Dear Editor:
The article printed on the first page of the Eagle's Sept. 23 edition titled "Dept. of Ed. ruling strikes down Georgetown's policies" shocked me more than anything I've read in a long time. My horror wasn't a reaction to the terrible acts of violence that were perpetrated against Jeanne Cleary and Kate Dieringer. Frankly, my faith in individual human beings is close to nonexistent. However, until yesterday, I entertained a fair degree of faith in our educational institutions, including AU. I concede that it is impossible to filter out every single potential sex offender, though one would think that in the case of the Georgetown orientation leader, the selection process would have provided some sort of insight into his dangerous behavior.
What I find utterly revolting is the process set in motion by universities (including AU) once a student rapes another student. I see no justification for the "educational" disciplinary proceeding. If an AU student is raped by anyone but another AU student (including a student at another university), that is a crime that will go through the public court system and ultimately confine the perpetrator to prison. If an AU student is murdered by anyone, including another AU student, that is also a felony and again, the assailant will be behind bars for a long time. I ask you, where is the difference? I see none.
There is educational value to the disciplinary process in the case of so-called victimless crimes - underage drinking, misdemeanor marijuana possession, perhaps even a benign fistfight between drinking buddies. But rape? There are clearly victims, whose bodies and trust have been violated, and assailants, whose disregard for the victims' human dignity lead them to rape that body and destroy that trust. Rape is a crime, regardless of the identity and prior relationship between the assailant and victim. U.S. law now recognizes marital rape - how is rape between college students more acceptable? The prevalence of alcohol consumption on the part of both parties is hardly relevant, either. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for its violation, nor does intoxication exonerate one from the consequences of one's behavior. With this kind of logic, a driver who drinks and causes a fatal accident would walk free because "he was drunk, he didn't know that he was going twice the speed limit!"
As a student, a citizen and a woman, I commend The Eagle for its coverage of this important issue, and I call on AU to review and drastically alter its treatment of rape on campus.
Nathalie Marechal Junior, SIS
