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

["Staten, Abdul" <>]

John,

 

Thanks for passing this along! As a field, I think we need to continually assess our participation in “groupthink”, and how that has the ability to affect, or taint, our overall goal.

 

From my perspective, there are a couple of issues with how we’re addressing, and framing, consent:

 

1) By giving consent such legal definitions and verbiage, does it, in turn, make consent something the average person/student cannot understand? Thus rendering it convoluted and meaningless.

 

2) Is redefining consent going to make the difference we’re hoping? Mean, is consent the issue? Or is the issue with the processes, practices, and procedures surrounding resources for survivors, not holding offenders accountable, etc.? We can define, and then redefine a consent a million ways; but if our practices still do not allow our institutions to hold offenders accountable, has defining consent made any difference.

 

3) We talk of how giving students a clear definition of consent would make things easier for them…but let’s think about that, for a minute. Are we giving students practical tools, or just theory, when it comes to consent? We rely on the language that there is an initiator.  What about those instances where couples give a good morning or goodnight kiss; there’s no true initiator. What about instances where a person is offered sex, thus prompting a response. Who’s the initiator then? Though we’ve moved on from the men are perpetrators mantra, it seems our language gives these impressions. Plus, if consent is so important, why aren’t we defining it for adults and married couples? Why are we targeting college students, only? I don’t think adults are practicing consent the way we’re defining it for college students – getting consent at, every, single, turn. Are we asking our partners, can I take this off…can I touch you here in the way we are asking college students to do.

 

Defining consent in these structured, and limiting, terms makes it seem as if sexual assault only happens when there are parties and alcohol, between strangers who don’t know each other; relegating consent to simple matters of yes or no.

 

Just a thought and critical assessment.

 

Abdul

 

Training and Program Coordinator,

WGRAC,

Trinity College

860.297.4131

 

From: John Foubert [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2015 12:12 PM
Cc:
Subject: Re: affirmative consent and title ix

 

Regarding Title IX, my understanding, for what it is worth, is that resistance is not required for unwelcomeness. 

 

I share the editorial because I believe we need to consider and respect multiple points of view in our movement, and from time to time I think that groupthink gets the best of us.

 

John

***********************************************
John D. Foubert, Ph.D., LLC

405-338-8046 (c)
http://works.bepress.com/john_foubert/

 

On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Brett Sokolow <> wrote:

Or consider that Title IX may require affirmative consent as an equitable standard, since resistance is not equitable especially given the neurobiology of trauma.  Consider that legally resistance is the default standard to prove unwelcomeness, though it should not be.  Unwelcomeness has its limits when applied to AOD situations in practice, as well.  

Brett A. Sokolow, Esq.

President & CEO, The NCHERM Group, LLC. 

Executive Director, NABITA

Executive Director, ATIXA

610.993.0229

www.Ncherm.org

www.Nabita.org

www.Atixa.org

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 16, 2015, at 11:39 AM, John Foubert <> wrote:

Colleagues,

 

This perspective is one that I think is very important for us all to consider:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/10/15/title-ix-protects-women-affirmative-consent-doesnt/

 

John

***********************************************
John D. Foubert, Ph.D., LLC

405-338-8046 (c)
http://works.bepress.com/john_foubert/