By Maya Koeppen ’17

As sexual assault remains a continuing issue on campuses across the country, a lack of defined punishments and inadequate policies have resulted in many schools deservedly receiving public backlash. It is simply not enough to assign perpetrators mere educational sanctions with the hopes that it will be enough to prevent them from committing any further assaults. Sexual assault is a criminal act and the consequences should parallel that level of severity.

According to a Huffington Post analysis, less than a third of college students accused of sexual assault face expulsion. Perpetraors are left to roam around campus, similar to their accuser, all the while surrounded by new potential victims. Most universities agree that these perpetrators should not remain on campus, yet they continue to allow it.

It is this lack of action by college and university administrators that pushed California lawmakers to press legislation that would require mandatory minimum punishment in such cases. This bill, AB 967, would require state colleges to give at least two-year suspension to students found guilty of assault. In addition, the bill would require that all schools implement and enforce a consistent process in the handling of these cases. What would have been a unique bill and the driving force for future related legislation was vetoed by California Governor Jerry Brown, under the claim the state should have no interference with campus punishments. If schools are not doing enough on their own, states have every right and should work towards a change in policies.

Some argue, that mandating sanctions discourages the reporting of cases. Additional research by David Lasik, formerly of the University of Massachusetts-Boston, has found that a startling six percent of accused rapist surveyed, were repeat offenders who have gone undetected. Still, the solution seems simple; if the source of the problem is removed, the chances of it occurring again are eliminated. The victim would likely be put at ease if she knew for sure that her assaulter would have to leave campus, even if only for a brief period of time. It is not the concept of punishment that deters reports, it is the accompanying uncertainty of their victim’s unknown fate.

Also, deciding whether to implement mandatory punishments should not be left to question. In an incident at James Madison, a student whose assault was caught on video received “expulsion after graduation.” What good does this do? In this length of time, the same student could commit multiple other assaults. To let the perpetrator off easy is doing the victim a great injustice after all she has suffered through. It is moral and just that administrators do everything in their power to prevent similar cases from occurring. The victim deserves, for his or her perpetrator, due justice. Even more so, it downplays the victim’s case as not being serious enough for strict punishments to be enacted. Universities, in doing so, lose the trust of their students, faculty and parents and in many cases their administrative reputation suffers as a result.

At the end of the day, sexual assault is not a matter to be treated with vagueness and uncertainty. Sexual assault should be handled at the same level of severity as the incident itself to ensure the safety and overall well-being of all students.