Tag Archives: Harvard University

Critic’s Pick: LGBTQ-Inclusive Language

Posted on by

After thinking about what consent means for people with disabilities, I want to explore other often marginalized identities and discuss how campus sexual assault policies use (or don’t use) lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer transgender and gender non-conforming inclusive language.

Let’s begin with some unfortunate news: I’ve searched a heck of a lot of these policies, and I have only found ONE that explicitly mentions LGBTQ people. Recently reviewing a student submission, I came across this statement in University of Akron’s policy:

Sexual misconduct and sexual assault is a serious crime that can affect men and women, whether gay, straight, transgender or bisexual.

This is good—a policy needs to be explicitly inclusive of different communities of people. University of Akron does not simply say something vague about “all members of the community” or exclude (like many other schools!) huge populations of students by only using “man” and “woman.” Where I could see Akron’s statement improving is in addressing gender non-conforming, or genderqueer, individuals. To specify, gender non-conforming refers to people who do not follow societal norms, such as dress and activities, based on their biological sex. Gender non-conforming people may present themselves as gender-free rather than clearly male or female; they may identify as transgender, gay, lesbian, bisexual or none of the above. A more inclusive alternative to Akron’s policy might be: “Sexual misconduct and sexual assault is a serious crime that can affect any individual, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. It can affect men, women, or gender non-conforming/genderqueer people, whether gay, straight, transgender, or bisexual.” While the wording is only slightly altered, it would have huge implications for many students. The unfortunate reality, however, is that Akron is still miles ahead of other schools in this regard—they may not offer the most inclusive language, but they are the only institution I found that mentioned the LGBTQ community at all.

When a school’s sexual assault policy does not even consider certain populations of students, what does that mean for those students who consider themselves part of these populations?

In general, sexual assault is hard to talk about. It’s already the kind of thing that makes people uncomfortable, that people want to keep quiet. Sexual assault within the LGBTQ community has received so little attention even from those whose job it is to discuss it: researchers, support services and the criminal justice system. The discourse around sexual violence is often so focused on heterosexual men and women that any person not in those categories may feel marginalized and ignored. It’s hard to wrap your head around the idea of a woman assaulting another woman or a man assaulting another man when no one ever brings it up—but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. LGBTQ survivors of assault have the same basic needs as heterosexual survivors of assault, but this lack of attention serves to keep this topic even further under wraps, resulting in a lack of culturally competent support and very few resources for healing. Queer survivors have an equal right to be believed, validated, and supported to reach recovery and justice.

We live in a society with so many levels of internalized and externalized homophobia and part of understanding and changing violent behavior is acknowledging and challenging that homophobia. Although violence does exist within LGBTQ communities, their sexual orientations and gender identities are not the cause of that violence. Like all forms of sexual violence, assault within the LGBTQ community is used to assert power and maintain the status quo (specifically here, heterosexism).

There are several unique needs and problems that arise in the LGBTQ population when it comes to reporting sexual assaults. Just to name a few: fear of prejudice and victim-blaming because of societal homophobia and bias, fear of being forced to reveal their sexual orientation, fear of betraying the LGBTQ community if the perpetrator is also LGBTQ, and fear of having the experience minimized or sensationalized.

Looking at the wide range of campus sexual assault policies out there, it is shocking how few schools make explicit mention of the LGBTQ community. Even the most liberal campuses well known for having large LGBTQ populations don’t seem to directly address the issue. For all the reasons I mentioned above, it is not enough to simply use gender-neutral language.

Many schools, like College of the Holy Cross and Carleton College, limit the identities in their policies to “man” or “woman.” Although this wording recognizes same-sex assault (“by a man or woman upon a man or woman”), it does not acknowledge any gender identity outside of those norms.

Some campuses, like Macalester College and the University of Vermont, work to be inclusive of all identities in general, but do not name the LGBTQ community specifically. Tufts University provides a good example of this middle ground. Listed under the Survivor’s Rights, it says:

We will treat your case seriously regardless of your or any suspect’s sex, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation and behavior, race, ethnicity, religion, national origin, age, disability, or veteran status.

This isn’t terrible; it acknowledges the diversity of survivors of sexual assault and ensures that a case will not be unfairly minimized. However, there is something powerful about naming LGBTQ students as survivors. Especially on college campuses, LGBTQ people are often disproportionately assaulted, and therefore merit explicit acknowledgment. A study done by the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault shows that from a sample of 412 university students, 16.9% of the subjects reported that they were lesbian, gay, or bisexual; the remainder identified themselves as heterosexual. 42.4% of the lesbian, gay, and bisexual subjects and 21.4% of the heterosexuals indicated they had been forced to have sex against their will. With this in mind, when policies explicitly include the LGBTQ community, it is validating and supportive in an active way that encourages individuals to come forward.

The majority of policies that I’ve seen fall under this last category, and while maybe it’s not the worst, there’s no good excuse for not being more explicit. The problem does not seem to be that schools are not aware of sexual violence against the LGBTQ community. In fact, many schools have fact sheets and other information about this very topic posted online to help. Check out these great resources from Illinois State University, Lewis and Clark, Harvard University, George Washington University,University of Minnesota, and University of California, Berkeley. The Office of Sexual Assault Prevention (OSAP) at Evergreen State College even states:

OSAP is committed to being a culturally competent, Queer-positive, Transgender-positive space and provides services sensitive to the unique needs of all students, staff and faculty, particularly those whom are members of groups disproportionately affected by sexual violence. OSAP collaborates with community agencies, First People’s Advising and student activities groups to provide advocacy and services relevant to each individual.

Not one of the schools listed above includes anything about LGBTQ students in its policy, however. It’s baffling that the great resources and knowledge that schools possess don’t translate into inclusive policies. The majority of policies that I’ve seen fall into the same category as Tufts with regards to inclusiveness, and while maybe it’s not the worst, there’s no excuse for not being more explicit. One or two sentences in a policy could make all the difference for many students.

Monday College News Round-Up: Kenyon, Harvard, UMass, American U

Posted on by

Some interesting stuff coming through my news alerts over the past couple of days…

A sorority member at Kenyon College writes about her (amazing!) efforts to involve Kenyon’s Greek community in more trainings and dialogue about sexual assault. After meeting arranging a meeting with her sorority and the school’s sexual misconduct advisers, Emily Rapp got together with the Greek Council to “[create] a sexual misconduct education program for all spring semester Greek pledges on campus. Pledges from every organization met with Sexual Misconduct Advisors to discuss Kenyon’s consent policy, explain resources for those who have become victims and define sexual assault.” The program is going to become a regular part of the school’s Greek pledging process, and a”similar program for club and varsity sports teams is currently underway.” Awesome work. One of the things I appreciate the most about this story is that Emily took action after an article was published in the student paper last fall—”‘Rape: Fraternities at Fault,’ which caused a subsequent rift in the student body because of the article’s numerous negative claims against the Greek community.” But instead of letting the anger and defensiveness fester, students (like Emily) were able to move beyond and make some proactive, positive change.

The Harvard Crimson is running a four-part series on why victims of sexual assault stay silent. Part 1 was published on Friday and gives a really thorough run-down of the many reasons that college students choose not report sexual assaults or pursue disciplinary action at their schools. I appreciated that this piece was centered on the story of a a male student who was assaulted by his boyfriend, since media coverage of sexual assault and partner violence usually focuses on women and heterosexual relationships.

Students and staff have been talking about sexual assault at UMass ever since the Center for Public Integrity reported that the school had not removed a student found responsible for rape from campus. Although the school has responded by agreeing to review the student conduct code (for the first time in over a decade), they are not allowing a member from the school’s rape crisis center to serve on the review committee. The center’s Training and Educational Specialist Angela Bruns says that they have a number of ideas for amending the code, but have not been giving as reason as to why they will not be allowed to join the conversation. Bruns and the center, and concerned students, are petitioning the school for inclusion. I cannot for the life of me imagine why you would not allow staff members who handle sexual assault cases, and understand the reality of what students face more than anyone except the students themselves, to serve on this committee. I hope the petitioning works.

I really liked this interview with American University professor John Watson, who moderated the forum that AU had recently has in response to the student newspaper publishing that editorial about how date rape doesn’t exist. Professor Watson has some really useful things to say about journalistic responsibility, ethics, and censorship. I especially liked this part (I tried to say it before, but he says it better):

[Student publications] should begin with the presumption that every idea should be allowed into the marketplace of ideas, but recognize that journalism ethics require tempering this freedom with the duty of responsibility to the community they serve. This should be articulated in a written policy that is published routinely in the publication and given to all who provide content. This can forestall the perception of censorship.

These issues are rarely matters of “publish or don’t publish.” There are many ways to publish controversial content responsibly. First and foremost is editing to eliminate unnecessary harm without suppressing an idea that might have some value at its core. Good ideas badly expressed can be gratuitously hurtful.

Men Speak Up! College-Based Video Project Engages Men About Violence Against Women

Posted on by

SAFER was recently introduced to Men Speak Up, a Harvard-based project that:

addresses the lack of men in the gender equality movement. Our method: social enterprise powered by men who believe in sexual respect. Our goal: empower men to advocate for gender equality

The project seems pretty great, and I’m excited to see where it goes as it expands. The project team asks men to speak on camera about their feelings on violence against women, offensive humor, and how men should and can take responsibility for their role in the problem. Below are a couple of the videos. In the first one, Austin talks about perceptions of masculinity and stepping in when your male friends make “jokes” about rape and domestic violence.

MenSpeakUp -Austin from MenSpeakUp on Vimeo.

In this video, Chris talks about becoming aware of gender inequality and the harassment women face—when his teenager sister joined an all-male golf team and was harassed by her teammates and opponents and no one said anything. Listening to him tell this story reminds me of how important it can be to tell people in your lives about the everyday harassment or various oppressions you may face, not necessarily in a pedagogical manner, but just to remind them that these things happen, and even if they seem small they can hurt.

MenSpeakUp – Chris from MenSpeakUp on Vimeo.

Fox NY Covers College Sexual Assault

Posted on by

Fox NY ran a report last night on campus sexual assault. Sarah, a rape survivor, tells her story in the video below (trigger warning).

I’m fairly pleased with how Fox framed the story. Sarah’s strength as a survivor willing to speak and help others is showcased, and her behavior is never questioned (even though she admits to drinking the night of the rape). It’s a story that is reflective of many campus rapes: he was a friend, they knew each other, they had been drinking, she thought she could trust him. The reporter, for her part, emphasizes the frequency of such assaults and the seriousness with which they deserve to be treated. Also interviewed were representatives from Montclair State University (not the school where this particular rape occurred), a school that, as Nora reported, appears to have a model comphrensive Sexual Assault Response Team.

The Fox report seems to have been sparked by survey results recently released by the Campus Tolerance Foundation. The full set of survey results and the summary can be found here. The survey is—and the CTF opendly admits this—not “scientific.” 2,612 undergraduates on 10 campuses were surveyed on facebook about violence, harassment, and bias on campus. The results in terms of sexual assault are mostly in-line with general statistics on campus assault:

B. Female students are at risk of sexual harassment, assault and date rape
PROOF: 33% of women were victims of serious sexual harassment – forced sex, attempts to force sex, or attempts to force kissing or fondling – or personally know someone who was. Things are worst at Harvard (45%), GWU (43%), and OSU (42%); things are better at the U. of Washington (23%) and Barnard and Texas A & M (both 24%). [See Table 2]

PROOF: 62% of women on the 10 campuses report that they have been victims of broader sexual harassment or personally know someone who has been. Broader sexual harassment includes remarks that insult because of gender and remarks that are sexually offensive, as well as the more serious forms of sexual harassment defined above. Things are worst at GWU (73%), U. of Nebraska (69%) and OSU (66%); they are better at Barnard (52%).

While I’m not entirely comfortable with the claims of “PROOF” due to the self-selecting nature and general methodology and language of the survey, [and for that matter I have questions about the use of promoting statistics that are going to be very vulnerable to criticism by those who would have you believe that there is no campus rape crisis] it is quite telling that this many women openly admitted to being harassed and assaulted. And it does ring true in terms of everything we do know about college sexual assault. If this gets the subject some more attention, then that’s a good thing.

[Don't forget to vote for SAFER so we can continue our work fighting campus sexual assault]
My Idea

Sexual assault office is forced to take a summer break

Posted on by

A concerned student at Harvard sent us a link to a worrying article—”Harvard Sexual Assault Office To Close for July.” Apparently, someone at Harvard thinks that closing down the sexual assault crisis and prevention program for a month is a good way to save money. It’s not clear who that someone is, as the director of University Health Services couldn’t say how much money it would save and admitted that the service is used during the summer, so you get the impression that he’s not in favor of the closing. The Dean of Students for Harvard Summer School is unhappy, the Director of the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response is unhappy, the students are unhappy—seems to me that someone should be standing up to explain why the closing is a good idea or Harvard should be making a different budget choice based on how many people are clearly not behind this one.

The argument, made halfheartedly by the Health Services Director, and probably with more vigor by budgeting administrative types, is that the gaps in the service won’t be that noticeable or that drastic because there aren’t that many people who use them over the summer anyway and they can be covered by other services like the student health clinic or Boston’s rape crisis center. There’s several responses to this, including:

  • While from a statistical/budget perspective, “we’ve never had a summer where no people use it at all,” might suggest an unnecessary resource since only a few people are being helped, from the perspective of those few people, they’ve experienced what was probably one of the worst days of their lives and they’d like a little help, please
  • Presumably, a central, Harvard-based office for all things sexual assault related was created for a reason (survivors shouldn’t be confused about where to go or have to tell their stories over and over to different offices to get help, Harvard would like to know about all assaults that happen to their students so they can adequately support survivors and determine what prevention is needed, etc.), so saying that all the scattered resources that existed before a central office was created still exist isn’t exactly comforting
  • The word “Prevention” is in the title of the office for a reason. These kind of offices do a lot of work besides crisis services; as the director notes,

    “There’s projects we’ve wanted to work on that won’t happen this summer—training programs to develop, communities we wanted to reach out to,” Rankin said, noting that she and her Office’s two other staff members also prepare for freshman orientation over the summer. “Those projects will have to be put on the backburner.”

  • Could somebody please remember and acknowledge that sexual assault is a violent crime, probably the most violent one many Harvard students will ever experience, and put in that perspective doesn’t it seem like there should be something less crucial to cut back on? (I started a rant about a number of things I would propose, but I thought it sounded a little rabid, so just trust me that there’s a lot of waste at major universities.)

    • Getting students to come forward to tell someone they have been assaulted is difficult, and it really only happens when the assaulted student feels like she or he can trust the person he or she is telling. And that’s the most important reason not to shut down, even for a month. It has, I’m sure, taken years of hard work to make sure that students at Harvard know to go to the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response if they need help and to establish enough student trust in the office that people do go. This closing raises confusion and creates distrust (if Harvard really cared about my safety, they wouldn’t choose this office to close…), and in doing so risks all the efforts of the office to create a culture of reporting and survivor support.

Maybe this should be two posts, but I really like to give the good news with the bad

Posted on by

First, an article on violent crime on UNC’s campus, an understandable concern given the recent shooting. In general, UNC’s campus is much safer than the surrounding city of Chapel Hill (much could be said about that, but I’m sticking to the point today), as is true of most campuses as compared to their communities or to the comparable age group nationwide. The one stark difference? Sexual assault.

There were 33 sexual assaults reported to UNC versus 49 reported to Chapel Hill police from 2004 through 2006. The total crime ratio, though, was 81 to 697. That means that 41% of the crimes reported on campus were sexual assaults while only 7% of crimes reported in the surrounding area were. If you divide the number of reports by the size of the student body (27,000) or the size of the Chapel Hill (49,000) the rate is almost exactly the same. The Department of Justice found the same to be true of campuses across the country in 2005 – sexual assault is the one crime that is as common among students as it is among non-students.
Continue reading →