Sexual Violence – one of America’s most prevalent form of crime on college campuses. Since the public and widely shocking case of People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner, in which a convicted rapist served only three months of his six-month imprisonment in a local jail, America has become more aware of sexual violence occurring on college campuses. These sexual violence occurrences on college campuses have become a major issue in today’s society. This paper will define and discuss sexual assault and sexual battery and incorporate major legal issues regarding the topic. The prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses and the claims of denial of due process will be discussed, after which the direct and indirect effects of sexual violence will be explained, including how sexual violence affects the author of this paper – a college student. This report will close with an explanation of Cedarville University’s policy regarding sexual violence, an analysis of scripture relating to sexual violence and one’s duty as a Christian in regard to the topic. [For the purposes of this paper, sexual violence will be used as the overarching term in reference to sexual assault and sexual battery.]
Prior to discussing the prevalence of sexual assault and sexual battery on college campuses, it is crucial to understand what sexual assault and sexual battery clearly are. To better understand the two terms, it is beneficial to recognize that they fall into two broader categories of assault and battery. Assault is defined as “intentionally putting another person in reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact. Intent to cause physical injury is not required, and physical injury does not need to result.” (LII). Assault is often in connection with battery which is defined as, “the intentional causation of harmful or offensive contact with another’s person without that person’s consent” (LII). Now one has a clearer understanding on what assault and battery are, this paper will lay out the definition for sexual assault and sexual battery with the requirements for each. The Office on Violence Against Women (OVAW), a sub department of the Department of Justice, defines sexual assault as “any type of sexual contact that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, i.e.” (DOJ). Florida defines sexual battery as “oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another.” (Sexual Offenders and Predators). For sexual assault to occur, sexual conduct must take place between two persons without both granting full consent to the conduct take place (Beaver). In order for sexual battery requirements to be met, the penetration and or handling of one’s genital area must occur (Mellins). Now that one clearly understands the definition and the basic requirements mandated for both sexual assault and battery, the prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses will be exposed.
One of the major legal issues regarding sexual violence on college campuses is prevalence. According to the National Center for Education Statistics nearly “11.5 million young women enrolled and are attending a college or university this fall”. 23.1% of women in college will experience rape or sexual assault through physical force, violence, or incapacitation (Cantor). Based on the amount of women attending college this year, over 2.5 million will experience some form of sexual assault, battery or even rape. Another article discussing the prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses came to the conclusion that a large majority of college students, women more than men, are sexually assaulted (Fedina et. al.). A different study showed that by senior year, nearly 36% of women experienced some form of sexual violence (Mellins). To put this percentage into perspective, nearly 700 [36% of the female enrollment at CU] female students at Cedarville University will have experienced some form of sexual assault by their senior year [This is to be used as analogy, not to be taken as a noted fact. There are a number of differing factors that must be measured in order to produce an accurate record.]. The numbers are astounding, sexual violence, especially those against women, is becoming an increasingly more common crime occurring in environments where young men and women are being taught to better the future, not deteriorate it through immoral conduct (Fedina).
Another major legal issue in regard to sexual violence occurring on college campuses is the failure to follow due process when handling sexual assault investigative procedures. “Since 2011, more than 300 students have filed complaints with the Office for Civil Rights, alleging mishandling of their sexual-assault allegations by their colleges (Johnson). One of the most controversial examples is Doe v. Columbia, in which at a university legal proceeding, a student was found guilty for “[directing] unreasonable pressure for sexual activity toward the [accuser] over a period of weeks, leaving her unable to consent on the night in question” (Johnson). As a result, the student was suspended for three academic semesters by the university. However, the student pressed countercharges for sex bias and showing favoritism towards the victim and violating his due process clause. The student claimed that his university’s Title IX employees had refused to hear the accused student’s story and the witnesses that the accused requested (Johnson). After an extended legal battle, the Second Circuit court ruled that the student was sexually discriminated against after the panel at Columbia University demonstrated favoritism towards the victim of the alleged assault (Johnson). Unfortunately, Doe v. Columbia is just another example of college campuses unfairly stripping those accused of sexual violence related accusations of their due process. In June 2017, Catherine Lhamon, chairwoman of the United States Commission on Civil Rights, rejoiced when the Fifth Circuit Court protected two students from being stripped of due process (Johnson). Michelle Anderson, a renowned legal scholar, quoted, “colleges and university do not always adjudicate allegations of sexual assault well. She also made claims that colleges had denied ‘accused students fairness in disciplinary adjudication’” (Johnson). The shocking rise of the controversy regarding the due process for students accused of sexual assault on colleges and universities continues to be a major legal issue.
Sexual assault and sexual battery is a crime which affects nearly all people, either indirectly or directly. Someone directly affected would be the person who was sexually violated, while one indirectly affected can be a family member of either the alleged assaulter or the victim, or even an additional student on campus. For the purposes of this paper, effects of sexual violence will be directed towards women – as women are three times as more likely to a victim of sexual violence during college than men (Mellins). Direct effects of sexual violence include post-traumatic stress disorder for various amounts of time following the attack, feelings of hopelessness, feelings of committing suicide, pregnancy, and even becoming dependent on drugs, including illegal substances such as marijuana or cocaine. Indirect effects can include, but are not limited to, problems within the academic environment, relationship issues with family or friends – leading to more arguments or feelings of misplaced trust (RAINN). These listed direct and indirect effects are just a mere amount of the negative repercussions that arise as a result of sexual violence occurring on college campuses. Now that one clearly understands sexual assault and sexual battery, including the requirements for each; the prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses; the rise of denial of due process in college/university handled investigations, this paper will focus on how sexual violence affects the author.
I have been fortunate to have not been a victim of any type of sexual assault, battery, or violence throughout my life. As a college student, I am shocked, horrified, and appalled that the national academic environment of which I am in has created such a hostile place for young women to further their education and pursue career aspirations. After reading academic journals and discovering the prevalence of sexual violence on college campuses realizing how many women are affected, I was frustrated because a college student and future businessperson, I want the best environment for my future consumers and colleagues. An environment in which sexual violence is occurring is only detrimental to this future. As a citizen, I felt ashamed of my judicial system for not instituting more rigorous punishments for those who are convicted of any type of sexual violence. Researching this topic brought up several cases where the punishment, from my perspective, seems completely too gracious. For example, as previously stated, People v. Turner, in which a collegiate swimmer was convicted of three counts of felonious sexual assault and received a mere six-month confinement in a county jail, but only served three months for good behavior. Another example of this controversy is Austin James Wilkerson, a college student who was found guilty of sexual assault and yet has to this day not stepped a foot inside a prison cell, merely a probation period is his consequence (Fox News). These two convicts are two people who were found guilty of sexual violence but yet were let off very easily by my nation’s judicial system.
Cedarville University establishes a very clear policy regarding sexual assault and misconduct that happens on this campus. According to the Cedarville University Annual Campus Security and Fire Safety Report, any member of the Cedarville University community who is alleged for conducting some form of sexual violence, such as sexual assault, rape, or other sexually related misconduct will immediately be subject to an investigation launched by the university (CU Campus Safety). During this process, both the accused and accuser have the right to have others present during the hearings, and both are to be notified ‘simultaneously’ and ‘in writing’ of all of the hearing information, including outcomes, changes, and final decisions. During the sexual assault investigation, there are four possible outcomes of the process: Founded, Unfounded, False Complaint, and a Negotiated Resolution (CU Board of Trustees). An unfounded decision occurs when the investigative committee cannot determine that a violation of Cedarville University’ Sexual Misconduct Policy occurred and thus cannot make a final decision. Yet, the accuser has is entitled to seek other legal counsel for proceedings. A founded decision results when the evidence produced causes the panel to believe that there was a violation of the policy and thus in accordance with the student handbook, disciplinary action will take place. If a founded decision is chosen by the overseeing committee, corrective actions, such as counseling, verbal or written reprimands, suspension, and/or dismissal are allowed. As a result of any decision, the consequences will be permanently posted on the student’s records (CU Board of Trustees). A false complaint decision results when the committee believes that the accuser intentionally made the complaint falsely for other motives, this decision has strict disciplinary actions as well, many of the possible consequences identical to the negative repercussions of a “founded” decision (CU Board of Trustees). The final possible outcome, Negotiated Resolution occurs when there is no decision possible and an outcome that best suits the accuser, the accused, and Cedarville University (CU Board of Trustees).
I do believe that Cedarville University’s policies regarding sexual assault, battery, and other forms of sexual misconduct closely aligns with the Biblical standards for such actions and also my responsibilities and duties as a Christian. First off, Cedarville University’s Student Handbook clearly outlines through scripture, that all sexually related conduct [for the purposes of this paper, sexual misconduct within the bounds of marriage will not be discussed] is to be contained within the parameters of marriage. This is evident in Genesis 1:28, “God blessed them [Adam and Eve] and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth…”, the policy is also supported through Genesis 2:24-25, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. Adam and his wife were both naked, and felt no shame”. It is evident through Cedarville’s policy that sexual activity, within the bounds of marriage is highly encouraged, as also evident through scripture! Yet, in terms of sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage, the Bible is very clear that it is immoral, unholy, and completely dishonoring towards God. This is evident through Ephesians 5:3, “But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.”; Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.”; 1 Corinthians 6:18, “Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body”; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5 “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God”; Colossians 3:5 “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and idolatry”. It is very clear that one of the negative reoccurring themes in the Bible is sexual immorality. Through God-breathed scripture, it is evident that God does not want his people to engage in any form of sexual immorality, including any forms of sexual violence, but rather, He has another plan: purity. This is evident through many verses, including 1 Timothy 4:12, “…but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity.”; 1 Timothy 5:22, “Keep yourselves pure.”; Matthew 5:8 “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.”. It is clear that God in his most Holy plan did not intend for mankind to be related to any form of sexual activity that is outside the bounds of marriage, rather his plan was and remains for His children to be pure.
My Christian duty first and foremost is to “love God with my entire heart, soul, and mind”, as per Matthew 22:37. The “second greatest commandment is to love my neighbor as myself”, as per Matthew 22:29. To truly love my neighbor, I must demonstrate a love that is referenced in 1 Corinthians 13:4-5, “Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not envy, is not boastful, is not conceited, does not act improperly.” It is evident that God intends for us to love one another out of genuine love that does not hurt and damage others and sexual violence clearly goes against His plan. Now that we have a clearer understanding of my Christian duties and how they are based off of God’s original plan for purity in all aspects, including sexual purity, it is clear that Cedarville University’s Policy completely is in agreement with the Bible.
As sexual violence continues to become more prevalent on college campuses, it is a necessity for courts to severely punish those found guilty of sexual violence and ensuring that those accused are not being stripped of their due process rights. Furthermore, it is more important for a genuine 1 Corinthians 13 type of love to be demonstrated by all and towards all.