A quick Internet search on sexual assault might give you the idea that 2014 was, as one article put it, “The Year the Crusade Against ‘Rape Culture’ Stumbled.” News such as the misinformation in the Rolling Stone’s account of an alleged rape at the University of Virginia (UVA) or the re-examination of commonly espoused statistics on the prevalence of assault gave readers the impression that strong actions to counter sexual assault on college campuses should not be a priority. This is a mistake. Rape culture perpetuates sexual violence as the norm, excuses harassment and assault, and allows victim blaming to run rampant. It should not be tolerated. Fortunately, instead of acquiescing to the media pressure, many groups used the increased attention on the issue to advocate for change. Thus, while 2014 had its fair share of stumbles, it also saw progress on national, state, and campus levels.
The UVA incident sparked significant public outcry, and it is a worthwhile starting point for a discussion of current issues surrounding sexual assault. From the initial Rolling Stone report detailing the alleged gang rape of Jackie, a then-freshman at the University of Virginia, to the Washington Post’s exposure of discrepancies in her story, the particulars of the event have been scrutinized. However, as Leslie Steiner ’87 explains, the media frenzy over the exact facts sends “a twisted warning to all women: if you are raped—drugged or drunk or blindfolded or threatened—you better have every single detail memorized with impeccable accuracy.” Whether or not Jackie’s account was exactly accurate does not change the fact that women and men alike have experienced victimization. Attacking Jackie is akin to attacking anyone who has been forced to endure that experience.
Latching onto a single example of misreporting perpetuates a culture that inhibits the prevention and punishment of all instances of sexual assault. A Huffington Post report revealed that only 13 percent of college students found responsible for sexual assault were expelled. On a national scale, data from the Justice Department displays that only 3 percent of rapists spend even a single day in prison. Articles disparaging the prevalence of sexual assault perpetuates the rape culture that discourages reporting. The National College Women Sexual Victimization study found that victims reported less than 5 percent of sexual assault cases to the authorities. In many cases on college campuses, victims do not even report assaults to their schools’ administrations. The culture of silencing victims of sexual assault is a cyclical menace that belies the extent of the problem.
As a direct response to this challenge, groups nationwide began advocating for a mandate to anonymously survey college students in order to accurately gauge the prevalence of sexual assault and harassment on campuses. On a national level, Senators Claire McCaskill and Kirsten Gilibrand are working together on pending legislation that would create a national mandate for these climate surveys. In Massachusetts, State Senator Will Brownsberger worked with a group of Harvard students at the Institute of Politics to draft legislation to create a task force overseeing a climate survey for Massachusetts’ schools. In an interview with the HPR, Brownsberger explained, “We want students in our state to be safe and to feel safe. An anonymous college campus climate survey should give us a more accurate understanding of students’ experiences relative to sexual assault and our colleges’ responses.” With so many different organizations rushing to provide survey options, however, not all of them are equally viable. For example, sixteen professors who have been researching sexual assault sent a letter to the Association of American Universities (AAU) lobbying against the AAU’s survey, critiquing its methodology and citing problems of transparency, conflict with government measures, and a lack of public disclosure.
Another movement that swept the nation this past year was the initiative for affirmative consent. In September, California Governor Edmund Gerald Brown signed SB967, the “Yes Means Yes” law, which mandates that California colleges adopt a standard of “affirmative, conscious, and voluntary” consent or lose state funds. Opposition to such a policy has inevitably emerged, but critics often hyperbolize how it would affect consensual sexual practices. In a Washington Post article, George Mason Law Professor David Bernstein contended such a standard is ridiculous because it makes “almost every adult in the U.S. … a perpetrator of sexual assault.” However, this contention blatantly misconstrues the affirmative consent movement as well as how the laws operate in practice. These laws are not in place to provide rigid structure to sexual acts, but rather to change how students approach them. As Vox correspondent Amanda Taub wrote, the affirmative consent movement is “a response to a status quo that has proved to be an all-too-powerful tool for sexual predators, because it enables them to claim to see consent in everything except continuous, unequivocal rejection.” One of the crucial elements of California’s affirmative consent law is the explicit statement that a “lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent.” More states ought to craft laws codifying this sentiment, making it unambiguously intolerable to engage in sexual activity with someone who is too impaired to give meaningful consent.
Progress is required, however, not only at the state level, but also at the college level. At Harvard, student groups are advocating for affirmative consent provisions in our sexual assault policies. Our Harvard Can Do Better recommended that Harvard’s policy make it explicit that “the absence of a no is not a yes.” This revision would be made to the updated Harvard policy that the university released this past July. Although it did not adopt affirmative consent, Harvard’s updated policy did feature controversial changes regarding standards for adjudicating cases brought before the school. Instead of the previous standard of “clear and convincing” evidence to find the perpetrator guilty, the college now requires a “preponderance of the evidence.” Whereas the prior standard necessitated that the finding be substantially more likely true than not, the new bar is set at just more likely true than not. The switch to a less stringent standard was one of the major complaints articulated by 28 members of the faculty at Harvard Law School. Claiming inadequate protection of the rights of the accused and inappropriate expansion of the power, among other objections, these law school faculty members urged Harvard to withdraw their policy. But, Harvard retained its policies and continues to work with advocacy groups, the Office of Civil Rights, and the administration to successfully implement the new procedures.
Important stipulations of the new policy include a doubling of resources for the Office of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response (OSAPR) and the creation of the Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR). As OSAPR informed the HPR, their office “remains committed to realizing our vision of a world free from sexual violence by providing extensive outreach and educational efforts to our community in an attempt to create positive social and cultural change.” Furthermore, the ODR now serves as “a central administrative body of trained investigators reporting to the Title IX officer, who investigate sexual and gender-based harassment complaints against students” by making findings of fact, determining whether a violation occurred, and then providing this information to the relevant disciplinary board. Unfortunately, Harvard has only hired three ODR employees, which is an inadequate staff to successfully uphold the office’s mandate.
Thus, while Harvard seems to be moving in the right direction, it is clear there is still significant work to be done. As Jessica Fournier of Our Harvard Can Do Better urged, “Administrators must be responsive to community demands, and truly listen to survivors, and incorporate their needs into policy change and initiative.” Adopting this outlook on the upcoming process will help align the reality of Harvard’s policies with the standards that will ensure the safety and security of the students.
In 2014, controversies over specific instances of sexual assault posed challenges to the critical work being done to combat the prevalence sexual assault and rape culture on college campuses. However, it would be incorrect to label the year a step backwards because of these events. Crucial movements emerged over the past year, from affirmative consent to climate surveys to Harvard’s own new policy, that are fundamentally improving the way we confront the issue of sexual assault. We have a responsibility to build on those steps and continue pushing for progress on this crucial issue.
Image Credit: Flickr Commons
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.