Countering Rape’s Stigma : The best course is to leave the issue of identification with the alleged victim

In William Kennedy Smith’s nationally publicized rape trial, which last week ended in acquittal, the identity of his accuser was, for the most part, kept secret. TV broadcasts blocked out her face as she testified; most publications would not use her name or picture. This week her name and face have been widely publicized--now that she has decided to step forward and identify herself. She’s the one who made the decision to become a publicly identified figure, and that’s as it should be.

Patricia Bowman, 30, spoke with ABC journalist Diane Sawyer, and the interview was scheduled to be telecast Thursday night.

Bowman had accused Smith, 31, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy’s nephew, of raping her at his family’s Palm Beach, Fla., estate. Some have questioned her motives in coming forward now; sources close to her suggest that she hoped the interview would put the incident behind her.

But why she chose to identify herself now is beside the point. It was her decision to make. Most serious news organizations adhere to the policy of not revealing an alleged rape victim’s name. This is the longstanding policy of The Times also, in recognition of the fact that a rape accusation raises issues of character and credibility. Too often the question becomes not “Is the accused guilty?” but “Is the alleged victim guilty?”

Now that Bowman’s identity is widely known, she will be named in articles. Some critics contend that media members’ refusal to identify an alleged rape victim stigmatizes rape victims. But the policy is merely a way of coping with the unfair societal stigma that already exists. As more women come forward to talk about rape, the stigma may slowly fade.