"Why didn't you come forward sooner?"

A short post to discuss why universities should be dismantling the bias around so-called 'late' disclosures and reports of sexual violence.

Myths and misconceptions about sexual violence, and particularly victim/survivors of sexual violence, are rife. We want to believe that as long as we don’t wear a short skirt, don’t use headphones when walking home alone, and don’t get too drunk, we won’t be subjected to sexual violence. We have a view of an ‘ideal victim’ (a concept discussed originally by Nils Christie) and if someone coming forward to disclose or report sexual violence doesn’t fit this blueprint, we – as a society – will be less likely to believe them, and/or more likely to think they were at least partly to blame for what happened to them.

Some myths are still linked to the concept of an ideal victim but are more focused on what happens after the violence. There is a myth that an ideal, true victim would come forward soon or immediately after the violence – in particular, they would probably come forward to formally report what happened (e.g. to the police or through university disciplinary proceedings where appropriate). Interestingly, even if university students report to the university, you hear staff unhelpfully pondering why they didn’t report to the police. It appears the image of the ideal victim in universities is also informed by what staff hope for as well as what they expect.

The issue of timing is pertinent, particularly where there is vocabulary used around ‘late’ reporting. When we ask why victim/survivors are reporting ‘late’, or deciding not to report at all, we may want to consider why someone would choose to disclose or report at all. University students, in particular, may come forward if they don’t want to see the perpetrator on campus again, if they want to keep other students safe, or so they that they can get some support for themselves. As we’ve discussed before, ‘justice’ will look different for different people.

We should also consider why someone might not want to come forward. They may worry they might not be believed or that they may in fact be blamed, they may blame themselves or just want to try and move forward without having to tell anyone what has happened to them. They may worry about who else might find out, they may not trust the people they have available to tell, they may not know what might happen next. They may think nothing will come of it, or even fear retaliation or retribution against themselves. They may not see what has happened to them as sexual violence or think that it is deserving of attention. There may language or communication barriers, they may have had a negative disclosure experience previously, they may still be in a relationship where the violence has occurred. These are just 14 reasons why someone might not want to come forward and if a victim/survivor were to think about 1 reason per day after the violence happened, that would amount to two weeks. This calculation is made without taking into account a victim/survivor’s daily life and commitments that will inevitably have an effect on decision-making, and without considering how a victim/survivor may make a decision and that hear or see something that makes them change their mind, before considering it again. So, let’s say we double that initial calculation and make it a month. If you were to then add on the fear that the other myths and stereotypes mentioned above would be compounded by the ‘delay’, you can see why they might need even more time to come forward. If you then add in the misconception that there’s no point coming forward a few months (at least*) down the line because there’s no evidence or because memory would have declined so they no longer have a credible case, you can see why someone may not come forward at all.

Note here that there can be a degradation of ‘evidence’ in sexual violence cases over time however this should not be a reason for victim/survivors to not come forward when they are ready and should categorically not be a reason for support or disciplinary proceedings to not be available to victim/survivors reporting ‘late’. (It should also only be a clinical decision in cases relating to forensic medical evidence in particular.) Support should be available for victim/survivors whenever they are ready. A case should always be considered by university disciplinary teams (if it fits other criteria e.g. around who the reported party is and the nature of the allegation in line with regulations) regardless of when a student victim/survivor chooses to come forward. If there isn’t enough evidence to proceed, this is a decision that can only be made after there has been an attempt to collate that evidence. This collation of evidence must be objective and therefore cannot be marred by any of the misconceptions mentioned above. We can understand why victim/survivors may have these thoughts, but they cannot be permitted amongst staff administrating support and disciplinary processes. These staff need to examine any internal preconceptions they hold before they proceed in responding to victim/survivors who deserve un-biased routes to justice. So, regardless of who victim/survivors are and when they come forward, we should never be asking them “why didn’t you come forward sooner?”.

*The statistics (given just the incidences and victim/survivors we are aware of) suggest that male victim/survivors, in particular, can take over 31 years to disclose that they have been subjected to sexual violence (Male Survivors Partnership, cited in UK Government ‘Position Statement’). In addition, related to sexual violence, “On average high-risk victims live with domestic abuse for 2.3 years and medium risk victims for 3 years before getting help” (HMIC, 2014, cited by Safe Lives). In a study conducted by the University of Leicester’s Centre for Hate Studies, only 28% of respondents who were victim/survivors of some form of harassment had formally reported what happened – “59% (n=94) of victims stated that they did not think reporting would help, and 51% (n=82) did not feel that their case would be taken seriously.” (Wertans & Chakraborti, 2020).