Analyzing UVa’s Leadership Response to Rolling Stone’s Article by Stormy Stark
The University of Virginia has been rocked by controversy since Rolling Stone ran Sabrina Erdely’s article “A Rape on Campus: A Brutal Assault and Struggle for Justice at UVA.” As disturbing as the events in the article and the culture they illustrate are, it is far worse, framed by the timing of the publication just weeks after Hannah Graham, a second year student was found dead, the victim of foul play. Since the article was published in the December 2014 edition of Rolling Stone, the University officials have reported vandalism of a fraternity house, documented and overseen rallies and protests, anger and anguish all clouding the pristine columns and greens of the campus. Journalists have explored the culture of the University and considered the viewpoints of the students, faculty, and administration in the months following the story breaking. The University that is bound and rooted in honor has almost literally flinched, waiting for the next blow to be delivered, waiting for the outcome of the Columbia School of Journalism review, and trying to give the police time to investigate the credibility of the events in the original article. It is an understatement to say that there has been extensive tragedy befalling the University. However, there are some crucial issues and lessons that can be examined from the University administration’s response to the events. Perhaps, by exploring what worked well and what did not work as well in the administrative leadership arena, the University can move forward and the pain and loss suffered will not be in vain. The major leadership considerations include adoption of a zero tolerance policy on sexual assault, an understanding of the concept of proportional response, and a lack of due process.
Zero Tolerance Policies
Skiba and Peterson (1999), explain the origins and meanings of zero tolerance, stating that, “The term ‘zero tolerance’ — referring to policies that punish all offenses severely, no matter how minor — grew out of state and federal drug enforcement policies in the 1980s.” (p.1). Blumenson and Nilsen (2003) explain zero tolerance in their writing, “A zero tolerance school policy is generally understood to be one that applies a prescribed, mandatory sanction for an infraction—typically expulsion or suspension—with minimal, if any, consideration of the circumstances or consequences of the offense, or the intent, history, disabilities, or prospects of the offender.” (p. 68). This “mandatory” sanction is particularly troubling in the case of the University of Virginia because the circumstances of the alleged offense had not even been investigated. Announcing a zero tolerance policy allows the school to exact a punishment without investing the time into understanding the offense. The overall concern about this policy at the University of Virginia is evidenced in Bidwell’s (2014) article where she quoted a University student, “While suspension and expulsion are important punishments, implementing stricter measures for those found responsible of committing sexual assault ’can’t just be black and white,’ says Brian Head, a fourth-year student and president of the all-male sexual assault education group One in Four.”
“Announcing a zero tolerance policy allows the school to exact a punishment without investing the time into understanding the offense.”
While student’s have strong opinions about the zero tolerance policy, the Board of Visitors and upper administration at the University are to be commended for their stance on not tolerating sexual violence. Helen Dragas was quoted in Bidwell’s (2014) article saying, “our focus must remain on how we can ensure a permanent culture of change on grounds…anything else will be failure.” Yet, the scholarly research shows that zero tolerance is not necessarily the policy that leaders and institutions want to adopt, in part because of the vagueness of the terms. In the haste to be responsive to a crisis, leaders need to not lose sight of the fact that the response must be acceptable and proportional to the offense.
Critical Proportional Response
Any university administration must determine the appropriate response when a critical event occurs on campus. Regardless of whether the event is a cheating scandal, death, or sexual assault, the governing body is embroiled in the gray area of needing to frame a response that is fair and stringent without unduly punishing the innocent. This was, perhaps, not the case when UVA President Teresa Sullivan announced in November 2014, “Beginning immediately, I am suspending all fraternal organizations and associated social activities until January 9th, ahead of the beginning of our spring semester.” This order applied to all Greek organizations at UVA. In essence, the response from the University leadership, as perceived by the Greek organizations, was to punish all of the fraternities and sororities before all of the facts had been determined or uncovered. President Sullivan may have been trying to prevent another sexual assault tragedy, but her order effectively levied punishments on all Greek organizations prior to any foundation of guilt being uncovered. Just as we are currently seeing all police officers in the U.S. being viewed as “brutal” due to the alleged unjust actions of a few officers, this same generalization of guilt by association was enacted by President Sullivan on the entire UVA Greek system.
According to Koss, Wilgus, and Williamsen (2014), “On April 4, 2011, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) issued a ‘‘DCL (Dear Colleague Letter)’’ highlighting the epidemic of sexual violence on college campuses (McCray 2014). The DCL reminded institutions that sexual violence and sexual harassment are forms of sex-based discrimination that institutions must address under Title IX (i.e., the federal statute prohibiting sex-based discrimination at educational institutions receiving federal funding; 1972, 20 U.S.C. §1681).” (p.242). The authors also state, “Under the recent guidance in the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) issued by the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, institutions of higher education are responsible for addressing at least 42 types of sexual behavior with the goals of eliminating misconduct,” (p.242).
Considering the language used by the Civil Rights Office, President Sullivan’s executive order to suspend all Greek organizations based on the accusations leveled at one fraternal organization may appear to be a proportional response. However, suspending all Greek organizations until the spring does not give the students in those organizations a chance to strategize as students, peers, and individuals, on ways the students can help to eliminate sexual misconduct. Removing the right of groups that were highly impacted by these allegations to help contribute to plausible solutions seems counter-intuitive. An enlightened institution should consider that the students within their ranks may have valuable insights into improving an unhealthy culture. If the source of unhealthiness occurs most frequently in a particular student organization, be it athletic, fraternal, or service and academic, then those groups need to be involved in determining action plans that work towards solutions.
Once President Sullivan lifted the ban in January, there lingered a question of whether the students themselves could exercise good judgement. Several national sororal organizations requested that their UVA members skip rush events after the social ban was lifted. In response, Wall and McClam reported on January 29, 2015, “President Teresa A. Sullivan said she has confidence that students can exercise good judgment and consider each other’s safety.” In approximately six weeks, the leadership at the University of Virginia shifted from a stance of halting events to believing those same students can exercise good judgment. Beyond some advisory groups laying out response plans, one has to wonder what changed in such a short time frame that would have the leadership take such polar opposite stances, neither one of which may have been a proportional response to the alleged assault and the purported “rape culture” on campus. If the media backlash was the driving source, then the administration was guilty of bowing to media pressure instead of working to solve the problems within the institution.
Denial of Due Process
The University of Virginia’s current web page explains the Honor Code (2015), “Today students at the University make a commitment not to lie, cheat, or steal within Charlottesville, Albemarle County, or where they represent themselves as University students in order to gain the trust of others. Because of this commitment, there’s a strong degree of trust among the various members of the University community. Students are also expected to conduct themselves with integrity and are presumed honorable until proven otherwise.” (2015). In explaining what occurs when a student goes through the honor violation process, the (2015) website further states, “Students investigate honor allegations, assist and support accused students through the Honor System process, and work with accused students in their defense at trial. Honor jury panels are similarly comprised entirely of students. While anyone may initiate honor proceedings, the process is administered entirely by students.” The above mentioned sanctions leveled against Greek organizations by the University President hardly seem like punishments meted out by a student run honor panel. Bruce Fein (2014) wrote about Thomas Jefferson’s probable response to how the events were handled, “Thomas Jefferson would be turning in his grave. The University of Virginia (U.Va.), his celebrated offspring, has abandoned critical thinking and due process in favor of group think and political correctness over campus rape allegations.” Continuing his legal stance, Fein made the point (2014), “As Mr. Jefferson would have lectured, it is not that investigating rape should be pursued less, but that teaching and practicing due process — the cornerstone of civilization — should be pursued more.” Mr. Jefferson may well have lectured that very point, although his lecture in response to the announcement on March 23, 2015 that the police investigation found no evidence to substantiate the claims in the Rolling Stone article would perhaps be even more enlightening.
“Is this truly the culture that Mr. Jefferson’s University wants to create, one where sanctions and actions are levied and performed before the facts and truth are allowed to be discovered or where vandals go unsanctioned while those found not guilty are threatened and their home destroyed?”
In the days following the Rolling Stone story, the fraternity house in question was vandalized. Shapiro (2014) interviewed one of the vandals on the condition of anonymity, “I texted one of my friends and I was like, ‘Let’s throw bottles at the Phi Psi house tonight,’ and she said, ‘Yes!’ I think that the article made it clear that victims at the university have no legitimate channels to take action, and I think vandalism is a completely legitimate form of action when like, legitimate authority is corrupt. I think it was justified,” he said in an interview with The Times. Clearly, the lessons of due process that Fein mentions are not being taught at UVA as vandals strike before the facts are determined. The vandalism becomes an even graver crime because on January 12, 2015 the University released a statement about the reinstatement of Phi Kappa Psi, “The reinstatement resulted after consultation with Charlottesville Police Department officials, who told the University that their investigation has not revealed any substantive basis to confirm that the allegations raised in the Rolling Stone article occurred at Phi Kappa Psi.” The police certainly gave the brothers of Phi Kappa Psi due process but the honor code, the university, and their peers failed to do so. Is this truly the culture that Mr. Jefferson’s University wants to create, one where sanctions and actions are levied and performed before the facts and truth are allowed to be discovered or where vandals go unsanctioned while those found not guilty are threatened and their home destroyed?
Be Not Afraid to Follow the Truth
In 1820, Thomas Jefferson wrote about the University of Virginia, “This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” With the publication of the Rolling Stone article and its allegations, and arguably before it, with the deaths of Yeardly Love and Hannah Graham, many errors occurred. One could even argue that reason was temporarily suspended as emotion overtook the campus community. Following the truth, the brothers and the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity were found to be not guilty. Adhering to the honor code and being a member of the University of Virginia community means a great deal, including acting with integrity and within the best interests of the University at all times. Within the community of the University, many mistakes may have been made, which in a community comprised primarily of eighteen to twenty-three year old students is not unsurprising. Yet, the mistakes and errors made by the leadership of the institution are grave as well. Those that lead always take on more responsibility than those that follow. That responsibility means careful thought, rational decision making, and fair responses should always be used in the name of truth, the battle against evil, and the quest to combat errors. In light of Rolling Stone retracting their story, the Columbia University Journalism finding extensively bad journalistic issues with the story, and “Jackie” still standing by her account of being sexually assaulted on campus, the quest for truth becomes more twisted and convoluted but the quest to combat errors must proceed unhindered.
References
Bidwell, A. (2014). Skepticism Over Zero-Tolerance Policy at UVA. U.S. News & World Report, Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/12/10/some-cast-doubt-on-uvas-zero-tolerance-sexual-assault-policy
Blumenson, E., & Nilsen, E. S. (2003). One Strike and You’re Out-Constitutional Constraints on Zero Tolerance in Public Education. Wash. ULQ,81, 65.
Elliott, A. (2015). Phi Kappa Psi reinstated after investigation finds no ‘substantive basis’ for Rolling Stone allegations, The Cavalier Daily. Retrieved from http://www.cavalierdaily.com/article/2015/01/university-reinstated-phi-kappa-psi-after-police-investigation-shows-little-evidence
Fein, B. (2014). Crucifying due process on a cross of rape allegations, The Washington Times. Retrieved from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/7/bruce-fein/?page=all
Jefferson, T. (1820). Personal Letter from Thomas Jefferson to William Roscoe. Retrieved from http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/follow-truth-quotation
Koss, M. P., Wilgus, J. K., & Williamsen, K. M. (2014). Campus Sexual Misconduct Restorative Justice Approaches to Enhance Compliance With Title IX Guidance. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 15(3), 242-257.
McCray, K. L. (2014). Intercollegiate Athletes and Sexual Violence A Review of Literature and Recommendations for Future Study. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 1524838014537907.
Robinson, O. and Stolberg, S. (2015). Police Find No Evidence of Rape at university of Virginia Fraternity, The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/us/police-to-release-results-of-uva-rape-inquiry.html?_r=0
Shapiro, T. (2014). Police Find No Evidence in Sexual Assault Case, The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/u-va-fraternity-to-rebut-claims-of-gang-rape-in-rolling-stone/2014/12/05/5fa5f7d2-7c91-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe schools?. Phi Delta Kappan, 372-382.
University of Virginia. (2015). The Code of Honor. Retrieved from http://www.virginia.edu/uvatours/shorthistory/code.html
Wall, K. and McClam, E. (2014). UVA President Teresa Sullivan Weighs In on Frat Party Controversy, NBCNews. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/uva-president-teresa-sullivan-weighs-frat-party-controversy-n295976
Stormy Stark is a doctoral candidate at Penn State University with a research focus on rural education in the mountain communities of Virginia. She holds a Masters degree in Higher Education Administration from Drexel University. Stormy has over 15 years of experience in the higher education sector and has spent a significant portion of her career in the classroom. In addition to her rural research Stormy is passionate about finding positive, equitable, and
ethical ways to deploy technology in the education sector and exploring ethical ways to approach the school violence problems in the United States.
