To the Editors:

Bosko Tomasevic has not been found “innocent” in any courts of law. In Oberlin’s criminal court, the charges were dismissed without
ever going to trial for lack of evidence. In the judge’s opinion, there was not enough evidence to proceed with a trial.

This is significantly different than being found not guilty of a crime. In Oberlin’s criminal court, the judge heard evidence that “[the plaintiff] and the defendant had discussed sex [on] the night when the incident allegedly occurred… throughout the evening the plaintiff had mentioned to them that she wished to “hook up” with Tomasevic and chose to stay in his room in Langston Hall after the two witnesses decided to leave.”

On this basis, the judge dismissed the charges, asserting that, “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.”

The judge dismissed the charges based on the idea that if a woman says she finds a man attractive and considers having sex with him, then he and his friend have the right to “[hold her] against her will in [the defendant’s] room…and force her to perform sexual acts.” This is why I characterized the dismissal of the case as indicative of sexism and rape culture. I stand by that statement.

In the case of Oberlin College’s sexual offense board, there is no available information as to why the decision was made to find Tomasevic and his co-defendant Eremic not responsible of sexual assault (a finding which is, again, different from being found “not guilty” in a court of law). These hearings are closed and confidential, so we will never know.

Did the board members hearing the case share the judge’s sexist idea of what constitutes consent? (It wouldn’t surprise me.) Did Camille Hamlin Allen somehow botch the case? (It’s happened before.)

Or does it come back to this discomfort with “evidence,” the idea that rape is always a case of “he said, she said” and it is impossible to discern the “truth” (and thus impossible to hold anyone responsible)? Perhaps all of these factors were at work.

Over my four years at Oberlin, I cannot think of a semester here in which there have not been public complaints by students of color of racial profiling on the part of both Safety and Security and the Oberlin Police. The College is quick to place sketches of “townie’’ faces on all of the doors to our dorms and co-ops and dining halls, but when rape happens behind those doors, there is silence and complicity.

I am only breaking one small part of that silence with these letters. I have not even addressed the situation women of color who survive violence are faced with, choosing between the racist security forces and inaccessible, white-dominated survivor resources available locally.

I have not addressed the ways that I have seen queer communities close ranks against survivors who speak out about violence in their relationships.

I have not addressed the dozens of other incidents of sexual violence that preceded and followed the Tomasevic and Eremic case. Make no mistake: this is not an issue of ‘male violence versus female victimhood,’ as so simplistically pronounced by Mr. Kennerly.

I would like to challenge Ronnie Goines, Jim Kennerly, myself and everyone reading this to keep two visions, one of institutional accountability and another of personal and community survival, in mind when they write and speak about these issues.

Not everyone will be a sexual assault activist, but we all can create atmospheres in which public (and private) discussion of sexual violence and its real impacts on our lives is encouraged and supported rather than criticized and denigrated.

It is not one person who can change this, nor is it the punishment of one person that can change this. We all have to change it; we all have to do it together.

–Jesse Carr
College senior