A Call to Action: Women, Religion, Violence, and Power Read online

  One hundred forty-three countries have abolished the death penalty by law or in practice, and the United Nations General Assembly has adopted resolutions in 2007, 2008, and 2010 calling for a global moratorium on executions, with a view to eventual abolition. Our country is not in good company in its fascination with the death penalty; 90 percent of all executions are carried out in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States.

  If the idea is to end violence in society, then killing is certainly not the answer.

  DIVYA IYER, SENIOR RESEARCHER AT AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL IN INDIA

  As everyone knows, young people are bombarded with “normalized” violence through highly realistic video games that take the player through many hours of simulated combat and criminal behavior. In addition, movies, television, magazines, and music videos are full of demeaning depictions of women. These games and media make us less sensitive to violence and the debasement of women, so we are more inclined to accommodate them in real life.

  Despite these disturbing trends toward a more violent global society, it is reassuring that our most notable heroes, even in more modern times, have remained the champions of peace, including Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

  5 | SEXUAL ASSAULT AND RAPE

  Although I am not a lawyer, I have been involved in the drafting, passage, and implementation of laws on almost every conceivable subject as a legislator, governor, and president. I was closest to law enforcement while governor, riding always in the front passenger seat of a State Patrol car and often assuming the duties of a radioman. There were a few times when I approved the driver’s request to run down a speeding vehicle or to investigate a suspicious incident that we witnessed.

  While Rosalynn and I were living in the governor’s mansion we had a young out-of-state college student stay with us for a brief period early in the fall semester, until she could get settled in a dormitory. After attending class for a few days she came home one night and woke us, crying, to report that she had been raped. We called a doctor to examine her; he found several serious bruises on her arms and around her genitals and prescribed a sedative so she could get some sleep. The next morning I asked our guest if she knew her rapist, and she replied that he was a fellow classmate with whom she had decided to go on a date. At my urging, she agreed that I report the crime, and when I arrived at my office I called the state’s attorney, reported the incident, and asked that he proceed with legal action.

  He reported late that afternoon that he was having some difficulty, and I was infuriated to learn that the local officials were reluctant to make a legal issue of the case. I directed them to come see me. Quite apologetically, the officials said that this was a fairly common occurrence on university campuses, that the attacker always claimed that sex was consensual, and that any case brought against a white male student had very little chance of success. In addition, the young woman would be forced to testify in a highly publicized trial and would be cross-examined about every detail of the events during the date night and any other sexual experiences she might have had in the past. He added that it was the general policy of the two dozen colleges and universities in the Atlanta area to resort to counseling of both parties instead of a court trial. With permission of our young guest, I discussed the issue with her parents, and they decided that she should enroll in a different college.

  I have been a distinguished professor at Emory University for the past thirty-two years, and in addition to teaching and lecturing I meet regularly with the president, deans, and other professors to discuss mutual interests of The Carter Center and Emory. I told the president about our guest at the governor’s mansion and deplored the policy of many universities to resort to counseling of both victim and rapist and to punish or expel a male student only in egregious cases or when there was clear proof of repetitive offenses. He expressed concern at how infrequently the survivors of sexual assault choose to go down the hard road of legal recourse and explained that Emory had recently established a new policy to deal with this problem, with a separate process for sexual assault.

  Administrators, faculty, and student leaders at Emory are evolving plans to promulgate more widely the warnings of and penalties for sexual abuse, train a permanent cadre of one thousand sexual assault peer advocates, encourage immediate reporting of abuse by victims and bystanders, provide private and professional counseling for victims, and decide what legal steps to take against students found guilty of rape. With the help of experts like Dr. David Lisak, a forensic consultant, Emory and other universities are learning how they can increase students’ confidence in an effective administration of justice. Dr. Lisak’s research focuses on “the causes and consequences of interpersonal violence—motives and behaviors of rapists and murderers.” It has been estimated that one in five female students is sexually assaulted in American universities, but most people do not know that most of these crimes are premeditated and committed by a few men. This problem is perpetuated by the reluctance of rape victims to report the crime and to identify the perpetrator, who is almost always known to the victim before the attack. One of the reasons for this reluctance is a lack of clear procedures and support structures on the campus, and many college administrators are reluctant to address the problem because of the potential stigma to the institution if there is an increase in reported sexual assault cases. Another group reluctant to resolve cases of sexual assault is other men who witness or learn about the attack and know who the rapists are. They have to be convinced of its seriousness, become acquainted with campus policy, and be willing to support the victim instead of the criminal.

  A report funded by the U.S. Justice Department found that more than 95 percent of students who are sexually assaulted remain silent, a much larger proportion than among the general public. The report’s analysis, conducted at the State University of New York in New Paltz, revealed that an institution of that size, with about eight thousand students, would be expected to have more than 1,700 female victims of rape or sexual assault during the eleven years of the study. However, only six students reported a sexual assault to the office responsible for initiating proceedings, and only three cases resulted in a campus hearing—with one male student expelled.

  The tragedy is that most on-campus rapes are perpetrated by serial rapists, who can safely assume that their crimes will not be revealed. In a New England study published in 2002 in the journal Violence and Victims, 120 rapists were identified among a sample of 1,882 students. Of those, seventy-six were serial rapists who had each, on average, left fourteen seriously scarred victims. Their collective tally included 439 rapes and attempted rapes, 49 sexual assaults, 343 acts of sexual abuse or violence against children, and 214 acts of battery against intimate partners. In most cases their crimes were planned and premeditated. Why would any institution want them to remain as students? One answer comes from the Hopkins Undergraduate Research Journal of March 2012, which reported that one in three college assaults that get reported are committed by student athletes, who are often popular and influential.

  Despite institutional unwillingness to deal forcefully with these crimes, there is increasing legal pressure to do so from an unexpected source. Title IX of the Education Amendments to the Civil Rights Act became effective in 1972 and is widely known for its prevention of discrimination against female students in campus sports. In 2001 the law was interpreted by the Department of Education to apply to sexual harassment, and now schools are required to designate a coordinator for Title IX and to take “immediate and appropriate steps to investigate or otherwise determine what occurred and take prompt and effective steps to end any harassment, eliminate a hostile environment if one has been created, and prevent harassment from occurring again.” The threat of having federal funds withheld is a powerful incentive for an institution to comply, and I hope the U.S. Department of Education will put maximum pressure on schools at all levels to establish policies that are firm and clear. With proper leadership
at the presidential level, universities can prevent deans and other officials from responding to a report of rape simply by suggesting the victim get counseling or take some time off or by telling her that legal proceedings are likely to embarrass her and result only rarely in punishment for the rapist.

  Emory University is moving rapidly to evolve a balanced and effective policy of dealing with the problem of sexual assaults on its female students, and the student body seems to be supportive. This is one comment about an early progress report that appeared in the student newspaper:

  “Emory has failed to enact sanctions that are capable of deterring would-be perpetrators. In the context of the existing sexual misconduct policy, there are no written sanctions listed for perpetrators. Creating a more stringent policy does more than just add another line to the University’s sexual misconduct policy. It will raise awareness of the intolerable nature of sexual assault and start to reduce the number of attacks on our campus. Ultimately and most importantly, we can create an environment that makes it more likely for victims to come forward and take action against those who have sexually assaulted them, as well as put in place a strong deterrent against such crimes being committed in the first place.”

  It’s time for all people of faith to be outraged. It’s time for our Christian leaders to stand up and say that women, made in the very image of God, deserve better. And it’s time for us in the faith community to acknowledge our complicity in a culture that too often not only remains silent, but also can propagate a false theology of power and dominance. There is a growing understanding that women must be central to shaping solutions. . . . There is a new generation of young leaders determined to ensure the bright future of all people regardless of gender.

  JIM WALLIS, AUTHOR, FOUNDER AND EDITOR OF Sojourners MAGAZINE

  When I was serving in the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps program at Georgia Tech, as a midshipman at Annapolis, and on battleships and submarines, it was understood that the role of women in the military was limited to service in the continental United States and that their duties would be in medical professions, communications, intelligence, science and technology, and as storekeepers. For all practical purposes, they were given equal status in January 2013, when the secretary of defense announced that the ban on women serving in combat roles would be lifted. The most recent report is that women now make up 14 percent of U.S. military personnel, with more than 165,000 enlisted and 35,000 women serving as officers.

  I was pleased when the decision was made while I was president to appoint women as Naval Academy midshipmen with equal status. Rosalynn and I are usually invited to spend a few nights with the superintendent during visits to the campus for my class reunions, and we have listened with close attention to descriptions of how much progress has been made in successfully assimilating women midshipmen, now about 22 percent of the total student population, into life in the enormous Bancroft Hall dormitory, in public activities, in the classrooms, and on ships.

  I have learned, however, that my alma mater has the same basic policy concerning sexual assaults as other institutions of higher education, and this permissive policy is now being questioned since a female midshipman alleged that she was gang-raped by three football players during a party at an off-campus house in April 2012. The female cadet said she got drunk at the party and passed out. She had little recollection of what had happened but learned about the alleged assault from friends and social media. She said she felt tremendous pressure not to report the incident. After she did bring the case to naval authorities, she stopped fully cooperating with them, still fearing a backlash. Later, her lawyer explained that she “was ostracized and retaliated against by the football players and the Naval Academy community.” She was punished for underage drinking while her accused assailants were allowed to keep playing football. The Naval Criminal Investigative Service closed the initial investigation.

  The female cadet sought legal help and the Navy reopened the investigation. In August 2013 an official hearing was conducted, with the purpose of making a report to the Academy superintendent, who would then decide whether to put the case into the hands of prosecutors and law enforcement officials in military court. As I was writing this on a Saturday morning during the hearing, the news media reported that the twenty-one-year-old female midshipman had requested a respite for the weekend after being cross-examined for more than twenty hours during the past three days, enduring waves of hostile questions from lawyers of the accused. The officer presiding over the hearing denied her request, stating that he couldn’t excuse her as long as she was physically able to testify. She explained that she had refused to cooperate with investigators at first because she was scared of what might happen to her and because she didn’t want her mother to find out that she had been raped. The previous day’s interrogation had focused on her technique in performing oral sex. “How wide did you open your mouth?” the lawyer asked. He claimed it was a linchpin of his client’s defense, as were questions about her previous love affairs and the type of underwear she wore.

  No court-martial has begun against any of the football players yet, but charges in the sexual assault case were dropped against two of the football players, one in January 2014 because he had not been read his rights before questioning. At the same time, it was reported by the Pentagon that during the past year the Air Force Academy had reported forty-five cases of sexual assault, with fifteen reported cases at the Naval Academy and ten at West Point. Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Democrat of New York, released a statement on January 10 saying that “the prevalence of sexual assault in the military and the crisis of underreporting continue to extend to the academies, and that is tragic and heartbreaking.”

  This almost inconceivable procedure at the U.S. Naval Academy—with prosecution of the alleged rapists entirely up to the commanding officer—demonstrates vividly why victims of rape in the military are so reluctant to report the assaults. In addition, the U.S. Justice Department utilizes this fear of reporting abuse as a means to excuse the Department of Veterans Affairs from paying rape victims when later medical claims are made. As reported by Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post in October 2013, U.S. appellate judges have ruled in several cases that female victims, after release from the military, are not eligible for financial help for psychiatric or other damages unless they had reported the crime immediately after it occurred. Despite the fact that the military acknowledges that most rapes and other serious sexual assaults are never reported to authorities and that severe permanent damage, including post-traumatic stress disorder, often requires treatment for victims in later years, these rulings specify that failure to make a timely report of these crimes can be used as evidence that they did not occur. Marcus summarizes, “In short, we know these incidents are not reported, yet if you don’t report them, you’re out of luck.”

  Lawmakers in Congress have proposed taking the decision-making power to press charges in sexual assault cases out of the military chain of command and putting it into the hands of prosecutors and law enforcement professionals. This question was raised after the Department of Defense estimated that there were about 26,000 instances of unwanted sexual contact in the military in 2012 (up from 19,000 two years earlier), but, according to Pentagon statistics, only about 3,200 assaults were reported and 300 prosecuted, which is about 1.2 percent of known cases. This tiny number of prosecutions, and much fewer convictions, can be compared with about 37 percent of prosecutions for similar crimes in the civilian court system.

  I know from personal experience in the Navy that commanding officers are responsible for ensuring appropriate protection and care of victims, as well as for investigating and holding accountable those who have committed crimes. I also know that it reflects negatively on commanders’ leadership capabilities if such misconduct is known to exist among their subordinates. It was reported to Congress that two male officers among the rare offenders convicted by courts-martial of sexual assault were given clemency by three-star genera
ls. Instead of accepting the proposal to remove total control of military commanders from prosecution, Congress passed legislation in December 2013 that will tighten responses to cases of rape and sexual assault by ending the statute of limitations, barring military commanders from overturning jury convictions, making it a crime to retaliate against people who report such crimes, mandating dishonorable discharge or dismissal of anyone convicted of such crimes, and giving civilian defense officials more control over prosecutions.

  This is notable progress, but the problem is much more serious among American troops than is generally acknowledged. According to a report by National Public Radio in 2010, “a survey of female veterans found that 30 percent said they were raped in the military. A 2004 study of veterans who were seeking help for post-traumatic stress disorder found that 71 percent of the women said they were sexually assaulted or raped while serving. And a 1995 study of female veterans of the Gulf and earlier wars, found that 90 percent had been sexually harassed.” It was reported more recently that some women employees of civilian contractors serving in a war zone must sign an agreement that forbids them from suing if they are raped by a fellow worker.

  The lesson to be learned from all this is how prevalent the rape of women is in universities and the military, two of the most appreciated and revered sectors of American society, where sexual equality is guaranteed and our respected government professes to honor the highest standards of justice. We can only imagine how much worse the situation can be in nations where women are officially derogated and where civil war zones are known to be completely lawless.

  Earlier I asserted that the normalization of violence committed by the state encourages violence in society, and this idea especially applies to young people in the military and in universities. If our military is called upon to commit unjustified violence, this will influence the thinking and behavior of highly impressionable service members and college students, who are just beginning to live independently and exert themselves in a highly charged environment. If their government easily chooses violence and punishment to solve problems, they will internalize this choice, which will influence how they deal with each other and make their own way in the world.