was to encourage people to read the lawsuit filed by Jane Doe and to read the 
response by the University of the Pacific.  We believe that is the best way 
to learn about the case.  VP Griego also attempts to make people believe that 
they can only understand this case if they have heard all of the testimony 
that the Judicial Review Board and the Appeals Committee at UOP heard.  That 
would be the case if this matter were only about what happened in those two 
panels.  This is not just about what happened with those two panels.   This 
is about what the University knew about a reported rape about 6 weeks 
beforehand with men alleged to be the same perpetrators.  This is about how 
VP Griego, and Richard Rojo, a young lady whom the survivor doesn't know who 
assaulted her, and others have treated Jane Doe since the hearings ended.  
This is about social justice that is being denied and about trauma that no 
reasonable person can doubt is being exacerbated.  I am confident that a jury 
will see through this game of intellectual dodgeball that VP Griego is trying 
to play.  I am even more confident that all of you reading this letter can 
see through it as well.

Sincerely,

John D. Foubert, Ph.D.

**************************************
John D. Foubert, Ph.D., LLC
Associate Professor and Program Coordinator
College Student Development Master's Degree Program
Oklahoma State University
School of Educational Studies
314 Willa t
Stillwater, OK 74078
(405) 744-1480
(405) 744-7758 fax