PasSexual violence has been a prevalent issue amongst post-secondary institutions in Canada and the United States over the past thirty years. In this paper, I will explore 1) ways in which sexual violence on campus has been addressed in Canada, and the United States, 2) how post-secondary institutions respond to sexual violence, and 3) how external organizations are responding to the problem. Often issues of sexual violence on campuses are treated as one-off incidences that gain much media attention, and as a result there are feelings of shock, and urgent calls toof action. For example, when the Toronto Star investigative report was released in 2014 on how only nine post secondary institutions in Canada had sexual assault policies, the Council of Universities as well as Colleges Ontario within days had several meetings regarding the issue within days, and came out with ways in which they would be combatting the issue (Toronto Star 2014). However, research findings clearly indicate that these are not isolated incidents, and are actually everyday occurrences for students in Canada and the United States (Tremblay et al. 2009). In the report by the AAU Campus Climate Survey on Sexual Assault, it was found that 5.4% of undergraduate men were at risk for some form of sexual assault on a campus. In the Resource Guide created by the Ontario government in developing a Response to Sexual Violence, it was found that fifteen to twenty-five percent of women would experience some form of sexual assault during their academic year (Ontario Women’s Directorate 2013). This statistic does not differ from the Not Alone report produced by the White House that indicated that one in five female students would experience a sexual assault in their academic years (Office of the Vice President 2014). It is, however, important to note that these statistics do not capture the actual frequency of sexual assaults on campuses as it is a crime that is underestimated and under reported (Time Magazine 2014), however these statistics show that this is predominantly an occurrence that happens to women on campus. The culture of victim blaming and lack of reporting can be analyzed through system justification theory as well as feminist standpoint theory. In researching various modes of responses, it is important to determine whether these calls to actions are placing women and survivors at the center of their model, and are building programs and legislation that are allowing for survivors to access the help that they need.
STRUCTURE OF PAPER
This paper will be divided into three sections. The first part of the paper will be discussing the history of sexual violence on campus, the justification of the problem and the theories, which apply to sexual violence on campus. The second section will examine how government, institutions and external organizations are addressing the problem of sexual violence on campus. The third section will focus on recommendations for what more can be done to combat sexual violence on campus.
HISTORY & THEORY
Sexual assaults are not isolated incidents, but symptomatic of patriarchal values that have established the post-secondary institutions that women attend today. Women that pursue higher learning encounter discrimination and violence from the patriarchal institutions that they attend, and this environment has been labeled the “chilly climate” (Osborne 1995, 637). The misogynistic environment has shaped various women’s experiences such as sexual harassment, androcentric curriculum, misogynistic rituals and threats of sexual and physical violence (Osborne 1995). These incidents of sexual violence have continued from our history into our present, and not much change has occurred. For example,
“in 1987, female patrons of Saint Mary’s University campus pub were subjected to the University’s football team’s mock awards ceremony. One football player presented awards to his team-mates for fucking the fattest girl’,’fucking the ugliest girl’, ’having the biggest dick’ and to the player who ’got a retarded girl to give him a blow job’” (Osborne, 1995, 646).
Now, 26 years later the same university has been placed under scrutiny for a frosh week chant that promoted non-consensual sex with underage girls. The orientation student leaders lead students in chanting: “SMU boys we like them YOUNG! Y is for your sister. O is for oh so tight. U is for underage. N is for no consent. G is for grab that ass” (Canadian Press 2013). It is important to note that, this is one of many incidents of sexist orientation rituals that have occurred, and are still occurring on many university and college campuses. At Dalhousie University in 2015, in Nova Scotia, the dentistry faculty was found to permit a culture of sexism, misogyny, homophobia and racism after a controversial Facebook group was found that had sexist and sexually violent comments towards female students in the program (CBC News 2015). Although the institution did not stand in isolation for this type of culture existing on campus, this report found that there was a need to have more protection for whistleblowers to not face retaliation, and called for systemic change through education and research (CBC News 2015). These examples show that more effective work needs to go into combatting sexual violence. Otherwise, these incidences incidents will continue to occur. As a result, it is important to analyze all levels of responses to sexual violence in order to combat this system of patriarchy that allows for this sexual violence to perpetuate.
THEORETICAL ORIENTATION
When understanding sexual violence, and why it occurs on campus, it is important to reflect on theories that acknowledge the history of violence and the factors that allow these instances to occur. In order to explain sexual violence on campus, I will be using system justification theory, as well as feminist standpoint theory. In using system justification theory, I hope to develop a better understanding of how sexual violence rape myths are perpetuated on campus, and how rape culture continues to be manifested within campus communities. Through feminist standpoint theory, I hope to reflect on the existence and history of patriarchy and how not taking this theory into account to combat sexual violence on campus will result in its persistence.
The reasons why sexual assaults continue to occur at post-secondary institutions in both the United States and Canada can be tied to and explained by system justifications theory. System justification theory argues that those that are disadvantage by the social system will also take pride and view the system as operating fairly because this way rather than believing that the system does n’ot work for them, or that they are an issue they can feel as if they are part of the system and belong (Joseph, et al. 2013). Research written from Sexual Assault on Campus, the problem and solution written in 1993, has many solutions to campus sexual assault that are still being asked of in the present. Although sexual assault on campus has existed for decades, it has become accepted as something that is an unavoidable aspect of social order (Joseph et al. 2013).Years of research on injustice shows how masses of people will oblige to societal norms, whether they have a positive or negative effect on their own lives (Joseph et al. 2013). Usually the ones thatThose who benefits the most from these are those have a history of being in charge of social systems, however those who are most disadvantaged also take pride in the social systems that exist (Joseph et al. 2013). This is due to not wanting to feel like they are hopeless in a system that was not established for them, and wanting to feel part of the status quo. Not only do men that uphold rape myth’s, but also women do so as well because then they can place the blame of an act of sexual violence on an individual, rather than challenging the system where there is a higher rate of women to become victims of sexual violence.
An example of how system justification theory applies to sexual violence is the public’s general acceptance of rape myths. Rape myths — such as the idea that only strangers commit rape–become accepted by survivors as fair and legitimate and can lead to failure to report acquaintance rapes in fear of not being believed or not recognizing the act as rape (Joseph et al 2013). Although, the statistics can easily prove show that acquaintance based rapes occur are far more likely than stranger based rapes, these are moral beliefs that are set by the public opinion and thus result in survivors not reporting to the police. Another phenomenon that can occur through system justification theory is victim blaming of survivors- that if they had somehow acted in a certain way the incident may not have happened. For example, saying that a woman shouldn’t have been out at a certain point at night or questioning what the woman was wearing act to reaffirm women’s beliefs that they are to blame for the incident of sexual violence that happens to them. As a result, fewer women are reporting these incidences, which results in perpetrators being able to get away with these crimes.
Another prime example of the way in which system justification theory also impacts survivors of sexual violence, is through the perfect victim model. Many universities and colleges instruct women to act in a certain way once they have experienced an assault, however in the study conducted by Lauren Germain (2016), many survivors did the complete opposite of what the university expected them to do and as a result survivors did not report the incident in fear of being blamed. The perfect victim scenario envisioned a victim that would put aside her needs for self-care and follow the instructions of the university step by step, which was not the case for the women in the study. The perfect victim scenario also impacted many of the boards that were responsible for making decisions on sexual violence violations at the institution. In many cases, the perfect victim is defined by how others perceive her. She was expected to give up her agency and any form of justice she thought she needed into the hands of the institution (for example the University adjudication board). In doing so her power becomes relative to how she is perceived and what others believe is just (Germain 2016). If the perfect victim reports her case, she has the ability to decide whether or not to press charges, however if she decides to press charges someone else takes on the case, while if she chooses not to she has a guilty conscience that other students remain at risk (Germain 2016). As a result, if she does end up going forward with the charges, her body becomes an investigative site where she is questioned about her actions, her attire, how she said no and if there is any evidence that this actually happened. For example, in the high profile Jian Ghomeshi trial on sexual assault in 2016, the defense lawyer Marie Henein brought forth emails of one of the accusers sending friendly emails and bikini photos to Ghomeshi after the incident, and of the other accuser sending emails of wanting to have sex with him again. All of these pieces of evidence were used to find Jian Ghomeshi not guilty on all charges (National Post 2016). As seen the in Ghomeshi case, when these proceedings occur, she the accuser is not only a witness, but also put on trial, as other witnesses begin to share experiences of her behavior and their perceptions of her. As a result, when a perfect victim comes forward she is expected to give up power, and as a result become a part of a system where rape myths are widely accepted. The only way to combat this public opinion is through educating people of the actual facts in regards to sexual violence, and engaging in discussions about how popular beliefs are perpetuating these systems that allow sexual assaults to continue. This occurred in the Although this was recognized by the judge in the Jian Ghomeshi case, as evidenced by the first part of his statement: as the judge wrote “Courts must guard against applying false stereotypes concerning the expected conduct of complainants. I have a firm understanding that the reasonableness of reactive human behaviour in the dynamics of a relationship can be variable and unpredictable. However, the twists and turns of the complainants’ evidence in this trial, illustrate the need to be vigilant in avoiding the equally dangerous false assumption that sexual assault complainants are always truthful” (CBC News 2016) . The latter part of tThis statement made by the judge sets a precedent of survivors of sexual violence shows how survivors continue to be put on trials for their actions when it comes to decisions regarding sexual violence cases. This does not benefit the public, as this high profile case reinstates reinforces theat idea that sexual violence survivors must follow the perfect victim model and if not they will be vilified for their actions.
When addressing the issue of sexual assault it is also important to take into consideration the survivors’ input on the incident. Osborne (1995) found that when incidents of violence against women are reported in the media, they usually fail to accurately represent what has occurred and follow up stories are rarely ever done nor do they ask the women involved to respond about the incidents. It is only when students go to the media, as seen in The Hunting Ground (2016) documentary, that schools begin to react in order to avoid law suits, pursue human rights cases or Title XI cases.
This is fairly problematic because sexual assault is a gender-based issue with over 93 percent of victims being women, yet perspectives of women with different social locations are often left out of the discourse on this issue (Office of the Vice President 2014). This is why it is also important to incorporate feminist standpoint theory. Dorothy Smith (1990) argues that dominant knowledge that exists has been created through male bias. As a result, it is important to acknowledge women’s lived experiences, which can provide solutions to challenging dominant and oppressive social practices. Whether women have experienced sexism or not, their experiences can provide insight about their interactions with the gendered world. Therefore, it is important when focusing on combating sexual violence on campuses, that women and survivors are given the opportunity to share their experiences of dealing with different forms of sexual violence, in order to create ways of promoting awareness. This also should not only come from a gendered perspective, but also include other social locations that survivors identify with. Since most post-secondary institutions were created for men and continue to be run by men, patriarchy exists throughout different institutionalized policies and practices, therefore it is important to have women’s experiences at the center of any policy or procedure related to sexual violence (Osborne 1995). When reviewing how governments, post-secondary institutions and external organizations respond to sexual violence it is important to consider whether it is being done through a feminist lens of placing women’s experiences in the center of the discussion.
HARMS OF SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Sexual violence impacts not only the community, but the survivor for a lifetime. Sexual assault is a public health issue as well as a public safety problem with severe repercussions if not addressed. Being a survivor of sexual assault can cause immediate as well as long term physical and mental health consequences (Krebs et al. 2007) In addition to facing trauma, survivors can also face the risk of STD’s and pregnancy (National Institute of Justice 2016). Long term mental health effects can include anything from depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder (National Institute of Justice 2016). Four out of five rape victims subsequently suffer from chronic physical or psychological conditions (Strategies for the Treatment and Prevention of Sexual Assault 1995), and rape victims are 13 times more likely to attempt suicide than noncrime victims and six times more likely than victims of other crimes (Rape in America: A Report to the Nation 1992). Harms can also include social impacts which beings withsuch as strained relationships with family and friends, lower emotional support, lower likelihood of marriage and isolation (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention 2016). Sexual violence also is associated with several health risk behaviours, which can increase a person’s vulnerability to be victimized again in the future. For example, many survivors may engage in high-risk sexual behavior, using harmful substances, unhealthy diet-related behaviours, criminal behaviour and failure to engage in healthy behaviours (Centre for Disease Control and Prevention 2016). In order to be able to address these issues after an act of sexual violence, there must be proper legislation and protocols in place on campuses in order to support and provide resources to survivors of sexual violence.
LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ASSAULT ON CAMPUS, IN THE UNITED STATES
The United States government has been proactive in responding to sexual violence through laws for decades with legislation dating back to the 1980s. A vital case when discussing sexual assault on campus, which has resulted in legislative change, is that of Jeanne Cleary. Jeanne was tortured, raped, sodomized and murdered in her residence hall. The tragedy of Jeanne’s 1986 assault and murder resulted in national attention being given to sexual assault on campus, and she became a symbol for the government to reform campus rape laws (Germain 2016). Her story became a national horror that was used as a successful organizing tool for making people identify with someone else and mobilize with their anger. As a result of this incident, the American public began calling for change with loads of media attention, academic articles, and demonstrations occurring on campuses by family and friends.
The earliest relevant federal legislation written federally that was written about sexual assault leads back to 1874, and was called the Buckley amendment, which dealt with student privacy. The formal name for the legislation was the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. This amendment set forth five provisions which required institutions of higher education to treat students fair and equitably, to notify people that their educational records and data is used properly, to allow people to know what is being recorded about them, to allow people to amend any misinformation and to assure people that those that held that data would take appropriate action to ensure that there was not any misuse of data (Brohmer & Parrot 1993). The issue, however, that existed due to this amendment was that although it was written in regards to academic records, many schools began to view this as a legislation that would bar them from releasing any information about decisions on cases of sexual violence on campus. As a result, many of the sexual assault complainants were never notified of their institution’s decision or penalty that was imposed on the perpetrators. This issue was taken up in court by survivors of sexual violence, where the judge ruled that the Buckley Amendment had no precedent on sexual violence cases, and solely dealt with academic records. In fear of having legal action taken against them, institutions would have Deans or Resident Advisors report the incident so that it would be considered an academic issue, rather than an issue of safety (Brohmer & Parrot 1993). This ambiguity was later clarified, with laws that were created, after institutions continued with this practice.
The first legislation ever created specifically related to sexual assault violence dates back to 1987 with the Student Right to Know and Campus Security Act. In its first draft the Act required all post-secondary institutions to report institutional level statistics on campus crime, FBI Crime Index Offences, and mandated the provision of reports on crime statistics to students, faculty and staff, and the availability of such reports to potential incoming students (Germain 2016). It also encouraged but did not mandate the creation and implementation of policies to address sexual assault. Two years later, the act was amended to include clauses on the need for campuses to create sexual assault policies and what they would include. The Act was amended three times, and was named in honour of Jeanne Ann Cleary in 1988. In 1998, Bill Clinton signed into the law the expansion of the Act, which required increased institutional responsibility to include parts of off campus and mandated security and safety offices to have safety logs that were recorded daily (Germain 2016). The Ramstad Amendment to the Higher Education Act was also put forward, which required post secondary institutions to distribute a campus sexual assault policy. The policy was required to go into detail regarding the programs the campus had available to prevent sexual violence from occurring, as well as outlining procedures to be followed once a sexual assault had occurred (Brohmer & Parrot 1993). It also required that the campus community be notified of sanctions imposed if someone is found guilty of sexual assault or violence in a campus proceeding. It mandated for institutions to be thorough when discussing different options with students including counseling, academic accommodations, and services that could be accessed outside of campus.