Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Viento, Wanda L" <>]

Thank you Monica for speaking out. I've just read your email this morning, 
hence the later reply. I share your thoughts and feelings. I'm especially 
frustrated when dominant group members have "argued" on this listserv, 
attempting to one-up each other in the process and taking over my inbox. This 
listserv, in my mind, has been there to provide collaborative support and 
learning from one another; a place to dialogue and disagree, but not to carry 
out disrespectful  and antagonistic rants. I may roll my eyes in disbelief 
and frustration, but I feel I need to remain a part of this listserv as there 
are so few places to get the kind of support and collective knowledge as this 
one provides--on the whole.

Thanks again Monica.

Wanda

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wanda L.E. Viento, M.S.W., Ph.D.
Director, Women's Center
Minnesota State University, Mankato
218 Centennial Student Union
Mankato, MN 56001
507-389-6146

Everybody knows there is no fineness or accuracy of suppression; if you hold 
down one thing, you hold down the adjoining.  ~~  Saul Bellow




-----Original Message-----
From: 

 
[mailto:]
 On Behalf Of Monica Collins
Sent: Friday, June 19, 2009 11:26 AM
To: Foubert, John; 

Subject: concerned.

hello all...

i have been a member of this listserv for almost 2 years but this is the 
first time that i have felt compelled to respond publicly on an issue. its 
not that i haven’t been moved, or frustrated, or inspired, or irritated by 
previous topics...i certainly have. i have just never felt the need to 
respond to the entire group before.

the interesting thing about this response today is that im not entirely sure 
what i want to say.  i too am outraged at the way the university of the 
pacific case has been handled and the way that the victim has been treated. i 
have little interest in hearing the intricate details of the case because in 
my opinion we could easily replace the name/locations of this case with 
countless other universities in this country. The thing that I was most 
outraged about when the story first broke was how NOT surprised i was to hear 
the response that came from the university of the pacific. *sigh*

what i want to talk about today is what i perceive to be identity based 
privilege that has taken place on this listserv. i can’t count the number of 
times i have read a post from a person with dominant identities (white, 
straight, male) and felt so angry at their refusal to name or recognize how 
their approach is directly tied to their privilege. typically, when a post 
that contains male privilege goes out on the listserv a small number of us 
(who mostly identify as women) start our own chain of emails back-and-forth 
discussing how angry the post makes us feel. what does it say about a 
movement if marginalized members (people of color, queer folks, women, etc) 
need to take time and energy to process our marginalization within our own 
movement??

rather than only talking in the abstract, i will share a couple of 
examples... not long ago, a female member of another similarly themed 
listserv sent out a list of "tips" that are tied to sexual violence. things 
like, "When you tell me that I shouldn't drink too much alcohol because that 
increases my risk of being sexually assaulted, I hear that I was responsible 
for being raped because I was drunk.”. not long after her post, a male member 
of the listserv “took the liberty” of putting her words into a poem form 
because he felt they would be more effective that way. while im sure his 
intention was good…the impact was that it sent a message that women need men 
to make our work better.

another example comes from this listserv. not long ago a male member of this 
group sent out a message saying that he is now available to do a bystander 
intervention program for women. i sent an email directly to him sharing the 
fact that the gender based dynamics (a man telling women how to intervene in 
sexual assault) made me feel uncomfortable and asked if he could provide more 
context. hHe responded with more “expert” rhetoric and never once mentioned 
the gendered implication of how his sessions could be perceived.

i am choosing to leave names out of this email because i don’t think that 
naming people is nearly as important as naming behaviors. i also don’t claim 
to speak for all women (or other marginalized members of this anti-violence 
movement or listerv). this post is simply my attempt to name the fact that 
this university of the pacific incident, and in particular some of the 
responses offered by men on this listserv, has me feeling the same discomfort 
around gender privilege that I have felt numerous times over the last 2 years.

i would like to close with a message from me to men on this listserv… please 
think twice about the implications of showing up as “the expert”. please 
think twice about the gender dynamics that allow you to fire off a curt 
response to a woman (regardless of whether or not your points are valid or 
correct). please keep in mind that many of us who you attempt to “school” on 
the “facts” of sexual assault came to this work as a result of our own 
victimization…we don’t need you to tell us the “facts”. we need you to be 
allies NOT experts. please know that many of the self proclaimed allies in 
this movement are not trusted by the women fighting alongside you. please 
know that we warn each other about attending your sessions and 
workshops....that we recognize and name the ways in which your male privilege 
shows up in the work you do regardless of whether or not you choose to 
recognize it in yourselves. please keep in mind the history of
 gender privilege that allows you to show up the way you do in the 
anti-violence movement. please work to pay attention to…and name… the way you 
respond to women in this movement. saying things like “not surprisingly, she 
misses the point” is not only arrogant but also rooted in male privilege. 
trust me, there are PLENTY of times that women in this movement have read 
emails written by men, sat in prevention workshops facilitated by men, had 
one-on-one conversations with men…and left thinking, “not surprisingly, he 
misses the point”.

again, I am not attempting to defend anyone (especially not the university of 
the pacific) and im not trying to convict anyone (especially male allies who 
actively work on their male privilege). i am simply sharing my thoughts as a 
queer, white woman who would like to remain a member of this listserv but 
often considers dropping off. i might be alone in my feelings about this 
listserv but i dont believe that we can have a movement to end violence if we 
don’t pay attention to the identity based dynamics (race, gender, sexual 
orientation, ability, class, etc) that occur within our own listerv.

in solidarity…monica

Monica Collins
Instructor & Coordinator
Women's Programs and Ethnic Studies
Colorado State University
112 Student Services
970-491-6384
www.wps.colostate.edu/
www.3cents.org

"The truth is on the side of the oppressed" -MX





________________________________
From: "Foubert, John" 
<>
To: 
""
 
<>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 11:06:39 PM
Subject: Not surprisingly, she misses the point

SAPC Colleagues,

I wonder if we as a movement can look at the letter we received from 
Elizabeth Griego and identify every way in which she seems to be missing the 
point.  S. Daniel Carter got us off to a good start by raising the troubling 
issue that the University of the Pacific allowed three men they found 
responsible for sexual assault to remain on a campus with a woman they were 
found responsible for attacking.  That is an issue unto itself. There are 
many things I think we can all be deeply troubled by in her letter though.  
Here are a several:


1.      A letter was sent by 13 members of the sexual assault education 
movement, not just by one person.  This isn't about one person disagreeing 
with a VP's decision, it is about a broad representation of a movement 
raising objections to a VP who made decisions at the University of the 
Pacific that clearly seem to have revictimized a sexual assault survivor.

2.      VP Griego puts the focus on herself and her being "viciously" 
attacked.  How is sharing contents of a lawsuit available in the public 
record vicious?  Moreover, the main point is not what is being done to draw 
attention to her own actions, the main point is what happened to a first-year 
woman at the University of the Pacific, how three men treated her when she 
was intoxicated, what it appears the University knew about the dangers 
beforehand, and how VP Griego and others at the University treated her 
afterward.

3.      VP Greigo states that all professionals should be concerned that the 
University's account of the case should be receiving more attention.  Nothing 
is stopping them from sharing their accounts.  They have done so to the press 
and stated that they don't believe what happened was rape.  They later 
changed their mind and said that it was.  They can continue to share as many 
versions of their account of the case as they would like.

4.      VP Griego repeatedly uses the term "best practices" and talks about 
using them in this case.  Was VP Griego following some kind of "best 
practice" when - as is admitted in the University's response to the lawsuit - 
she told the survivor "that given the testimony of all witnesses 
questioned... ...there might be 'competing truths', as it appeared from third 
party witnesses and Respondents' testimony, that two of the Respondents 
believed they had Plaintiff's consent to engage in the conduct alleged."  
When this is stated to the survivor when the survivor calls the University 
asking for the verdict from the hearing about her sexual assault case and she 
hears this statement from VP Griego, what is the survivor to conclude?  Those 
in the sexual assault education field and the student affairs profession at 
large need only seconds to say that this response blames the victim, tells 
her she isn't believed, and is retraumatizing.  What possible
 helpful motive could VP Griego h
ave had to state this to the survivor?  Are these the words of someone who 
should be the leader of NASPA?

5.      VP Griego refers to inaccurate and fabricated statements being 
circulated in the media coverage and on the Internet.  Aside from later 
stating that the survivor is lying about a comment regarding the perpetrators 
being popular and not needing to be involved in a sexual assault, there is no 
statement of what is being fabricated.  What exactly does she believe is 
being fabricated?  And, of course, stating that a survivor is lying is an 
obvious rape myth.

6.      VP Griego states that her Pacific colleagues "can only be commended 
for their swift, thoughtful, and fair handling of all of the events 
surrounding this incident."  Does that statement apply to the public comments 
of University Spokesperson Richard Rojo who stated, as reported in the 
Stockton Record, that the University did not consider the case to be rape?  
He continued, "We would call it date rape," he said. Rojo said the university 
considers "outright rape" and date rape to be different, in that date rape 
does not involve "a rapist jumping out of bushes and attacking people 
randomly." He said, "These are people who knew each other. ... It's a social 
situation and unfortunately an all-too common problem at universities."

7.      On what basis does VP Griego justify the statement that the 
University of the Pacific has policies and practices that reflect the best 
standards in the country?

8.      Among the "facts" listed  in her letter and among the statements 
listed in the University's response to the lawsuit is reference to relevant 
witnesses.  These "relevant" witnesses included people who claimed that the 
survivor was "flirtatious" "promiscuous" "sleazy" and "very sexual" at a 
party where she became drunk prior to the events later in the evening where 
three men chose to sexually assault her.  Why does VP Griego and the 
University of the Pacific find these behaviors and these witnesses to be 
relevant?  I think all of us deserve a full explanation of each step of their 
logic in believing that witnesses who believe a woman was flirtatious at a 
party has something to do with men's choices to commit a violent act against 
her; and moreover why would the University of Pacific and VP Griego draw 
attention to this?

9.      How is the claim that Jane Doe's family was pleased with the 
University's handling of the case during part of the process relevant to 
their feelings now?  There are many people who have relationships with each 
other that go sour, business partnerships that fail, and sometimes people are 
treated well during part of a process and have reason to question another 
part of a process.

10.  VP Griego accuses a rape survivor of lying about a comment regarding the 
perpetrators not needing to commit sexual assault due to their popularity.  
We all have to ask ourselves, why would a rape survivor lie?  Is VP Griego's 
denial credible?

11.  Perhaps the most important point of all that VP Griego misses, or just 
as likely tries to divert everyone's attention from is that the intent of the 
letter sent out recently by 13 of us in the sexual assault education movement 
was to encourage people to read the lawsuit filed by Jane Doe and to read the 
response by the University of the Pacific.  We believe that is the best way 
to learn about the case.  VP Griego also attempts to make people believe that 
they can only understand this case if they have heard all of the testimony 
that the Judicial Review Board and the Appeals Committee at UOP heard.  That 
would be the case if this matter were only about what happened in those two 
panels.  This is not just about what happened with those two panels.  This is 
about what the University knew about a reported rape about 6 weeks beforehand 
with men alleged to be the same perpetrators.  This is about how VP Griego, 
and Richard Rojo, a young lady whom
 the survivor doesn't know wh
o assaulted her, and others have treated Jane Doe since the hearings ended.  
This is about social justice that is being denied and about trauma that no 
reasonable person can doubt is being exacerbated.  I am confident that a jury 
will see through this game of intellectual dodgeball that VP Griego is trying 
to play.  I am even more confident that all of you reading this letter can 
see through it as well.

Sincerely,

John D. Foubert, Ph.D.

**************************************
John D. Foubert, Ph.D., LLC
Associate Professor and Program Coordinator
College Student Development Master's Degree Program
Oklahoma State University
School of Educational Studies
314 Willa t
Stillwater, OK 74078
(405) 744-1480
(405) 744-7758 fax


_______________________________________________
SAPC mailing list

https://list.mail.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sapc
_______________________________________________
SAPC mailing list

https://list.mail.virginia.edu/mailman/listinfo/sapc