Tag Archives: Brown University

Critic’s Pick: Definitions of Consent

Posted on by

If you missed last week’s post on Drug and Alcohol Amnesty Policies, one of our goals here at SAFER is to use the Campus Accountability Project to gather the best and worst practices of campus sexual assault policies. This week, we’re investigating Definitions of Consent.

As far as policies go right now, nearly every school has a different definition of sexual assault. Most agree, however, that sexual assault occurs when there is an incident of “non-consensual” sexual conduct. Unfortunately, many schools stop there. Students are somehow supposed to know what non-consensual sexual conduct is when the word consent isn’t defined anywhere! Definitions of consent are integral to sexual assault policies because they are the key to determining when sexual assault or misconduct has occurred.

A surprising number of universities’ policies never define consent. Some attempt to briefly discuss what consent is not but can’t seem to make it to what consent actually is. A concrete, clear, and well-defined definition of consent allows students to assess their own behavior and lends support to survivors who choose to file reports and take action.

Let’s start by looking at what some regard as the classic example: Antioch College. The Sexual Offense Prevention Policy aims to foster positive, consensual sexuality that emphasizes respect and ongoing communication. Directly following the preface, the policy states:

Consent is defined as the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual conduct.

A number of clarifying points follow this definition, stating, among other things, that “consent is required each and every time there is sexual activity,” that the person initiating is responsible for getting consent, that silence is not consent, and that all parties must have “unimpaired judgment.” The nearly 15 clarifying points are extremely important in making this definition of consent concrete and understandable.

Reed College also offers a good example of a definition. It divides its definition into two parts: effective consent and ineffective consent. The policy makes clear that unless consent is clear and effective, it cannot be considered consent. The great thing about Reed’s definition is how it gets across the message that victim blaming is not accepted. Take a look at some of what it says about effective consent:

Effective consent is informed; freely and actively given; mutually understandable words or actions; which indicate a willingness to do the same thing, at the same time, in the same way, with each other…Students are strongly encouraged to talk with each other before engaging in sexual behavior, and to communicate as clearly and verbally as possible with each other…it is the responsibility of the initiator, or the person who wants to engage in the specific sexual activity to make sure that he or she has consent. Consent to some form of sexual activity does not necessarily imply consent to other forms of sexual activity…Mutually understandable consent is almost always an objective standard…

Reed begins with what consent is in detail and then encourages communication in a sex-positive manner, while acknowledging that not all situations are identical. This definition also provides an exception (the only exception!): long-term relationships. The ineffective consent portion recognizes that there are many scenarios in which a person is unable to consent while putting the responsibility on the initiators of the act. It emphasizes that victims cannot be blamed for what they experience. All in all, Reed’s definition of consent is detailed and comprehensive while providing numerous examples to reinforce clarity.

Let’s give a few more shout-outs to schools with better-than-average definitions of consent: Case Western Reserve University, Emory University, Duke University, and Hamilton College. While these definitions may not necessarily be quite as comprehensive as the two discussed above, they give a pretty clear idea of what the schools define consent to be.

There is a long list of schools, including Cornell University, College of William & Mary and Bethany College, that do not say what consent is but manage to define what consent is not. While this is not ideal, at least these schools are one step ahead of those who do not even come close to clearly defining consent. Boston University, Brown University, and Haverford College all fall under this entirely unfortunate category. Sadly, this last list of schools is by far the longest.

It’s about time that campus policies included a clear and detailed definition of consent. It is not enough to say that the college or university does not tolerate “non-consensual” sexual conduct. There is no way for students to truly understand what that means and evaluate their own and others’ behaviors unless consent is defined. How can students be expected to only engage in consensual acts if they don’t know what those are?

One highly controversial aspect of policies that I didn’t address today in the consent definitions is the statement about “mentally incapacitated” or “mentally disabled” persons. Tune in next time to get a rundown of which schools are doing it well and which ones can’t quite get it right.

And remember: consent is sexy!

While We Were Away: A News Round-Up

Posted on by

So, summer vacations have led to things being a little quiet around here, and when I got back I had SO MUCH NEWS to sort through. Here is some of what stuck out:

A big victory in Wisconsin last week when a U.S. Magistrate Judge ruled that a former UW-Parkside student could continue with her lawsuit suing the school for violating Title IX after she was assaulted by her resident adviser and the school was largely unresponsive and didn’t follow protocol. I’m glad to see that Judge Patricia Gorence understands the impact of sexual harassment and assault, since the university’s Board of Regents clearly doesn’t. They  protested the suit on the grounds that “one assault was not enough to show a ‘systemic effect on educational programs and activities,’ [and]…also argued the woman’s situation was not so severe that it effectively denied her access to Parkside.”

We’ve written a bunch about the hard word students at Tufts have been doing to get a more comprehensive sexual assault policy, and last week the first part of the new policy was unveiled. The new policy outlines definitions, resources, and reporting options, and considering that Tufts’ old policy was two setences long, this is a huge improvement. The judiciary process hasn’t been outlined yet, but a comment on the Tufts Daily article states that it will hopefully be up by next semester.

The story out of Brown, where a former student is suing the school, claiming he was wrongly accused of rape and forced out of the school without a proper investigation got even messier as the woman who accused him filed a counter-suit saying that his lawsuit violates the contract that “settled” the dispute in 2006. She maintains that he did rape her.

This piece at OregonLive works off the CPI reporting on campus sexual assault and looks at the differences between how assaults are handled at Oregon’s Reed College and Oregon State University.

Tracy at Unapologetically Female lists some trends she has noticed in the Womens Studies 101 classes she has been teaching over the last two years. It’s an interesting picture of where some (perhaps many) of her students are at when they begin approaching feminist/social justice issues and the contradictions that riddle their beliefs. A lot of those contradictions were familiar to me, as they are things that I either did or still struggle with. I wonder how many of these ideas/habits will have changed by the time they graduate…

RMJ at Feministe has a really good post (with a very active comments section) about manipulating someone into “consent” and her own experiences in college. For me, the value in this piece is the conversation it starts about looking at sexual violation on a spectrum outside of the one presented by the legal system. So much of the discourse surrounding what rape is or isn’t is based on what would stand up in court. And while this is an important conversation, particularly in terms of how to reform the criminal justice system and encourage folks to report crimes, it’s not always the most helpful conversation. When immediately dragging conversations about consent and assault into the legal realm, defenses go up and the slippery slope argument begins: well if you’re going to call that rape, then everyone’s a rapist! But women like RMJ aren’t talking about wanting the opportunity to prosecute someone or defining what a violation is for every individual. The point (as I see it anyway) is to discuss the different ways in which consent can be violated, coerced, or simply never acquired, and with that on the table we can figure out how to make it better. The point of primary prevention, for example, isn’t: let’s talk about how you can avoid getting arrested and charged with rape. It’s (or it should be) let’s talk about the behaviors and attitudes that devalue your sexual partner(s) and what a healthy sexual relationship/encounter should look like.

And finally, Jessica at CALCASA talks about the importance of incorporating hope into anti-violence activism. Yes.

Sexual Assault Policies Only Work If You Enforce Them

Posted on by

So, that’s a really DUH statement, right? But this week I feel like it bears mentioning, as two schools with pretty decent sexual misconduct policies have failed students by not enforcing and adhering to the very policies they put into place.

In the past couple of months I’ve been writing about some great steps that Brown University has taken to reform their sexual assault policy and raise awareness on campus. But recently Brown has been in the news because of a lawsuit filed by a former student who says that after being accused of rape he was forced to leave the school without a proper investigation into the incident. He maintains that he was falsely accused and he settled with the complainant and agreed to leave the school only because he was threatened with criminal charges. However, I don’t know the details of this case, and can’t and won’t make any statements in regards to whether or not a rape occurred. But it is clear that the disciplinary process was mishandled:

After the student amended her complaint to include rape, Brown officials met with Mr. McCormick and presented him with a one-way ticket home to Wisconsin. According to the lawsuit, they denied his requests for a copy of the complaint against him and he was not given an opportunity to provide his version of events. He was told only that he faced a complaint of “sexual misconduct,” the lawsuit asserts.

…The lawsuit also asserts that a Brown dean arranged for Mr. McCormick to face an administrative hearing rather than have his case heard by a panel of peers, faculty and deans.

Let’s check out the rights that Brown’s disciplinary procedures guarantee to students charged with violating the code of conduct:

  1. To be informed in writing of the charge(s) and alleged misconduct.
  2. To be assumed not responsible of any alleged violations unless she/he is so found through the appropriate disciplinary hearing.
  3. To have an advisor during a formal investigation, a hearing before the University Disciplinary Council, an administrative hearing, or a student organization hearing. The advisor may be any person of their choice within the University community who is not an attorney.
  4. To have a reasonable length of time to prepare a response to any charges.
  5. To be informed of the evidence upon which a charge is based and accorded an opportunity to offer a relevant response.
  6. To be given every opportunity to articulate relevant concerns and issues, express salient opinions, and offer evidence before the hearing body or officer. (Students have the right to prepare a written statement in matters that may result in separation from the University.)
  7. To be afforded confidentiality, in accordance with University practices and legal requirements.
  8. To request that a hearing officer or member of a hearing body be disqualified on the grounds of personal bias.
  9. To have a timely determination of the charges.
  10. To appeal a decision.
  11. To refrain from providing information that is self-incriminating.

Now granted, I don’t know when this policy was implemented and if this was the version of the policy that existed when the student was forced to leave the school in 2006, however the Times article notes that the former student has “said the university had failed to follow its own disciplinary policies.” I have no idea why in this particular case Brown decided to disregard their procedure (the article suggests perhaps because the complainant’s father was a Brown alum and donor) but they did a serious disservice to all their students in doing so. While we usually focus on the rights of the survivor, it’s also imperative to uphold the rights of the accused, both because it’s absolutely important to protect individual students and because when you disregard the rights of the accused you add fuel to the fire of those who want to paint campus rape hearings as unfair witch hunts.

On the other side of the spectrum is this sad story out of Columbia that Twe blogged about earlier today.  An anonymous survivor wrote a description of her traumatic journey through Columbia’s disciplinary procedure after she was sexually assaulted. She describes a number of serious issues with the way her case was handled, among them:

During the hearing itself, there were multiple errors committed by the panel that were actually more hurtful to my own case, including but not limited to the respondent’s submission of a statement that I had not seen before and illegitimate contact with the panel, probing and hurtful inquiries geared toward my witness and best friend, and the approval of all three of the respondent’s witnesses, none of whom I had ever met before beyond simple introductions.

There’s a lot going on here, and a number of things she describes do reflect flaws in Columbia’s policy, but let’s just compare one part of her reality to what’s exactly in Columbia’s disciplinary process:

Both the Complainant and the Respondent will be informed prior to the hearing of their rights to identify witnesses and documents. Witnesses’ names and a brief summary of their anticipated testimony will be submitted for transmission to the Hearing Panel at least two days in advance of the first session of the Hearing. Rebuttal witnesses, if any, may be identified and their names forwarded to the Manager during the Hearing process. Should the Hearing Panel determine that a witness’s testimony will be taken, a brief summary of the witness’s testimony will be sent to the other party when possible at least two days in advance of the witness’s appearance. Witnesses scheduled to appear will be advised of the process, as well as confidentiality requirements.

The policy is very clear about informing the “other party” of the witness’s testimony prior to their appearance. So why wasn’t procedure followed?

SAFER focuses on policy because we honestly, strongly believe that a thorough policy will, among many other things, prevent both of the situations described above. And to a certain extent, both Brown and Columbia had policies that were set up to do just that. That they failed to follow-through remains somehwat of a mystery to me, but just reiterates the importance of ACTUALLY ENFORCING POLICY and establishing oversight to make sure it’s being properly enforced.

Brown University Reviewing Sexual Misconduct Policy; Moving In A Good Direction

Posted on by

The Brown University “Standards of Student Conduct” goes up for review every three years, and as part of this year’s review the Office of Student Life is recommending some important changes to the section on sexual misconduct. There’s a lot of things I like about how Brown is going about making these changes (as being reported by the Brown Daily Herald) so I wanted to highlight them here. (This comes a week after I wrote about the cool workshop at Brown about educating students on how to support friends who confide in them about sexual assault. Keep it up, Brown!)

First up, student input!

A committee of faculty, staff, undergraduate students and graduate students reviewed the Standards for Student Conduct, with Philip Gruppuso, associate dean of medicine for medical education, chairing the committee. “There was quite a bit of student input while we were formulating the recommendations,” Klawunn said.

Next up: specific, clear, easily accessible definitions of sexual assault and and associated sanctions. Not to mention actual concern with students being aware and able to understand what constitutes assault and how the disciplinary process work.

The changes to the Sexual Misconduct Policy would create two separate tiers representing two levels of sexual offenses. The first tier, IIIa, consists of sexual misconduct that “involves non-consensual physical contact of a sexual nature.” The second tier, IIIb, consists of sexual misconduct that “includes one or more of the following: penetration, violent physical force or injury.”

The creation of the two tiers in the Sexual Misconduct Policy was spurred by an effort to make the specificity of offenses more clear, Klawunn said. “In some of these cases, as it stands now, (the sexual misconduct code is) very general. Cases would go forward and students would come out with a decision and not know where it falls,” said Yolanda Castillo, associate dean of student life.

Trish Bakaitis-Glover, sexual assault response and prevention program coordinator with Health Services, said the new tiers prevent students from “being in an unknown place” about why a sanction is applied and what evidence is necessary to prove a violation.

Establishing sanctions that are appropriate given the offense and send a message that the school takes sexual assault seriously.

According to proposed new language to the sexual misconduct code, offenses falling under IIIb will “result in more severe sanctions, separation from the University being standard.” “We needed to clear up the language on what the actions would be. The sanctions will be serious,” Klawunn said.

Again, showing that the school takes sexual assault and associated discipline seriously by dedicating resources to the issue including—IMPORTANT!—training the faculty, staff, and students (yes!) who will be hearing cases.

Aside from the creation of the two tiers of sexual misconduct, the report presented to the BUCC also included the possibility of installing an Office of Student Conduct to manage all academic and non-academic offenses…An Office of Student Conduct would “encourage a ‘community standard’ ” and provide deans with “a plan for shared management of cases,” according to the presentation. “We want to have one group of faculty, staff and students who are trained and share some training so that there is one office for student conduct,” Klawunn said.

Paying attention to peer institutions and best practices.

Klawunn said that this distinction mirrors Rhode Island state law. The policies of Brown’s peer schools have more specific levels of misconduct, she said.

And finally, admitting that there’s a problem. So many administrators try to downplay sexual violence on campus, publicly stating that it’s just not a big problem at their school. It’s refreshing to hear university staff openly say that rape is a serious problem on campus, and that they are being proactive about tackling the issue.

Bakaitis-Glover said that, based on statistical information from the U.S. Department of Justice, one in five women experience rape or attempted rape in college and one in 33 men experience rape or attempted rape during their lifetimes. “We don’t have any reasons to believe it will be different on our campus,” she said. Bakaitis-Glover said that many sexual assault cases are not reported and that charges are not filed. “It’s very underreported everywhere, and we figured it must be true here,” Klawunn said.

On Campus: Some cool new work; More horrible violence

Posted on by

First the good stuff: There is a new student government blog up and running, written by and for student gov members. If you’re interested in writing (or reading) check it out!

I am also glad to hear about a workshop that took place recently at Brown, called “I’ll Only Tell a Friend: Learning the Best Ways to Help Someone Who’s Been Hurt by Sexual Assault.” We don’t talk nearly enough about peer support, which is a huge issue since although many survivors don’t report to the police, they DO tell friends, and it can be hard to know how to offer support. I although think it’s important to offer support and guidance to the friends themselves—being a support-system is can be really overwhelming. These are big parts of the conversation and shouldn’t be left out even though there’s so much else to talk about.

For the really terrible news of the day: Indiana University has been in the news a lot recently in regards to sexual assault—the story of former IU student Margaux J. was one of the main components of CPI’s recent reports. But unfortunately IU has resurfaced this week in the aftermath of a suspected sexual assault on campus. I tend not to report on specific incidents of sexual assault on this blog, but this one really stuck out to me. Trigger Warning:

The probable cause affidavit in the case claims that Yu and the victim went to a Phi Gamma Delta fraternity party and were seen on security camera getting a sober ride to the Foster Magee dorm. Prosecutors say Yu is allegedly seen dragging the woman into the dorm and dragging her back outside partially-clothed about an hour later.

The alleged assailant has pled not guilty, and it’s unclear how this case will turn out. Other students found the victim in front of the dorm, half naked and unconscious, so it doesn’t look good…

But what really spoke to me about this story is that these students were getting a sober ride home before the alleged assault took place. She had taken safety precautions; she was being responsible. This is a painful reminder that all of the campus safety risk-reduction initiatives in the world won’t wipe out sexual violence if we don’t ALSO work to mandate prevention education for the people who are responsible for raping and assaulting their peers.