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

[Steven Pearlman <>]

In response to Ms Greensite:

 Please let me begin by saying that, as Ms. Greensite acknowledged, we spoke
personally about this issue and I appreciated that discussion.  While we saw
this matter differently, I felt as though her passion for this issue is
genuine, and I had thought that we agreed to disagree on good terms.
Therefore,
I am disheartened at what seems like her mischaracterization of our
programming.  Her comment that our programming "advises students who are
being harassed or aggressively approached to not tell the perpetrator
directly to leave them alone since that might make him angry" is incorrect.
Our programming has extensive discussion about the importance of
establishing clear communication and boundaries, of "saying what you mean
and meaning what you say," of potential differences and obstacles in male
vs. female communication styles, and of the layers of societal expectations
about sexuality that distort communication.  The eventual Verbal Judo
section to which she refers as "white lies" is prefaced by the following
language:

 "So even if you've taken every precaution, you can still find yourself in a
situation where the guy won't take 'no' for an answer…. The problem with
[rapists] is that 'no' doesn't mean 'no,' 'no' is just an obstacle.... Some
[rapists] know that 'no' means 'no,' and just don't care."  And we advise
that it is used in a case where a guy "doesn't respect 'no.'"

 Therefore, we take great care to establish the importance of establishing
clear boundaries.  In my conversation with Ms. Greensite, she asserted that
we should communicate and model powerful "no's" more definitively, and like
all feedback we receive, we will very seriously take her opinion into
consideration when re-scripting the next version of the program.  But we do
not feel as though she accurately represented our programming, nor do we
feel that the importance of establishing clear boundaries is underplayed in
our present version.

 To the second point, we simply might have a fundamental difference with Ms.
Greensite on the Verbal Judo issue.  While we are seriously considering
removing the three "-ates" from our program, we also believe that men and
women should know any and all tools that might help them reduce their risk
of being sexually assaulted.  Though perhaps an imperfect means of escape
(someone please find us the perfect one!), Verbal Judo—intentionally
misleading an assailant—seems far better than the alternative should it come
down to such a choice.  Not to make potential victims at least aware of the
idea of non-violent misdirection as a means of diffusing a rape situation 
seems
irresponsible to us.

 However, the purpose of this response really isn't to discuss the value of
Verbal Judo, which seems like a much deeper issue requiring a different kind
of forum.  What is more important to me is that while Ms. Greensite and I
seem to view this matter differently, I still respect her viewpoint.  I
don't think we all need to agree on every aspect of this issue in order for
us to consider ourselves allies in the fight against sexual assault.  I also
therefore find unfair her contention that our program is "dangerous" because
it includes an element with which Ms. Greensite does not agree.  The 75-90
minute program, of which Verbal Judo is a small fraction,  covers a wide
range of issues from rape myths to communication differences to sexism in
language to violence in the media to how to support rape survivors to rape
in the LGBT community, and much more.  It shows strong learning outcomes
from students who, on the whole, view the program quite favorably.
Anecdotally,
we have heard from two campus administrators that they attribute an increase
in reporting to our program (at least in part), though more scientific
research is certainly required in that regard.  Therefore,  it’s frustrating
to be told our program is "dangerous" because it does not conform to Ms.
Greensite's particular viewpoint, and it feels like the kind of adamant
stance that makes it more difficult for us as a community to work together
in addressing this issue.

 We’re always looking for ways to improve our programming, but we know we’ll
never create the one program that everyone in the field views as perfect. We
also know that if the perfect becomes the enemy of the good, reducing sexual
assaults on college campus will become more difficult that it already is.

 Thanks for hearing me out on this. We truly appreciate all comments about
our programming, including those with which we disagree.

Best regards,

Steven


Steven J. Pearlman, PhD

Content Director

nformd.net

StudentSuccess.org