@Center I’m having trouble following your logic.
First, you wrote: “‘Michaella was sure what happened in that basement was more than sexual harassment.’ Why is it more? Why is she sure of it?” This implies that you believe Exeter’s administration, which said the incident was ‘just’ sexual harassment. When doschicos pointed out that the police had, in fact, found it to be sexual assault, you replied: “Because in todays world the girl is automatically determined to be telling the whole truth.” Exeter and the police department are both part of ‘today’s world’, yet one believed Michaella and the other didn’t. So, in ‘today’s world’, it is clear that a girl is not “automatically determined to be telling the whole truth.”
I would also point out that there are so many very public cases of sexual misbehavior in which the women accusers are not taken at their word. For example, something like 20 women came forward against Bill Cosby before people really started believing that he just might be a sexual criminal. Proof:
(non celebrities) http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/support-bill-cosby-sexual-assault-charge-article-1.2482030
(celebrities) http://newsone.com/3317134/seven-celebrities-support-bill-cosby/
There is also the Roger Ailes case, which is definitely less cut and dry, but, once again, the accusers were not automatically believed. Then there is the case of Anita Hill and Clarence Thomas, which is also not as clear as Bill Cosby’s case (actually nothing is as clear as Bill Cosby’s case). a person could argue that his appointment is not ‘today’s world’ because it happened in 1991, but that man is sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court now. Another argument is that these men are famous, so it would be harder for non famous women to take them down, which may be true, but I was looking for cases that people would recognize or remember with minimal Googling.
Alright, on to the next order of business: Was this incident sexual harassment or sexual assault? Let’s look at the testimony of both Michaella and Chudi and how the law applies to it. We will refer to this source, which is unaffiliated with the case at hand: http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/sex-crimes/new-hampshire-sexual-battery-laws.htm. Both agree that Chudi touched Michaella’s backside sexually and without her consent. A point of contention appears to be whether the touching was over clothes or under them. According to the source, the state of New Hampshire defines ‘battery’ as ‘any unwanted touching.’ I know, that doesn’t sound right at all, but legal language is what it is. The same source goes on to say, ‘New Hampshire law refers to battery that is sexual in nature but does not involve penetration as sexual ‘assault.’’ In plain English, that would say, ‘New Hampshire law refers to unwanted sexual touching that does not involve penetration as sexual assault.’ To me, that describes Michaella and Chudi’s case perfectly. Apparently, the police thought so, too.
This is just a thought: Perhaps Michaella’s trouble with sleeping and college admission was included to highlight the lasting trauma she experienced due to her sexual assault. Or maybe it was a writing choice of the author, included to humanize her story’s protagonists. Regardless, there’s a good chance the evidence could be thrown out on a relevance objection if it were ever brought into a court of law. It just really doesn’t matter, especially because Michaella was vocal about what happened before she would have heard back from colleges.