By John Q. Hosedrinker 
University College Dublin (UCD) is currently reviewing its procedures for handling dignity and respect issues, including image-based sexual abuse, following the circulation of an intimate image of a student. This incident, which involved an image of a student taken after she was raped, has drawn criticism from TD Ruth Coppinger regarding the university’s response and support for the victim. UCD President Orla Feely has stated the university’s zero-tolerance approach and immediate reporting of the incident to gardaí, emphasizing ongoing support for the student and encouraging others to utilize available services. The review is now also examining steps to address emerging forms of abuse, such as AI-related activities.
Read the original article here
The recent revelation that a photograph depicting a University College Dublin (UCD) medical student in a state of distress – described as “nude, bruised and unconscious” – was circulated among students and staff has sent shockwaves through Ireland and beyond. This deeply disturbing incident, brought to light by a Teachta Dála (TD) in the Dáil Éireann, raises profound questions about the safety, respect, and accountability within academic institutions, particularly those training future healthcare professionals. The very notion that such an image, presumably taken in the context of a serious assault, could be disseminated within the UCD community is abhorrent and speaks to a worrying breakdown in ethical conduct and institutional oversight.
The circumstances surrounding the sharing of this photograph are particularly galling, especially when considering the potential reluctance of the victim to report the initial incident. The fear that a survivor of sexual assault might not be believed, even when concrete evidence like this photograph exists, is a stark indictment of societal attitudes and the challenges victims face. It suggests a pervasive disbelief in the testimonies of those who have been harmed, forcing them to navigate a landscape where their experiences are questioned or dismissed. The presence of such a photograph should unequivocally serve as proof, yet the underlying sentiment suggests this may not be the case, a truly monstrous prospect.
One cannot help but draw parallels to other distressing cases where graphic imagery has been mishandled or shared inappropriately. While the specifics of the Madeline Soto case in Florida, involving a photo related to a murder investigation accidentally posted by the sheriff’s office, differ in context, it underscores a disturbing trend of insensitivity and lack of control over sensitive visual information. The apologies and fines issued in that instance, while procedural, highlight the severity of such breaches and the potential for profound harm. However, in the UCD scenario, the act of sharing appears to be far more malicious and predatory, pointing towards deliberate intent rather than accidental oversight.
The response, or perceived lack thereof, from the institution itself has also come under intense scrutiny. The suggestion that the university’s remedy might involve merely “offering to meet” with the affected individual, or a focus on investigating who *shared* the photo rather than the individuals who *created or participated in the alleged assault*, seems woefully inadequate. A robust and unequivocally clear statement is needed, declaring zero tolerance for such behaviour. This should include explicit commitments to investigating all individuals involved, expelling those found complicit in the act or in sharing the image, and full cooperation with the Gardaí (Irish police) to ensure perpetrators face prosecution. The absence of such strong pronouncements fuels the concern that the institution might be downplaying the severity of the situation.
There is a cynical, and sadly not entirely unfounded, observation that certain institutions, much like historical organizations with long histories of covering up misconduct, may be predisposed to managing scandals rather than fundamentally addressing the root causes of abusive behaviour. The idea that this situation is simply the fault of an individual “psychopath” posting on the university’s system, without also holding the institution accountable for its environment and response, overlooks the systemic failures that allow such acts to occur and be disseminated. While individual accountability is paramount, so too is institutional responsibility for fostering a culture of safety and respect.
The chilling narrative brings to mind fictional depictions of the complexities of sexual assault and the societal responses to it, such as the bleak but thought-provoking film “Promising Young Woman.” The film, and indeed this real-life incident, highlights the frustration and despair felt when victims’ experiences are trivialized or dismissed. The visceral reaction – “WTF humans, we deserve to be extinct” – captures a deep-seated disillusionment with humanity’s capacity for cruelty and indifference. The desire to protect future generations from such an environment, particularly from those who might one day be entrusted with the care of others, is entirely understandable.
Rumours and anecdotal evidence have long suggested a culture of sexual misconduct in certain professional circles, and the UCD incident only serves to amplify these concerns. While historical references might be met with skepticism regarding their direct relevance to modern times, the underlying themes of entitlement and abuse of power can persist. The harrowing personal accounts from current UCD medical students, describing feelings of isolation, anxiety, and a pervasive sense of unease upon hearing about this incident even before it became public, underscore the profound psychological impact such events have on the entire community. The shared experience of learning about such horrors can be a deeply isolating one, and the act of raising awareness can, paradoxically, bring the pain back to the forefront.
The idea that victims “must have done something” or that the incident was an “opportunity” for perpetrators is a deeply disturbing manifestation of victim-blaming and a complete inversion of responsibility. This depraved mindset, which delights in the suffering of others and seeks to further abuse victims, is a particularly vile aspect of the human condition that this incident sadly brings to light. The circulation of crime scene photos, often accompanied by mockery and trivialization of victims, on fringe online platforms is a well-documented phenomenon, and this incident sadly seems to fit within that disturbing pattern of behaviour.
It is crucial to differentiate between the single perpetrator who may have initially shared the image and those who may have subsequently reposted or disseminated it within the UCD community. While the initial act is undoubtedly the work of a “sick and twisted scumbag,” the subsequent sharing, particularly if it occurred widely within the institution, points to a broader failure of ethical conduct and oversight. The lack of clarity on the extent of the dissemination is concerning, but any form of sharing beyond the absolute necessary channels for an investigation is unacceptable.
The existence of robust revenge porn laws in Ireland offers a legal avenue for addressing such egregious violations. The expectation that these laws would be applied swiftly and decisively in this instance is reasonable. The reported inability of the Irish police to trace the perpetrator, if accurate, is deeply concerning and highlights the challenges of digital forensics and the need for continued investment in these capabilities. Ultimately, this abhorrent incident demands a comprehensive and uncompromising response, both from the institution and from the legal system, to ensure that such acts are not only condemned but also met with severe consequences. The trust placed in future medical professionals is immense, and any breach of that trust, especially through such profoundly harmful and disrespectful actions, must be addressed with the utmost seriousness.