Imagine sitting in class as usual, when the details of the scandal happening in your back yard spill all over your desk.

That is exactly what happened to me Tuesday afternoon. In a matter of moments, I went from being a student eager to learn, to one filled with the rage of injustice happening at my school.

Rewind to Fall 2012. I was a bright-eyed, 17-year-old in the midst of her college search. I recall reading tons of mail from UK, and attending several preview nights at which students and faculty alike boasted the measures taken by the university to keep students safe while out of their parents’ reach. 

That was one of its selling points, and ultimately played a large role in my decision to come here. Four years later, I sit at my desk feeling deceived and the opposite of safe as a woman on this campus.  

By now, we’ve all heard something about our university’s lawsuit against the Kentucky Kernel, but few understand the issue. 

Basically, James Harwood, a former UK professor with a track record of sexual assault complaints, was afforded the chance to bow out of his position quietly, in exchange for continued pay through August.

The professor took the deal, resigned in February, and no further disciplinary or investigatory action was taken against him, meaning that his exit also bought him a clean record when he seeks employment elsewhere. Problematic? Certainly. 

It seems rather unjust, for the best interest of current victims and concern for future ones, that any faculty member accused of sexual assault can get off the hook in this way: unpunished, and scot free.

Such is a contradiction to the safety promised to prospective and current UK students, as well as those wherever Harwood, and others like him, end up. 

Not only does this issue present a danger to all students’ bodies on this campus, our leadership’s reaction to it is dangerous for the protection of student journalists.

When the Kentucky Kernel exercised its First Amendment right to report on this issue, it did so professionally.

We are taught, within the School of Journalism and Media, that the purpose of journalism is to act as a watchdog for the public, and to inform citizens about the world and leaders around us.

Exercising that right is not always comfortable for leaders whose mishandlings come to light. This brings me to my issue with our president, Dr. Eli Capilouto.

Dr. Capilouto has proclaimed his support of the university’s decision to withhold records related to Harwood’s offenses from the Kernel and Attorney General.

His support of this blasphemy, the university’s lawsuit against the newspaper—fueled by university funds and public tax dollars—for doing its job, and his defamatory statements against the Kernel’s editor, are all ridiculous.

The fact that Capilouto has become the strongest voice of condemnation toward the Kernel is unsettling to me for two reasons.

First, he has ultimately taken a stance that says the Kernel is wrong for operating within its purpose and rights. As a journalism student, it concerns me when leaders attempt to silence the press to prevent their own embarrassment.

Such is a direct violation of our constitutional rights, and is the equivalent of a child throwing a rock and hiding his hand from his mother. Accountability for our mistakes is a principle we learn as children; it should be just as enforced for adults.

Censorship for self-serving purposes is dishonorable in every sense of the word, and should not go undisputed. I commend the Kernel staff for standing their ground and remaining professional, even when leaders we are supposed to look up to have chosen not to do the same.

Second, it is a threat to student safety when a leader prioritizes brushing issues with the university’s sexual-assault protocol under the rug, over transparency. Simply put, sexual assault is wrong. School faculty members committing such offenses are wrong.

They pose a threat to the student safety this institution works so hard to promise prospective families, and there should be consequences for such actions. Since when does preservation of tenure and reputation take precedent over justice for victims? 

As a woman, it is my opinion that Dr. Capilouto’s choices speak volumes about a deeper issue that seriously needs to be addressed on this campus and in this country: the implicit bias against the seriousness of sexual harassment. 

The backwards logic that we protect victims by ignoring the offenses committed against them, has to stop. The perpetuation of the phrase “He did it, but he didn’t mean it like that; he’s not a bad guy,” must end.

Ignoring the fact that ignoring harassment opens the door for more harassment must cease. Believing that problems dissolve themselves if we work to hide them is a contradiction to reality; ignoring issues only makes them worse. The current racial climate of this country is a prime example. 

Also, honestly speaking, the effort being put into covering all of this up is the reason all of this became national news in the first place. The Kernel never would have had to be involved, if UK’s procedure for dealing with sexual assault was without significant flaw.

The university wouldn’t have walked straight into the spotlight it was trying to avoid, had the president and university been responsible and transparent from the beginning.

The action taken by the latter two parties has been asinine and immature to say the least. Since when does preservation of tenure and reputation take precedent over what is in the best interest of student safety? Exactly it doesn’t.

I wrote this column because I feel it is important to stand up for what one believes, and to address leaders who are in the wrong. Upon discussing this issue among my classmates, I was taken aback and could not remain silent.

Quite frankly, Dr. Capilouto’s actions, paired with the university’s handling of sexual assault cases, have made me feel deceived by the promises sold to me when I chose to come to this university four years ago. If a professor attacked me tomorrow, I would not feel confident that the university would act in my best interest, given its recent behavior. 

The fact remains that the university’s Capilouto-endorsed lawsuit against the Kentucky Kernel nullifies the university’s claimed priority to preserve students’ safety. That, mixed with Dr. Capilouto’s subsequent actions, is also a direct attempt to strip student journalists of their First Amendment rights.

If speaking my truth makes me the next target of personal attacks, then so be it. But at the end of the day, I came here because I, and so many others, bought into the promises of UK’s safety measures that I was sold in high school. And I do not recall a lack of leadership transparency, constitutional rights revocation, or honesty shaming being part of the spiel.