I have just become reacquainted with the William McCormick case and it troubles me as an alum and a father. The purpose of my column is neither to defend nor to disparage any of the parties involved, but to defend a basic tenet of a democratic society. Brown had to deal with a terrible situation and appears to have mishandled it. I have no idea what happened between the two first-year undergraduates in 2006, but it appears that the administration did not dig deep enough into the case to know, either.
From the actions the University did take, it appears either to have wrongfully pushed out a falsely accused student or to have allowed a rapist to leave the University with a clean transcript — his departure a supposedly voluntary act for medical reasons — possibly to prey again on another campus. Was this the just and prudent thing to do? What was the motivation for this choice? Whether it was the pressure of an outraged father — I would have done no less and maybe worse in his shoes — or a desire for a quick and quiet ending, it was an unwise course of action. The University has a duty to care for all of its students and when faced with a terrible situation, the best resolution is always to follow due process, which is the only way a just and open community can tackle troubling issues. It appears that the University did not do this.
Some will argue, as Tom Bale '63 did in his letter to The Herald ("In defense of U.'s handling of McCormick," Nov. 14), that due process should be overlooked when addressing the issue of sexual violence against women and that the University acted correctly. To quote his letter, "The message to all males is: ‘You need to check your behavior carefully before you enter into a relationship with a woman. There will be no due process if you are accused of rape. The woman's version of what happened will always be accepted over the man's account.'"
I am troubled by this and this is the reason for my column. Every organization is capable of mistakes, but I truly hope that this is not the position of the administration and the reason it took the actions it did. Unjust methods will never conquer injustice. It only breeds resentment and detracts from the plight of the victims.
I am extremely sensitive to the issue of violence against women. I am the father of a daughter who just turned 16. I truly fear nothing in life save something such as rape or worse happening to her. I also dealt with a friend when I was young who was brutally raped by a stranger. Her car broke down and she was dragged into a van along the side of the road. She called me afterward and I took her to the hospital and helped report it to the sheriff. I do not for a second purport to be someone who understands what she went through. Being male, I have never had to live with that fear of violence from the other gender, but I am not callous to the plight of women and what history has done to them.
But this can never be an excuse to deny due process, a basic tenet of a free society. It is through due process that we establish as many facts as we can. Facts are what allow us the opportunity to render the best possible judgment. Brown seems not to have allowed enough time to establish the facts. Had it taken the time to render a reasoned judgment, McCormick might have been vindicated and allowed to continue at Brown, or he might have been found guilty and received the proper punishment. That would have been the just and responsible thing to do.
I also have a son and expect that he will be cared for as well as my daughter.
