Before my interview, I couldnt help but wonder what students walking by

thought of me. Alone in a chair near the entrance to the Women and Gender Advocacy
Center, I tried to ignore the looks as I revised my questions. My small reporters
notebook was fairly discreet, but to me it flared like a bright red flag. People faced issues
of the utmost sensitivity in this office. Yet there I was a journalist waiting at the door
to ask questions. I couldnt help but imagine what they thought, a male journalist?
Here? In reality probably none of them paid attention, but I faced an interview that made
me anxious. My questions about sexual assaults were not ones to take lightly. As I sat
there I became wholly aware of my gender and profession.

I dread the feeling right before an interview with touchy subject matter. I worry
about where the conversation will go and whether or not my line of questioning will
strike a sour note. This interview in particular made me uneasy. I cant even pretend to
somewhat understand the issue of sex assaults. Sometimes ignorance can be good for a
curious journalist, but this time it just left me afraid and uncertain. Its hard to describe
why Id put myself through something so stressful. Ultimately, I was there because of
curiosity and concern, and so that I could finally start to grasp a topic thats been
frustrating me for months.
Charlottesville
My concern started because of a March press conference in Charlottesville where
Police Chief Tim Longo walked into a
pressroom with sweat on his brow. From a live
stream it was hard to gauge, but to me at least,
he looked flustered by the sheer amount of
microphones pointed at him. Charlottesville, a
town of over 40,000, became the center of a
scandal that extended from the towns local
university, U-Va, to the offices of the Rolling
Stone Magazine. In a November edition, the
magazine released a lengthy article detailing the

Police chief Tim Longo at a press conference in

March screen shot courtesy of City of
Charlottesville

horrific rape of a female student at a fraternity house.

When the story published, right away, University President Teresa Sullivan asked
Longo to conduct a criminal investigation into the accusation. At the time the 9,000-

word article gained notoriety everywhere. According to the magazine publisher, Jann S.
Wenner, the article shined a light on how colleges and universities tried to, sweep the
issue of sexual assault on campus under a rug. Yet, two weeks after publishing, The
Washington Post and other media outlets started poking holes in
the report. No other sources had verified the story of Jackie, the
pseudonym for the girl involved in the story, but Jackie herself,
meaning everyone questioned her story. Worldwide, media groups
published articles about Rolling Stones major mistake, reporting
on every bit of news surrounding the incident.
Caught in the middle of all this was Longo and a police
force instructed with finding out what really happened.
Throughout the winter months, they interviewed various students
and attempted to verify the facts. Yet in the end, at the press

The feature story from the Rolling

Stone titled "A Rape on Campus

conference in March, Longo suspended the investigation until

further information was submitted to police. The story and investigation that had taken
the attention of media worldwide had settled with no true evidence claiming whether a
rape happened or not leaving a community and nation with no resolution.
These students have been through so much in the last seven months. Their
university and our community has been on a national stage three times, Longo said at
the press conference. Longo insisted that although the fraternity might not have been
involved in an assault, something still might have truly happened to Jackie.

Simple Mistakes
After seeing this coverage I couldnt help but think about how my newspaper and
campus discussed sexual assaults. Terrifyingly simple mistakes lead to the false report
from Rolling Stone. They were mistakes anyone under the right circumstances could
have made. If they would have simply verified Jackies story with someone else before
publishing they may not have ran into such trouble. But because of sensitivity, they
decided to trust Jackie as a main source and publish. As a reporter, this worries me
especially at a student media group where many young journalists cover assaults. The
topic of assault on college campuses remains so ambiguous and yet at the same time able
to carry such influence and power that covering the issue can prove impossible. Much of
the problems stem from a lack of facts. Official sources can be as uncertain in their
investigations as journalists in their reports, which makes obscurity the norm for an issue
that horribly affects students. Add in the power of false printed words and you have the
potential for scandals that can completely change how people see a topic. U-Va President
Teresa Sullivan, in an address said, Before the Rolling Stone story was discredited, it
seemed to resonate with some people simply because it confirmed their darkest
suspicions about universities that administrations are corrupt; that today's students are
reckless and irresponsible; that fraternities are hot-beds of deviant behavior. Stories like
a cover-up or a mishandled case are now standard at universities nation-wide.

Even more so however, more college campuses bring the issue of sex into the
spotlight. According to trends from Google, people have searched the phrase, college
sex assault substantially more since before 2012 and the term has been on the rise with
more news coverage reporting on the issue. But with this increase in discussion comes a
skewed sense of narrative, justice and facts, all of which ultimately creates a confusing
mix of misreporting, defaming situations and improper handling of retribution. Rolling
Stones now discredited article happened at a pinnacle of mishandled coverage thats
only been building.
From my perspective at a university and student media, I dreaded the thought of
an assault story. And yet of course, as these things go, weeks after reading the fallout
from Rolling Stone, I received a phone call from a fellow reporter that made my dread a
blunt reality. Someone reached out to us claiming a student who was also running for
student office had assaulted a student. We knew very little from the source that
claimed this, but they gave us a phone number and said the person would be in touch
soon. No official process occurred no police report or a university official saying this
was a thing just a claim that came student to student about a potentially damning and
life altering assertion. In the moment, I told the reporter to take the call and get all of the
information they could about the persons claim. We had no idea of even the severity of
the assault, yet still we couldnt disregard it.
Into the WGAC
At this point, and with such worry and hazy confusion in my head, I anxiously
entered the office, of the Women and Gender Advocacy Center at CSU. Just to make
clear, I didnt go there to talk about the specifics of the assault story someone just told us

about. I went to clear my own head and to maybe find guidance on how to cover sexual
assaults in a responsible way. Seeing just weeks ago what could go wrong, meant that I
really needed the help of a professional. The WGAC provides a variety of services for
students, from advocacy for survivors of assault to providing education and awareness.
Advocates support a student through a variety of things depending on what the student
needs and wants. A lot of the work they do remains confidential, and the students they
work with dont always officially file a report against an accuser. I posed my uneasiness
to the centers Director, Kathy Sisneros, and she responded in a very official manner,
clarifying many of my words. Essentially she said the problem many others and I had was
with clarity, We are trying to define it, she said. Its tricky, and there is conversation
to be had. According to Sisneros, the center has had an increase in visitors the past few
years, coinciding with the national growth of education and reports of assaults.
Really, the entire issue of sexual assaults does come down to lack of clarity at a
time when many are pushing the issue to the forefront. One of the better examples of this
is the most powerful entity in the U.S.: The White House. Last April a White House task
force released a report titled Not Alone a study with findings and guidelines to protect
students from sex assault. The report begins with the statistic: One in five women is
sexually assaulted in college. The statistic served as a rallying point to spotlight injustices
and the largely unreported nature of assault. Both president Obama and VP Biden
asserted the statistic in choice quotes. Ultimately, the White House used the statistic to
emphasize the importance of the issue and start possible remedies.
After the report published, media attention wasnt anything big, just the normal
fanfare that goes with any White House press release. Soon however, the report got teeth

in the form of an investigation from the Department of Education. The department

announced 60 universities were on an investigation list for how they handled sex assault
cases. With so many universities now under investigation, the spotlight turned to
universities, and it only escalated. That summer as I sat in a vacant student media
newsroom, I saw that list of universities under investigations grow until, sure enough, my
own university, CSU was added to the list. Near the end, over 100 universities were
added, providing story upon story for media outlets to cover. During the investigations,
many universities violated Department of Education guidelines and ultimately settled. At
Princeton for example the University was penalized for, failing to promptly and
equitably respond to complaints of sexual violence, including sexual assault, and also
failing to end the sexually hostile environment for one student.
Misleading Facts
All of these investigations and reporting came from a White House order backed
by a statistic that contended it as a substantial problem. Yet this statistic, oddly enough,
proved misleading by the people who conducted the study. From 2005 to 2007,
university researchers directed a study about sex assault on two college campuses. They
submitted their findings to the Department of Justice, and received funding from the
National Institute of Justice. The infamous one in five statistic that media outlets,
President Obama and various advocacy groups use is buried in the report. The researchers
later contested this statistic after the White House promoted it. In a column submitted to
TIME magazine on December 2014, two of the researchers wrote, First and foremost,
the 1-in-5 statistic is not a nationally representative estimate of the prevalence of sexual
assault, and we have never presented it as being representative of anything other than the

population of senior undergraduate women at the two universities where data were
collectedtwo large public universities.
Even now after the researchers clarified their study people all across the
nation still see this statistic as credible and common knowledge. A huge part of how our
nation understands sex assault originates from a general idea that it happens frequently.
The rallying point and movement to bring the issue rampant with ambiguity is itself
inaccurate. Despite this, the attention it has garnered for the issue has caused an
avalanche of coverage and people coming forward to either report assaults or receive
professional guidance. Its important to note that just because one survey is inaccurate
doesnt mean it isnt happening or worthy of the attention. The importance of stopping
assault shouldnt be weighed by the frequency of it happening but by the affects it has on
people. Just one assault is one too many. But using an inaccurate statistic showcases how
our cultures been lead down a rabbit hole of sensationalism. Shining light on an issue
such as this inherently means that there will be evidence that is left unanswered.
However, media outlets such as The Rolling Stone have ran with stories that prove to be
false, or vacant of facts asserting whether an assault happened or not.
When no official source of evidence exists just he said she said assertions,
covering a story and proving blame is dangerous. More so, like in the case of Rolling
stones discredited piece, something horrible and tragic could still have happened to
people who claim they were assaulted even if the present evidence doesnt back it up.
Many journalists, my self-included, are caught in a conflict. We want to report to stop
injustice and help those who are at times voiceless, but we have to do it in the realms of
fact and by not defaming the innocent. Covering sex assault makes it hard to stand by this

code. Furthermore, because entities such as the White House have shined such a bright
light on the issue, the importance placed on it means it has to be covered in some capacity
even though many havent found a proper way to do that.
This sad reality worries me given the possible assault story at my own university.
From the source who spoke to us, it sounded like they really wanted to get the story out,
and they saw the student run newspaper as the obvious place to push it. In these
situations, I have become really torn about what justice means in my own profession. To
what extent can accusing people through the medium of journalism be ethical? Im still
not really sure, but regardless I felt worried. As though in this instance my profession was
just a secondary tool for doling out some form of justice.
Unintended Activists
More and more students are coming forward to report assault whether through
legal means or in public environments. I asked Sisneros about this and she thinks that
students who were silent or silenced are simply tired of living in the shadows. And with
such a growing conversation, I am hard pressed to disagree. To Sisneros, those who come
forward turn into unintended activists. They feel like justice was not given to them, so
they must advocate for themselves. But there are many consequences that come with
unintended activists especially when it happens on university ground.
Emma Sulkowicz, a student from Columbia University, carried her 50-pound
dorm room mattress for over a month with her around campus as a piece of performance
art and to call attention to an assault she says she endured from a fellow student who
received no punishment or form of justice from university officials. Immediately after she
started carrying her mattress, social media spread her story everywhere. Soon every

student knew the accused students name, and that only made things more complicated.
Even after an investigation cleared the student, Paul Nungesser, of all wrongdoing,
Sulkowicz still claimed that he was the one who assaulted her. Because of this,
Sulkowicz along with a group of other students filed a complaint against the University

Figure 1 Emma Sulkowicz (Photo Credit: The Guardian)

for how they handled investigations. At the same time, Nungesser is suing the University
for allowing his name to be defamed publicly on campus through Sulkowicz use of the
art performance that counted toward class credit. So in short, no one received charges
with an official count of assault, and all parties involved claimed the University at fault.
All the while websites from all over have reported on the story making this a drama
played out for the whole world to see.
Finding Justice Without the Law
For me this outcome shows the delicate line between harm and justice. More so
though, it spotlights how there isnt a proper medium for justice in instances of assault.

By a mandate from the federal government, universities need a system in place to

investigate and arbitrate instances of assault. Many use investigators and then have a
board or committee determine culpability. Overall this process is a tricky situation given
campuses cant use the same legal power granted to the law and police forces. They cant
demand pieces of evidence, and student privacy laws can make finding more difficult.
But still, many assaulted refrain from filing reports to police. And at a university, reports
are meant to not only provide justice but also ensure a safe learning environment for
students on a close campus who do not want to face a person who may have assaulted
them. Yet now with over 100 universities being investigated for how they handled
assault, this system of university justice remains highly questioned. A recent report from
the Chronicle of Higher Education ran with the title Should Colleges be Judging Rape?
The report went on to demonstrate how a lack of funding and other issues have caused a
torrent of lawsuits against universities who botched cases. In part, Sulkowicz and Jackie
brought their stories to the public because they didnt receive the justice they wanted.
Many across the nation are seeing this issue as well. With a university investigation, all
the process happens away from public view. There isnt a public jury to determine the
outcome, which means that universities not unlike social activists or journalists have to
strongly assert claims of assault without a true or proper sense of justice in place.
The fact that there are not official reports of investigations was very troubling for
me. In the story that I was now aware of we werent sure whether a university
investigation happened or not. Even if there was, given what scrutiny universities are
under, I dont think that would have made me anymore confident about the evidence
present. A few days after the source said someone would be in contact with us, we still

received no calls. I highly questioned whether or not going further with an investigation
was right. We dealt with sources that had no clear official account or evidence that placed
these people in a situation where assault could have happened. Even if it did, proving so
would be impossible and asserting so would likely cause a lawsuit. But initially, we
didnt even have anything close to an assertion. Defining what assault meant in this
instance proved impossible. It could have been physical or verbal assault, and with both
of those there is a spectrum ranging from very serious to minor.
And now many definitions that fall under assault are changing. Universities are
scrambling to figure out new protocols established by the government. Many struggle
with defining specific words on the spectrum of assault. Some institutions have created
their own definitions that must match and fit various
regulations and standards. For example, up until last
year, university police forces only had to report
certain acts of sexual violence, but now the
definition of what they have to report is separated

CSU crime statistics, that includes new definitions that a re just

now being tracked

into more specific categories such as rape, stalking

and domestic violence. In this sense universities have a lot more to cover and determine
definitions for with many snags arising because of it. For example, Sisneros and her
center now refrain from using the term domestic violence because many students relate
that to the type of violence faced by people their parents age. Instead they use the term
relationship violence. Really, universities are in a transition phase as much of what they
define as sex assault changes to fit the needs of their communities. With this transition

comes uncertainty as every institution, media group and community tries to find a
uniform voice.
Where to Center the Conversation
Before I left Sisneros office at the WGAC she was curious as to what story the
interview would be for. My answer in a roundabout way was: I dont know, Im just
trying to understand a complex issue. At the time I really didnt know what would come
of it. I just needed a person to talk to, I think. But her worry from my response was
unmistakable.
I never know where you all are centering the conversation, she said. Too often
I think she sees reporters who dont really know what they are doing. They probably walk
in and with either blind confidence or my ignorant anxiety try to piece together stories
from what information she can provide. I wouldnt say I left Sisneros office feeling
better or more relaxed about the situation I was in. And yet at the same time, I accepted
the lack of evidence inherent in the topic and story that I faced.
In the end we decided to not peruse or publish a story on the alleged assault, there
was just not enough there to justify it. You may never know where to center the topic, in
this instance especially; not publishing was the right choice. Still, even though we didnt
pursue the story, it feels weird knowing what may or may not have actually happened.
This persons story could have been completely true, and yet just because of the
circumstance we decided to not publish.

Almost everyday in the student center I walk by a

statue that always makes me think about this situation. The
metal statue, formed into the shape of a feminine figure, has
hands protruding from the hips. Overall the entire thing
remains indefinite. The face forms oddly flat around the
edges, and theres no description visible of the authors
intent. When I walk by I always wonder what the sculptor
meant for the statue to say, but I always felt awkward
stopping to look and see if there was any description hidden
from view. Despite this, the power that emanates from the
statue is undeniable. The size of it just seems to draw my eye
every time I walk by it. To me, discussing, reporting and
investigating sex assaults is like trying to artfully evaluate
this statue. Its powerful and influential, but at the same time
impossible to understand without more information. And the
way things look; no new information for the statue or story of
assault would be given to me in the near future. It felt weird just holding back when there
is such a force in the back of your head saying you need to do something. But still I did
nothing and continued to go about my school day, walking occasionally by the statue.

Looking Toward the Future

About a week after my interview with Sisneros I was on a plane to New York
headed to a conference at the New York Times. The Times invited student media leaders

from all across the nation to discuss issues they found prevalent at their schools.
Alongside conversations about printing frequency and student interest in campus news,
came the final and most discussed topic: sex assaults. One by one students made their
way up to a microphone and spoke on problems they discovered while trying to report
assaults. The spectrum of issues was stunning. They ranged from private schools that
were even more secretive than my own, to public schools that refused to work with media
at all, to even stories of students who had come forward and wanted their story printed.
Furthermore all of them shared similar concerns from the Rolling Stone article. Hearing
comparable fears to what I faced from other student media groups was unusually nice
like a moment of solidarity. It was reassuring to hear peers in similar situations. This
conference gave me a look into the future of how assault would be covered. Student
media leaders from all over saw first hand what can go wrong when reporting assault and
also the errors that professionals made before. Just being cognizant of that while
transitioning in to the work force gives me hope. It seems that as this issue gets bigger
and more and more people become aware of it, the way we frame and understand assault
will change substantially. There may never be a complete list of facts to collect, but at
least moving forward, knowing when not to print vs. when to print, might make all the
difference.