Can you believe it? In 2015, we are still seeing racism on college campuses. One would assume that students who attend college come from the more educated middle or upper classes and; therefore, are more open to people of other races.
That certainly is not the case at the University of Oklahoma, where a racist video surfaced last week. Members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity can be seen singing a song to the tune of “If You’re Happy and You Know It”, vowing never to have black students in their fraternity, using racial slurs like the “N” word, and talk about lynching them from a tree (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 11, 2015). This is absolutely despicable.
University of Oklahoma David Boren responded quickly by suspending the fraternity and expelled two students who lead the song once they were identified in the video. He called the students “disgraceful” and said he hoped the students would leave town, offering to buy them a one way ticket out of town. It should be noted that the national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity also suspended the chapter at Oklahoma. I applaud President Boren for his fast and decisive action. In my opinion, he did the right thing.
However, President Boren’s decisions are now being called into question. Did he act too quickly without having all of the facts? Is the fraternity students’ song considered free speech? Did he deny the students who were expelled their due process rights? Legal experts are now suggesting that Boren went too far and will open the university to legal challenges.
What is typical in situations like this, once the attorneys have been consulted, is for the president to issue a very carefully worded and legalistic statement about the inappropriateness of the incident in question, state that an investigation will ensue, how students involved will be given their due process rights, and if the evidence suggests campus rules have been violated, the appropriate actions will be taken based on the student code of conduct and the student handbook, the rules and regulations for students.
Too often, our decisions as university presidents are greatly influenced by university attorneys because we don’t want to subject the university to more lawsuits. Case in point is the recent incident at the Pennsylvania State University where members of the Kappa Delta Rho fraternity posted pictures of nude and unconscious female students on a secret Facebook where only members of the fraternity had access. The Facebook page also included pictures of drug sales and hazing. In response, Penn State University President Eric Barron stated that “an investigation was underway, the university has its own judicial process for student conduct which will be followed, we want to make sure we do this right, we are committed to due process, that the right people are brought to justice, and anybody who is responsible for that type of truly offensive behavior is punished” (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/penn-state-vows-punish-those-behind-kappa-delta-rho-page-n326031). It’s clearly, a very measured response that was most likely influenced by legal counsel.
It should be noted that the female students in the pictures did not consent to having their pictures taken much less posted on a Facebook page. Officials at both Penn State and the fraternity headquarters have suspended the Kappa Delta Rho chapter.
Are Oklahoma and Penn State isolated incidences? Clearly not. The national office of Sigma Alpha Epsilon is investigating two of its other chapters for alleged displays of racism, at Louisiana Tech University and the University of Texas at Austin. The University of Washington is also investigating claims that members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity shouted racist comments at black students participating in a march protesting violence against blacks last month as they passed the fraternity’s house. The University of Maryland at College Park is investigating a racist and sexist email allegedly sent in January of 2014 by a member of the Kappa Sigma fraternity. However, it recently came to light when it was published online (Chronicle of Higher Education, March 13, 2015).
Colleges and universities across the nation should use these situations as a way to discuss racism in our country. Faculty on campuses across America should use what happened at the University of Oklahoma or other universities to teach students to explore their beliefs and be more tolerant of other races different from their own. These are typically called “teach-ins” and can be very useful to examine subjects that can be very controversial. After all, isn’t that what universities are all about? Educating and providing young men and women with information that can help them be more enlightened and become more informed members of our society, should be the mission of all universities.
Racism on college campuses will not end after the University of Oklahoma or Pennsylvania State University incidents. However, we must send the clear message that racism will not be tolerated on our college campuses. We must continue to issue appropriate punishment for these despicable acts. This won’t eliminate racism in American, but it will certainly send the message that racism has no place in higher education.
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label civil rights. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 25, 2015
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Sexual Assaults on College Campuses
Two months ago I wrote about sexual assaults on college campuses. I provided some startling statistics such as 1 in 4 women (25%) will be victim of a sexual assault on college campuses during their academic career. This is totally unacceptable.
This week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation explicitly requiring colleges and universities that receive state funds to more clearly define consent in students’ sexual encounters. The new law ushered in the concept of “yes means yes” rather than “no means no,” which has been the norm. What this means is that students must now seek affirmative consent from their partners before a sexual encounter and maintain the affirmative consent during the activity. The law states that consent can be revoked at any time and the absence of “no” is insufficient to give permission to have sex.
One of the important provisions of the California law is that it requires colleges and universities to create comprehensive training and outreach programs for everyone on campus. California’s colleges and universities are responding quickly. The University of California System has developed an on-line training and information module and requires all students to complete the module before they can register for courses. Furthermore, the University of California and the California State University systems have already changed and adopted policies that are consistent with the new law.
One of the key criticisms college administrators face is that their policies against sexual assaults do not clearly define consent. Federal and state legislators and victims’ rights activists have been applying increasing pressure on colleges and universities to strengthen their sexual assault policies. At the core of the criticism is how consent is defined or in some cases not clearly defined.
The crucial part of “yes means yes” is that it shifts the burden of proof from the victim of a sexual assault to the assaulter. Instead of the victim having to prove that she said “no” to sexual activity, the accuser has to prove that the victim clearly consented to the sexual activity. Too often our judicial system puts the blame on the victim rather than on the perpetrator. You often hear comments like, “No wonder she was raped, look at how she was dressed.” We all understand that one of the basic rights in our legal system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. However, in cases of sexual assault, it is time we require the perpetrator to prove that affirmative consent was given to engage in a sexual activity. We need to stop blaming the victim.
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, began tracking sexual assaults complaints on college campuses. Since then, the number of complaints has tripled from 11 to 33. And 33 complaints are just through the first half of 2014. What is more disconcerting, according to the Office of Civil Rights, is that about three quarters of the sexual assault complaints were dismissed or administratively closed. The Office of Civil Rights categorizes sexual assaults as Title IX complaints. Sexual assaults now represent nearly 30% of all Title IX complaints. This dramatic raise is what has legislators and the public alarmed. One sexual assault on campus is too many, but 33 are utterly deplorable.
A few colleges have already implemented affirmative consent as part of their sexual assault policies. One such school is Grinnell College. Grinnell’s policy states that “consent to engage in sexual activity must exist from the beginning to the end of each instance of sexual activity. Consent is demonstrated through mutually understandable words and/or clear, unambiguous actions that indicate a willingness to engage freely in sexual activity. Consent to one form of sexual activity does not constitute consent to engage in all forms of sexual activity." Grinnell’s policy is clearly stated and sets the bar high. All colleges and universities should emulate Grinnell’s policy on sexual assaults, so that consent is clearly defined.
Congratulations to Grinnell College and the other schools who have taken a proactive approach to clearly define consent. More governors and state legislators should follow the example that California Governor Jerry Brown has established and send the strong message that sexual assaults will not be tolerated on college campuses. College and university administrators should more clearly define their sexual assault policies to include affirmative consent. This would go a long way to ensuring that our daughters and sons are safe on college campuses.
This week, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation explicitly requiring colleges and universities that receive state funds to more clearly define consent in students’ sexual encounters. The new law ushered in the concept of “yes means yes” rather than “no means no,” which has been the norm. What this means is that students must now seek affirmative consent from their partners before a sexual encounter and maintain the affirmative consent during the activity. The law states that consent can be revoked at any time and the absence of “no” is insufficient to give permission to have sex.
One of the important provisions of the California law is that it requires colleges and universities to create comprehensive training and outreach programs for everyone on campus. California’s colleges and universities are responding quickly. The University of California System has developed an on-line training and information module and requires all students to complete the module before they can register for courses. Furthermore, the University of California and the California State University systems have already changed and adopted policies that are consistent with the new law.
One of the key criticisms college administrators face is that their policies against sexual assaults do not clearly define consent. Federal and state legislators and victims’ rights activists have been applying increasing pressure on colleges and universities to strengthen their sexual assault policies. At the core of the criticism is how consent is defined or in some cases not clearly defined.
The crucial part of “yes means yes” is that it shifts the burden of proof from the victim of a sexual assault to the assaulter. Instead of the victim having to prove that she said “no” to sexual activity, the accuser has to prove that the victim clearly consented to the sexual activity. Too often our judicial system puts the blame on the victim rather than on the perpetrator. You often hear comments like, “No wonder she was raped, look at how she was dressed.” We all understand that one of the basic rights in our legal system is that you are innocent until proven guilty. However, in cases of sexual assault, it is time we require the perpetrator to prove that affirmative consent was given to engage in a sexual activity. We need to stop blaming the victim.
In 2009, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, began tracking sexual assaults complaints on college campuses. Since then, the number of complaints has tripled from 11 to 33. And 33 complaints are just through the first half of 2014. What is more disconcerting, according to the Office of Civil Rights, is that about three quarters of the sexual assault complaints were dismissed or administratively closed. The Office of Civil Rights categorizes sexual assaults as Title IX complaints. Sexual assaults now represent nearly 30% of all Title IX complaints. This dramatic raise is what has legislators and the public alarmed. One sexual assault on campus is too many, but 33 are utterly deplorable.
A few colleges have already implemented affirmative consent as part of their sexual assault policies. One such school is Grinnell College. Grinnell’s policy states that “consent to engage in sexual activity must exist from the beginning to the end of each instance of sexual activity. Consent is demonstrated through mutually understandable words and/or clear, unambiguous actions that indicate a willingness to engage freely in sexual activity. Consent to one form of sexual activity does not constitute consent to engage in all forms of sexual activity." Grinnell’s policy is clearly stated and sets the bar high. All colleges and universities should emulate Grinnell’s policy on sexual assaults, so that consent is clearly defined.
Congratulations to Grinnell College and the other schools who have taken a proactive approach to clearly define consent. More governors and state legislators should follow the example that California Governor Jerry Brown has established and send the strong message that sexual assaults will not be tolerated on college campuses. College and university administrators should more clearly define their sexual assault policies to include affirmative consent. This would go a long way to ensuring that our daughters and sons are safe on college campuses.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)