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

[Gillian Greensite <>]

Dear Colleagues,

This is a complex, sensitive issue. I  don't want my previous comments to be misinterpreted. My response to Wendy Murphy's post is below.

1. I am not aware of any reasonable people ( myself included) arguing that non-stranger rape does not present a risk within a school community.

2. Wendy writes that " warning students about acquaintance rape is largely ineffective without naming names" and adds that she is not suggesting the release of names. On this we agree. She then suggests that, "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."

I tried to imagine a warning that could achieve this end and concluded that it probably couldn't. Either we put out educational materials to raise awareness of rape within social settings or we put out a warning about an actual case of non-stranger rape, but to collapse the two seems to me to be pretty unworkable in practice.I tried to imagine an alert that says some variation of, " Last week a student was raped (add alleged if that is preferable to you. Frankly I think that term does a great disservice to the survivor and should be reserved for the judicial/criminal justice realm). "The student alleges she was raped at a fraternity party. We want to alert all students of the possibility of rape at any social function." Followed by resources. I'm being brief, but I hope you get the gist.

I know what the response would be on my campus. An immediate buzz of speculation about which fraternity, which party, which perpetrator, which victim. Or, a heightened level of fear that now extends to social functions. Without specifics, it takes on a meta-level of meaning. With specifics it runs the risk of real disclosure.

These days, students are well aware of non-stranger rape even though they still see it as less serious and readily engage in victim-blaming, both of  which would not be countered by this sort of warning. In fact the "alleged" works in favor of blaming the victim. My heart sank the first time I heard a survivor refer to herself as "the alleged victim."

3. I don't see the Penn State situation as "roughly analogous" to the issuing of acquaintance rape warnings. Sandusky was ((apparently) observed raping a ten year-old. He should have at that time been arrested and removed immediately. The only warning appropriate would have been a carefully-worded appeal for anyone who knew, saw or experienced rape/sexual abuse by the afore-mentioned perpetrator to come forward. That they could expect compassionate, sensitive, confidential help and support.

One could imagine posting a similar alert for an instance of non-stranger campus rape but here we get back to the difficult issue of names and identities. I'm not suggesting that such warnings should never be issued. My main point was and is that the needs of the survivor should be central in such deliberations. 

4. Regarding the issue of anonymous warnings "probably putting some offenders on ice," my experience is that such offenders 

(and their friends) don't believe they have done anything wrong. I doubt they would recognize themselves in the alerts. And if the survivor has come forward with a complaint and the complaint generates an alert, why hasn't he already been arrested, put on notice or otherwise entered the school's judicial process? And if the survivor wants none of the above, then how do her needs jive with an alert which will assuredly generate a whole lot of outfall? It's not only the offender's name that could be disseminated. 

5. Regarding the issue of "taking sides."  Wendy writes that, "that happens anyway-even without issuing a warning-virtually every time a victim seeks redress." From my experience, once it reaches the level of formal complaint or alerts, or the rare court case, then the "taking sides" becomes vicious. Not that this should discourage any of the above and I am in no way suggesting "hiding the truth". I am only suggesting that if your central concern is the needs of the survivor, then you need to tread carefully and give thought to your actions. You don't need (or want) a policy that discourages reporting. You do need a policy that balances the need for reporting with the needs of those who will bear the brunt of your actions. This requires great care and skill. "Declining to issue  warnings on the grounds that it might provoke the campus into taking sides"  is not what I am suggesting. What I am suggesting is to be aware that such warnings may generate unintended results and to have in place a coordinated strategy to minimize the impact on the survivor.

In my 30 years as a resource for survivors I saw little if any real concern for their needs. Whether from those hungry for "justice" or from those outraged at the system, that always became the focus. In  my experience, every survivor who came forward regretted that decision because of the poor handling of the response. That should tell you something.

Regards,

Gillian

On Dec 5, 2011, at 6:36 AM, wrote:

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