Expert on Domestic Violence Excoriates Judge

To the Editors

I am the author of Domestic Violence: Facts and Fallacies by Praeger publishers. On page 50 I note, “In 1837 Oberlin College would open its doors to women who until then had been denied higher education because it was believed they would inevitably lower the academic standards for men.” There are many who believe that Oberlin is the birthplace of contemporary feminism. After a decade long infirmity, feminism, as elephants return to their place of birth for their eternal rest, apparently has returned to Oberlin for its demise.
In response to a charge of rape by a female College sophomore, Judge Martin Heberling said (at a hearing that was not supposed to be a trial: the parents of the student were told by the district attorney’s office this was not going to be a trial), “From all the evidence I have observed, I don’t think there are too many young men who would have interpreted her actions in any way other than these two young men did.” It appears from this article that the only evidence brought before the court is the testimony of those involved. It is also apparent that the defense was ready for a trial and the district attorney’s office was not. In fact, the article notes that at the preliminary hearing the prosecutor waited until the day of that hearing and then stepped down. Does this mean that Oberlin College professor of sociology James Walsh had no idea until that day what had happened on campus? From the article, “Sexual Assault Charges Dismissed,” in the Oberlin Review online, the judge decided that since the young lady may have had the temerity to think about sex, she must give up her right of choice. Male lust set in, the judge apparently believes, thus these young men could not control their emotions and had their way with her, as, according to the judge, all young men must. Further, the judge, perhaps not understanding that a rape is most often by nature and necessity an act hidden behind closed doors and concealed by the perpetrator, stated that there was absolutely no evidence provided to document an act of rape. What did he expect, audio or video tapes of the crime? Did he expect the perpetrator was going to admit it was a rape? All that was presented for evidence that a rape did not take place is the testimony of the male perpetrator and his friends. The judge, in his infinite wisdom, admits there is no evidence presented by a district attorneys office that was not prepared for a trial, and he quickly reaches his decision that the defendants are telling the truth and the victim is lying.
Where is the reason or logic that the female victim’s testimony should be doubted and the male defendants believed? Where is the righteous indignation on the campus of Oberlin for this justice denied? I believe that silence is acceptance and to accept is to condone. To accept this decision is to condone it. Why the silence and acceptance by the faculty and student body of this once proud college? Does Oberlin expect that parents will want to send their daughters to a campus where justice is served in this type of a kangaroo court? Can it be a fair trial, when what was supposed to be a hearing suddenly and without notice to the defendant became a trial? Women, once denied higher education, are still often denied justice by some judges. The voices of many women are too often held in low esteem, as documented by this mock trial in front of Judge Heberling. Justice has not been served and silence rules the day.

–Richard L. Davis
Domestic Violence Consultant