Rape victims deserve voice

I was taking a much needed relaxation break from studying for
midterms Monday. Sipping water and scarfing down mini Milky Ways, I
flipped through the pages of my Glamour magazine where I found a
haunting article written by Bridget Kelly (as told to Hallie
Levine) titled, “I was raped ““ and I want you to know
my name.” Kelly describes a terrifying night during which she
says she was beaten, strangled, raped and shot three times in the
back. Despite the unfortunate (and unwarranted) shame that follows
sexual assault, Kelly insisted her name be printed in the newspaper
that reported her story.

Kelly believes keeping rape victims nameless is not only
paternalistic and overprotective, but it also dehumanizes the
crime. It turns each individual woman into a faceless statistic.
Geneva Overholser, who challenged the widely accepted practice of
keeping rape victims anonymous in 1989 while serving as editor of
the Des Moines Register, is a prime advocate for Kelly’s
case. In a recent Philadelphia Inquirer article, she is quoted as
saying that rape is “the only adult crime where we
don’t name the victim. It’s journalistically
unethical.”

In the ensuing onslaught of events following Kobe Bryant’s
arrest, one of the main controversies that arose concerned the
divulging of the identity of his accuser. Initially, the
19-year-old woman who accused Bryant of raping her in his Colorado
hotel room remained anonymous.

Gradually, and without her consent, the layers of anonymity
shielding her from the public eye were peeled back. Radio host Tom
Leykis revealed her name on his nationally syndicated radio show,
and several Web sites have published her name, address and physical
statistics. Various magazines have printed photos of her with only
the small rectangular area around her eyes blacked out. Most
reputable newspapers and news organizations like The Los Angeles
Times and The Associated Press have followed the long-accepted
journalistic rule that prevents a reporter from publishing a rape
victim’s name.

The question of revealing a victim’s name has become a
question regarding the right to privacy. Kelly wanted the world to
know about her assault. She believes the need for public awareness
outweighs individual privacy. On the other hand, Bryant’s
accuser did not want her name printed or attached to the case in
any way. Leykis and others who dismissed her preference are
violating her privacy.

I believe both sides of the issue, however, are missing the
point. I can see why Kelly and Overholser believe rape
victims’ names should be printed ““ out of the need for
equality in all crimes and to de-stigmatize rape. I can also see
why the media refuses to print rape victims’ names in order
to protect their privacy. But if one side wants victims to become
empowered in their ability to overcome such a horrific crime, and
if the other side wants to protect victims’ rights, why does
neither side give victims the right to choose? Rape happens to one
person. It is a demeaning, horrendous and traumatizing experience.
The victim of the crime should have control over the decision of
whether or not to release his or her own identity to the
public.

I also believe fewer people will be forthright about their
assaults if they know their names will be used in the report that
follows. After a rape, a victim may feel his or her life is out of
control. By giving victims the right to print their names if they
choose and assuring their privacy if they do not want their names
given out, the media can give people back some of the power they
may feel they have lost.

The controversy over naming rape victims in the media is one
that will continually persist if we do not allow each victim his or
her own voice.

Jensen is a first-year English student. E-mail her at
kjensen@media.ucla.edu.