In light of recent information in The Star Press and Daily News concerning BSU's rape data, I have to withdraw the concluding statement I made Friday in my letter to the editor. I no longer feel that Sgt. Pauly should be discharged for his conduct.
The "University" Police, as the name implies, is an extension of the University. This being the case, their agenda is largely set by the Administration of Ball State University. Over the past four years, the administration has either directly or indirectly implied that victims of sexual assault should be treated in a way consistent with Sgt. Pauly's treatment on Sept. 14th.
When Sgt. Pauly treated the victim the way described in earlier articles, he was doing his job as directly or indirectly outlined by the administration. It stands to reason that Hyman only gave Sgt. Pauly a light slap for his conduct. If Hyman severely disciplined Pauly for doing his job as mandated by the administration, Pauly would become disgruntled. He might even be angry enough to tell people what's going on.
It's taken Hyman three weeks to indicate he plans to reply to Security on Campus Inc. That's just enough time to do a little administrative 'housekeeping.' If the U.S. Department of Education investigates BSU they may find a few things amiss. The administration has had enough time to cover its tracks, though. The UPD will end up the losers in this, the administration's little scapegoats, and their ace in the hole.
Generally speaking, police officers put a level of trust in each other that is above and beyond what most people consider normal on the job. They literally put their lives in each other's hands. An officer needs to know that his co-workers are covering his back. There is something UPD officers might not consider though. When a victim of a violent crime, like rape, comes forward and states that they have been made a victim, they assume you are covering their backs.
Victims put their lives in UPD hands. If a UPD officer doesn't feel like he can trust another officer to watch his back during an intense situation, will he want that officer on the force? No, he won't. Likewise, victims won't want officers on the force that they feel can't be trusted to watch 'their' backs.
Even if the mandate to treat victims of sexual assault came from the administration, UPD is going to get caught in the middle. Officers are going to be the ones paying. The administration will "say" they are covering your backs right up until they have to take responsibility for what's happened. Then there are going to point a finger at UPD, and officers will be sacrificed to appease the masses.
I urge the members of the UPD, who have evidence and/or testimony implicating the parties responsible for the mandate of silence, to come forward. You will be preserving the department in the long run. Do you really trust the administration to cover your backs?