In a New York Times article published yesterday, Devos’ pick to head the Office of Civil Rights said about most campus sexual assault reports, “Rather, the accusations — 90 percent of them — fall into the category of ‘we were both drunk,’ ‘we broke up, and six months later I found myself under a Title IX investigation because she just decided that our last sleeping together was not quite right.”
This is a concerning statement coming from the Department of Education’s Civil Rights acting head, Candice Jackson, who oversees the enforcement of the federal Title IX law, which under the Obama administration began to heavily focus on campus sexual assault as a form of sex-based discrimination. As the head of the Office of Civil Rights, she has the power to rollback pressure on schools mishandling sexual violence cases and reinterpret the role of the office set forth by the Obama Administration.
Jackson later apologized for these comments, explaining, "As a survivor of rape myself, I would never seek to diminish anyone’s experience." But if she can so easily lump together the experiences of thousands of survivors, how can she be expected to understand the nuances and complexities she’ll face as the the acting head of the Office of Civil Rights?
Jackson’s comments insinuate that the majority of reports are false, a fact disproven by multiple studies, and suggest that women are using rape as an excuse for sex they regret. This narrow focus on sexual assault excludes so many survivor’s diverse experiences and traumas. The statement assumed most reports are between male perpetrators and female survivors, disregarding the high rates of sexual violence in the LGBTQ community. This gendered approach ignores male survivors whose experiences have been consistently trivialized and ignored. It belittles victims of dating and domestic violence, who are too fearful to speak out until months or even years after their abusive relationships.
And this is not Jackson’s first time making controversial statements that belittle survivors. Before being nominated as head of the Civil Rights office, Candice Jackson was best known for working with the four women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault, yet referred to those who came out against Donald Trump as “fake victims”.
It is disappointing to see a survivor of sexual assault belittle other survivors because their stories did not fit the narrative she believed in, or worse, did not align with her political beliefs. Instead of adding support and services to survivors, this administration has sought to undermine them, and has expanded focus on ensuring greater rights to the accused. This week, along along with survivors of sexual assault and higher education leaders, Devos is meeting with a growing number of men’s right activist groups.
Statements like those made by Jackson, and the assumption that stronger focus on sexual assault survivors encourages false reporting leads to a damaging notion that this is a zero sum game. Expanding resources to survivors of sexual assault does not automatically mean a rise of false accusations, nor does it mean perpetrators are not entitled to their defense.
Yes, there have been false claims, although reports put them between 2 percent and 10 percent, not ninety percent as Candice Jackson suggested. But the price paid for these false claims should not fall on survivors of sexual assault. Justice is not pitting those falsely accused and survivors against each other, but crafting policies that provide fairness for both sides of the adjudication process, that educate students on consent and how rape is defined, while sustaining justice for survivors of sexual violence on their terms.