TO THE EDITOR:
After reading a recent editorial about the Safe Campus Act, I felt compelled to express my opinion on the editorial, the views it puts forward and the Safe Campus Act as a whole.
The article begins with a remark about what the new law would entail. "At the very least, the bill would restrict universities from moving forward on campus disciplinary actions to expel a student without due process." The way the quote is sarcastically written portrays that this is a harmful part of the law.
But I ask you this: since when did due process become a detrimental regulation? The last time I checked, my Constitution protects due process rights. It is borderline unconstitutional to expel a student based on a crime that they may have committed. Someone accused of breaking the law shouldn't be locked up until it can be proven that they did, in fact, commit such a crime.
With that being said, if the accused is proven guilty, expulsion and legal ramifications should be swift. Sexual assault is a heinous crime, and the animals that commit it should pay accordingly.
In addition, the article specifies that the bill states that when a university receives allegations of sexual violence, it must refer the allegation to the "law enforcement agency of the unit of local government with jurisdiction to such allegations." As with the other specification of the bill, this one is also presented in a tone that makes it seem unfavorable.
Why on Earth would anyone ever want to report a crime to the authorities? Someone committed a crime, law enforcement deals with people who commit crimes and it's their job. If the university wants to punish the student based on what the authorities find to be true, so be it.
Aside from mocking completely reasonable regulations in the bill, the editorial staff, as they often do, proceeds to throw the Greek community under the bus. "It's safe to say the NIC and NPC are not lobbying the bill because they think it is going to help sexual assault victims find justice." Can you really say that in good confidence?
Greek life seeks to better society while protecting its members as well. Almost all national Greek organizations have agendas to combat sexual assault. How can it be said that they are only acting on behalf of their members? It is also written that "these organizations should be disgusted their national conferences are supporting such a heinous bill."
You should be disgusted that you are condemning a bill that ensures fairness for all parties involved, and makes investigations more efficient by putting them in the hands of people trained to handle them.