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

["Bernstein, Lauren (LB)" <>]

I want to give props to my colleagues in Georgia for taking the time to spell 
out this issue on their campus.  We have had the reverse issue of people 
thinking we are "dangerous" because of increased reporting. These situations 
reveal a lack of understanding of the issues but can also present an 
opportunity for dialogue. Congrats to my friends at UGA for seizing that 
opportunity.  All of these challenges/opportunities further illuminate the 
need for more education, more visibility for this issue, and more 
institutional and community support to best serve students and create safer, 
healthier, more socially just campuses.

Lauren (LB) Bernstein, LMSW
Assistant Director for the Respect  Program, Office of Health Promotion
Emory University Student Health & Counseling Services
Division of Campus Life
404.727.1514 | 

studenthealth.emory.edu/hp

The Respect Program engages the Emory community to prevent and respond to 
sexual assault and relationship violence.

On Oct 8, 2013, at 10:59 AM, 
""
 
<>
 wrote:

> Dear colleagues;
>
> Further to Dan Carter's point about unreported assaults on campus not being 
> "counted," please note that Campus SaVE will legitimize this problem by 
> requiring schools to act only upon a "report" (versus requiring schools to 
> act when they "known or reasonably should know").
>
> Anyway - the story below reveals a similar problem in the military - no 
> surprise.
>
> It's also interesting that the military is under pressure to eliminate its 
> chain of command problems - in particular with regard to the unchecked 
> discretion of a senior officer to overturn a lower panel's decision ruling 
> in favor of a victim.  That same unchecked discretion is an even bigger 
> problem in higher ed where "appeals" panels and presidents can overturn a 
> lower panel's decision in favor of a campus sexual assault victim.  And 
> again, SaVE will legitimize rather than prevent this nonsense by allowing 
> "final determinations" to be made not only on the eve of the victim's 
> graduation but also without her advance knowledge that a change was even 
> being considered.
>
> Makes the military seem desirable by comparison. And could explain why a 
> woman is more likely to be sexually assaulted on campus than in the real 
> world OR in the military.
>
> Wendy Murphy
>
>
> 10/8/13 Intelligencer A6
> 2013 WLNR 25148935
> Intelligencer
> Copyright © 2013 All Rights Reserved.
> October 8, 2013
> Section: 00redesign
> Lunacy at Department of Veterans Affairs
> WASHINGTON - The latest, infuriating entry in the military’s ham-handed 
> handling of sexual assault involves a Catch-22 worthy of Joseph Heller.
>
> Follow the “logic”:
>
> (1) The military acknowledges most incidents of sexual assault are never 
> reported to authorities. (If you wonder why, see the 
> put-the-alleged-victim-on-trial proceedings just concluded involving the 
> U.S. Naval Academy.)
>
> (2) The military acknowledges this under-reporting includes the most 
> serious forms of sexual assault, such as rape.
>
> (3) The Department of Veterans Affairs acknowledges such assaults can have 
> consequences, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, that require 
> treatment years later.
>
> Now, the catch.
>
> (4) The VA - backed up in court by the Justice Department - insists that, 
> for purposes of determining eligibility for benefits, the failure to report 
> sexual assault can be used as evidence it did not occur.
>
> In short, we know these incidents aren’t reported, yet if you don’t report, 
> you’re out of luck. Next case.
>
> This appalling attitude came to light in a just-released opinion from the 
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which instructed the VA, in 
> essence, to knock it off.
>
> The ruling, written by Judge Timothy Dyk and joined by Judge Raymond 
> Clevenger, involved two claims. One woman, identified only as A.Z., served 
> from March 1973 to July 1974, receiving an honorable discharge after she 
> became pregnant. In 2004, she was diagnosed with psychiatric problems, 
> including PTSD, which she blamed on sexual and physical abuse by a superior 
> officer who she claims raped her and fathered her child.
>
> The VA rejected the claim because there was no evidence in the record of 
> sexual assault. A.Z. submitted statements from three siblings, who said in 
> “about her fourth or fifth month of pregnancy (A.Z.) told us she had been 
> sexually assaulted, verbally abused and beaten by Sgt. (J.H.)” and that 
> their sister did not report the incidents to military authorities because 
> she was scared and did not think she would be believed.
>
> A.Z.’s request for reconsideration stated “she did not report these 
> incidents to the military legal authorities” because she “was a young girl, 
> sexually assaulted, verbally abused and beaten by a superior [officer] and 
> she was in fear of her life.”
>
> That request was denied, as was her appeal to the Board of Veterans’ 
> Claims. It said the siblings’ testimony wasn’t enough to overcome the 
> absence of documentation because “none of these individuals ... claimed to 
> witness any personal assault take place.”
>
> Seriously, that’s what the VA thinks it takes, an eyewitness? Another layer 
> of review, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, upheld the 
> dismissal.
>
> The second woman’s claim met similar obstacles. A.Y., who served honorably 
> from 1980 to 1983, was diagnosed with PTSD in 2002 and attributed the 
> disability to a sexual assault by another soldier during military training.
>
> A.Y.’s service records also contain no mention of an assault. But her 
> ex-husband submitted a statement asserting she told him about it when they 
> were serving together. A fellow soldier said A.Y. told her about the 
> assault the day after it occurred and subsequently “became despondent and 
> discussed suicide.” A roommate at her next duty assignment reported A.Y. 
> attempted suicide and was treated at a base hospital.
>
> Again, not enough. “The statements you provided from your friends and 
> family were insufficient to substantiate your claimed stressor, since none 
> of them witnessed the incident, and only knew of the incident due to your 
> statements alone,” the VA’s regional office concluded.
>
> This is lunacy. I don’t know whether these women were sexually assaulted, 
> or whether the assaults resulted in PTSD, or whether they should receive 
> benefits. I do know the absence of (documentary) evidence is not evidence 
> of absence.
>
> As Dyk’s opinion noted: “The secretary expects that many assaults will not 
> have been reported to authorities, for reasons unrelated to the merits of 
> the claim. Penalizing assault victims for that failure would hardly comport 
> with a system” designed to emphasize fairness and based on “solicitude” for 
> the veteran claiming injury.
>
> Indeed, even the dissenting judge, Kimberly Moore, noted that “as a judge, 
> a woman and a human being, I am dubious about the weighing of the evidence 
> and the fact-findings of the VA in this case.”
>
> Not everyone who comes forward, years after an alleged event, is 
> automatically entitled to benefits. But victims of sexual assault in the 
> military are entitled to more benefit of the doubt than the government they 
> served has seen fit to give them.
>
> ---- Index References ----
> Company: AZ ELECTRONIC MATERIALS SA
> News Subject: (Assault & Battery (1AS33); Crime (1CR87); Violent Crime 
> (1VI27); Legal (1LE33); Criminal Law (1CR79); Social Issues (1SO05); Sex 
> Crimes (1SE01); Judicial Cases & Rulings (1JU36))
> Language: EN
> Other Indexing: (Timothy Dyk; Joseph Heller; Kimberly Moore; Raymond 
> Clevenger)
> Word Count: 752
>
>
>

________________________________

This e-mail message (including any attachments) is for the sole use of
the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this message (including any attachments) is strictly
prohibited.

If you have received this message in error, please contact
the sender by reply e-mail message and destroy all copies of the
original message (including attachments).