Given the circumstances, this would make for an unassuming evening in the dorms. The alleged victim’s allegations and the police reports indicate something else: the sexual victimization of a young student.

More than a month later, there is a deafening silence from our university, and the void created by MSU’s silence has been filled by the local prosecutor’s unimaginable arrogance and apparent inept legal understanding of sexual assault.

This is what allegedly happened that night in August according to the alleged victim: The alleged victim told police she took off one piece of clothing but refused to remove more.

She said her path to the dorm door was blocked and that the alleged assailants turned off the lights, approached her in the dark and insisted she remove all of her clothing. Although the alleged assailant’s account differs, both accounts acknowledge the survivor’s feelings of not being able to leave because the only exit was blocked.

The allegations continue by asserting the individuals forcibly continued the assault. At the end, she was allowed to leave.

After the alleged assault, the victim was examined medically and interviewed by police. A search warrant was issued allowing the police to examine the room of the individuals, one of who was said to be “smirking” as the warrant was read.

After interviewing both individuals, their suitemates and the alleged victim, the MSU police ended its investigation and recommended the alleged assailants be charged with criminal sexual conduct in the first degree.

As reported by the Michigan Messenger last Friday, the individuals never were charged. Ingham County Prosecutor Stuart Dunnings III initially said he “could not find evidence of coercion” needed to charge the individuals (“Report: MSU basketball players involved with alleged sexual assault in August,” SN 9/29), despite Michigan law clearly defining coercion to include the physical restraint or perceived physical restraint the survivor reported to police.

Later, Dunnings’ cool indifference turned indignant when he went so far as to say “no crime was committed.” According to The State News, “Dunnings said the man did not corroborate the facts necessary to ‘substantiate a criminal sexual assault charge.’”

Dunnings said despite reports indicating one of the men corroborated a story, “the suspect’s account of the alleged sexual assault does not match that of the victim’s.”

Is Dunnings suggesting that because the woman did not describe the alleged assault in the same manner as the alleged assailant, “no crime was committed”?

That because of the alleged assailant’s claims she did not cry out against the assault and did not seek to free herself, that he cannot, as a prosecutor, “substantiate a criminal sexual assault charge”?

Dunnings’ shocking refusal to bring charges against these two individuals is an open assault on justice, ultimately serving to revictimize the alleged victim.

What began as an unassuming evening in the dorms has ended with the alleged assault of a woman, a prosecutor who doesn’t care and a university administration that doesn’t care enough to comment.

As my shock ebbs to a feeling of sad despondence, I want to reach out to the woman involved in the events of Aug. 28 and say, “I believe you.”

I believe you and I support you. I am fighting so that someday you, and others who have been victimized heinously, might see justice.

Mitch Goldsmith is a State News guest columnist. Reach him at goldsm4@msu.edu.