Something Was Wrong

S25 Ep2: In Shock

January 15, 2026

Key Takeaways Copied to clipboard!

  • Survivors of sexual assault often prioritize telling trusted friends or roommates before seeking formal medical or police reporting, highlighting the immediate need for peer support. 
  • The Title IX grievance process is separate from the criminal legal system, featuring different standards of proof and accountability, often leaving survivors navigating complex, trauma-inducing institutional rules. 
  • The survivor's initial interactions with institutional figures—including RAs, hospital staff, and police detectives—were often characterized by a lack of immediate compassion or an emphasis on victim-blaming details, contrasting sharply with the validating support received from her roommate and a specific judge. 

Segments

Immediate Aftermath and Disclosure
Copied to clipboard!
(00:00:00)
  • Key Takeaway: Survivors often delay reporting to authorities, prioritizing disclosure to trusted peers first, as evidenced by data showing only one in four women report to family immediately.
  • Summary: For many survivors of sexual assault on college campuses, the first step is deciding whether to tell anyone at all, often choosing friends or roommates over family or authorities. Data from the 2019 AAU Campus Climate Survey indicates that only about one in four women disclose the assault to a family member initially. Medical care decisions are also shaped by uncertainty and fear regarding control over the subsequent process.
Medical Exams and Reporting Options
Copied to clipboard!
(00:04:25)
  • Key Takeaway: Sexual assault medical forensic exams can be received without mandatory police reporting, a fact often not clearly communicated to survivors.
  • Summary: Sexual assault medical forensic exams are intended to provide medical care, document injuries, and collect evidence if the survivor chooses. National guidance clarifies that, barring mandatory reporting laws, the decision to involve law enforcement belongs solely to the patient. Despite this, many survivors avoid seeking care due to fear of losing control or triggering an automatic police investigation.
Title IX Process Overview
Copied to clipboard!
(00:06:27)
  • Key Takeaway: Title IX processes operate independently from the criminal legal system, offering formal grievance or informal resolution paths with differing standards of proof.
  • Summary: The Title IX office process is separate from criminal proceedings, though they may coordinate based on the survivor’s choices. Survivors can choose a formal grievance process involving investigation and determination, or an informal resolution involving structured alternatives like contact restrictions. Survivors generally retain the right to withdraw from the process at any point before a final agreement is reached.
Survivor’s Initial Contact with Perpetrator
Copied to clipboard!
(00:08:51)
  • Key Takeaway: The perpetrator immediately initiated contact, attempting to reframe the assault as a misunderstanding and pressuring the survivor for dialogue.
  • Summary: The perpetrator, Cody, texted and called the survivor multiple times the next day, repeatedly asking if she was okay or if he had made her uncomfortable, which the survivor viewed as an ultimate betrayal. He also contacted her roommate, asking her to relay messages, demonstrating an attempt to maintain contact despite the survivor’s immediate decision to cease communication.
Decision to Seek Medical Care
Copied to clipboard!
(00:10:34)
  • Key Takeaway: The survivor initially resisted telling her parents due to internalized guilt, viewing the need for medical attention as the primary catalyst for disclosure.
  • Summary: The survivor felt a significant underlying theme was that she had done something wrong, leading her to avoid telling her family initially. She decided to contact her mother because she was injured and worried about potential infection, needing guidance on whether to seek medical help. Her roommate strongly supported her, reiterating that the assault was not her fault and that her parents would provide protection.
Hospital Experience and Trauma Response
Copied to clipboard!
(00:16:25)
  • Key Takeaway: The survivor exhibited signs of shock at the hospital, masking trauma with humor while undergoing a lengthy and invasive sexual assault forensic exam.
  • Summary: The survivor experienced dissociation during the seven-and-a-half-hour hospital wait and the subsequent exam, feeling as if she was watching the events happen to herself. The forensic exam was conducted by a staff nurse rather than a specialized SANE nurse, making the process slower and more clinical. Despite the humiliation of the exam, the survivor felt safe enough to proceed with evidence collection.
Academic Support and Title IX Filing
Copied to clipboard!
(00:25:00)
  • Key Takeaway: The survivor prioritized academic standing, successfully securing excused absences and extensions from faculty after reporting the assault to the Dean of Academics.
  • Summary: Despite the trauma, the survivor was highly concerned about falling behind in her coursework and contacted the Dean of Academics for accommodations. Her teachers were extremely accommodating, providing extensions and excused absences, which the survivor credits for allowing her to progress. The RA, being a mandated reporter, had already informed the Title IX office, prompting the survivor to formally file her complaint on October 17th.
Title IX Meeting and Resolution Options
Copied to clipboard!
(00:27:45)
  • Key Takeaway: The Title IX Director emphasized the perpetrator’s right to due process and heavily promoted the informal resolution path, which discouraged the survivor from pursuing a formal hearing.
  • Summary: During the initial meeting, the Title IX Director repeatedly stressed that both parties were entitled to due process, which the survivor found annoying given her situation. The formal resolution process was described as involving lawyers, investigation, and cross-examination, making the survivor hesitant to proceed. The director’s emphasis on the commonality of informal resolution made the survivor suspect the office preferred the easier route to avoid administrative work.
Encountering Perpetrator Post-Reporting
Copied to clipboard!
(00:30:20)
  • Key Takeaway: The perpetrator violated the spirit of the no-contact order by actively seeking out and staring at the survivor on campus shortly after being notified of the allegations.
  • Summary: The survivor encountered the perpetrator in the common room and again in the dining hall after filing the Title IX complaint and obtaining a protective order. In both instances, he approached or stared at her rather than leaving the vicinity as expected under the order’s intent. This behavior was a re-traumatization that undermined her sense of safety on campus.
Police Interview and Evidence Collection
Copied to clipboard!
(00:41:07)
  • Key Takeaway: The police interview process was experienced as cold and humiliating, with the detective focusing on victim-blaming details like clothing rather than offering support.
  • Summary: The survivor felt like a criminal being transported in an unmarked cruiser to the police station, where she was separated from her roommate. The female detective displayed a cold attitude, focusing heavily on what the survivor was wearing and demanding explicit verbal descriptions of the assault, which the survivor tried to avoid by gesturing. The detective also required the survivor to lift her shirt for photographs of injuries, adding to the feeling of exposure and humiliation.
School’s Failure to Enforce Safety
Copied to clipboard!
(00:49:03)
  • Key Takeaway: The school failed to enforce the protective order, leaving the survivor in danger on campus and leading her parents to question the administration’s integrity.
  • Summary: The school only mandated that the perpetrator could not go to the survivor’s floor, despite him remaining in the same building underneath her. When the survivor called campus safety after encountering him twice in violation of the order, no one answered the phone or returned her voicemail, leading her parents to email the director in frustration. This failure to enforce safety measures severely eroded the family’s faith in the institution’s commitment to student security.