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

Dear colleagues;

This issue raises interesting questions.  I only get the digest so I'm sorry this is coming later than most comments.

Clery only requires reporting in this "warning" style if the behavior presents a risk of harm to the school community - and reasonable people will argue that acquaintance rape does not present such a risk, but David Lisak's data is a powerful argument in the other direction. Mind you, warning students about predatory acquaintance rape is largely ineffective without naming names, and I'm not suggesting the release of names, but it could be more effective if students are taught that the purpose of the warning includes letting them know that people are at risk even in the context of on campus parties, etc.  In other words, I think it's a nice paradigm shift to get students acclimated to the idea that it's WORTH it to let them know that a seemingly nice guy at a frat party might be a danger to them.  The whole idea behind warnings is to increase vigilance, and why not increase vigilance around risk of acquaintance rape harm?  It can't hurt.

I can see schools feeling reluctant because of possible publicity and scandal etc - but I hope we're past giving those concerns too much weight.

The current Clery Act investigation of Penn State may well land in the school's favor because sexual abuse of a child doesn't pose a risk of harm to adult students, but in light of the intensity of news coverage and the outrageous nature of the behavior there, it's likely OCR will find against Penn State - which will militate ever more strongly in favor of issuing acquaintance rape warnings given that the issue is roughly analogous.

Finally, as one who believes shaming harm-doers is a form of prevention (not to mention highly underrated in this regard), it's worth considering that these warnings will probably put some offenders on ice, which is a good thing, out of fear that such warnings - even if they don't name names - COULD lead to dissemination of the offender's identity on campus.  I realize this is also a reason to worry about what could come from that in terms of groups of students taking sides, etc., but that happens anyway - even without issuing a warning - virtually every time a victim seeks redress.  The remedy for this problem is not to inhibit reporting but to ensure that schools take effective steps to prevent such retaliation.  Just imagine how this argument would sound if we were talking about Penn State.  "We chose not to issue a warning after a child was reportedly anally raped on campus out of fear that this would create pro-Sandusky vs anti-Sandusky forces to develop".  It's an excuse to hide the truth, masquerading as an argument in favor of protecting people from the stress of on-campus controversies.  The fact that people will take sides is not a legitimate reason to do nothing.  I am not saying we shouldn't care about victims and accused students suffering when these cases become known, but I am saying we should consider whether the proper response is to avoid issuing warnings when more appropriate responses are available (such as proactively confronting the risk of retaliation and contentious camps developing in the aftermath of a report of acquaintance rape.)  Any policy that discourages reporting is, in effect, a policy that causes/incentivizes the harm, and declining to issue warnings on the grounds that it might provoke the campus into taking sides IS such a policy, in my opinion.

Wendy Murphy

New England Law|Boston