_______________ WHY I DIDN'T REPORT MY RAPE BY JENN SHREVE(03/10/99)
	I understand why a rape would go unreported. The flaw that Jenn Shreve makes, along with many others, is that this does not mean that all rape accusations should be believed. This does not and cannot follow. There is no causal connection between the truth that rape often does go unreported and what actually happened in a particular case, or in all cases. This is a hard thing to keep in mind. Rape is one of the great emotional justice issues, along with sex crimes involving children, and both threaten the fundamental tenets of our justice system: the rights of the accused, the equality of both sides in the case and, most frighteningly, the presumption of innocence. -- Derek Zumsteg I was raped 20 years ago, when I was 16, and I didn't hesitate to report it. Although the rapist was never found, and the trip to the emergency room wasn't a lot of fun, I've never regretted telling what happened to me. It was my way of taking some control. I was mad at that guy, and however low the chances were of his being convicted, I wanted to do whatever I could to get him thrown into jail. I also wanted to do whatever I could to keep him from doing the same thing to some other woman. I really wish Juanita Broaddrick had reported her rape -- maybe then I wouldn't have voted for a rapist. Twice. -- Name Withheld I read Jenn Shreve's article about Juanita Broaddrick, and it's very powerful. There are indeed powerful reasons that keep victims silent in rape cases, and the truth of that is condemnation for us all. At the same time, there definitely are cases where an accusation of rape is used as a weapon, because its particularly stigmatizing charges can never be unlaid. Shreve said she hoped that the man who raped her never runs for office, because she would face the same decision she did on the day he raped her. The interesting thing is that Juanita Broaddrick's alleged rapist did run for office, and she kept quiet. In fact she kept quiet when Kenneth Starr came calling, at the one moment when her story might have had some actual repercussions for Clinton. So the question arises, why now? Why wait for this particular moment to accuse him? Why wait until immediately after his impeachment trial, when the charge has little chance of being thoroughly investigated, and the smearing effect is maximized; when public fatigue with sex scandal is at it's apogee. She contends that she needed to be able to look her grandchildren in the face. I can hardly dispute that, but I cannot fathom the decision to keep quiet for Starr and then talk to network television afterwards. When Hillary Clinton talked about a vast right-wing conspiracy to remove Clinton, everyone laughed. A year later, doesn't that charge seem more and more credible? And isn't it possible that Broaddrick is only the most recent and most desperate attempt by Clinton foes to bring the man down? -- Jordan Graf I just finished reading Jenn Shreve's powerful piece detailing her own horrific rape experience, and it's easy to understand why she believes Juanita Broaddrick. Let me just say to her that Broaddrick's claim that she was afraid to report Clinton had raped her at the time it happened is one of the few things about her story that I find totally believable. But before she identifies herself too closely with Broaddrick's claims I'd like to ask Shreve a few questions: Do you remember the day or the month or even the year your traumatic attack took place? I bet you do. Broaddrick, however, does not. Now, the man who attacked you wasn't running for office, so he wouldn't have had any fund-raisers, but if he had, say, a birthday party three weeks after he raped you, would you have attended it? I somehow doubt it, and yet Broaddrick attended a fundrraiser for Clinton just three weeks after he raped her. Suppose the animal who assaulted you called a short time after that and offered you a prestigious position on a board just to show there were no hard feelings, would you have accepted it? From what I read in your article I'm gonna guess the answer is no, but Broaddrick did just that. Broaddrick explains her contradictory actions by saying that she was in denial about what had happened to her. However, she also says we should believe her because she told three other people about the rape at the time it occurred. Well, which is it? You're either telling people you've been raped, or you're in denial that the hideous event ever took place, it can't be both. It is very possible that Juanita Broaddrick is indeed telling the truth and Clinton did assault her 21 years ago. I don't know. I do know, however, that I can't believe that she was raped just because I believe that Jenn Shreve was raped. I'm afraid I need more evidence than that. -- Carole Simon Mills San Anselmo, Calif.
	N E X T+P A G E+| Facts vs. histrionics; Salon's "tribute" does injustice to Annie Dillard's work