The Only Stigma in Naming Rape Victims Is on Media

If the truth will set you free, then why is everyone so uptight about naming the woman who alleged that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s nephew raped her March 30 at the Kennedy compound in Florida?

From the first day of Journalism 101 classes, college freshmen are taught that their career task is to inform the public. They’re taught that information isn’t the enemy; ignorance is.

That’s why we’re able to give you seemingly endless doses of what you consider bad news, along with the good news. We consider it all information, food for thought. We leave it to you whether to digest it or spit it out.

Theoretically, then, we could justify identifying women who allege rape. Their names are but part of the total information package. That reasoning formed part of the rationale that NBC News and the New York Times used in identifying the woman in the William Kennedy Smith case, while also noting that tabloid publications had already made the name public. The head of NBC News also argued that news organizations are not in the business of suppressing information and that identifying alleged or actual rape victims might help remove the stigma historically attached to them.

That represents a terrible and cruelly arrogant mangling of the lines between theory and reality.

Naming a rape victim isn’t the same as naming a robbery victim, or a burglary victim, or a hit-and-run victim. Rape victims carry their own particular burdens, something that should be so instinctually obvious to any adult that it doesn’t need to be explained.

Christine Leon directs a rape-prevention education program at UC Irvine where, too often, she sees women traumatized by sexual assault. When she learned that the woman in the Smith case was identified against her will, Leon knew that some ground had been lost.

“I’m really disappointed they broke that courtesy,” she said, referring to NBC and the New York Times. “I know it’s purely a courtesy, but I feel it means we’re getting further away from a real understanding of what it means for the victim.”

Try to imagine yourself a rape victim. For women, it’ll be all too easy. But for some of the men out there, let Leon offer some guidance:

“There’s a real sense of fear and paranoia, for awhile. Many women feel that even if I’m the only person they’ve come to to talk about it, that all of a sudden everyone else sees them or looks at them differently. They feel like they’re hiding a huge secret, and if you’re hiding a huge secret you start to think that somehow you must look different, that people must know that you are hiding this huge secret.”

Are there really people out there who think that being raped represents the same loss of privacy and dignity as being burglarized?

“The way it’s different than other crimes of violence is there’s a good likelihood that your judgment is going to be called into play,” Leon said. “Subtly or not, people are going to question how you contributed to your own victimization. . . . Think about it--if you’re wearing a nice Italian suit and you’re downtown and someone robs you, are you going to be asked, ‘What kind of judgment did you use that you were wearing that nice suit?’ You’re not going to be asked that kind of thing.”

Some may argue that if Smith was identified, why not the accuser? I guess that’s a manipulation of the constitutional guarantee that everyone has a right to face their accuser, but that is irrelevant here. Smith knows who his accuser is, and if the case goes to trial, he surely will face her in a courtroom. Leaving her name out of the paper doesn’t transform her into an anonymous accuser who can make charges with impunity.

Is it fair that Smith was named, even before charges were filed? Probably not, but I don’t accept the argument that Smith will be sullied forever if the woman’s allegations prove bogus. He’ll be seen as the victim and will recoup lost public esteem.

But if the only guard against the possibility of a woman filing a vengeful and false complaint is to identify her up front, then it’s the wrong solution. The inescapable result of such a policy would be to make rape a free crime, because most women would never come forward.

It appalls me that NBC and the New York Times didn’t reach that conclusion.

The mainstream media have an immense responsibility to inform the public. It’s a power and responsibility that frightens some citizens, but I’ve always taken solace in believing that major news organization executives are not only honor-bound to inform the public but also firmly rooted in the realities of their world.

That’s why the NBC-Times decision is so disturbing. Can they possibly say with a straight face that the first step in the road to changing the public’s feelings about rape victims is to arbitrarily name someone on the nightly news or on the front page? Can they be that out of touch with the feelings of most rape victims?

This isn’t about Journalism 101. Naming rape victims isn’t about giving needed information to the public.

This is about abusing power.

We in the media readily lambaste public officials for abusing the authority they have and the arrogance they use in doing so. I’m having a hard time remembering anything any public official has done recently that’s as arrogant as identifying an alleged rape victim against her wishes and then claiming that doing so might help de-stigmatize the crime.