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

In any training on violence and/or alcohol - the key is not to fight about 
whether someone who gets drunk? deserves to feel some degree of 
responsibility.? this is a no-win battle and the debate wastes time - 

the important point is to note the difference between "risk-reduction" and 
blame - or, as i like to teach it - the reason to call something a 
"vulnerability" vs a "liability".

in a moral conversation - it might not matter much where you draw the line - 
but in rule-making, in law and in policies and procedures on campuses, it is 
critical to emphasize that an intoxicated person can NOT consent and the 
aggressor will be held liable, without mitigation for the immoral behavior of 
the victim.? this way, you can concede that the victim's drinking may have 
increased her risk of harm, but the school's role should be clear with 
potential offenders that if they take advantage, and gamble that a person 
isn't capable of consenting "knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily", the 
only person who will suffer sanctions is the one who harms another (self-harm 
via drinking is not the same as causing harm to another).

there's no need to figure out where to draw the line in a moral universe if 
the rules are clear that law is supposed to protect the weak and deter the 
cunning. (as opposed to enabling those who would exploit the weak)

even if not all these types of cases lead to expulsion and prosecution - the 
message should clearly indicate that the burden will be on the harmdoer - and 
that the presumption re the drunk victim will be that she was vulnerable - 
not liable -

a helpful analogy might be to consider a school's policy around alcohol use - 
one that draws the line at age 21.? a? student who is almost 21 and drinks 
responsibly a can make a good argument that he or she shouldn't be punished 
for violating the rule as compared to a barely 21 year-old who drinks to 
excess? and behaves irresponsibly.? the moral discussion is interesting - but 
the rules are black and white to guard the interests of the class (underage 
people who lack maturity, in general, to make safe decisions about alcohol).? 
this mindset should guide policy-making around alcohol and sexual violence 
with the focus on the purpose of laws and rules re rape - and how they, too, 
are designed to guard the interests of the class (those who lack capacity to 
make safe decisions about their bodily integrity and personal autonomy).

ill add one quirk here to make things more interesting - (i raise it with my 
students and when i teach this topic)

what if two students are both very drunk? - who is the harmdoer?

in theory - the answer is they are both exploiting each other and are both 
harmdoers.? but there are good reasons to fight past the urge to see it as a 
50-50 issue - and to take time to explore more of the circumstances to 
understand whether there is a primary responsible party.? (this is done in DV 
cases all the time when a cop shows up at a home and both the husband and 
wife are visibly injured - and each one says the other is the abuser)

the role of alcohol use for males is more intentional and designed, in many 
cases, to both incapacitate the victim and empower the offender - and if this 
can be determined, then treating the victim and offender alike simply because 
they were both drunk is poor policy.


wendy murphy