There is usually little evidence in sexual assault cases other than an accusation. If the alleged victim was drugged, the chemicals quickly dissolve, rendering toxicological screens useless, and the amnesiac effects of the drug would provide, at best, a hazy recollection of the attack. Even if the victim wasn't drugged, the situation usually disintegrates into a "he said, she said" cesspool of counteraccusations. The difficulty of navigating the labyrinth of rape allegations often prevents college administrators from properly prosecuting individuals, according an extensive 12-month study conducted last year by the Center for Public Integrity. The investigative report exposes the continual mishandlings of sexual assault cases on college campuses and blames the mishandlings of these cases on the culture of indifference found at these universities. The report also includes numerous stories of botched investigations due to the schools' vague or absent assault policies and insufficient punishments of the accused.

Over the years, the United States Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has been investigating schools to ensure proper protocol is followed and that the rights of both accuser and accused are respected. However, according to the study by the Center for Public Integrity, while the OCR oversees the actions of colleges, they have never once punished a school for violating Title IX, the law which requires schools to respond to sexual assault allegations.

The OCR's lax enforcement can be seen in their investigation of the University of Notre Dame earlier this year for any faults in their sexual assault policies after two rape allegations were made within days of each other in September 2010. The first sexual assault accusation caught national attention after the accuser, 19-year-old Elizabeth Seeberg, tragically committed suicide 9 days after reporting the alleged attack.

Though Seeberg filed a police report 24 hours after the attack allegedly occurred, as is ideal, the Notre Dame campus police department didn't attempt to interview the accused until 11 days later, 2 days after the alleged victim had committed suicide. Not only did the university fail to reach out to Seeberg after she filed the report, they did not interview her friends or potential witnesses until after an inexplicable 5 weeks had passed. Those who were with her that night would later say in an interview that they saw blood running down Seeberg's shorts the night she was allegedly attacked. By November, the individual accused in the case was exonerated of all charges and continues to play football for Notre Dame. Further, considering the OCR has yet to levy punishment against a school found guilty of violating the law, it is also dubious whether the university will be reprimanded for its poorly executed investigation.

Notre Dame's atrociously conducted investigation illustrates the numerous possible mistakes colleges can make when handling sexual assault cases. For instance, the timeliness of the police department's response is crucial, as delays allow evidence to be compromised. Considering that an alleged rape is an extremely serious offense, one would question why campus police would delay an investigation.

Moreover, the addition of alcohol would inhibit the progression of an investigation because intoxication impugns the character and credibility of both individuals involved, as in the case of Seeberg. After looking at the evidence, the police departments must piece together a coherent timeline of events of the attack. This is often made very different when at the time both parties were under the influence.

Certainly the introduction of alcohol in the already complicated process of understanding an assault only muddles the facts further. As an investigator, how can one determine whether he really gave her a drink or if she initiated the conversation when both were inebriated at the time?

To determine the guilt of the accused, most colleges hold judicial hearings with the accuser; the accused; and a panel of students, administrators or both. According to the study conducted by the Center for Public Integrity, over half of the students interviewed were forbidden from discussing their assault with others and some were even involved in completely inappropriate mediation proceedings with the accused. By putting up these roadblocks and inviting secrecy, victims are further traumatized by a process that has no accountability for the accused or support for the survivor. These barriers will only deter others from coming forward with their assault accusations.

Instead, administrators and investigators should direct and guide the victims in a manner they feel their allegation is being investigated as thoroughly as possible. Only with the implementation of fair, transparent hearings and thorough investigations can administrators begin to address the epidemic of sexual assaults on college campuses.