A blogger and Cal Alum has been researching the Dwyer case. So far she seems convinced that this is merely an excuse to change Boalt's sexual discrimination policy. But she comes up with some interesting background on the laywer involved, Laura Stevens.

I have been wondering what the goal of the accusation, made two years after the fact, truly is. And I have been wondering, too, what the lawyer hopes to gain by feeding the media prurient detail in order to discredit the dean's claim. The story is that the student did not file charges while she was still enrolled at Boalt because she wanted to preserve anonymity and feared retaliation. Okay--but what makes her think her identity is going to stay secret when her lawyer is encouraging the press to circulate graphic details of Dwyer's alleged assault? What is she really after? If she wanted justice, it would seem that she got it when Dwyer resigned in a cloud of repentant shame. If she wanted anonymity, it would seem that she would not use the media to press the point about whether the encounter was or was not "consensual." Dwyer is out of a job, he is humiliated, and somehow, miraculously, the identity of the accuser is still not public. And yet, she and her lawyer press on.

A clue to what they are after appears in Florida's Herald Tribune this morning. Here is the lawyer, Laura Stevens:

Stevens said Berkeley is obligated to "train and educate the whole community about this social phenomenon of sexual abuse and heighten people's interest in the subject in a positive way to prevent it, to create an environment that is likely to prevent it and likely to aid a victim in a positive way if it still does occur. That has not happened and that's what we want to have happen."

Next on the docket: a push for mandatory sensitivity training at Berkeley.

Hardly seems proven, although the 'what does she want?' part raises an interesting question. Perhaps this will fade away now that Dwyer has been punished. Perhaps the former student will sue.

But I doubt their tactics have been designed to elicit changes in sexual harassment policy. Perhaps it's a pet project of the lawyer tacked on to this case, but sexual assault of the rape-variant that the person describes does not lead to 'This is due to poor sexual culture training for incoming Deans.' I just can't imagine, with the severity of the charges, that that would be the objective. Especially when considerable cash damages and multiple lawsuits could be in the offing.

However, claiming that the University's poor policies are partly responsible for the attack makes the University culpable.. and this would be a very lucrative drum to bang in any lawsuits. I doubt Dwyer has all that much money, but Boalt Hall certainly does, and who could fault an assaulted law student for taking the Institution that sheltered Dwyer to the bank? I would.Email This Post!