Tag Archives: Reed College

Campus News Round-Up: SAAM Week One

Posted on by

Let’s Start with the good stuff this week:

How great is this? The USC Walkout for a Safer Campus. At least 100 USC students staged a demonstration around that disgusting frat email we were all alerted to a few weeks ago. Key to their protest was the lack of a substantive administrative response.

Hey Canadian students—I am loving SlutWalk.

If you were wondering whether or not schools were actually going to respond to the new OCR guidance, check out the speedy response from the University of Iowa. Other schools, take note!

And now, the week takes a turn for the frustrating:

Discussion and student unrest with the school’s policy continues at Reed. Reed’s policy is currently in our Campus Accountability Project Policies Database, but I would encourage Reed students to check out what is there and submit their own commentary. Just email CAP [at] safercampus [dot] org. You can even do it as part of Sexual Assault Activism Month!

Inside Higher Ed has an interesting feature this month on sexual harassment among in the philosophy department. The article well-worth a longer analysis, but the stand-out take-away for me is the lack of recourse students and faculty members are finding on campus. They are finding their own ways to respond, like shunning certain faculty members from conferences, but schools should be taking a more active response and not leaving it up to individuals on campus.

Amanda Hess continues to cover the drama unfolding at American, which continues to blow my mind. Check out this exchange between a student who had been a victim of assault and the school’s VP:

After publicly discussing her experience being sexually assaulted at American University, student Nicole Wisler confronted Hanson about why she refused to sign off on mandatory sexual assault trainings at the school. “I’ve had stops placed on my account for library fines, disciplinary things . . . and yes, it was uncomfortable, it was frustrating,” Wisler said. “I was also sexually assaulted. That was really uncomfortable.” Added Wisler: “Sacrificing the discomfort of a few students who might not complete it in the first amount of time versus the safety of 400 students seems ludicrous to me. And that’s what I can’t get past.”

“I know you know your equation doesn’t work,” Hanson replied. “But I mean, it’s an emotional thing. It gets applause. But if I sign that grant, sexual assault on this campus is not going to be ended.”

Yup, sexual assault: it’s emotional, it gets applause. Nice.

Finally, of all the terrible things I have read lately, this has got to be up there as one of the worst. At Berea College in Kentucky, last month a student filed a lawsuit against the school after being sexually assaulted by one of the school’s sociology professors. The professor had established a mentoring role of sorts, and apparently was acting as a “role model” for the student’s child. He invited the student to come study at his house, and then, according to the student, assaulted her.

The school has responded to the lawsuit with this LOVELY language: “All the injuries and damages …. were caused and brought about by her own negligence and/or intentional act which was a substantial factor in bringing about … injuries and damages.”

Yes, you got it. She was sexually assaulted because of her negligence. Because she went to the home of someone she trusted, she brought it all on herself. You’ve GOT to be kidding me.

Critic’s Pick: Consenting with Disabilities

Posted on by

As I promised last time, I’m going to delve a little deeper into the notion of consent this week by looking at what consent means for people with disabilities, including cognitive/developmental disabilities.

To start, what does it mean to have a disability? The Americans with Disabilities Act provides this definition:

With respect to an individual, the term “disability” means

(A)  a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual;

(B)  a record of such an impairment; or

(C)  being regarded as having such an impairment.

This definition does not distinguish between type, severity, or duration of the disability and is an inclusive definition that captures the roughly 30 million Americans with disabilities (as estimated by the World Health Organization in 2004). Here, a disability is a condition that limits someone’s ability to function in major life activities like communication, walking, etc., and which is likely to continue indefinitely. The first part of the definition focuses on the individual, while the following parts focus more on the reactions of others to a past or present impairment.

Let’s jump into this issue in the context of campus sexual assault policies by looking at a specific example: Marlboro College. This school boasts one of the highest enrollment rates of students with Asperger’s syndrome. When SAFER conducted a training there last fall, students expressed frustration with the explicit contradiction in the current language employed in the “effective consent” part of the policy:

‘Effective consent’ does not include consent that is given by a person who is younger than 16, mentally disabled, intoxicated or otherwise impaired, or unable to make a reasonable judgment concerning the nature or harmfulness of the activity.

Does this mean that people with cognitive/developmental disabilities just can’t give consent? Ever? Why are students with disabilities lumped together with teens younger than 16 or temporarily drunk people? What kind of message does this send? The wording suggests that people with disabilities are either considered children or not in a conscious state of mind, incapable of making decisions or forming preferences in order to negotiate sexual behavior. For the students who identify as having disabilities at Marlboro, this oversight means a policy that is sex-negative and ableist.

And it’s not just Marlboro! Searching these policies has led me to plenty of schools with policies that contain very similar wording including but not limited to College of the Holy Cross, Providence College, Trinity College, and Stanford University.

There are so many issues here to unpack on a much larger scale. Abby Wilkerson, in her article, “Disability, Sex Radicalism, and Political Agency” discusses the idea of cultural erotophobia, which is not just a general taboo against discussing sexuality and displaying sexual behavior, but a way to create social hierarchies based on gender, race, sexuality, class, age, and physical/mental ability. Erotophobia is alive and well in policies that brush over the critical concept of consent and leave it up to their students to arrive at their own definitions.

It seems as if people with disabilities are often treated as if “their sexualities exceed the bounds of respectability.” Whether this means being asexual or hypersexual, it’s as if their sexuality requires the monitoring and control of others. The notion of people with disabilities as sexual beings can be viewed as perverted. Wilkerson states:

The message to a young person marginalized based on sexual identity, disability, or both: your sexuality—a fundamental aspect of personhood—is inappropriate.

This idea is a part of disability oppression, and it infantilizes those with disabilities and strips them of their agency as sexually active adults.

A great example of this bias is mentioned in a 2009 article by Joyce Nishioka. A proposed bill in Massachusetts would have made sexual images of non-consenting seniors and adults with disabilities illegal. Yes, just like child pornography. Again, what message is this kind of bill sending? It implies that if you have a disability, you can’t give informed consent. It’s this whole attitude that people with disabilities should be controlled in a patronizing way “for their own good” that really gets me. All this does is highlight the discrimination that people with disabilities face every day and ultimately serves to undermine their self-esteem and personhood.

Disability activist/scholar Bethany Stevens has a really awesome blog called Crip Confessions, where she says:

…disparities in sexual health are often a result of the presence of oppressive social forces, such as discrimination and coercion. Therefore, disability oppression does not just work to make disabled people poor, subject to abuse, sterilized or killed; it also harms our overall sense of health.

I think there has to be a balance between protection (because there are obviously challenging issues here and since people with disabilities may be more vulnerable to assault) and sexual freedom. The sexual choices of individuals with disabilities must be respected and upheld as a part of their inherent agency and humanity.

With this framework in mind, we can really dig into the heart of the issue in campus sexual assault policies. Last time, I mentioned that Antioch College and Reed College had pretty comprehensive definitions of consent in their sexual assault policies. What I didn’t point out was each school’s mention of this particular issue. Let’s start with Antioch. One of their clarifying points in their definition of consent is:

All parties must have unimpaired judgment (examples that may cause impairment include but are not limited to alcohol, drugs, mental health conditions, physical health conditions).

A lot of schools (like Sheperd University) choose this approach, using fairly vague phrases like “unimpaired judgment” or “substantially impaired.” Reed goes further in depth, including both a provision for physically incapacitated persons as well those with cognitive/developmental disabilities.

Physically incapacitated persons are considered incapable of giving effective consent when they lack the ability to appreciate the fact that the situation is sexual, and/or cannot rationally and reasonably appreciate the nature and extent of that situation…Mentally disabled persons cannot give consent to sexual activity if they cannot appreciate the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual situation in which they find themselves. The mental disability of the party must be known or reasonably knowable to the non-disabled sexual partner, in order to hold them responsible for the violation. Therefore, when mentally disabled parties engage in sexual activity with each other, such knowledge may not be possible.

Many schools use similar language about “appreciating” the fact that a situation is sexual—Occidental College and Lewis and Clark College are two examples.

For an example of a school that does not patently reject the right of students with intellectual or cognitive disabilities to engage in sexual activity, let’s look at Westminster College’s definition of informed consent. Under the section that details when informed consent cannot be given, Westminster bullets:

Some mentally disabled persons cannot give effective consent if they are incapable of understanding the nature of the sexual situation in which they are placed.

The use of the word “some” opens up the possibility of other students with disabilities fully understanding the sexual nature of the acts they are consenting to. However, the use of the passive voice in the phrase “they are placed” again takes agency away from the disabled person. It suggests that instead of choosing sex, these subjects are “placed” (like objects) into a sexual situation. So close…yet so far. It is in the close reading of sexual assault policies that careful wording reveals its power.

For the countless number of schools who choose not to address this complicated issue at all, it’s very important to mention cognitive and developmental disabilities as Reed and Antioch and many other colleges do. Policies that neglect to even mention the complexities of consent when it includes a person who identifies as having a disability sets up a barrier for that person coming forward to report. Paying attention to this issue makes a policy more inclusive and widely applicable in different scenarios.

Unfortunately, there is no clear-cut answer, no ideal phrasing and no model policy for this issue. Perhaps the language of appreciating the sexual activity is not bad—it does not say that individuals with disabilities cannot give consent ever (wrong!). It grants these students a degree of protection while respecting their sexual agency.

So if your school is like the University of Toronto and already has a group to represent students with disabilities, get them involved! This is something campuses need to address fully, as literally millions of individuals with disabilities are enrolled in our nation’s colleges. The most important thing schools can do with respect to this issue is utilize inclusive language in their policies that does not prohibit disabled students from engaging in sexual activity.

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.