Tag Archives: Duke 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!

On the Unfounded Furor Over Duke’s New Sexual Misconduct Policy

Posted on by

I’m really busy today, but I just wanted to take a couple of minutes to address this because it keeps showing up in my google alerts/rss feeds/twitter stream etc etc. Duke’s new sexual misconduct policy is getting some hysterical press today for “rendering a student guilty of non-consensual sex simply because he or she is considered “powerful” on campus.” Only, the policy doesn’t do that. At all.

Here’s Duke’s new policy. You’ll notice the up-front-and-center statement that reads, “Duke University has developed this policy based on these fundamental principles,” and the reasonable list of principles that follow it, like about how students should respect one another and prevention education is important. The list also includeds the idea that “Real or perceived power differentials between individuals may create an unintentional atmosphere of coercion.” This is the line in the policy causing most of the trouble for critics.

So let’s break down why this isn’t actually an issue. First, read the statement again. It’s true, isn’t it, that power differentials between two people MAY create an unintentional atmosphere or coercion? This is part of the reason why supervisors aren’t supposed to have sex with their employees, and why Yale and other schools prohibit sex between professors and undergraduate students. I don’t think it’s at all a controversial statement, especially given that it doesn’t say ALWAYS.

But more importantly, it’s listed in this policy as a principle. It’s there to reflect the fact that the writers of Duke’s policy stopped to think about dynamics on a campus that may impact sexual harassment and assault. NO WHERE in the policy does it say that sex between someone in a position of power and someone without that power is automatically considerd unconsensual. The policy does in fact define both sexual misconduct and consent. This is what it actually says: Continue reading →

Sunday Campus News

Posted on by

Anheuser-Busch is planning to release Bud Light cans with university colors as a response to a decline in sales. Of course they say this campaign only targets students of legal age, but exactly how does that work? I doubt that seeing school colors on a can will make students eager to get more drunk, but this is a horrible idea.

Between 1993 and 2001, 18- to 20-year-olds showed a 56 percent jump in the rate of heavy drinking episodes. Underage drinkers consume 90 percent of the alcohol during binges, and underage drinking kills some 5,000 young people and contributes to around 600,000 injuries and 100,000 cases of sexual assault annually.

Here are even more statistics.

According to the article, the University of Michigan has threatened legal action if their school colors are used. I think all colleges potentially involved in this campaign (27 of them) should do the same; even if the campaign doesn’t lead to higher sales from college students, universities should make a firm stand against direct targeting.

In other news, Duke University changed their sexual assault policy over the summer:

The revised policy includes a clause requiring student-on-student sexual misconduct to be reported by University officials who learn of it. These people include faculty and staff, as well as students who represent an arm of the University, such as resident assistants and first-year advisory counselors.

Previously, University officials were only required to report faculty or staff sexual offenses against students. Now, when an allegation is filed, the Women’s Center and the Office of Student Conduct are notified. The Women’s Center will reach out to the victim with medical and psychological support and the OSC will automatically begin an investigation into the allegation.

Of course students can still report sexual assault to counselors or through the center, but this change gives students more channels to report crimes while also increasing chances that those responsible will be held accountable.

Spinning your press to not talk about rape in a case about rape

Posted on by

This one is for all you communication majors and media junkies. A scholarly article has just been published analyzing how Duke University spun the press around the accusations of rape made against members of the Duke lacrosse team. Duke’s administration and press team made the story into a narrative about the school’s integrity and commitment to a reasoned, deliberative process, deflecting attention away from the questions of race, gender, and entitlement that were raised by the case. I will reiterate, for those who will rush to the defense of the lacrosse team here that the things agreed by all sides to have happened include a party with underage drinking (see the previous post about the culture of being above the law intertwined with underage drinking on campus), the hiring of strippers, racial insults being thrown at said strippers, and the circulation of an email after the party about the mutilation and murder of the strippers. All of these things, in addition to the allegations that were eventually dismissed, might reasonably have been expected to generate substantial discussion around gender, race and violence on the part of Duke’s administration, and I find it fascinating, although unsurprising, that it did not.

A disappointing aspect of Duke’s public relations effort is that it was largely reactive, not proactive. Yes, Duke did conduct internal investigations of the lacrosse team’s past behaviors, the timeliness of the university’s response to the allegations, the student judicial process, its own student culture, and the university’s internal policies. Although a Duke committee identified 28 steps the university could take to moderate its ‘‘culture of excess,’’ including the recruitment of women and minority faculty and the promotion of nonalcoholic events, Duke did not suggest education about rape and sexual assault. Johnson & Johnson’s handling of the Tylenol case is often cited as a best practice in public relations: After seven customers died from ingesting cyanide-laced Tylenol capsules, the company led an effort to design tamper-proof packaging of over-the-counter drug products. Johnson & Johnson’s public relations effort considered the public interests; Duke’s effort focused on its own reputation.

The whole article is available online here to people whose universities have a subscription – otherwise check your library. The whole journal looks pretty fascinating…