Opinion: Other areas deserve Wainstein-level scrutiny, too

B y most accounts, the Wainstein report has indicated the University’s commitment to institutional transparency — institutional transparency, at least, with respect to UNC’s most nationally visible branch: its athletic department.

It is now time to apply this admirable desire to publicly root out institutional malfeasance to the University’s handling of sexual assault, for which it is much less likely to be tried in the court of public opinion.

UNC’s new sexual assault policy, released earlier this semester, did well to address what was lacking. Moving forward, UNC students should be able to have somewhat more confidence in the system than in years past. But all parties concerned deserve the same sort of historical, data-based accountability afforded to those affected by the athletic-academic scandal detailed in the Wainstein report.

The University should commission a similar study into the history of its handling of sexual assault cases. A “Campus Climate” study about LGBTQ life was released in 2011, and the University is in conversations about another on sexual assault. Despite our cautious faith in the reforms offered under the new policy, something beyond a climate survey is necessary to ensure justice is extended to those who might have been denied it in the past.

The implied expectation of this study would not necessarily be that it uncover similarly stark cases of institutional corruption. Its mandate would instead be to provide a definitive look at the effects of sexual assault policy over time and prevailing campus attitudes.

The University should look to the example of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which recently released a study of students’ experience with sexual assault and the conventional wisdom surrounding it.

Much of the debate at UNC surrounding these issues stems from a lack of local, reliable and concrete data concerning the prevalence of sexual assault. An exhaustive study furnishing these details would clear the way for more constructive discussions about the future of sexual assault policy and campus culture.

Of course, the thoroughness exemplified by the Wainstein report doesn’t come cheap. In these times of want, it would be difficult not to acknowledge the financial burden that would accompany another investigation of its scope.

But the choice to set aside those funds would be a true indicator of the University’s willingness to address impropriety wherever it might occur, irrespective of public pressure to do so. The crisis of sexual assault, we believe, deserves at least the same resources afforded to Wainstein report.

We acknowledge the limitations of conducting a study of crimes committed around, but not by, UNC’s institutions. Although evaluations of the University’s handling of those crimes should not be softened, Wainstein and his team had the advantage of class records and other University resources in their investigation of academic misconduct.

But UNC should be obligated to provide an educational environment that is both rigorous and safe. A frank assessment of its success, in this regard, would be significant.