A young ISU female student was sexually assaulted by one of her best friends after spending the night at a local bar with friends. After the incident, she decided she wanted to take action. After several unsuccessful attempts to involve the police, she decided to take her case to the ISU Office of Judicial Affairs.

The student, whose name was withheld at her request to protect her privacy, said she was unhappy with how the case was handled by the Office of Judicial Affairs and the final outcome of the case.

“I have no satisfaction whatsoever from any of the process,” she said. “I got less out of it than if I wouldn’t have reported it at all.”

She decided to go through the Office of Judicial Affairs because she said she was unable to go through the civil court. The ISU Department of Public Safety also had referred her to the Office of Judicial Affairs.

The female student also had two other female students involved in her case. All three women were charging the same man with sexual assault.

She said the women were appointed an attorney through the university to help guide them through the process, which took about five months.

But she said university officials rushed her through the entire process.

“[The lawyer] made it go so fast to make it over and done with,” she said.

She said she and the other two women involved ended up signing an agreement instead of proceeding to an All University judicial hearing. She said the agreement was “romanticized.”

The agreement reached left the student with a no-contact order for life against the male ISU student she was accusing. She also said her lawyer set up a meeting for the women and man involved so everyone would be able to say whatever they wanted to say to the other parties.

“It pretty much didn’t do anything,” she said. “Really, it just made it worse.”

She said although the women were allowed to say whatever they wanted, the man chose not to speak during the meeting.

The man involved was also required to send letters of apology to the women involved. The female student said all three letters were exactly the same.

“It was a cookie-cutter letter, probably written by his lawyer, that he just signed at the bottom,” she said.

The female student said she thought she was getting a good deal at the time, but now that she looks back she isn’t satisfied.

“I was so na‹ve. I wish I would go back and do it all over again,” she said.

She said she wished the Office of Judicial Affairs would have informed her more about what was going on during the process. “Half the stuff they were doing I had no idea about,” she said.

Bethany Schuttinga, assistant dean of students for Judicial Affairs, said students are allowed to have one adviser present at hearings. This person must speak through the student at any hearing, but is allowed to advise students.

The female student said she wanted to have Julie Roosa, the Sexual Assault Response Team coordinator at the time, present during her hearing, but was not allowed to do so.

“If the Office of Judicial Affairs would have allowed [Roosa to be present], the case would have probably turned out different,” she said. “I probably wouldn’t have signed that — I know I wouldn’t have signed that agreement.”

The female student also said she believes the proceedings and outcomes of Office of Judicial Affairs hearings should be open and a matter of public record.

“Even if it deters one person from doing this act, it still is a deterrent,” she said.

The student said at the end of the process, she felt like everything was just brushed under the carpet.

“That is why I speak out about it, so people will know,” she said.

She said she believes the Office of Judicial Affairs has good intentions, but in her case it just didn’t turn out that way. “I just hope they don’t do the other cases like they did mine,” she said.

Schuttinga said the Office of Judicial Affairs has not received many complaints about the office or its system.

“Based on the minimal negative feedback and the small amounts of appeals the Office of Judicial Affairs has received, most students and complainants involved in the process appear to view the process as fair and impartial. All decisions/outcomes are based on the evidence provided in the hearing process,” Schuttinga said.