AS WELL AS REDUCING ACCOUNTABILITY: Not naming sex assault accusers contributes to stigma, says expert.

Geneva Overholser, who edited the Des Moines Register when the paper won a 1991 Pulitzer Prize for a series on rape, told the Washington Post that not naming accusers undermines attempts to remove the stigma of rape.

“[Withholding the accuser’s name] is a particular slice of silence that I believe has consistently undermined society’s attempts to deal effectively with rape,” Overholser said. “Nothing affects public opinion like real stories with real faces and names attached. Attribution brings accountability, a climate within which both empathy and credibility flourish.”

Overholser also said that not publishing the names of accusers hasn’t led to more reporting of sexual assault or a reduction in retaliation against accusers.

Sex crimes are the only crimes in which the victim/accuser’s name is withheld unless they give permission. Because of this — and the current media trend of dragging an accused person’s name through the mud before any evidence is presented — I would like to see no one’s name printed in these situations.

Time and time again, those whose accusations make the front page are vindicated — but not before their reputations are destroyed. Duke Lacrosse and Rolling Stone are just the most glaring examples of this, but there are other stories — both at colleges and in the broader public — where the accusation didn’t hold up to even slight scrutiny.

Speaking of Rolling Stone, it was in an article about that story in which Overholser made her comments. The Washington Post asked why the media haven’t named Jackie, the woman who told the magazine she was gang-raped at a fraternity party. Every aspect of her story was proven false, yet she is still known only as Jackie.

Indeed.