The Orbis

Imagine that behind closed doors, with no witnesses, you have been raped or sexually assaulted. You take your case to court, but, as the victim, the burden of proof is placed on your shoulders. You have nothing but your word as evidence against the accused, and since there were no other witnesses to the act or a specifically violated rule to point to, you cannot fulfill the burden of proof. Your attacker walks free without punishment.

 Unfortunately, this scenario is an increasingly common one on college campuses nationwide. According to the Vanderbilt University Safety Task Force Final Report of Jan. 20, students, mainly women, are finding themselves feeling utterly helpless as they have to continue living in a community where their attackers, not subject to any punitive measures, still live. Most end up transferring or leaving the campus because of the intense fear and discomfort they feel through their attackers' continued presence.

Universities, including Vanderbilt, have taken note of this crisis and are attempting to put in place preventative measures and new, stricter rules regarding what defines an assault, the central policy being that of affirmative consent. In a Jan. 27 article, The Vanderbilt Hustler defined the proposed policy: "Instead of waiting for a man or a woman to say no to sexual intercourse, affirmative consent maintains that verbal mutual agreement must be had before sexual activity." In other words, if partner A says to partner B anything other than an affirmative statement in reference to forthcoming sexual activity, and partner B still goes ahead with the sexual activity, partner B can be charged with violating the affirmative consent policy and face disciplinary measures.

The Safety Task Force Final Report urges "the differentiation between a legal standard and a university standard, allowing for stricter university sanctions applied to those in violation of the sexual misconduct policy." Outside of the university, an act can only be considered sexual assault when the victim has clearly stated "no". The university wants to take that law a few steps further and say that anything but "yes" qualifies as an assault.

Before the policy, victims' defenses would not hold up in court because of the lack of a violation of a concrete rule. Now, victims of sexual assault on our campus are provided with a weapon for their defense, a policy that will attempt to clarify an ambiguous situation and hold perpetrators accountable for their actions. Although understandably hard (if not impossible) to enforce, within a courtroom situation this policy offers much needed evidence and support for victims who previously were left with nothing but their stories while their attackers walked free.

Article Tools