您现在的位置: 纽约时报中英文网 >> 纽约时报中英文版 >> 国际 >> 正文

斯坦福处理性侵指控的制度再惹争议

更新时间:2016-12-31 8:31:57 来源:纽约时报中文网 作者:佚名

A Majority Agreed She Was Raped by a Stanford Football Player. That Wasn’t Enough.
斯坦福处理性侵指控的制度再惹争议

At Stanford University, in a conference room above a Starbucks, a panel of five gathered in June 2015 to decide whether a sexual assault had occurred on campus. Several months later, after a process marred by procedural errors, five different panelists convened to rule on the matter again.

2015年6月,一个五人委员会在斯坦福大学(Stanford University)一间位于星巴克楼上的会议室里,就一桩校内事件是否应被定性为性侵案进行裁决。由于其间出现了程序性错误,几个月后,由另外五人组成的委员会再度裁决此事。

The case involved a woman, a sophomore, who had met a player on Stanford’s powerhouse football team at a fraternity party one Saturday night. They went back to her room where, she said, he raped her. He said they had consensual sex.

该案涉及的一名女子当时是大二学生,某个周六的夜晚,她在兄弟会派对上遇到了强大的斯坦福足球队的一名队员。他们回到了她的房间,她说自己在那里被对方强奸了。但他却说双方是在两厢情愿的情况下发生性行为的。

Seeking to avoid the trauma of a police investigation, the accuser turned to the university’s in-house disciplinary board, one of many on college campuses that adjudicate sexual assault cases, and it would decide whom to believe. If the panel had found that sexual assault had taken place, the man could have been expelled.

为了避免警方调查带来的创伤,指控人转而向该校内部纪律审裁委员会寻求帮助——很多大学校园里都有这样的组织,可就性侵案做出裁决——由后者来判定谁的话可信。如果委员会判定发生了性侵,男子可能被开除。

Both times, three of the five panelists — drawn from a pool of administrators, faculty members and students — concluded the man, who remained on the football team throughout the case and is on the roster for a bowl game Friday, committed sexual assault.

委员会成员是从行政、教职员工和学生中挑选出来的。前后两次,五名成员中均有三人认定男子实施了强奸。该男子在全过程始终留在校足球队内,他的名字还出现在了周五一场重要赛事的参赛阵容中。

At many schools, this simple majority vote would have been enough to find the accused responsible. But Stanford had set an uncommonly high bar, requiring at least a 4-1 decision.

在很多学校里,通过这种简单多数表决足以判定被指控人负有责任。但斯坦福设定了一个不同寻常的高门槛,要求表决结果至少为四比一。

This year, amid dissent over how it handles these kinds of cases, Stanford changed its procedure in a way that victims rights advocates say favors the accused. It requires a unanimous verdict from a three-member board, making it an outlier among prestigious universities.

在其处理这类事件的方法引发争议之际,斯坦福于今年对相关程序作出了修改,在受害者权利倡导人士看来,这些改动是有利于被指控人的。它规定要由一个三人委员会做出一致裁决才行,从而让自己成为了名校中的异类。

In the case with the football player, the woman, who had gotten a second hearing after presenting evidence of errors in the first proceeding, has temporarily left the school to avoid the player.

指控足球队员的这名女子,在提交证据证明第一次裁决过程中存在错误后,争取到了第二次聆讯的机会。为了避开那名球员,她已暂时离开学校。

The man, who did not reply to requests for comment, remains enrolled at Stanford.

该男子目前仍就读于斯坦福,未回应置评请求。

Stanford officials said they could not talk about details of the case because of confidentiality rules and federal law. But they defended the system they have put in place to resolve sexual assault allegations.

斯坦福校方称,鉴于保密规则和联邦法律,他们不能谈论此事的细节。但他们为自己制定的处理性侵指控的制度作了辩护。

Stanford’s decision to require a unanimous panel of three, in place since February, stemmed from recommendations made by a task force last year.

斯坦福要求从二月开始实施三人委员会一致裁决制,该决定源于一个工作组去年给出的建议。

Reports of sexual assaults on and around Stanford’s campus increased to 39 in 2015, from 21 in 2010, according to data Stanford compiles under federal law, though it is possible victims were coming forward more often, rather than there being more attacks.

斯坦福按照联邦法律编纂的数据显示,发生在斯坦福校内和周围的性侵案从2010年的21起上升到了2015年的39起,不过这可能是因为有更多受害者站了出来,而非发生了更多次袭击。

Still, very few sexual assault cases that have gone through the university’s internal process in recent years have led to any significant punishment for the accused, a fact that Stanford attributes to a rigorous but fair standard to guard against wrongful judgments. Advocates for sexual assault survivors consider it a sign of a system stacked against victims.

但近年来,在经该校内部处理的性侵案件中,只有极少数被指控者受到了严厉的惩罚。斯坦福将这一情况归因于一种旨在防止误判的严格但却公平的标准。性侵受害者权利倡导人士则认为,从中可以看出相关制度让受害者处于弱势。

A New York Times examination of the Stanford case concerning the football player, based in part on a review of more than 100 pages of documents from Stanford’s proceedings, illuminates the school’s struggles in adjudicating these cases.

《纽约时报》对涉及那名足球队员的斯坦福性侵案进行的调查,部分是基于查阅关于该校审裁程序的超过100页文件。调查显示,该校在裁决这些案件之际面临着艰难的抉择。

The woman who made the accusation against the football player said she decided to speak about it so the public might have a better understanding of the lapses that can occur when such cases are handled internally.

对足球队员提起指控的女子说,她之所以决定把事情公之于众,是因为这样一来公众也许就能更好地了解,当校方对此类事件进行内部处理时,会出现怎样的失误。

The Times is not identifying her nor the man she accuses of assault.

时报未确认她和被她指控性侵的男子的身份。

The football coach, David Shaw, a member of the NCAA Commission to Combat Campus Sexual Violence, said he was aware that a “proceeding was happening” involving the player, but he did not know the charge. He said he saw no reason to suspend him from the team without more information.

球队教练大卫·肖(David Shaw)是全国大学体育协会反校园性暴力委员会(NCAA Commission to Combat Campus Sexual Violence)的成员,他说自己知道校方“当时正在审理”涉及该球员的案子,但不清楚相关指控。他说在没有更多信息的情况下,他没有理由让这名球员暂时离开球队。

Stanford was empowered to handle the case internally by Title IX, a federal law dating to 1972 mandating equal access to higher education regardless of gender, and United States Education Department’s interpretation of that law as requiring universities to carry out investigations of alleged sex crimes on campus.

根据1972年出台的《教育法修正案》第九条(Title IX)——一项规定不论何种性别的人都有权平等接受高等教育的联邦法律,以及美国教育部(United States Education Department)对第九条的阐释,即要求高校就校园性犯罪指控展开调查 ,斯坦福有权对该案进行内部处理。

Advocates for sexual assault victims say Stanford’s process has made it more difficult for accusers to receive rulings in their favor. Critics say the university has done this to protect its public image; Stanford maintains it is to ensure fairness to the accused in a proceeding with standards lower than a criminal case.

性侵受害者权利倡导人士称,斯坦福的处理程序让指控者更加难以得到有利于他们的裁决结果。批评人士称,该校这样做是为了保护自己的公众形象;斯坦福则坚称,它采用的是低于刑事案件的标准,在裁决过程中要确保被指控者得到公平对待。

“Imagine a senior, who has paid four years of Stanford tuition,” said John W. Etchemendy, the outgoing provost, explaining why Stanford’s system includes protections against adverse findings for accused students.

“想象一下,一名大四学生已经向斯坦福交了四年的学费,”即将离职的教务长约翰·W·埃切门迪(John W. Etchemendy)解释了斯坦福为什么要在学校制度中加入保护被指控的学生的条款,使其免遭不利裁定结果的伤害。

“Being expelled is really a life-changing punishment,” he said. “I think we as an institution have a duty to take that very seriously.”

“开除真的是一种可以改变一生的惩罚,”他说。“我认为作为一家教育机构,我们有责任极为谨慎地行事。”

Michele Dauber, a Stanford law professor and critic of the university’s policies on sexual assaults, declined to comment on the case involving the football player because she did not know the specifics of it, but she said she doubted that the university’s proceedings complied with Title IX — particularly its requirement to have unanimous rulings.

斯坦福法律教授、对该校性侵处理政策持有批评态度的米歇尔·道贝尔(Michele Dauber),拒绝就涉及这名足球队员的案件置评,因为并不了解相关细节。但她表示,她怀疑该校的裁决过程——尤其是必须做出一致裁决才有效的要求——是否符合“第九条”的规定。

The woman who agreed to talk about her case described an arduous process that took nearly nine months.

案中的女子同意谈论自己的案子,她描绘了一个历时将近9个月的艰难过程。

On June 25, 2015, the woman, along with her lawyer, took their places at a table inside the Tresidder Memorial Union at Stanford.

2015年6月25日,这名女子及其律师在斯坦福特里雷德纪念堂(Tresidder Memorial Union)内的一张桌子旁坐了下来。

Her lawyer was there only for support and was prohibited, under the rules of the proceeding, from guiding her testimony. In the middle of the table was a telephone for the young man to listen to the proceeding. She had about 30 minutes to give her account of what happened four months earlier.

她的律师在现场只能提供精神支持,因为根据程序上的规定,律师不得对她的证词加以引导。桌子中间摆着一部电话,那名年轻男子可以通过电话旁听。她有大约30分钟的时间去陈述四个月前发生的事情。

Afterward, the football player was allowed to email follow-up questions to the panel that they could decide to ask or not.

后来,那名足球队员获准通过电子邮件把后续问题发给委员会。委员会可以决定问不问这些问题。

She began the hearing feeling that the deck was stacked against her. She said that only the night before did she see the accused’s statement for the first time, and that it included new statements from two of his football teammates.

聆讯开始时,她感觉自己处于弱势。她说直到前一天晚上,她才首次看到被指控者的陈述书,以及来自被指控者两名队友的新陈述。

When she asked to postpone the hearing so she could ask for redactions of statements that she deemed prejudicial as well as suggest follow-up questions for an investigator to ask the witnesses, she said she was denied without an explanation.

她请求将聆讯推后,这样她就可以要求修正陈诉书中有失偏颇之处,还可以提交一些后续问题,以便调查人员向证人发问。但她说这一请求遭到了拒绝,校方没有给出理由。

“He was allowed to speculate on why I ‘targeted’ him,” she said. “His teammates, who were not even involved in that night, basically said he was a great guy and was being punished for consensual sex.”

“他获准臆测我为什么‘针对’他,”她说。“他的队友那晚甚至不在场,基本说的是他是个好人,却因为两厢情愿的性行为而受到惩罚。”

The next day she was notified that a majority of the panel agreed with her that a sexual assault had occurred, but the football player would not be given a finding of responsibility.

第二天她接到通知,委员会的多数成员同意她的说法,认为发生了性侵,但那名足球队员不会被认定应当承担责任。

She appealed the decision. Along with procedural errors, she said, she was bothered that the man’s status as a football player was injected into the proceedings.

她提起了上诉。她说,除了程序上的错误,让她感到困扰的还有,那名男子作为校足球队员的身份是否影响了审裁程序。

Etchemendy insisted there was no special treatment for athletes or anyone else.

埃切门迪坚称不存在给予运动员或者其他任何人特别待遇的情况。

After the second five-member panel came back 3-2, the accuser appealed again.

第二个五人委员会再度得出三比二的表决结果以后,指控者又一次提起了上述。

Her appeal for a third hearing and a no-contact order was denied, without explanation.

她请求进行第三次聆讯,还申请了禁止接触令,但都遭到了拒绝,且没有得到任何解释。

“全文请访问纽约时报中文网,本文发表于纽约时报中文网(http://cn.nytimes.com),版权归纽约时报公司所有。任何单位及个人未经许可,不得擅自转载或翻译。订阅纽约时报中文网新闻电邮:http://nytcn.me/subscription/”

相关文章列表