Letter from Richard Rojo that was Published June 4, 2009
To the Editor:I would like to clarify statements I made in the story that ran Friday, May 29, regarding University of the Pacific's response to a sexual assault lawsuit.
I sent a clarification letter to reporter David Siders on the afternoon of May 29, acknowledging that I did a poor job explaining what I understood as a distinction between "acquaintance rape" and "rape" as described in Clery Act publications.
The University Student Code of Conduct defines both "acquaintance rape" and "rape" as rape, which we prohibit under our sexual assault policy. I was not trying to suggest otherwise, nor did I intend for my comments to come off as insensitive. I take this issue very seriously, as does the University. I was attempting to describe the alleged violations of the University's Code of Conduct in this case, and was not suggesting that there was any criminal finding that a rape of any description had or had not occurred.
I also was referring to the situation from a student safety perspective and was trying to avoid the implication that there was a threat of a stranger attacking women on campus.
In trying to make these points, I ended up giving an ill thought-out statement that did not accurately represent the University's views or my own on this matter. In fact, the University thoroughly, carefully and thoughtfully investigated and adjudicated this case to the extent we were able under our policies.
Richard Rojo
Director of Marketing and University Communications
University of the Pacific