Newsletter: Winter 2005: The Buck Stops Here

The institutional response to sexual assault can be likened to any public response to rape: it has the potential to heal as well as to harm.  When an institution shrouds the abuse in secrecy, survivors and their families are disempowered and discarded, an experience some survivors describe as revictimization.  While news about institutions tolerating and condoning sexual assault is distressing, many survivors and allies are bravely facing powerful foes who would have them remain silent.

At a 1991 naval officers convention, dozens of women, including female Naval officers, were groped and sexually assaulted by a crowd of male Naval officers.  Of the 140 cases that went to the Pentagon, most were dropped.  Only 28 junior officers were censured, and only for indecent exposure, conduct unbecoming an officer, and making false official statements.  A military judge found Adm. Frank Kelso, the Navy's top officer, had witnessed the abuse and failed to stop it.  He was granted early retirement.
After what became known as the Tailhook Scandal, the military was criticized for its shoddy investigation.  Long-term repercussions destroyed many military careers, adding to the incident's infamy.  But despite public attention to this so-called "sex scandal," sexual abuse in the military seems to have gone unchecked. A 2003 Department of Defense (DOD) report found that 19 percent of female cadets were victims of sexual assault (other reports estimate the rate is closer to 50 percent). The DOD's report said 81 percent of victims were too scared to report the abuse - the same report found that 42 percent of victims who did report suffered retaliation.

In 2003, allegations at Colorado's U.S. Air Force Academy roiled the military again.  Dozens of female cadets alleged sexual assaults occurring over the course of a decade.  A Pentagon inquiry determined that US military commanders had underplayed the problem and failed to respond adequately.  Meanwhile, dozens of similar allegations were coming from deployed female troops in Iraq and Afganistan.  Public pressure forced the hand of Congress and the Pentagon to respond.

A government task force was formed to review the handling of sexual assault and harassment cases in the Air Force Academy, in addition to the Military and Naval Academies.  A panel to investigate charges at the Air Force Academy, appointed under the sole authority of the Secretary of Defense, included the founder of the anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum (AWF), Anita K. Blair as its executive director.  It included no survivor, advocate, counselor, service provider, or other professional.

The National Organization for Women (NOW) voiced concerns over such a panel: "this 'investigation' will lead to one big cover-up unless important questions are answered. Why does the Secretary of Defense have the sole appointment authority? Why isn't there attention to the conflict of interest of these panelists? ... What are their reporting requirements and what is the enforcement mechanism for their recommendations?” said a NOW press release.

Public pressure from groups like NOW successfully removed Ms. Blair.  Another AWF panelist resigned and was replaced by a sexual assault expert.  "Women's rights leaders praised the investigation and especially applauded the panel's recommendations that training about sexual assault is essential, and that top leadership is the key to ending sexual violence [on military campuses]," said a NOW press release following the changes.

Dorothy Mackey, a military survivor of sexual assault, believes there is more to be done.  She founded a group called Survivors Take Action Against Abuse by Military Personnel (STAAMP) to fight the abuse committed both within the military, and against civilians.  "There are multiple agendas to the attacks... There are those who don't want women in the military, and who want to rape them out.  And there are those who see civilians [in foreign countries] as 'practice' and don't care what happens to them.  Rape is one of the greatest tools of war, and our government is essentially saying that rape of human beings is acceptable."   STAAMP wants to see oversight of all rape cases by military members independent of the DOD; benefits and care for survivors through the Veterans Administration; the ability for women to choose female healthcare providers; and transparent measures for accountability.

Victims of another "scandal" are hoping that public pressure will produce accountability.  Survivors abused by Catholic priests are protesting parishes across the country, and the world.  This year, the church has taken an egregious step backwards by ending the recently instated credible, independent audit of bishops' handing of molestation cases.  In 2002, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) established the Charter for the Protection of Children and Young People, which called for on-site visits by retired FBI agents to audit bishops' handling of molestation cases.  In November, the USCCB reversed this requirement for as many as 90 percent of America's dioceses, replacing the audits with "self-surveys," according to Voice of the Faithful (VOTF) and the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP).  The proposed new policy requires no outside body to oversee the process.  This would leave Catholics with "no choice but to trust in many of the same men whose repeated deceit and misconduct led to the molestation of thousands of innocent Catholic youngsters," according to SNAP and VOTF.

The two advocacy groups have asked the National Review Board, a committee of lay men and women appointed by bishops, to intervene: "Trust is on the line," they wrote in a letter to the board.  "If the bishops do not work to restore it, the Church will remain in jeopardy in the United States.  You are on the front lines of holding them accountable."

Finding a legislative response to institutional responsibility for sexual abuse has been complicated.  Some notable legislation merits consideration.  This year, NY State Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson plans to reintroduce last year's Child Sexual Abuse Reform Act.  The 2004 bill called for an extension of the statute of limitations to 30 years after the victim's 18th birthday; the creation of additional crimes regarding hindering prosecution and endangering a child's welfare; and expanding those legally mandated to report cases of child sexual abuse to include, among others, religious institutions.

In 1994, the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was designed to address abuse against women in this country.  Recognizing that cultural attitudes of male dominance are at least part of the cause of sexual and domestic violence and trafficking of women, VAWA authorized funding to develop adequate responses for victims.

But now, some of our representatives are pointing to VAWA as an "outdated" concept. This backlash conflicts with global human rights organizations, including the United Nations, who maintain that violence against women stems from an imbalance of power between men and women.  In Sweden, parliamentarians went so far as to propose a tax on men to reimburse the social costs of violence against women.  Swedish Left Party deputy Gudrun Shyman was clear on the purpose of this tax: "it must be obvious to all of us that society has a huge problem with male violence against women, and that has a cost.... We must have a discussion where men understand they as a group have a responsibility." He also said that despite its being the world's most gender equitable nation by most standards, violence against women in Sweden followed "the same pattern" as in Afghanistan under the Taliban.

When will America recognize that our society and its institutions all bear a responsibility to end sexual abuse?  The commitment and courage of anti-sexual violence advocates, and their gains toward institutional reform, is impressive and inspiring.

Kate Woodrow is the Outreach and Education Associate at The New York City Alliance Against Sexual Assault. [more]

← previous article | next article →