Ordinarily deans are prevented from commenting publicly about private conversations with students because of our professional and legal obligation to protect the rights of students to confidentiality. However because Emily Stephens '97 has chosen to make a public statement about the interactions that she and I had last spring and summer regarding her allegation of sexual abuse, the matter is now a public one. While I might still have refrained from commenting, I believe that the reader of her column (and the accompanying story) in Friday's issue of The Dartmouth ("Administration Discouraged COS Case," April 28, 1995) might well be left with misunderstandings about the College's handling of sexual abuse reports in general and my handling of this one in particular.
I must first make it clear that in a 12-year administrative career at three premier institutions of higher learning, I have always been aforceful advocate of a woman's right to live her life without being subject to sexual abuse of any kind. I believe wholeheartedly in supporting survivors of sexual abuse in every way possible. I also believe that all parties to a dispute deserve to be treated fairly and that judgments should not be made until the facts are in.
As Stephens reported, she came to me for advice about an incident she described as constituting sexual abuse. On the basis of our conversation, I told her that it seemed to me that there was a foundation for making formal allegations to the Undergraduate Judicial Affairs Officer about this incident, and I encouraged her to write a statement about it if that was what she wished. I offered to function as her adviser, but told her that she was under no obligation to have me serve in that function. I also discussed with her other sources of assistance available to her on campus. She submitted her statement to us just as she was leaving for the summer.
During the summer, we communicated repeatedly by telephone and E-mail. More than once Stephens expressed her gratitude for my support and the time and care that I was taking with her. At one juncture in our communication she indicated that she did not want to harm the accused male but wished only to have him recognize the harmfulness of his behavior, to show some contrition, and to apologize.
She expressed ambivalence about going through with a Committee on Standards hearing, while I did not view the disciplinary process as necessarily the most likely means of exacting an apology from the male. I reminded her that she had a range of options. Among them was a mediated conversation with the other student, according to any ground rules that the two of them wished to establish. The operative principle in deciding to discuss this option with her was that an individual in this situation should be afforded maximum control of the circumstances by being presented with the fullest possible range of options. I might well not have suggested this possibility had Stephens not expressed an interest in a process that could hold out the possibility of an apology. Additionally, I would not very likely propose this alternative in any of the most egregious kinds of sexual assault, particularly those that could possibly have been labeled a rape. While mediation is not an option frequently invoked in sexual abuse cases, it is the College's effort to assist students in resolving situations in ways that are both satisfying and instructive to them. I most particularly disavow her suggestion that I was "persistent" in pressing the alternative in the face of her resistance.
Indeed Stephens expressed interest in this option -- she wrote to me by E-mail that she thought that something positive could come out of a mature conversation and particularly that the male might well learn something from it. For his part, the other student indicated that he would also be willing to enter into a mediated conversation. Stephens then mailed me a signed statement proposing a mediated discussion and establishing the condition that she would retain the right to proceed with a COS hearing should the outcome of the mediation be unsuccessful, but that she would withdraw her allegations should she be satisfied with the mediated resolution. The mediator was an individual agreed upon mutually by the two students. Aside from suggesting the names of possible mediators, the College's role consisted of making it possible for the two students to engage in mediation by complying with their request to forego a COS hearing if both students found the mediation satisfactory.
In the days leading up to the mediation -- and in the days following, until a final agreement was reached between the students -- I repeatedly reminded Stephens that she was under no obligation to declare the mediation a success. It was always her option -- up until her acceptance of their mutually agreed upon terms -- to declare the mediation unsatisfactory and to proceed with the COS hearing. The final agreement was determined entirely by the students -- my role was only to transmit information and drafts from one to the other. Stephens is under the impression that specifying the number of individuals with whom she could discuss the matter was my idea; however, I was only transmitting to her the wishes of the other student (perhaps that is why she characterized my role as that of a "middleman"). In the end, Stephens determined that the mediation and its resolution satisfied her original goals.
Stephens continued to seek my advice about unrelated matters this fall and winter, despite the fact that I was no longer officially her dean. When I heard that she was attempting to "go public" with these confidential matters, I phoned her to see whether she wanted to talk with me about it. Because the mediated agreement is between two students, the College does not have the means of preventing Stephens from breaking its confidentiality. Nor did I ever press her to abide by its strictures. I may well have helped her to consider the possible implications of doing so, but she could not have reasonably construed such a conversation as a "threat."
Stephens apparently wishes that I had advised her not to enter into the mediation nor to have accepted its outcome, and implied in conversation that I should have anticipated that she would feel regretful about it later. This I do not believe I could have done, any more than I could have guaranteed her satisfaction with a COS hearing (the outcome of which would have been far less within her control).
As advisers to students in disciplinary cases, deans provide them with information about the process and outline the options. In particular, we take seriously our roles as educators since, in the end, all of those things that we do as deans must ultimately make a contribution to the education of Dartmouth students. As an educator, I am unable to make choices for a student -- not about this matter, not about the choice of courses, not about the choice of extra-curricular activities. It is my responsibility to give a student the very best information at my disposal so that she or he can make a decision on the basis of all the available knowledge. Sometimes deans must watch students make choices of which they do not approve; but most particularly at Dartmouth, the decisions are ultimately in the hands of students.
In addition to our expectation that students will make their own decisions is our hope that they will accept the consequences of those decisions. It is an unfortunate fact of life that we all sometimes make decisions that we later regret. Stephens made decisions last summer which, in hindsight, she now wishes she had not. But becoming an adult means accepting the consequences of the choices we regret, as well as the ones that please us.
